skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Less than you might think. Wingspan Concord 25.6m vs F-22 13.56m. Maximum takeoff weight Concord 185,000kg vs F-22 60,000kg.

Expanding that to all supersonic military aircraft and the Rockwell B-1 Lancer has a higher maximum takeoff weight than the concord. It’s a loud and heavy beast.
It only makes sense to report e.g. 50% in case of throttling if you also report e.g. 130% in case of boosting (on a single core).

Which could be useful.

Now throw HT in the mix and loose your mind.

I'm not sure there is a really better solution. Just document the one you choose, please!
The Joe Rogan Experience – Quentin Tarantino
> stupid last minute changes

Those are a feature of Software Engineering, as opposed to Civil Engineering.

If there was a cheap way to turn Towers into Bridges (and the cost of failure was comparable to that of an app having an outage), our infrastructure would look a lot different.

I know quickly changing requirements are a pain for those who have to do the implementation, but, commercially, that flexibility has significant value.
Class action against Microsoft if they use CoPilot for the commercial purpose?
I wonder if the license is still binding in the other direction though. Moving forward, by publishing the code on the Internet you know you’re training an AI to copy it.

What if you published a subtle proof of concept that takes out nuclear plants, and then some knucklehead deployed it because Copilot suggested it?
This reminds me of when #DeleteFacebook was trending and some people suggested that rather than deleting all of your posts, comments, etc., you instead edit them with fake data about yourself and gibberish so that you throw off anyone mining your data (Facebook, Cambridge Analytica et al.).
Can they profit? I don't think they will charge individuals, and organizations will probably stay away from this until the legality is worked out.
Ricin, anthrax, or polonium in FAA documents.
Eliminate minimum requirements on parking and restrictions on height. Make demolitions easier. Eliminate the neighbors ability to stop any project that they don't like. Reduce the number of permits required, reduce the permit fees, reduce the time it takes to issue a permit.

In the case of San Francisco, they also need a centralized, online planning/permits database. They are still doing things on paper, and they've got a backlog of thousands of permits. It can take years and hundreds of thousands of dollars simply to navigate the permitting process.
Posting on HN in work hours? Uncle Enzo will hear of this!
> half-speed for whatever reason

IMHO the reason actually does matter.

Utilization should be relative to the maximum frequency the CPU could be running the same instructions at. If the CPU is throttling to save power, then it could be running the same instructions at a higher frequency, so utilization should be relative to the higher one. If it's throttling to lower the temperature, then it can't be running the same instructions at a higher frequency, so it's already maxed out at 100%.
> 2. don't use GitHub for future projects.

Where are you going to go? Self host, sure. Else don’t assume that another code repository won’t do the same thing.

Also, how do you know that your code was used? I don’t know if GitHub has published a list of the repositories that were used. Or have they?
No. Failed tests can only tell you that you've found a problem; passed tests can't tell you there aren't any problems present. Provably correct code can be proven correct.
if abstract thoughts aren’t necessary for weaving complex structures, then of what necessity are abstract thoughts?
In the US, interstate and some other categories of rail require massive cars and locomotives to be used instead of light-rail cars. This affects efficiency in the US.

An example is the Bay Area Caltrain, which shares track with a cargo train, so is required to use heavy-iron rolling stock.

Considering that airliner jet engines increase efficiency 1% averaged per year since 1945, airliners could be more efficient than heavy trains used for passengers.
Series Marketing
How good is your SaaS business idea? Answer 20 questions and get a score
Flying, in-general, is inefficient unless it's a large, lifting body in ground effect.
Actually, each full region (256m x 256 m) uses about one CPU and costs $350/month. Hundreds to one server, no. 16 on a 16 CPU server, yes.

The architecture is rather expensive to run. Operating cost is per region, not per user. Regions run 24/7 regardless of whether any user is in them. Trains continue to run, crops continue to grow, grazing animals graze, a few cars drive themselves around, traffic lights continue to change...

Improbable's Spatial OS tried a more flexible architecture, where regions were dynamically resized as users entered and left. It cost US$400 million to develop, was expensive to run, and all four games based on it shut down due to high costs.

A big seamless virtual world is a hard problem. Except for the voxel crowd (Roblox, Minecraft, Dual Universe) who seem to be good at scaling, at the cost of being blocky.
The status quo for artists is pretty dismal. Across industries you have a few ultra-successful artists, a small group who can make a decent living and then a long tail of people who can't pay the rent.

Gaming things out, I don't think copyright is really helping any of those artists or society as a whole. If it didn't exist, you'd still have breakout artists who make money through endorsements, live shows, and selling original copies of their work.
As Goldratt says in “Beyond the Goal”: Any project management methodology that doesn’t account for Murphy’s Law is not a realistic methodology.
This is exactly right.

It encourages people to Commit Whenever They Want To, secure in the knowledge that people will never see my -- I mean their -- feeble intermediate attempts at working code. Committing frequently is good. It means that reflog will often have interesting stuff in it, bisecting your feature branch might have a decent chance of finding obscure bugs discovered during development, etc. etc.

It's a godsend once you truly Get It that all that ugly intermediate nonsense can be removed before merging. I suspect that people who advocate against the "rebase+rewrite" philosophy do Not Get It and work in a way where even their branch-local commits are pretty meticulous and tested, etc. Nothing against those people, but they can still work fine in an environment with rebase+rewrite being the default.

I also have literally NEVER heard a good argument for keeping the full commit history (with WIP commits, etc.).
There is nothing to be learned from it unless you're specifically investigating peoples' commit habits.

ETA: Some IDEs have a Local History thing where you can basically see all versions of a local file (snapshot every 60s or whatever). Do you want that in your repository history? I don't think so.
How good is your SaaS business idea?
I built a super simple tool to evaluate your big ideah and would love any feedback and thoughts on how you assess if to pursue all the ideas that pop up.

How good is your SaaS business idea?
I've built a super simple tool to evaluate if all the ideas that pop up in my mind are worth pursuing/building.

I would love any feedback and thoughts on how you assess if you should pursue all the ideas that pop up.

Answer 20 questions and automatically generate a PDF with a complete evaluation.
I think that's a bit overly pedantic, but spelled out:

...in the same proportion as a person randomly selected from the general population with the same IQ.

My point is that the overall correlation is obviously not going to hold, among people who derive self-worth from IQ in particular.

But those are the people who want to talk about the correlation. It's self-defeating.
> This is a hard question to answer. [...]

Oh, nice - I'd forgotten how the brief version of the question sends conversations in unexpected directions, and turns up a wide variety of conceptions. Long ago, to narrow the diversity of responses, I switched to asking longer versions, like "A 5-year old asks you: 'I'm told the Sun is a big hot ball! Awesome, I love balls! What color is the ball?' What color is the Sun?" Which has gotten a bit boring - same old failure modes grown familiar. Diverse could be useful again, for thinking about teaching color, and more fun.

> “intense pain followed by blindness”. :-)

Sooo... one can't tell what color a light is, unless you can look at it directly...? :P

> sunlight is “white”, because it excites all of our cone cells

So does my red shirt, no? Necessary but not sufficient. I'd love to find some content which tells a K-6 accessible story of spectra being convolved with L/M/S response curves.

Related common misconceptions from textbooks include "white means a mix of all colors" or "all colors equally".

> remain “white”, because our visual system adapts.

IIRC, the range of colors for which you can't tell there's a tint, rather than merely ignoring it, isn't very large. You get used to 5000K incandescent, but can still tell it's "warm" (ie, cooler/redder than white). Hmm, I suppose that's an increasingly less-than-wonderfully-accessible exemplar... maybe tablet/display night mode?

> diffraction grating glasses

Nifty. I wonder how they might be tweaked to be better for education. Maybe increase clarity, by using a strip of one-axis grating, cutting across a neutral-density filter background - so you still get the bright spectra, but can more easily switch between seeing source and spectra. Maybe bend the grating to spread the spectra out more??

Thanks!
> The answer is obvious: sharing the prefiltering solution we used in this analysis to detect overlap with the training set. When a suggestion contains snippets copied from the training set, the UI should simply tell you where it’s quoted from. You can then either include proper attribution or decide against using that code altogether.

> This duplication search is not yet integrated into the technical preview, but we plan to do so. And we will both continue to work on decreasing rates of recitation, and on making its detection more precise.

I'm afraid I don't think actually comes even close to resolving the legal implications of recitation.

If Copilot is reciting pieces of GPL code (which we know it can), then not only does it need to point out where it has grabbed that code from, Copilot itself is (probably) required to be GPL-licensed.

> 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.

> 2b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

Copilot is distributing the GPL source code (through recitation), which means that it is, at least in part, derived from the GPL code (through learning), but it most definitely "contains" the GPL code.
And once again RMS was proven right.
You can still crash voluntarily via abort! and panic! if that's what you prefer when your program encounters an error.
The key point, though, is that there should be no easy way for individuals to travel beyond 3-400 miles. It simply is not possible, today or in the foreseeable future, to travel this far without outsized environmental impacts.
You are making a lot of unsubstantiated claims.

1. Unity did not move to FP. FP might be "easier" to optimise, but it starts off from such a disadvantage that the relative ease usually can't make up for it. (The same is true for Swift, by the way: they also make great claims for how much it optimises, and those claims are largely true, but its base performance is so horrible that those heroic optimisations leave it slower than the language it replaces)

The claimed advantages of FP for parallel processing are still vastly outweighed by the imposed overhead. I remember a talk by SPJ where he also made vast claims for the advantages of FP for parallel processing. At the end of the talk, he had to admit that the FP version needed 6 cores to become equivalent to a single core with C. He also claimed that some technique was "only possible with FP", but an audience member informed him that this very technique had been standard in HPC FORTRAN for quite some time.

So these unsubstantiated claims have to be taken with a HUGE grain of salt. For high-performance, you still turn to tuned, mechanically sympathetic low-level code, not to FP. FP is about as mechanically antipathetic as possible.

2. Hand-waving. Have you heard of "object composition"? While you might believe that OO doesn't compose, for theoretical reasons, the fact is that it does, in practice. If your theory predicts something that turns out to be wrong, it is time to update the theory, rather than complain about the world.

Also this "reason about" canard gets bandied abound a lot, but it is mostly just that: a canard. It refers to a very specific type of mechanical reasoning that is rarely done when actually trying to understand real code. FP code tends to be very hard for humans to understand.

3. It might be "obvious" to you, but: "It ain't the things that you don't know that kill you. It's the things you know that just ain't so". Every study purporting to show increased safety for statically typed languages compared to dynamic languages has been shown to be incorrect, sometimes comically so.

What has been shown is a documentation effect.

The idea that Smalltalk got most of its expressiveness from closures is laughable. What is true is that you absolutely do not need FP to reap the benefits of higher order code such as blocks.

4. Straw man. Nobody claimed that OO is a silver bullet. But once again, the very person who coined the phrase and wrote the paper "No Silver Bullets" said that he viewed OO as the closest thing to such a silver bullet. And 10 years later, he said that his belief had been shown to be correct.
I've admittedly based that on what a FSF advocate told me and googling it seemed to support it. If you have some source that indicates this is wrong/biased, feel free to link it.

Anyway, that still wouldn't change that the FSF and Copyleft are explicitly anti-proprietary, not intending to be 'no restrictions'.
SMT is usually a throughput win, and usually a latency loss. I was playing with my Threadripper a while back and for C++ builds of large projects, HT results in about a 10% improvement in compilation speed. 10% is a big deal and you should take it. The downside is that games had noticeably lower framerates even with the rest of the CPU idle (at least the games I play are bounded by single-thread performance across maybe 2-4 cores). I kind of blame Windows's scheduler there, since it should be able to say "hey, a game is running, don't schedule anything on the same physical core that has a game thread running on it", but I don't think it does. It might schedule both game thraeds on the same physical core and then they contend with each other and run 40% slower each. Also be careful about memory -- 64GB wasn't enough for 64 concurrent clang runs. You need a little bit more (but of course 128GB is the next installable increment). (I can also see more threads aggravating other resource constraints; notably disk IOPS, but I didn't notice a problem there myself. It's also possible that SMT increases power use and so decreases turbo speeds, and that might have an impact. I didn't measure that when I was testing.)

For me, I keep SMT turned off. The latency is more important than the throughput for my workstation, but if you do full builds of C++ regularly, you might want it on. Use the 10% time you're getting back to switch to a build system that can cache things, though.
I don't see how RH customers can become a captive revenue stream like mainframe has; there are a few other distributions with enterprise support (like SUSE/Ubuntu) to migrate to as well as community distributions (like Debian) that can be used if you have in-house engineers.

Disclosure: I might be biased as a Debian user/contributor.
git merge --squash on the command line will do this. It automatically dumps all your beloved handcrafted commit messages into a single squashed commit.
Thanks; I also summarize the history of eBPF in my BPF Performance Tools book (which I had checked by Alexei & Dan) and list the main contributors in the Acknowledgements page, as well as include them in talks (e.g. https://www.slideshare.net/brendangregg/bpf-internals-ebpf/1...). I do try hard to thank all involved. :-)

Modern BPF (eBPF) was created by Alexei Starovoitov and Daniel Borkmann, who are still maintainers but are joined by over a hundred contributors. I've spent most of my time contributing to the observability frontends, bcc and bpftrace. Apart from the people, the major companies contributing include Facebook and Isovalent; Microsoft are becoming its own major contributor to its own Windows implementation.
VAERS
His personal secretarial staff was probably at least 5-10 people in total, with three shifts. Just having a megayacht[3] in a different time zone (e.g. in Europe) means you have to have three shift coverage to do management logistics for fueling/supply/HR/etc as it moves around between ports. They would already have his chauffeur’s number, and would be able to provide it to the people at the site (to enable a jp-jp conversation without sleepy California translators in the loop).

The personal (not even professional) staff of people that rich/busy are frequently larger than most small startups. If you add in managing their security detail, that of their family members, travel, yachts, 3-10 different residential properties, all the associated vendors, et c, it adds up fast. It’s a full time job for at least a half-dozen people if you have enough property and helicopters.

They’d also have private, direct numbers for a whole lot of extremely well-connected people who make it their business to pick up the phone when the three comma club calls them. He was running one of the largest and most important companies in the US at that time (separately from the fact that his personal fortune was immense), which means his staff would likely have access to many in government, military, diplomats, et c.

Recall that Apple built a special spy iPod firmware for a classified project for the DOE to do espionage[1]. Google’s LSE used to park and fill up their private (not Google - personal) jet at Moffet, a military airfield next to the Googleplex. (They even got the reduced, government-internal-only tax subsidized price for jet fuel.[2]) They’re connected.

The CEO of Apple (or Google, or Microsoft, et c) can, presumably, if necessary, speak to the POTUS same-day. Pulling some diplomatic strings to get a garden tour is entirely within the realm of believable.

Billionaires inhabit a different world.

[1]: https://tidbits.com/2020/08/17/the-case-of-the-top-secret-ip...

[2]: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2013/12/13/inspector-gen...

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_(yacht)
There still are (and probably will always be) some workloads where using HT makes the whole task take longer, but unless you only run that kind of loads, optimizing is simply a matter of e.g. loading up to core numbers instead of threads when you run those loads on modern CPUs.
Custom Raspberry Pi 3 SBC with eMMC flash powers gateway for washing machines
Europe banned supersonic commercial flights over the continent 2 years before the US did.

Whilst this was political to some extent the politics were very much local, as in people don’t want to hear booms.
Do you live in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick? That seems to be where flights from NE USA to Europe fly over generally.

That said they should be at cruising altitude by there. If you can hear them at 36k feet, it must be fairly quiet where you live!

I live close to the path of the Heathrow approach, and planes tend to fly over me at about 5k feet, and I have to say that it's pretty rare I even hear them.
If you include GPL3 code, your code also effectively also becomes GPL3 licensed. This isn't a problem for companies producing GPL3 software, of course, but most companies keep their source code to themselves.

True, the web loophole is a way around this, assuming the GPL'd code isn't part of the compiled/minified/integrated frontend Javascript libraries that gets sent to the client (because then you have the exact same problem).

It's not that commercial use is prohibited by GPL3, it's more that most businesses do not want to risk accidentally releasing a version of their software that requires them to share all source code to that version. And even if you're producing open source software, GPL3 might still be a problem because of incompatible licenses (see ZFS for an example) if you don't own _all_ the copyright so you can dual-license your software.
Counterfeiting money would probably be a more viable alternative; provides her income to survive, and is closer to a victimless crime.
Sure, they like it when numbers in account books get bigger, but

Why are they NIMBYs when they could make much more money redeveloping their best-positioned neighborhoods as massive apartments they rent out?

Why did they not let wages grow, when the resulting increase in consumption will make them more profit?

If rich people as a class really were interested in max growth, they would have stayed Fordist-Keynesianist, but that did not happen. And indeed growth, while still present, hasn't been what it was in the past.
"CPU usage" as in "how many time-slices did this process eat?" is pretty easy to understand and generally points at the right things ("What's eating all that CPU?", "Is this application using the correct number of threads?" etc.)

Trying to express "How much of the hypothetically available computational resources of the CPU did this application consume?" in a single number would seem like a futile exercise at best. VTune used to have something like this which IIRC was based on using all cores in parallel sections and IPC or something like that. It wasn't very meaningful, and is impacted by all sorts of factors.
> Don't get me started on half-assed attempts at localization, especially when made by people that can't even understand the original language.

The more common problem is the opposite. People who think they speak Japanese because they know what "-chan" means demand "unlocalized" works, by which they mean works translated into "English but we left in a few Japanese words the readers know".

This provides essentially no benefit because the act of translating into English already removed way more meaning than a few honorifics can keep. Sometimes it even means translating Japanese words into other ones, since the readers don't even know every honorific, they just think they do.

Amateur translations also like to leave in English words in the original text, not knowing they have totally different meanings in Japan.
I had recently just moved back from NYC at the time. I was kinda still plugged 24/7 to the US media sphere.

But it's true that I don't remember it at all, even though I worked in a field parallel to CompuSec and usually notice those events.
Gambas is a good visual/RAD environment, but for more general development you might want to try FreeBASIC, which has very good compatibility with well-known basic's, combined with modern extensions and good interoperability with C-like languages.
What about things other than ammonia?

And did they have a "good" fan, or a bad fan?

The point of making the environment for the exposure and control groups be as near identical as possible is to equalize not only the factors you thought of, but also the factors you didn't think of.

It's the idea that there were no important differences between exposure and control groups, despite their obviously different living environments, that is "pure speculation".