skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
From personal experience, yes: I've seen multiple cases of scientists finding the ultimate cause of their bugs was some fast-math-related optimization.

The problem isn't necessarily the code they wrote themselves: it is often that they've compiled someone else's code or an open source library with fast-math, which broke some internal piece.
Sounds like Q is pretty broad. It can also include cryptography.
I'm not in SV, but my employers have all provided my machines. Some companies are better than others, but price usually isn't a factor at places I've worked. I also probably wouldn't work at a company that gives their engineers shitty computers, since that's like working at a restaurant that makes their cooks use dull knives (and there is a big market of places that will give you whatever set you want)
I agree. If a function is only ever likely to be used in the one place it was pulled out of, you're probably better off just using a comment instead.
If you are working with sensitive information, the last thing you probably want to do is broadcast that you are working with sensitive information.
Why do you think the vaccine is a one time risk? In the US, you are "highly motivated" in many circumstances to take two doses, and people under 30 are getting booster doses, even though FDA advisory committee members thought that was going to kill more people in that group than help.
I use repls a lot, both when I used clojure and now when I mainly use python. The reason for me is language exploration. I write my program and don’t always know how to do something and the internet is ambiguous.

With a nice repl I can rapidly iterate trying different things and doing micro in-situ experiments to explore and understand how the language (or library more frequently) works.

It’s very edifying.
The lack of response on the issues probably means they had already decided to get rid of him for whatever reason and were setting him up to fail. He probably didn't get fired because of the outburst. The outburst was just what got filled out in the HR form.

This isn't any judgement on the developer. Management can get a lot of stupid ideas about why they need to get rid of someone. Maybe the developer picked a bad time to use the restroom and his manager didn't see him immediately available whenever the manager walked around the room to find a target to micromanage. A toxic project can tend to taint anyone involved on it, even if the person working on it is doing a stellar job, given the circumstance.

In big corporations, there really is no "working your way up" or "working from behind". If you get stuck in a shit project, it really doesn't matter what you do. Either the company will attrit through developers until the project is no longer a hot potato and then the next developer to get it will get to stick around for a while, or (more likely, due to the lack of continuity) eventually the project gets canned. No apologies will be issued.
"provided that we aren't too dogmatic about how we define 'one thing'"

And herein lies the problem. If I define a function that calls two other functions, does the caller do one thing, or is it two? The main() function ultimately does everything. Does that mean that main() is the worst function in an application?

I studied programming in the 80's, and I seem to recall that evidence suggested that large functions were not necessarily more unreadable nor unmaintainable than small functions.

So in the end, are we are forced back into a circular argument: good programs are written by good programmers, and bad programs are written by bad programmers. How do we know that they're good programmers? Because they write good code!

Parenthetically, I've always been suspicious of his "Uncle" moniker.

"Functions should have no side effects." So, Haskell it is, then. No printf for you, monads is where it's at.

"output arguments are to be avoided in favour of return values." So what about functions that affect multiple values? Are we supposed to use structs everywhere? What about error conditions? Are we supposed to use hybrid variables, which are often regarded as a source of problems?

No silver bullet.
Not really an option for ultralights or most private aircraft.
> What would you do?

[EDIT: Ignore old answer!]

Long-term visas with work authorisation for college graduates and a tinkerer exemption of some sort for all work visas.
Yes, I hate the mentality that unit tests are the holy grail. I work in data science. A lot of data scientists are very mediocre programmers. The solution was for software engineers to assert that data scientists at our org should work more like them. Test coverage is pushed as a critical metric. But it's really a terrible fit for what we're doing. Data science QA needs to track the state of the data at different steps in the pipeline. Unit tests, imo, are better suited to uses cases that deal with user input where you can concretely cover a good spectrum of expected states.

Not all unit tests are bad of course, but many in my context, imo, are unhelpful.
Tech Companies from Silicon Valley to Sao Paulo Celebrate New Listings at NYSE
The author of this piece[0] has a fairly strong background in starting and running companies, so his opinion is worth more than the average commenter's.

[0]: https://commons.erau.edu/ntas-bios/27/
But intelligent civilizations don't exist on evolutionary timescales, they exist on the timescales of intelligent beings, like us. We struggle to maintain projects for more than a few years, a tiny fraction of our lifetimes. Our oldest institutions are only a few thousand years old, dozens of generations. Many of our civilizations rose and fell within centuries. Our species is much less than a million years old, and while it is unclear how long we will last, it seems pretty optimistic to think we are in the first few percent of our species history, nonetheless the first few thousandths of a percent of our civilization's history. If we had built ships travelling at 1% of lightspeed to colonize the galaxy, and launched them when the common ancestor of humans and chimps lived, some of them would still be travelling to their destinations. Maybe there are rare species that live on timescales tens, hundreds, even thousands of times longer than ours, but even for them these would be long time periods.

And it's not enough to simply reach these distant star systems, you need to survive there indefinitely. A billion years is a long time, much longer than complex life has existed on Earth. Most of Earth's crust is less than 250 million years old. Objects in space would be pulverized to dust by a billion years of collisions, assuming their orbits were even stable for anywhere near that long. On timescales like that, even structures made of solid granite would erode away on a planet's surface. Maybe by looking for weird minerals which couldn't have formed naturally or microfragments of broken down structures we could identify a civilization as having existed in the deep geologic past, but there is no way we could do that sort of analysis from light years away, even if we knew what to look for.

Realistically, there are only a few technosignatures we could hope to find. Of course there are active radio transmissions, which requires the civilization to be active in an incredibly narrow timeframe. Exoplanet atmospheres containing short lived gases with no known natural production mechanism would be good, and may outlive a civilization, but anything stable enough to last for geologic timescales would be impossible to rule out as natural. Probably the longest lived evidence that we could detect would be the remnants of alien megastructures in space. No one really knows how long say a dyson sphere would last after it stops being maintained, maybe millions of years. But unless we make some extremely tenuous assumptions about what and how alien civilizations would construct megastructures, we can only make extremely rough guesses as to what a functional megastructure would look like, nonetheless one that has suffered millions of years of wear and tear. Of course eventually they'll all start to look like clouds of dust and debris, but how do we distinguish them from the clouds of dust and debris that we find all over the place with a presumed natural origin?
When you say remote, you mean remote in the US, right, such as working from home? You definitely can be PERM sponsored as a remote employee under these circumstances.
Never heard of age before, might give it a try! But the thing I liked most in this article was the author’s idea to use DNS TXT records for public keys. Genius. You could also use the .well-known path/standard over HTTP, but personally I like the DNS idea better. Seems more universal, efficient to my thinking.
It's worth noting that the book opens by explaining that none of the rules within it's pages should be treated as iron-clad law. Rather they should be treated as guidelines. They should be followed more often than not, but a skilled designer/developer should know when it's appropriate to break them. Keeping functions short is usually good advice, as it helps prevent developers from breaking more important rules such as "one function should do one and only one thing". When writing a function that's becoming too long, memory of this advice should raise a flag in a developer's mind to reconsider restructuring their code. Reconsider. Not act as a robot and restructure to hit some arbitrarily limit. The book is very clear on this.

It's been a while since I read Clean Code, but I seem to recall the author giving numerous examples of bad code where it was obvious the developer attempted to condense their code into as few lines as possible at the expense of clarity. This immediately proceeded the advice to keep functions short. The author does this as a warning to not follow this advice blindly. Commenters on this thread are cherry-picking advice from the book and ridiculing it by presenting edge cases where the advice would be bad. To which I imagine the author facepalming and saying "yes, that was the entire point".
I'm not sure about Linus's objections, but I've found that DMA accelerators for time sharing systems with general workloads haven't reaped benefits, as the overhead of multiplexing and synchronizing with them kills most of their benefits. At that point it's easier to blit memory yourself.
Didn't they just launch a redesign recently this past week?
Speaking for myself, the problem is in the proposed solution to the issue that brought up this PR. It is to limit/change the way a fundamental browser feature works (view source), instead of simply fixing Google Forms website so that it does not expose answers in plain HTML code.

Extrapolate this mindset into the future and you have
removal/alternation of other browser features because someone can not code a website properly.

Browser is supposed to be the 'user agent', the 'unstoppable force', and it has been that since the dawn of the web and it should stay that way.
I’m reasonably sure they got “advances” and “harassment” jumbled up. Ie, both “(unwanted) sexual advances” and “sexual harassment” are things, but only “racial harassment” is a thing.

At least, I think so. Sometimes the world changes while I’m looking the other way.
I used to only make a function if a block of code was used in more than one place. But now if performance isn't an issue (for example a block of code that isn't in a tight loop), I'll take a chunk that together does one thing and make it a self-descriptive function for readability purposes.

Instead of:

function foo() {

// this does abc

big block of code

// this does def

big block of code

...

etc

}

and having a function I have to scroll pages through, I now do this:

function foo() {

DoABC()

DoDEF()

}
Just to make sure I understand correctly... the most compelling piece of evidence for you is the timestamps on the files? Something that's not only trivial to fake, but also would have been overwritten if the files were copied between systems between being stolen and being leaked.
I prefer to call it "Sort by Popularity."
I am reading this comment section in disbelief. If I were into conspiracy theories, I’d think it’s a spontaneous collaboration to misguide developers and ensure continuous job security for those of us whom desperate businesses would have to hire to clean up and maintain Copilot-generated single-function spaghetti.

Modularizing code into focused units is a big part of how you end up with sustainable software (another important part is understanding the requirements).
if i could distill clean code into one word it would be “small”. small functions, classes, files, changes, and iterations. i don’t see anything wrong with this but understand there are differing points of view. what i do think is important is that developers get placed on a team that is aligned with their taste. how you feel about uncle bob can be a revealing interview question.
I imagine the entire idea of it being a worker-owned (and thus democratic) cooperative is pretty different...
I didn't name call, I called out a behavior. I still think this was the intended goal of the original commenter. I don't care if you are wiser or not, that's not my responsibility.
When big tech buys small tech
I love the spiritual effects of cannabis. I think that’s the right word. It’s something like, “cannabis plus natural beauty equals profound feelings of cosmic meaning”
Cannabis use disorder during pregnancy on the rise
> After Catalina MacOs is a total joke

I'm running Monterey now, and nothing has changed for me between Catalina and Monterey. The security changes (like kernel extensions, some paths, etc) and deprecations (32-bit apps), that broke some of the software/devices I had, were already present in Catalina. What damning difference do you see in Big Sur and Monterey?
They want to mention their employer to gain authority in the discussion, but since mentioning their employer is a legal/PR risk, they need to follow it up with a disclaimer (this only partially mitigates the risk, but it’s worth it to get the brag in).
I don't think it's helpful for us cyclists to be turning against each other. We ought to be unified in advocating for better bike infrastructure. (Personally, I use an electric bike because I'm still recovering from a broken ankle and don't want to strain it.)
Styles? Not exactly. Unless the people you're sharing the document with have the same defined styles, your "normal" won't look like theirs, nor will their "body" look like yours, never mind headings, where H1 can look like H2 which looks nothing like what you've got.
The whole prosecution depends on this notion that Kyle raised his rifle to provoke Rosenbaum before the chase ensued. They are trying to do this with about a 30*30 pixel area on a dark video. If he did raise his rifle, there's no evidence of what he's pointing at. It's brutal and the judge allowed instruction to the jury about provocation today. Kyle might do life in prison over this instruction. Brutal.
I didn't mean to cause quite as much of a controversy as it seems I have. I do actually ride a standard, non e-bike on SF streets, admittedly only somewhat timidly and in places with low speed limits and or good bike infrastructure. It just strikes me that if you want a machine with a throttle, and that can operate at road speeds we have that. It's a moped. If you want something that can operate in close quarters on shared paths with humans we also have that, but it is scary and potentially dangerous being overtaken at speed on a shared path by a heavy machine with wide tires traveling at speed when you're walking on a path.

What both riders and pedestrians need is better car free infrastructure so we can stop it with the biking means going fast business. An ebike capped at something like the top speed of a human is a very different beast than a normal bike even if their top speeds are the same because the ebike is much more likely to actually be at those speeds at any point in time.
Q is clearance for persons, sigma is classification of data.
Perhaps when you just release something once for once customer and never look at the code again. If you actually want to maintain something and release it multiple times this is very untrue. Let us say that a feature takes twice as long to implement the TDD way. So without tests it takes N and with tests it takes 2N. Sounds like a clear win for omitting the tests, right? No, very wrong.... How do you even know any of your previous features still work? Testing? Hmm.... not automatically if I get the gist of what you are saying... Manually? O dear.... Hmm.... You do realize that it is very easy for code to have unintented consequences, right? So, ideally, with every release any feature could be broken. You have to test them all N.... manually... If there are m releases this would be m N. If m is some percentage of N. E.g, on average you release every 10 features, we see that development time suddenly becomes of the order of N^2. Ow.... the TDD development time is still order N..... Could it perhaps be that this statement is actually incredibly short sighted....

Then there is the code quality issue. The stuff that was written 20 years ago was somewhat hard to refactor because noone dared because who knows what would break. So basically every code base would degrade into a mess and become harder and harder to maintain over time. A code base that is maintained with automated tests can be improved as time goes on with relatively low risk.
Regardless of what you think the motivation is, these things should be debated on their own merits, otherwise you run commit the other ad hominem fallacy where you reject criticism of an idea because of where the idea came from.
> You can just as easily make a mistake in bracketing

I actually strongly disagree with this. There's a reason basically every style guide under the sun defaults to requiring brackets for things like single-line conditionals (where they're optional in a lot of languages): It removes this class of error entirely.

There are lots of other ways to fuck things up with brackets, so no arguments there.

> If you're blindly running software that has never been looked at, tested, and even run once to verify it works, the main problem is elsewhere.

I don't think this is really relevant. In this context - the goal of the student isn't to produce good python code, it's to complete the lab they're working on with their partners. The single biggest case I see where this happens is as follows:

1 - Student A writes some code

2 - Student B writes some code

3 - Student A wants to use what student B wrote

4 - Student A copies the code from student B into their file, but the indentation is wrong.

5 - Student A then starts removing indentation (line by line - which is the real mistake, really) and goes one line too far, or one line too short.

6 - Student A and B test one of the cases for the integrated code (either the success or the failure) and it works fine (in my example, imagine they test the error case and see it does what they expect)

7 - Then later they realize the other case is breaking, but they don't know why: usually because it's been half an hour since they pasted that code into their editor, and checking indentation doesn't immediately come to mind.

8 - I get called over to help
I'm active in the vintage personal computing space, and I find it funny when this topic crops up every decade or so under a different name. In the 1980s, there was a entire software category of "personal knowledge management systems" where each product claimed it had the best system. "Second brain" is no different; it's a group of concepts that may or may not work for you, but as these comments show, they certainly don't work for everyone.
Re-learning where a particular feature is hidden in the menus every few years has been an interesting experience.

Microsoft is even implementing (yet another) new UI right now:

https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/7/22565676/microsoft-new-off...
It can be much harder to ride those cargo bikes by pedaling and throwing your center of balance around when weighed down compared to allowing the motor to accelerate you while keeping the bike properly balanced.
A variety of newly duplicable web platforms
I know that USCIS is looking to fix this by staffing up the NSC and reallocating cases.
Details like that certainly need to be worked out but such criticisms are usually made in a way that ignores the bigger picture.

Internal combustion engines contribute substantially to pollution and human-caused climate change. Motor vehicle accidents maim and kill lots of people every year yet fans of that form of transportation hand wave it off as irrelevant.

We don't have to speed blindly into the future on our current vector. We can change course. It will take work and creative solutions.

Not to say such concerns shouldn't be brought up but they shouldn't be brought up in a manner that sounds entirely dismissive of a new solution with a lot of promise. Ideally, it gets brought up in a more constructive fashion overall that is more conducive to meaningful engagement and less prone to simply making people mad or defensive.
I don’t really know what was meant by this link, but I can say someone I work with does this and it is infuriating. I never know if he is pretending or not when he asks for help. I can’t trust him.
Ordinal Welfareto Changing Tastes:Economics as Gauge Theory
Why not at least deduct from the batteries' weight the 30-pound weight of the maximum 5 gallons of gasoline? An ultralight has to carry that extra thirty pounds on takeoff, which is probably the point where the higher stall speed matters the most for safety; it seems reasonable to allow at least that much deduction for batteries. Even that would be an encouragement.
Twitter: We banned all the conservatives, so now we have to boost the remaining content.

Leftists: See! Conservatives aren't oppressed, they get the biggest boosts.

Conservatives: why is it centrist mediocre conservatives like Ben Shapiro and the daily caller that get amplified and shoved into my feed?

(Hint: it's controled opposition. The outliers are banned, the centrists are left to spend and rake in views, and the rest of twitter is annoyed as fuck)
Inspectors can’t rip apart the walls. A fresh coat of paint can hide a lot of damage. I would know because this happened to me, and I had two inspections done.

If you’re slightly decent with houses and construction, you’d see most of the things they see anyway.

Sadly, I’d place home inspections closer to useless to useful for me because I am familiar enough with housing codes to do a visual inspection.
I assume you think GDPR is useless?
Ask HN: Recommend resource which explains common optimization techniques
I want books/blogs which go over "low level" optimization stuff like loop unrolling, memory localization, etc
> If you called them double numbers or paired numbers nobody would say that.

I'm not sure that's true.

Just think of solving x^2+k=0. It's clear that for k<0 you get two solutions and k=0 you get one solution. But when k>0 the graph doesn't touch the x-axis... so why should I expect a "double number" or "paired number" to be the solution?

I'm teaching college algebra right now and introduce 'i' algebraically as a solution to x^2+1=0... but then we talk about graphing quadratics and there's no simple connection between the geometry/graph and the algebra.

Even if I had the time to talk about the geometry of multiplication and such, it's still a big leap to the graph of z^2+1 and its roots in the complex plane.

And it's this leap which, IMO, makes them seem "not real".
rep stos _is_ worth using, but that paper makes no mention of it (it does show that in their use rep cmps beat a more complicated memcmp implementation).
But is it still faster if used in real world instead of benachmars?

Given it's comparatively huge impl. it probably massively messes with the instruction cache of the rest of your program or am I overlooking something?