skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
A couple of people seem surprised that the "idiomatic" Swift code seems to perform much worse. Unfortunately the blog post doesn't provide much details on the code it is actually running, so I tried my hand at guessing:

let vC = [Float](repeating: 1, count: 4)

func unidiomatic() -> Float {
var vA = [Float](repeating: 0, count: 4)
let vB = [1, 2, 3, 4] as [Float]
var tempA: Float = 0.0
for _ in 0..<1000 {
for i in 0...3 {
tempA += vA[i] * vB[i]
}
for i in 0...3 {
vA[i] = vA[i] + vC[i]
}
}
return tempA
}

func idiomatic() -> Float {
var vA = [Float](repeating: 0, count: 4)
let vB = [1, 2, 3, 4] as [Float]
var tempA: Float = 0.0
for _ in 0..<1000 {
tempA = zip(vA, vB).map(*).reduce(0, +)
for (index, value) in vA.enumerated() {
vA[index] = value + vC[index]
}
}
return tempA
}

When compiled with optimizations (it's unclear if the author did this?), the "idiomatic" code here is indeed much worse. It's easy to fix the worst of that by working on a lazy sequence, i.e.

tempA = zip(vA, vB).lazy.map(*).reduce(0, +)

which will save on an extra array allocation and instead run the sum "in place" (in this case, vB is recognized as a constant and in both cases and distributed accordingly). Unfortunately there is still a small amount of overhead because zip doesn't know that the arrays are of the same length, so the compiler inserts some extra bounds checks; also, the second loop gets transformed into what is essentially

temp = __swift_intrisic_move(vA)
for (index, value) in vA.enumerated() {
temp[index] = value + vC[index]
}
vA = __swift_intrisic_move(temp)

but this should ideally bring the performance of the two much closer.
I think people are willing to pay for IDEs. PyCharm is a great example. But Python is wisely considered a commercially viable language whereas Lisp is... generally not.

Not to say it can't be or won't be, but most people won't pay for it for non-commercial projects, and it won't be used for commercial projects until there are many developers who consider it a good choice for commercial projects. Chicken and egg.
Specifically it's really easy to, like, decide all this code here should live in an if statement now, something I still find kind of hard to do in C++
I often bring up his lecture series as an shining example of how to explain scientific theories with a critical qualifier that almost always is otherwise missing.

He first explains a concept with logically and narrative consistency in order to explain why something occur. Then at the end he goes and demonstrate all the wholes in the theory and through that shine a light at where the narrative fails. It is only after going through multiple different competing theories that the edges start to get defined.
I mean this is great and all that, nice shed upgrade but definitely not something I visit hackernews for. I must be out of some kind of loop because this post should've never hit the first page...

How is this has to do anything with gratifying one's intellectual curiosity?
Do it! Also, why not program periodic circular transfers across a month, of let's say 100€, just for fun! For extra fun, include words in the description like Iran, Kabul, and North Korea :D
The date on that is 23 June 1971 (written oddly enough in the European style), and the funding runs to 30 June 1972. The secret airline commonly called "JANET," thought to be run by the Air Force for transporting defense contractors from Vegas to a number of research and development facilities, began operations in March 1972. That suggests that this "shuttle" program is a stopgap transportation program anticipating the creation of "JANET."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_(airline)
Does (or did) the US have laws that protect a certain amount of savings?

I would assume since the 100k are guaranteed by law that the state does not further step in on losses above that.

When there is no law like that in place the situation is entirely different.
I think you need to try more screens. I thought the 27" 5Ks were perfect — unlike 4K 27" screens, I could no longer discern the pixels.

So why would I need higher res than that? I thought that but I was proven so wrong.

Through some weird work circumstances I got a chance to use the (ludicrously expensive) 6K 32" Apple XDR Pro Display. To my eyes, this looked exactly the same as the LG 27" 5K displays I had been using — and they do indeed have almost the same pixel density.

BUT THEN!!!!!!! I had to switch to Linux for some other work reasons, and ended up with the (old as hell) Dell UP3218K 31.5" 8K display.

For programming work, it is so much better and crisper than the LG 27" UltraFine 5K and the Apple 32" XDR Pro Display.

I cannot SEE the pixels on any of them, but the text looks DRAMATICALLY better on the 8K one. I can comfortably use smaller font sizes, and the regular same-sized text is so much crisper and more comfortable to read on the 8K.

I feel like this 8K display is one of the best computer things I ever got — it's like the display version of going from HDD to SSD — and not getting one years ago is the biggest computing mistake in my 25+ year career.

And I also say this as somebody who just this year got his first prescription for eyeglasses (my vision is deteriorating in middle age, but isn't so bad yet; I wear the glasses like half the time, and the dramatic difference with the high res screen applies with or without glasses).

NOTE: I don't notice any differences at all when viewing photos or videos — it is strictly about viewing text, for doing things like programming or reading email or web pages.

FURTHER NOTE: Although I strongly disagree with your comment here, I upvoted it anyway because I think it is a commonly-held opinion which I myself believed a variant of until my recent lived experience with the weird Dell proof-of-concept monitor, and I don't think it deserved the light-gray dimming. And also because I remember you recommending the metal band Annihilator several years ago on this website, the discography of which I then obtained and enjoyed. :)
What about the "demon core?" It was a core of highly radioactive material, and instead of bricks, there were two hollowed out hemispheres made of some metal that reflected the radioactivity. Some guy put one hemisphere below the core, and had another one on top AND WAS USING A SCREWDRIVER to carefully titrate how "closed" the top hemisphere was to the bottom one. His hand slipped and he killed himself and some colleagues.

Apparently the "demon core" got its name because it was involved in more than one supercritical accident.
Bit like how people post pictures taken with their phones, using a 'nofilter' hashtag, entirely unaware that the phone software has applied a filter of some sort automagically. They don't post 'raw' images
Which is the behaviour the negative interest rate policy is intended to encourage.

I’ve never quite understood -- can’t the bank do that for you?

If the obstacle is that savings accounts are expected to have a guaranteed rate with zero risk, the banks ought to provide very easy access to investment accounts, with the ability to move money around frictionlessly.

Is there just no demand for that kind of service, or regulatory problems, or something of that kind?

Edit to add: I always felt that offset mortgages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_mortgage#Offset_mortg...) were a nice solution to this problem; it gives you a place to stash your savings and get a reasonable rate of return (basically matching your mortgage rate) while still being accessible if needed. But they seem to have gone out of fashion again, at least in the UK. Anyone know if there was some problem or disadvantage (either to consumers or to the banks)?
Works great. I entered "bicycle tire" and found the article I looked for a while ago: https://www.renehersecycles.com/tires-how-wide-is-too-wide/

Try with the Algolia search engine: you really have to enter "how wide it too wide" to get the match on the first page.
> Why ask the customer to pick? Why not generate invoices with a randomly picked bank account (which can also lend itself to automatic rebalancing)?

Maybe its just my perspective having (mostly) dealt with SME's. I would guess larger companies are more clever about it (e.g. perhaps they have one "receipt" account and then the money gets automatically spread out from there once received).
> The US Dollar M1 money supply increased by 66.5% […]

Are you aware of the regulatory reporting change in regards to M1?

* https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2021/01/whats-behind-the-rec...

> […] but plenty of money is created by the Fed, and that number hit trillions in the last 18 months.

No: it, at most, creates bank reserve deposits:

> The story usually says that the Fed sets a quantity of reserves and banks then multiply those reserves into loans meaning that the Fed has a direct control over the quantity of money being created. But the financial crisis proved that this theoretical view is precisely backwards. In fact, banks make loans first and find reserves after the fact. In other words, the Fed accommodates the quantity of loans by supplying the necessary quantity of reserves. As a result, the money multiplier that we all learn in school is wrong and the Fed has no direct control over the quantity of loans/deposits issued meaning that the predominant form of money (deposits) is controlled almost entirely by private banks and not the Central Bank.

* https://www.pragcap.com/common-myths-about-the-federal-reser...

However, US reserve requirements were set to zero in March 2020, so banks could create loans more easily:

* https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm

But there's nothing special about reserve requirements being zero: e.g., Canada has been at that level since 1992:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_requirement#Canada

Just because the Fed reports on things like the various 'M' statistics does not mean that they have a large effect on them.

The private banking industry, through credit/loans, is where the majority of money is created. I direct you to Cullen Roche's paper "Understanding the Modern Monetary System", which is explains how things work in 2021, and not how they used to work in like 1921:

> In understanding inside money and outside money, one must also understand that it is the banks who “rule the monetary roost” so to say. That is, banks issue almost all of the money in circulation today in the form of loans and the government is designed primarily to support this privatized money creation source. Contrary to popular belief, the government does not issue or “print money” (except in the most literal sense, ie, the US Treasury prints notes to meet demand for use at private banks by bank customers who have accounts in inside money). The government is only the issuer of outside money which is designed to facilitate and support the use of inside money

* https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1905625

A good interview with Roche on the Rational Reminder podcast from a few months ago:

* https://rationalreminder.ca/podcast/132

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZi4QE_EfCw
> I have no illusions

You're reading this incorrectly. This means they don't think what they say next.
What would be a smart and cheap way of living in Denmark that doesn't have this problem?
This is very true, some one who has interacted with the tech in the past. It’s mind bending physics that if you do the cal a on a napkin you could do it, but all the materials have 1000 tweaks to deal with imperfections.

They are also so far ahead, after uv it will be X-ray, and even electron etching. They are developing tech 10 years ago that still will get them further. At some point there will be enough power, for general consumer products to function just fine. Once a laptop can run email/web/word/excel smoothly, which I think is like 90% pc use, on a whole day battery. I think we don’t need more speed. It might be at that point, that some players step in. Try to build machines that work at similar quality. However, why not just get a second hand ASML? As far as I know once a new generation get bought the old goes to a lower tier processor manufacturers.
If you send a different bank account every month to many companies, it’s going to get flagged by fraud checks in a lot of ERP/AP systems. (We have vendor records, including the payment bank account number. If your invoice matches and passes internal checks [we received the goods, we have money in the cost center, address/account numbers match, etc], it gets smoothly paid as agreed. If you rotate bank account numbers, it’s going to be kicked out to be manually checked and you’re going to get paid late.)

You could load-balance once per-customer and not trip this, but that doesn’t get you fully automatic rebalancing.
that makes sense. I suspect my perception is also colored by my modal / non-Western music exposure: harmonies here are simpler by necessity and an "interesting chord" is invariably a major event(no pun) that needs its space and place in the sequence
You can say the same thing about the US. The cultural values of Massachusetts are radically different from the cultural values of Mississippi.
Well SpaceX, but they mostly sell to the government though.
Dude, this spec was ten years between ideation and a FPWD, for a feature with proven demand and prior art. Sympathy for committee members would be easier if they gave any sign of recognising that this constituted a failure to make timely progress and fulfil the working group's chartered purpose: advancing CSS to simplify web authoring.

But standards committees display the same depressing insularity and hostility to outside criticism as most institutions, preferring to censure its tone instead of reflecting on its truth. In reality, it wouldn't matter how diplomatically it was conveyed, it wouldn't trigger any kind of self-reflection, just the exact same special-pleading about their task's unique difficulty.
Death by a thousand features. Very happy to see all the tons of new library work over the years, but really detest pretty much all new syntax extensions, it's morphed JS into the very thing it was never intended to be.

2006 era JS was more than sufficient to build out highly maintainable 100k+ LOC codebases, all this stuff does is introduce new variations of the same functionality for almost no benefit. Javascript is no longer a small language. I think the only surviving practical small language is Lua, and it's only remained small because the hoards are yet to turn up and bulldoze its original design with infinite feature requests
Pentagon’s battlefield nuclear reactor plans come under fire
Funny you mention economies of scale because the whole idea of building many, smaller, identical reactors is essentially leveraging economies of scale in manufacturing.

One of the reasons nuclear power is so unpalatable to build is that each plant is a 100% bespoke, one-off build that is insanely expensive and takes decades to pay off through profits.

If you could make one design, and create the tooling (and licensing/safety requirements), you could essentially build an endless number of them as long as you could guarantee the process is repeatable.

It's basically DevOps for nuclear reactors.
> Why ask the customer to pick? Why not generate invoices with a randomly picked bank account (which can also lend itself to automatic rebalancing)?

Would be interesting to learn if they give the list in the same order always or if they randomize the order of the account numbers listed, DNS round robin style :)
One more reason that comes to mind. Customers probably would choose the account in same bank as they have their account. Thus instant transfers. Which used to mean getting money possibly days earlier.
This might even be a good selling point - sharing a container host amongst multiple devs means that the hardware for devs can be lighter/cheaper.

Even for myself flying solo I can use my old desktop as a Podman server, conserving RAM/CPU in my development env. Sounds good to me.
And that’s a perfectly valid preference.

What does it have to do with the Fuggerai, or the mentioned new settlements planned in Sierra Leone or Lithuania?
Yep, the fact that TC39 seems to accept just about anything is really concerning to me.

I'm already fighting with people about integer literal separators not being supported in e.g. Vue and stuff, the more that's added, the more the community becomes fragmented, and I'm not convinced that transpiration (I hate that word...) is really paying off for us after all these years.
Long before Carmack, a precomputed table of cosine values has been used in a vacuum-tube based surface-to-air missile system I have been maintaining. The table consisted of only one element: 0.7, i.e. the cosine of any angle was considered 0.7. Somehow, it was good enough for intercepting jet fighters and saved a lot of vacuum tubes.
As a user, I'm well aware of the state of OpenBSD's wireless stack. It's slower than the competition, but it's not 650kb/s slow.
William Gibson is a literary genius
You sir, have a HIT! $2 is a steal for this. One question, what is the app icon supposed to be? I think a kids smiley face or the cat example would make for a better impression.
Mainstream distros are 90% the same thing wrapped slightly differently. Franly, it do not matter which one you choose.

So that’s no good reason to stay away from linux, imo.
People do the same thing in the US to take advantage of FDIC insurance, which only goes up to $250,000. Not terribly novel.
This benchmark is highly likely to fit entirely within the cache even for Icestorm.
Guide to Becoming a DevOps Engineer
Skills and resources to help you get into DevOps
I think "manipulating behavior" would be a more neutral and correct way to put it. This way, it highlights how some people will reject every ads because they value freedom and independance more than usual, while some others won't mind as long as the ads are useful to them.
The best characterization of software variance, or extensibility I've heard is in terms of economic terms in a talk by Don Reinertsen where he talks about a lot of things including a thing called option value.

If you dabble with stocks, you are probably familiar with options. The way stock options work is basically betting on the future in a way that makes the payoff non linear when you win relative to the cost if you lose the bet. I.e. what you lose is not the same amount as what you potentially win.

The mistake software developers; and more importantly product managers; make when reasoning about building in extensibility into their products is not understanding the non linear payoff bit. Extension points in software have a cost. But when they pay off, it can offset the cost by a rather large amount. Having to re-engineer software to support something you did not think about vs. being able to integrate it easily because you already have the right extension points is what matters here.

It's a bet on the future. You might never need it or it might end up saving the day. Classic lean development throws out the baby with the bath water by focusing on the bare minimum. It deliberately gets rid of as much variability. Don Reinertsen actually calls this out as misguided. His talk is called Lean 2.0 because of it. He encourages to think in terms of option value instead. Likewise, engineers apply the YAGNI rule. There's a fine line between over engineering, future proofing, or just suffering from tunnel vision. But it starts with realizing that even if you don't need something right away, the payoff might be huge when your software has the ability to be adapted easily when the need comes.

A practical example. A few months ago, Tesla swapped out one type of chips for another. I don't know their internal software design but that sounds like the kind of thing that would be kind of invasive for a normal embedded software manufacturer. A classic reflex in embedded software is actually overly focusing on the bill of materials and picking a cheap chip and then assuming it won't ever change and be good enough. Apparently Tesla did not make that assumption or got lucky with having enough flexibility to be able to use a different chip without too much engineering hassle. That kind of flexibility could have been a YAGNI thing. Until it wasn't and it made the difference between running out of chips and halting production vs. breaking a few records on the #vehicles shipped front. I don't think that was blind luck. Tesla seems good at doing software. Unlike their competitors. Somebody made the right call here at some point.

Probably cost a little and seems like it definitely yielded a lot. If the non linear payoff is 5 or 10x, you can afford to be wrong most of the time and still come out on top. VC investors work use the same reasoning for investing in startups. Most will fail, but the ones that don't pay for the ones that do.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cyprus-banks-idUSKBN1K324...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icesave_dispute

Are the two that come to mind. Cyprus deposits in a couple of banks in 2013 above 100k were lost I believe. Icesave played out badly in the UK in 08, quite a few councils etc took some nasty lossses.

Either way, waiting for multiple years, winding up and down of court cases, bankrupcy proceedings etc to find out if the rest of your money is gone or not is not much fun.

The kind of person parking a couple of 100k in cash accounts is almost by definition risk averse.
More Firestorm cores means more die area, which means the SOC gets significantly more expensive and/or supply won't keep up with demand.

Obviously it would be great to have 8 Firestorm cores in a desktop Mac—and this will probably be what we'll get in a future A1X—but as long as we're doing silicon fan fiction, why not ask for 32 Firestorm cores? That would be cool.
Typescript is not Javascript. TS is a language maintained by Microsoft and happens to compile to Javascript but doesn't have to.

Thus, TS should not have any influence over how JS evolves, but unfortunately that ship has sailed it seems.
>the earliest refrigeration equipment from the 01860s used "chimogene", which we now know as propane and butane, which is not toxic but disastrously inflammable

Hydrocarbon refrigerants went out of vogue for performance reasons but were/are still used the world over in certain applications and there's been a recent uptick now that we care more about not destroying the environment. The fuel:air mix you need for fire is narrow enough that ignition is mostly not a problem in practice, it also helps that society have moved away from open flames for a lot of heating and lighting applications.

Google "R600a"
One reason is that a money transfer within one bank is usually faster and might be more secure because some banks check the name agains the account number. For this reason customers perfer to use an account with their own bank.
That is correct. Also, the checks have a bit of an unfortunate downside that they need to be emitted for each array access if the loop is unrolled (as it should be here).
I think this should be the real tutorial here. The amount of flexibility that Yocto brings is huge compared to anything else you can do from any other distribution.
> Or they don't have a CFO that can do treasury and the opportunity cost / effort is not worth it?

What's the CFO going to do when Eurobonds are negative too ?

Converting it un-necessarily into another currency introduces exposure to forex risk.

"Investing", aside from the risk, is not cash or cash-equivalent, so that's out of the question.

Hence the best answer is generally just splitting out into multiple Euro bank accounts.
It always impresses the hell out of me when I see side projects like this project that I couldn’t do myself.

On the economic/$$ perspective: the Linux in M1 projects are probably targeted at Mac Minis and given that when you pay for a Mac Mini you are paying for hardware and Apple software. Does this make sense economically, comparing other bare bone systems with a Mac Mini style form factor?
It's hard to reject anything when saying no is basically considered a microaggression nowadays