skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> There is no field of engineering where 100% perfect tolerances are possible

This is a false proposition.

All actual engineering professions I know of have processes, checks and balances to avert disasters and premature failures. No one expects all of the shingles to be perfectly straight or have the same color, occasionally a roof may have a bit of a leak, yet I think even a single 4y old roof developing a massive leak would be a big deal. Imagine the consequences if all 4-11y old red roofs from a large construction company collapsed or developed massive leaks overnight.

Neither bridges nor roofs keep standing because they are built perfectly, nor are all bugs security issues. Yet a single fatal flaw can bring a bridge down and a single off-by-one can be a root exploit.

We shouldn't expect perfect software, yet we also shouldn't need security updates (at least not often and on everything). WD SW was fatally flawed, shouldn't have been released, WD should be responsible. SW "engineers" should be ashamed to be associated with such practices. I know I am.
If you use Git, you just run git merge. If not, uupdate gives a good enough result for further fine tuning.
Crypto: never assume competent malice when you can assume incompetent malice.
As I said, init scripts are only used if there's no unit file. If there's a systemd unit, the init script is ignored.
> Gemini has GUSD, Coinbase has USDC, Binance has BUSD, all of which claim to be fully backed by USD and have audits to bolster that claim.

Congratulations! You’ve just fallen into the rabbit hole of trying to find actual auditors’ reports that back up your statement.

Please note that “attestations” don’t count, and that cash held in bank accounts aren’t proof of reserves that are specifically used for 1-to-1 parity unless backed by certified auditors’ statements that this pool is not also being used for, say, I don’t know, a merchant bank operating on top of crypto, or something..
The US dollar isn't really tied to the strength of the economy either, it's about the supply and demand for dollars on the international market. Generally, dollars are in high demand as a result of their status as a worldwide reserve currency, but otherwise the strength of the dollar should be tied to the trade deficit. Having a trade deficit, all else the same, exhibits downward pressure on the dollar because people buying foreign things in dollars give their money to people that need to then trade those dollars back to someone for their own currency.
What I said is factually accurate. It's mentioned on the homepage of the lightning network website in the "How it Works" section. Why would you challenge my statement when you haven't even read the basic information?

https://lightning.network/
I completely agree with you.

There was a time were a software developer was trusted as a responsible adult company employee.

I think that what changed is that, before, devs were mostly experienced trained professionals, and young ones were expected to be seriously trained before being "trusted".

Now, dev work has been commoditized with the influx of "web dev shops" and easy things like js and nodejs allowed a lot of mediocre script kiddies to be considered the same as professional developers.
The current volatility will decrease as adoption and everyday use increases.

The primary value of cryptocurrency is there not being a central authority to inflate away its value (through bailouts or economic 'stimulus').

Smart contracts offer the same fundamental value: you know what you are getting into and no one authority can change the terms on you.
Linux does need more package managers. Why? Because I like trying out new package managers and they don't harm people since they're not required to try or use them.
While I love my Remarkable 2 for taking notes, journaling, drawing and sharing/exporting the results, it lacks search/discoverability/navigation.

In a physical notebook it’s trivial to flip back a few pages to recall a note from last week. On remarkable that takes a lot more time, and the time cost is paid twice, once for finding the old note, and a second time to get back to the page I was writing. (Imagine working in a single browser window fullscreen without tabs).

I’m still looking for an optimal flow. And I’m gravitating towards something that can ingest remarkable pages, perform OCR and categorise/index the results.
When people say they are “long something” they mean they are invested in the price growth.

People can be “long USD” because they expect the price to increase. That's not expressing any belief beyond that. People are long on something for many reasons.
Bitcoin != DeFi. If you don't know that, why even comment?
I didn't understand what we don't understand about hta flight but maybe that's just me.
The conference is indeed a spoof, but in so far as what Mathematicians call a "proof" - the paper contains one. Agda is a proof assistant in the spirit of the Calculus of Constructions ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus_of_constructions ).

So is the joke on Computer Scientists or Mathematicians? You decide ;)

Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it --Donald Knuth
I've gone back and forth on leaving this comment, but my fundamental concern is that it is far too early to be drawing conclusions about the likely cause of this incident especially for anyone pushing a specific agenda, regardless of how much one might agree (or disagree) with that agenda.

Clearly, there are a set of previously underappreciated risks here. Geology is very much a possible candidate, though other factors might also be at stake. Armchair analysis at a distance and with a specific cause to advance is probably the worst addition to the discussion at this point.

(That's not to say that causes aren't often fairly immediately evident, as with, say, the 737 MAX incidents. But without clear basis for belief, even hunches eventually proved correct are unfounded conclusions.)
> The most obvious explanation

I beg to differ. The most obvious explanation is that we literally just don't know what these things are. The second most obvious is that these are foreign advanced drone technology. Saying that "we're actually trying to pull a psyop on our enemies" may or may not be more technologically feasible (at least, given the current state of the art of the private industry), but it's definitely not the most obvious.

I'm not going to call Occam's Razor, though, because militaries are up to spooky things.
You're confusing one ingredient in a dish for the dish. I agree that it's an important ingredient though.

Where it falls short is that individual choices cannot fix systemic issues larger than the individual. That requires a systemic fix pushed for by collective action. And sure, collective action is built on individual choices to join that collective action but there's more to it than that.

Moving away from Facebook is good, but it does not protect you from the next predatory practice unless collective preventative measures are taken.
Interesting and cool idea. In my experience Arch Linux PKGBUILDs are easier and more straightforward to write than Debian packages (or RPMs for that matter).
The original title from the article matches the one here. There's nothing to change.
i mostly just watch aggregator sites now.
Anyone interested in what an immutable programming language looks like should check out Unison [0] written by Paul Chiasano. He is known for writing the book FP in Scala.

The premise is that any edit produces a new function, but the old one still exists, so you need to migrate calls from the old version to the new version.

The benefits really start to manifest in distributed computing and package management: much less need to worry about transitive dependencies and conflicting versions.

The editable code is a projection of a data structure, so refactoring and static analysis tools will be very easy to write. Also the syntax is just a display issue and can be changed easily, everyone could read and write code in the syntax they prefer.

It does increase some complexity, but I think it is essential complexity we currently have only poor ways to manage, and explicit knobs to turn will allow us overall less effort.

[0]https://www.unisonweb.org/
Yeah I know about Cap'n proto etc. Was just saying the tiny language can compete :)

Language comparisons are almost always BS...
We have Git but a commit hash has no notion of whether the consumers have to care about a change.

The artifact we produce, typically immutable in a package repository, then has "semantic versioning" (possibly) to convey whether they should care.
Good idea, will keep that in mind for next time.
Is it not okay to ask for a partial reconstruction? Israel occupies land that is internationally recognised as not being Israel's. Demanding restitution, even occupation to enforce a peace. They're all extremely difficult ideas if you're Israeli, but perhaps required to start to put a broken situation right.
Software is definitely still a craft, not engineering in the build-a-bridge sense.

So I would say, nobody really understands software, but many people have experience and total experience is growing. Via new languages, algorithms, patterns, etc.

The rapid experience advancement suggests there is a lot unknown and not understood.
Right, literally organizational cancer.
> they want to be able call that person on the phone or write them an email and be like, hey, can we help you fill out the form? That's perfectly reasonable in my opinion.

How is the reasonable? The real-world equivelant is going to a shop, looking around, and then leaving without buying anything and going home. If a store representative then knocked on my door and offered to help me find whatever I was looking for, that would be extremely creepy.

Sure, it might work out if someone did get stuck with a form, and actually does want someone to help them with it, but that's a tiny perentage of people. The real reason is not altruism, it's to make money.
This is not how it works, no falling or positive angle of attack is required for an asymmetrical aerofoil. Imagine swinging a bucket of water over your head - the force your arm feels is similar to what the top surface of the wing feels.
There are numerous commodity markets in which indirect purchases are commonplace.

These might be informal (e.g., used appliances) or organised (straw purchasers or organised purchasing of burner phones, the latter was a subplot of The Wire.

Of course, utilising previously used devices might itself lead to traces for those printers, though that's probably a relatively low risk: the likelihood of any given printer producing output that's generally identifiable is relatively low.

That said, a fair point and consideration for anyone facing this threat model.
If an aircraft flies level upside down it will lose altitude towards the ground (as opposed to right side up wherein given adequate thrust it should keep its current altitude).

In order to stay at a fixed altitude upside down you have to bring the nose of the aircraft up several degrees (increasing based on air speed).
>When they can get it they still seem to prefer the same old stuff though.

Brand recognition.
How does Maat compare with pydantic? https://github.com/samuelcolvin/pydantic
> if something was so unequivocally better then wouldn't this perhaps resulted in a massive adoption rate

That's not what we see happen in life. Just look at how dearly we hold on to coal plants. My country's energy is 90+% coal-based and there is an insurmountable opposition to atom, and great suspicion against solar (government recently started financially deterring against mounting solar panels).
How not to break a search engine
I think it's certainly remarkable too.
Not an expert or anything. Never studied aerodynamic or flight in depth.
As far as I understand, for helicopter to fly, it definitely has to have thrust to weight ratio greater than one. Flying things that have thrust to weight ratio > 0 are intuitive to me. They generate force and stay in the air indefinitely.

Planes obviously don't require that to fly. So, they're different type of beast. They somehow squeeze more from less, exploiting some nonlinearity in forces that air exhibit on wings. I can understand that too, but the nature of that phenomenon is not explained anywhere (other than in words: this is the formula. It is correct, trust us)
Agreed, The leisure economy is stimulated most widely by the vaccine. People who took the virus seriously didn’t spend on experiences as much until now and it seems that’s a lot of customers.
> This is about that one functionality being mutually exclusive with other functionality.

That is a design decision made by Telegram. My e2ee Signal and Matrix groups sync just fine across devices, preserve message history, allow message forwarding, etc.

Not enabeling those features is a nudge against using the e2ee-feature. Facebook Messenger does the same by crippling their encrypted chat experience.

The reason most people on WhatsApp enable unencrypted cloud backups is not because they really desire their message history to be leaked to Google/Apple but because they get occasionally nudged by a popup to enable it.

Those nudges work. It does not matter whether it's a good or a bad action they nudge to make one central assumption about them: settings should not be interpreted as user choice if the results aren't tested against complementary nudges.
That would kill performance of many machines. Some wouldn't even notice (for example hosts dedicated to a Go webserver), some would get absolutely trashed (PHP pre-fork would likely be an extreme case). Additionally your baseline memory usage for each application is a full in-memory copy of every linked library. Say hello to 10+MB hello-world. (edit: actually just 3MB on my machine) Also all stacks would have to get reserved and cleared ahead of time, so thread spawning time grows ~5x.

Basically unless you want to run single-process unikernels, our systems and software really isn't designed or ready for non-cow world.
> Normalization is not necessary in an immutable data set, however. The only reason to normalize immutable data sets may be to reduce the storage necessary for them. On the other hand, denormalized data sets may be easier and faster to process as inputs to a computation.

I disagree here. To derive new data or from a immutable data source you still want normalized data. Denormalization can happen at some point for processing. Sometimes normalization is not feasible, because it often requires modelling/design. But it is the best general case scenario for data to be well-structured and normalized.
I would say Atom is Intels best bet at a ARM competitor, not at the same power but as a slightly beefier alternative.

From what I read they are canceling that line and instead offering low power regular desktop processors.

That's why I bought 4x 8-core Atom servers at 25W, so I don't get GPUs in my low electricity servers / high performance alternative to Raspberry 4.

RISC-V is probably going to take a decade to reach the kind of stability the latest Atom line has in terms of support and performance, if ever; specially on the server-side.

The Xeon line CPUs consume way too much power to be an alternative for home hosting with lead-acid backup.
> done over a half dozen startups, and exited two of them

That's a lot of experience.

What is your experience with affiliate marketing, pay-per-subscriber or outsourced sale with commissions?

Good luck with your master plan!
The difficulty of figuring out exactly what you need to do is part of the problem. It's hard to shake the feeling that you don't really grok the build system.

But in any case it's never been as easy as just running that one command for me. Actual example from my bash history:

$ apt source packagename
$ vim path/to/broken/file.c
$ dpkg-buildpackage

Now I get an error: "aborting due to unexpected upstream changes".

$ dpkg-source --commit

Make a changelog entry for the changes you made

$ dpkg-buildpackage

This fails with an inscrutable error "dpkg-buildpackage: error: failed to sign .dsc file"

If you know what you're doing you realize that you can just ignore this error, it doesn't affect the built package. If you don't, you have to search around and then build it again with

$ dpkg-buildpackage -uc

So it's not, like, the worst thing in the world but it doesn't go out of its way to be intuitive either. It's hard to find good help on what to do (the man pages are arguably too detailed to be useful to people who just want to make small changes), and hopefully you didn't follow a rabbit trail with debuild.
What is this statement based on?

Plenty of sovereign nations (and individuals in those countries) hold reserves of USD and the US has no authority over them.
The problem with this type of robot is that it doesn't scale that well price-wise compared to a mobile type. You'll need longer rails on the sides and the gantry will start sagging after a certain length. Meanwhile something on wheels or tracks has a slightly higher initial investment but has almost zero extra cost for driving a little bit further.
Until today, I had never heard of the Maori committing genocide.
I’m not sure I fully agree. Do you not get this trailing edge vortex with an asymmetrical aerofoil at 0 angle of attack? (Just less strongly because less pressure difference between suction and pressure sides)
A dead astronaut floating into BLACK HOLE (photoshopped)
Photoshop isn't that easy but photoshopping is. Today in this Something Glorious Episode 5, i made an artwork of: a dead astronaut floating into a giant colorful black hole. Watch easy and you guys will get there.

#artwork #photoshop #SomethingGloriousEp5

⇢ Total number of layers used: 26
⇢ Number of adjustment layers: 16
⇢ Number of photos: 8
⇢TIME TAKEN: 3 hours
If I was asked how a Linux distribution and package management should work, I would probably describe something very different to Debian, because of all the bureaucracy involved, yet I have been happily using Debian for everything for more than 20 years.
tether and other "stablecoins" exist so exchanges can exchange without doing the individual cryptos, basically. If i want to trade dogecoin for btc, there's probably some stablecoin in the mix somewhere.

This is how it was explained to me, and it doesn't make much sense - except that "moving" a lot of BTC between exchanges might affect the price, and depending on which exchange is on tthe receiving end they could take a loss on the "conversion" - whereas the dollar is much slower moving, and moving a hundred million "dollar" valued things is unlikely to devalue the dollar to any significant amount.

I've never paid in or cashed out actual currency into crypto and i've never used an exchange, so i may be 100% off base and i hope i am corrected.
Data validation?
We don't know how to calculate turbulence, we can only predict it. It is the turbulence that create the uplift on a wing, so the author says we don't understand it.
> Put another way, I'd rather fix relatively simple C (which also tends to be simpler code in general) than the monsters created by "modern C++" because they thought the "added safety" would mean they could go crazy with the complexity without adding bugs.

It's completely possible to write C++ code without it being a mess of a template mostrosity and massively overloaded function names. People who write C++ like that would write C filled with macros, void pointers and all the other footguns that C encourages you to use instead.

I've been working with the sentry-native SDK recently [0] which is a C api. It's full of macros, unclear ownership of pointers (in their callback, _you_ must manually free the random pointer, using the right free method for their type, which isn't type checked), custom functions for working with their types (sentry_free, sentry_free_envelope), opaque data types (everythign is a sentry_value_t created by a custom function - to access the data you have to call the right function not just access the member, and this is a runtime check).

See [1] (their C api example). With function overloading and class methods it would be much more readable.

[0] https://github.com/getsentry/sentry-native
[1] https://github.com/getsentry/sentry-native/blob/master/examp...
I don't know how you can say attestations by CPAs and LLPs don't count.

These offerings are pretty transparent. If you choose to use a stablecoin that's not backed by on-chain collateral, you're accepting the attestations are true and putting trust in the reputation of the companies.

Personally, I'd rather be able to verify the collateral on-chain, which is why I think fully collateral-backed on-chain stablecoins like DAI make a lot of sense.
Great explanation. Thank you. Framing it as retaining the maximum initial gains as a basis for investment makes it much clearer.
Is that so? I thought that for asymmetric airfoil, zero angle of attack is by definition the angle where it creates no lift. So, tautologically, if it's creating lift a (positive) angle of attack is required.
I don't think this is due to the 'dominance' of English. The connection between Western and Chinese dragons is probably a lot older and goes back to the earliest contacts during the Middle Ages by European explorers (who weren't English in most cases).

Nowadays there's a relatively strict idea in Western fantasy art of what a dragon is supposed to look like, but that's a fairly new development.

You make it sound like Chinese dragons not having a separate word in English is somehow a nefarious plot when in reality it's just that people noticed that these creatures are pretty similar and used the same word to describe them. This happens all the time. I would say Westerners are fairly aware that a Chinese dragon is different from a Western one even if the same word is used.

I only did a cursory look on Chinese Wikipedia, but it seems like Western dragons are also referred to as 龍 in Mandarin. Is this also forced upon the West due to the dominance of Chinese culture and civilization?
People get blinded by features. At the end of the day, what influence your ability to write safe code is the human brain. You have to be able to reason about and understand the code effectively to discover and fix problems.

Ironically C++ by adding a ton of features to make the language “safer” basically achieves the opposite. Complexity obscures how your code works and thus aids in hiding critical bugs.

I have had so many cases with obscure bugs the 15 years I used C++ that simply would be impossible to reproduce in C.

Does it mean I advocate C for safer coding? Not at all, but I think the advantage of C++ is grossly overstated.

Languages such as Go are better examples for writing safe code. Why? Because they quite strong type safety and good memory semantics while not adding too high complexity to the language. Everything is far more explicit than in C++ which has too much “magic” and implicit behavior.
I want VR goggles which block the ads and replace them by art.
For anyone who’s ever tried building a robotic bird, there is a lot more intricacy to how birds fly than just “pushing air”. A better article might have been, ‘we still don’t understand how certain species of bird fly so efficiently’
Life in the Stacks: A Love Letter to Browsing
I agree the government should pass laws and prescribe punishments, but in such a way that protects physical security and property (from e.g., violence and coercion). Broadly speaking, I don't want a government dictating what are acceptable financial investments nor what is acceptable speech.

Here, some young people are willingly entering into get-rich-quick schemes to avoid facing the reality of everyday life. Only the most naive are putting money into these scams. The quicker these delusions are dispelled, the better for everyone.