skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You have summarized my first two months at a new job.

I joined as a lead and spend a good deal of time in meetings where they discuss new features and tasks. Before the meeting, I open the company's acronym cheatsheet just to be able to keep up. Then after a long monologue from a manager that ends with "Any questions," I'm the guy who asks: "What's <product-name>?"

It sucks because I appear incompetent. But it has also helped us onboard people better. One of the first tasks I assigned to my team was to update the README.md files of all code bases they touch. It might seem obvious to the old timers what everything does, they have spend years working on it. But to the avalanche of new developers they are hiring, a code base that has code and no description is a source of confusion.
I reckon you're asking a meaningless question.

It's like asking "Is front wheel drive a valid business model?"

Open source is not a business model at all, so it's cannot be either valid or invalid.

Some companies build successful business models that use open source software (like Redhat). Some companies struggle with some of the difficulties of competitors being allowed to use their open source software (like Redis/MongoDB). And guessing based off your username and one of today's front page new items, you might be asking about companies like Wassmer - which seem to be struggling with the idea that to have a "business model" you need to have a thing people/companies will pay you money for.
"worth"
The reason why GCC and LLVM ended up attaining overwhelming market is simply that they produce the fastest possible code

No, I think it's more because they are free.

In my experience, ICC can be much better at instruction selection while also not being so crazy with exploiting UB.
> Are they taking about the same Facebook? I find it utterly boring and only use it for messenger anymore.

Same. But I've also stopped using Messenger lately, mostly because I haven't had much of a social life due to Covid. Messenger is super convenient though to get in touch with people, as you don't have to exchange phone numbers to be able to message someone you recently met. But at the same time I'm worried that years worth of my private communication are being stored unencrypted and eventually leaked, so I've been nudging friends I communicate with frequently off FB, successfully (Signal or Whatsapp).

All that said I do miss FB a bit, since a lot of actual friend updates happen there. I don't really understand people who complain about political bullshit. I suppose a) you don't have proper adblockers (if political ads are a thing in your area) and/or b) you are friends with the wrong people.

But also, as you say, people are too afraid to share the more intimate stuff that made it interesting and social in the first place. So it's kind of a dead end.
> e.g. her merging a PR without discussion is perhaps less anxiety-inducing than the idea that your GitHub repo can be moved without warning to a separate enterprise account (if I’m reading this correctly).

You're reading it correctly. There are several maintainers in that discussion who only found out today that their projects were moved from their public GitHub accounts to the DNF's GitHub Enterprise accounts. They weren't notified, and some of them only found out because they read the discussion you linked and decided to check the status of their projects.

As far as I'm aware, the projects haven't been transferred back to the accounts they belonged to prior to being moved to the DNF's account.
From the linked post

> It is also clear that the .NET Foundation project governance model is not well understood. Project maintainers sign an agreement that either assigns or contributes their project to the .NET Foundation. That’s the point at which project ownership changes. We’ll post another document on that this week as well.

This apology claims project ownership was assigned and the parent poster claims that the actions taken are required for supporting the projects.

Clearly from the comments in other linked threads the project owners dispute this but the CLAs shared by the contributors differ from the sample one you have linked.
Even assuming the 5% number were correct (depending on how expansive your definition of UB is, it may not be), asking everyone who doesn't adjust their compiler flags to accept a 5% slowdown for some theoretical benefits is at odds with economic reality.
Ok, here's my attempt at an elementary explanation. Consider the function

f(N) = floor(N)
= 1 + 1 + 1 + ... + 1, whenever N's an integer
= 1^0 + 2^0 + 3^0 + ... + N^0.

Then f(N) ~ N - 1/2 is f's simplest unbiased polynomial estimator. It's a succinct description of f and its asymptotic behavior.

Next, let's do something like integration, and increase those zeroth powers to one, ie. consider the function

g(N) = 1^1 + 2^1 + 3^1 + ... + (N - 1)^1
= 1 + 2 + 3 + ... + (N - 1).

In this case, the estimator ends up being

g(N) ~ N^2/2 - N/2 - 1/12
~ integral(N - 1/2) - 1/12,

where I've written this estimate as the difference of a divergent term and a constant term.

Here's the point: the divergent term is really just left over (integrated up or 'induced') from our asymptotic description of the degree 0 sum. In a sense, it's degenerate and doesn't provide any sort of 'new' information. So in the same sense, the interesting semantic content of 1 + 2 + 3 + ... is just the constant term: -1/12.

Ps. This way of thinking is related to trace formula truncation.
The fuck is this

>> Sec. 1355.07.(B) A business may charge different prices or rates for goods or services for individuals who exercise their rights under this chapter for legitimate business reasons or as otherwise permitted or required by applicable law.
If 85% of the company has left suddenly and your tenure predates the exodus and you are still there in anything remotely close to a leadership position, it's "congrats you are now a late co-founder."

You are reading too much into the title.
Your post sounds an a lot like an addict “chasing the dragon”. Complete with how great it was in the beginning, how it’s no longer as good as it was you first started, how you are no longer satisfied and hoping for something new to come around that would be as good as when you first started using.
there is a factorial sequence in it, makes sense.
24, 120, 720...
Tech workers are very well paid yet complain the most and often have unchecked egos. Code will not fix the world. People fix the world.
You can still use unions to fight unethical decisions though
I did not get that at all. To me it sounds like she is coming clean with what she sees as the issues surrounding the project, including poor communication. I read that as, 'another problem we've seen is that people are unclear what it means to become a member of our organisation so we are working towards improving that.'

I initially read her apology and thought it was likely a response to an overblown situation that occurs because it's on the Internet and it's much easier to assume the worst of people's intentions.

I can imagine merging a PR I made that I imagined to be obvious and fine. I probably would have just said, 'oh yeah, sorry. I'll try not to do it again. My bad.'

But then again, that's probably why I'm not the leader of the .Net foundation :-)
Not to mention how primary results become conveniently bungled (one party in particular comes to mind) when they favor candidates which are not particularly well liked by the establishment. The fact that the national political committees are private corporations doesn't instill much faith in the fairness of their electoral processes.
Such an important angle to consider this from. Until there’s a DNA match how do we know the zodiac killer just didn’t use the name of some guy he knew? Especially a seemingly uncommon name (maybe it was common at the time)
There's a huge distinction between reviving the spirit of Plan 9 and reviving the ideas. Trying to retroactively revive the direction of an experimental early-90s OS to intercept 2020-era hardware is goofy. Computers are very different now than they were then; surely some of the things invented in the past 30 years might influence OS design?

The thing that still appeals to me about Plan 9 as a concept - is the willingness to do a clean-sheet design and not be bound by the way that everyone else is doing things.

A better design would also not fetishize uselessness. It's one thing to have a cool environment but it's quite another to point-blank refuse to maintain a compatibility layer that allows people to run significant programs that people want to use. Plan 9 didn't have to allow the APE (ANSI POSIX Environment, a project from Howard Trickey) to run down into uselessness.

There are a lot of interesting system design questions that arise from letting people use computers the way they want to, for 2021 workloads. I think we probably know how to let people use shell, ed/vi/emacs/... and cc to make hand-built astronomy databases and manually paint a time of day clock into a window. But you don't get to find out the demands of modern computing without having enough compatibility layers to let someone run a database or a reasonably-complete 3D engine or a web browser on your system.
As it turns out, the entire industry doesn't quite agree on "the whole point of devops."
Sort of like a ForthOS or lisp machine?
IIRC, renewing a Tesla registration is $6xx/year whereas renewing a gas car's registration is $1xx/year
They absolutely delete the account and data associated with it, however the shadow accounts thing is... separate. Their line of reasoning is: well, I uploaded your phone number, so it's "my" data and not "yours", so "you" can't delete it...
Maybe because I haven't followed the case at all but: that wiki says: "Allen was cleared through a comparison of DNA, fingerprints, palm prints, and handwriting."

Most of the evidence seems to be a friend of his claiming he said all kinds of things about wanting to kill people. His friend might have just been nuts.
The same company that allows you to opt-in to tracking (as opposed to an opt-out that would rarely be used) and evidently now requires that other companies not do the anti-consumer thing where they make sign up easy but cancelation hard?
> On behalf of myself as the Executive Director, past and current boards, I’m sorry that we’ve created an environment where maintainers are surprised by their relationship with the .NET Foundation. It will be my and the new board’s number one priority to fix that.

This is the non apology. It's not apologizing for the nature of the relationship that was created, it's apologizing for people being surprised by the nature of the relationship. There's an implication in the statement that the maintainers failed to understand their agreements and that's the real root of the problem.

In terms of the "fix", it's not clear whether the fix is to renegotiate the agreements, or just to make it more clear what the agreements meant (in which case, the harm is not really being addressed).
I'm also skeptical about the often-claimed superiority of ICC. The numbers I've seen are very equivocal.

Besides, it's irrelevant: there are lots of free C compilers that don't exploit UB, and also rarely get used.
Microsoft doesn't contribute to open source software because open source software is good for the world. Microsoft contributes to open source software because Microsoft wants to sell more proprietary software and services to the open source world, as more and more developers live in that world.

They realized that without significant service lock-in, people would begin to abandon things like Windows (and continue to ignore things like Azure).

This is why WSL exists (so even open source people will keep buying Windows licenses), this is why VS Code exists (and, despite being open source, the most popular plugins for it are proprietary) (to provide a privileged position for GitHub integration), this is why they bought GitHub, this is why they bought NPM, this is why they paid Docker to make dockerd run on Windows, and this is why they're trying very hard to get as many people locked in to proprietary services like GitHub Actions and GitHub Issues.

This is also why they run little shell nonprofits like the .NET Foundation.
Probably the Tether execs doing the old pump and dump to cash in before they face the subpoenas and the downward spiral of criminal reckoning...
I doubt anything was 'bought,' probably more likely 'traded.'
Someone always misses it. I've basically given up on any sarcasm here because it seems that the "don't let this place turn into Reddit" mantra seems to cultivate a crowd requiring quite a lot of hand-holding through subtext. I maintain that the inane screaming about clickbait is correlated to this.
Thanks for sharing this! My sister and I used to love listening to this song on our Gateway 2000 when we were kids.
What we shouldn't do is amplify the voices of people who were never addicted in the first place. That doesn't provide hope, if anything it works to de-legitimize how challenging quitting can be
I was wondering about that too.

If that’s the case — and that’s a big if… I don’t think we should assume it’s true — then her apology probably failed to address the root outrage of the decision to move projects to the enterprise account without warning or consent.

They may be entitled to do this, but anyone with a patent is also entitled to enforce that patent. An enforcement decision needs to be made with great care. In this case, they end up sounding tone deaf (https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/Home/discussions/39#dis... has a bunch of justifications about why their decision makes sense, and all I can do is shake my head, even though it is technically correct).
Punishment is really incorrect. Taxes are a form of incentive. It is a behavioral nudge, not a flogging.
Don't tell me, show me.
Yes, trade-offs all the way down :)
Physical damage of the nature you described affects many forms of digital storage too, though I doubt vermins will find them very palatable. And there could be many copies of a book, to your second point. There is also the question of the specialized equipment needed to read the digital media. As I said, trade offs. I try to maintain a personal book library just because I was an avid reader growing up, in the pre-internet days, and I don't want to see the future generations go pure digital, but maybe it is inevitable.
Whale just means rich person who can make a big splash in the market, not that they are anonymous and avoiding KYC.

Just because the general public doesn't know who it is, doesn't mean the exchanges used and regulatory agencies don't know who it is. KYC doesn't mean we the people get to know, just that government authorities get to know.
You're not seeing them strictly correctly, then:

All the tools described are declarative.

If "directly calling service API's makes the agent running the tool a SPOF" is a "bad" for Terraform, it also must be for Pulumi.

The idea that one "need[s] to be connected to, and have credentials for your environment to develop" to use Pulumi is equally true of Terraform, assuming by "credentials" you mean "credentials for the target provisioning platform".

The idea that "running your code requires bi-directional communication with the pulumi GRPC api" is also untrue.

It's important to be accurate when making these kinds of comparisons, lest you fuel memes instead of providing insight.
That may be true about amoruanth but Pokimane is genuinely just as content-driven and "gamer" as any of the top (like xqc for instance). There's more to her streams than her looking pretty - the same probably can't be said about amouranth.
Did you read the whole post? It does start as an apology, but then it explains that she actually had every right to exert control of the project and implies the only reason people are complaining is that they didn't understand the new hierarchy they had inadvertently signed up to.
All of the "performance improvements" I've seen (only few TBF) were either not real improvements at all (think of, "I read once that in JS inverting the for() order is faster", without any benchmark) or true but very marginal improvements while making the code impossible to maintain (think a blob of 10 lines of bit shifting/impossible regexp).
Very often, a function inlined can be determined, at the place where it is expanded, to have substantial sections of dead code, based on knowledge of the values of arguments passed to it in that place. Expanded in a different place, different parts are dead. Warnings about the dead parts would lead you to turning off those warnings, so they are never turned on in the first place.

This gets more complicated when an inlined function calls another inlined function. The whole inner function may be in the middle of dead code, and thus everything it calls, too, and so all be elided. This sort of thing happens all the time. These elisions don't typically make code obviously much faster, cycle-wise, but they do make it smaller, with a smaller cache footprint. Cache footprint has a huge effect on overall performance.

In principle, the compiler could arrange to put the dead code in some other page, with a conditional jump there that never happens, consuming just another branch prediction slot. But branch prediction slots are cache, and the branch, though never taken, nonetheless consumes a slot. A processor ISA could, in principle, have a conditional branch instruction that is assumed by branch prediction always to go one way, and so not need to consume any branch prediction cache. But I don't know of any. RISC-V does not seem to be entertaining plans to specify such a branch.

Several extant chips do allow "hint" prefixes for branches, but I think they are ignored in current chips, according to experience where they were determined generally to be wrong. This is unfortunate, as sometimes the most frequently taken direction is not the one you want to be fastest. E.g., when spinning while watching an atomic flag, you want the looping branch to be assumed not taken, to minimize latency once the flag is clear, even though it most frequently is taken in recent history. (High-frequency trading code often has to resort to trickery to get the desired behavior.)

(There is a famous story about engineers at Digital Equipment Corporation, whence we got PDP-11s and Vaxen, and thus, indirectly, Unix. A comprehensive cycle count showed that a huge proportion of the instructions executed in their OS kernel were just one instruction. They moved heaven and earth to optimize this one instruction, but the kernel with the new instruction was exactly 0% faster. It turned out the instruction was used only in the idle loop that ran while waiting until something useful could be done. This really happened, and the same mistake is made again and again, to this day: e.g., people will sincerely swear that "rotl" and "popcnt" instructions are not important, on about the same basis.)

Intel recently implemented an atomic test-and-loop instruction that just stalls execution until an identified cache line is touched, thus avoiding the branch prediction stall getting out of the loop. I have not heard of anybody using it.
Yes, it's not free in the sense that this is paid developer time, and also a delay before actual production deployment.

As long as learning the basics of a 3rd-party library takes a relatively short time, those who use it have an advantage: they ship faster. Certainly mastering it may take as long as writing one's own. But you can do that while writing more production code and shipping features. Also, you get improvements made by other people for free (because likely you're using an OSS library anyway).
I dealt with the man a fair bit and can say he is widely reviled as a sociopath.
From the article:

> By mid-2020, it was clear that product usage would surpass the abilities of our trusty Postgres monolith, which had served us dutifully through five years and four orders of magnitude of growth.

This should answer your question. Just use a standard database and get on with coding features instead.

If you are successful enough to get to the point that sharding PostgreSQL becomes your bottleneck, you've won.

In addition, you really can't solve scaling problems up front. Where your bottleneck actually occurs will differ from where you think it will.
> If you want to blame someone, blame the designers of the C language for doing things like making int the natural idiom to iterate over arrays even when size_t would be better. The fact that C programmers continue to write "for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)" to iterate over an array is why signed overflow is undefined, and it is absolutely a critical optimization in practice.

Well, size_t is unsigned and has defined overflow, so you'd lose the optimization if you switched to it. (Specifically, there's cases where defining overflow means a loop is possibly infinite, which blocks all kinds of optimizations.)

Many languages try to fix this by defaulting to wrap on overflow, but that was a mistake because you rarely actually want that. A better solution is to have a loop iteration statement that doesn't have an explicit "int i" or "i++" written out.
I think the question may not be one of gratification as much as early trauma. The internet has its flaw socially but it has made it hugely easier to be weird and find refuge amongst other like-minded people.

Serial killers don't come from nowhere
"Addiction is a biopsychosocial disorder characterized by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli despite adverse consequences."

"Despite adverse consequences" is a key component of addiction. For instance, many people can consume alcohol fairly regularly without the alcohol causing trouble for them. But if the alcohol starts to get in the way of work or disrupt your family life, that is a textbook warning sign of alcoholism.

If her compulsive use of facebook is getting in the way of things she wanted to do instead, that sounds an awful lot like addiction.
This would be fine for an automated system that could schedule requests or could fail, wait 30min, and try again. But it would be unusable by a human working interactively. You would constantly get complaints and monitor warnings that your "system is down".

I don't mind services that cut price dramatically in exchange for only supporting some (not all) use cases. That can be a very attractive offer, but does Backblaze explicitly position B2 for non-interactive use cases?
We might have different ideas about what social reproduction means. I believe social reproduction occurs every time a social interaction occurs which reenforces social norms through social accountability. How many children people are having is more of a sexual reproduction topic to me.
I’m not sure what you would consider indoctrination, but I was raised in a traditional religion and was considering a religious career when I started debating doctrinal issues with others. It wasn’t a lightly made decision to admit that some of my opponents had better arguments, but I was more grateful to be educated than disappointed that I had been wrong. I have always preferred the knowledge that comes from losing to a worthy opponent to the satisfaction of winning an argument.
It really is all in good fun. Even Ted Cruz takes part.

https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1337480518074503170?s=20

https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1408133090397114375?s=20
John Oliver's business daddy gave him a new brother, he's gonna be thrilled.
I do not see how Shor's algorithm, just one among my quantum algorithms, brings anything to the question of scaling.
So do bicycles which pay no road taxes :)
I'd nominate Pascal (which has been used for OS dev before) and Ada. Not 100% sure how broad their support is for different hardware, but it also seems like adding new platforms to an existing toolchain is less work than inventing a new language while still benefiting from being not-C.