skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Plus, some limitations are impossible to correctly self-impose without just embracing the gestalt of the hardware. A few examples:

Using the standard MBC1 mapper, the Game Boy can only address two 16KB chunks of ROM at a time (one “home bank” that’s always accessible and one swappable one), and figuring out how to work with that limitation cleanly is fundamental to the structure of your engine for larger productions. How can you reproduce that on a modern machine? Even if you committed to only accessing data in the original GB formats, in 16KB chunks, the code itself is never going to be the same size, and code faces the exact same restrictions. You’d need to self-impose the restriction of only writing GBZ80 code - at which point you’re developing for the real thing!

Likewise, the GBZ80 processor has very limited addressing modes, even compared to many of its contemporaries; to compensate, a well-designed engine is going to focus on organizing data into 256 byte “pages” (because you can index them by manipulating a single byte of a pointer), focus on linear data (to take advantage of the auto-increment/decrement addressing modes), and avoid indexing that would require multiplication (i.e. prefer “structs of arrays” rather than “arrays of structs”). And if you do need indexable non-byte sized data, you of course would prefer data that’s power-of-two sized so you can do that multiplication using shifts, and ideally 16-byte sized so you can use the SWAP instruction to go from index to pointer in one cycle.

Also, the Game Boy video hardware locks you out of VRAM while it’s drawing the screen - that is, almost all the time. Any VRAM updates need to run during Vblank or less commonly Hblank, usually in ridiculously tight interrupt handlers. Again, your engine needs to be organized around doing these updates as quickly as possible; consider that even something like drawing a fresh column of tiles to the screen is much harder than drawing a row (since you can’t use the CPU’s auto-increment addressing) and might be too slow if care isn’t taken. There’s no real way to reproduce this on a different system - all of the timing is off. Challenges like this are the “fun” of developing for the platform and can’t really be correctly captured without just developing for the platform.
You haven't noticed it already?
I understand your larger point but to be fair to gp you're responding to, he was scoping the word "control" to Central Bank since he actually wrote:

>and by _state control_ I mean something along the lines of a central bank.

So central bank control would be something like "expansion of money supply beyond 21 million bitcoins". Therefore, your options (B) Coinbase/Binance (C) Visa/MC/banks and (E) courts -- really have no "control" over that "central bankish" aspect.

EDIT reply to: >Central banks [...] don't have complete control about the money supply, because commercial banks also create money via fractional reserves.

The Federal Reserve (central bank) in USA is the entity that adjusts the fractional reserve requirement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve#Reserve_requir...

> The idea that no one can expand the supply of bitcoins beyond 21 million is a nothing but fairy tale.

It could theoretically be done but it would require the coordination of the Bitcoin developers + miners + node validators. A crypto-exchange like Coinbase can't do it.

As a previous case study, Coinbase was part of the group that aligned with majority miners to change the Bitcoin protocol to increase the block size -- but all that influence and miner support still couldn't get the Bitcoin network to adopt it.
> Instead of having different databases and APIs that are hard to integrate with one another, a blockchain could be the central storage and transactions handler that different systems interface to.

Couldn't this be done with something like an enterprise service bus, without the blockchain?

> Booking through a smart contract [...] There's no DB that can be hacked or go corrupt

But you have moved the hacking problem to the smart contract instead, and last time I looked those seemed a lot harder to make secure.
I would be willing to bet a large amount of money that the large majority of successful businesses are either bootstrapped or use traditional loans as funding. The stats don't work out any other way - several hundred thousand new businesses are started in the US each year, but only a fraction that number could possibly be angel or VC funded. Your perspective only applies to a narrow slice of SaaS businesses.
I can tell you are not a Bitcoiner! It may well be something of a antidote to Western Consumerism. Some things I have experienced in my years:

* Consume less as I see how the time value of my money is preserved

* know that spending now means less in future, so weigh priorities of purchases

* priorities longer term thinking with regard to ownership of assets

* constantly consider the cost of capital and trade offs owning one instrument vs another

There is indeed a working credit market for Bitcoin backed tokens! The largest is aave, and interest rates are driven by liquidity pool usage and incentive programs by the chain devs. There is one level removed from the actual BTC but we are getting close here.

You can borrow WBTC right now, consumer facing defi!
How are people doing in Tonga? Is it mostly ok? I get the impression that we mostly don't know due to communication issues, so it could be quite bad.
> OEM who trusts only their own cryptographically signed BIOS code to run on their platforms

It's not their platform after they sell it. We should resist this trend of referring to items as still belonging to their manufacturers, legitimizing their control over them, while we are reduced to mere users, paying for items but not owning them. Let's see how it sounds:

> An OEM who wants to restrict their customers from selling their CPU, or buying one second-hand, will use a PSB enabled..
You have two 2s in the second column
Either that, or vaccinated people are behaving as if they are fully protected and do not take care, while unvaccinated are more cautious. Recent data from Denmark shows the similr outcomes.
Fibers tend not to survive very long in moist climates, so I’d expect direct evidence of jute to be mostly absent.
Isn't this a problem?

More specifically: assuming we can't derive it by some clever means, or approximate it from some tax reporting data, isn't it a problem that we can't get such a distribution?

I mean this not as a moral judgement, but more as a system dynamics concern. It's easy enough to see how wealth concentration can destabilize a money/value system absent other factors. So my concern isn't about what's right or wrong socially, but whether there might be a reason to question the implicit trust that the maths will work out.
Buy Nothing exploded on Facebook – now it wants a platform of its own
>On BBC One HD I still get a blank place-holder screen for local news, advising to switch to the non-HD channel, which is just bizarre at this point, 10 years after support for HD viewing.

That is changing this year!
> Walmart builds their buildings to last only 15-20 years and then builds a new facility.

I'm really curious about the 15-20 year statistic that the author mentions and I was disappointed not to see a source on that claim. I couldn't find much from official sources after a quick search. That seems like an incredibly short lifespan, especially for buildings so large.

Great article nonetheless.
Yeah, I agree. I think part of it is due to embracing better type systems. For example TS and Go are structurally typed, which was a rarity before. Type inference is everywhere now. Sum types are usable in Java, TS, Rust. All of these languages are better than 2005 Java. Maybe we'll have a comeback of dynamic languages in the next 5-15 years, and if that's the case I'd love to see what people will come up with.
(in the same way that machine learning may exhibit unconscious bias based on the datasets it is trained on, I fear that dark psychological traits could potentially be learned from traumatic content)
> bottom-of-the-barrel Indian devs with a handful of Western project managers

You started a wretched, tedious flamewar with this casual slur. No doubt you didn't intend it to be that, but it's easy to see why it would land that way, and effects (which actually impact the community and the site) are more important than intent (which doesn't communicate itself unless you take care to disambiguate).

Please don't post like this to HN. It points straight to the hell we don't want here.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
How does "defer" make it harder to reason about the code? Especially when the alternative is a bunch of resource-flag-tests and cleanup labels?

There is a reason why it was introduced in Go.
Operating theatres and streets are radically different environments. The surgeon is leaning over the patient and breathing directly toward an open wound so of course it makes sense for a surgeon to wear a mask. That's not what happens in the street.
Features that seem like a good idea at the time often don't stand the test of time 20-30 years in the future. In the mid-90s Object-Oriented Programming was super-hyped so a bunch of other languages bolted on OO, such as Fortran and Ada. But now we have Go/Rust/Zig rejecting brittle OO taxonomies because you always end up having a DuckBilledPlatypus that "is a" Mammal and "is a" EggLayer.

A great strength of C is that if you want more features you just go to a subset of C++, no need to add them to C. C++ is the big, ambitious, kitchen-sink language. When C++ exists we don't need to bloat C.

Fortran was originally carefully designed so that people who aren't compiler experts can generate very fast (and easily parallelized) code working with arrays the intuitive and obvious way. But later Fortran added OO and pointers making it much harder to auto-parallelize and avoid aliasing slowdown. Now that GPUs are rising it turns out that the original Fortran model of everything-is-array-or-scalar works really well for automatically offloading to the GPU. GPUs don't like method-lookup tables, nor do they like lambdas which are equivalent to stateful Objects with a single Apply method.

Scientists are moving to CUDA now, which on the GPU side deletes all these features that Fortran was bloated with. Now nVidia offers proprietary CUDA Fortran which is much more in the spirit of original Fortran, deleting OO and pointers for code that runs on GPU. If the ISO standards committee didn't ruin ISO Fortran for scientific computing by bloating it with trendy features we could all be running ISO Fortran automatically on CPUs and GPUs with identical code (or just a few pragmas) and not be locked in to proprietary nVidia CUDA.

But GPUs are now mainly used for crypto greed instead of science for finding cancer cures or making more aerodynamic aircraft so maybe it all doesn't matter anyway.
Their timeclock application is terrible.

The org I work for transitioned their Kronos from onsite to their multi-tenant cloud system. And it's been an absolute nightmare. Both software suites are a mess but transitioning to their cloud suite is like downgrading at least 10 years of upgrades.
I think that idea is pretty cool. I don't like the new closure pointer type, and how all functions that take function pointers need to be retrofitted to take closures as well, but I guess it's necessary. I assume closure pointers would be implemented as a double pointer, one void* to point to the captured variables in memory, and one function pointer to point to the procedure. One of the most annoying parts of C is how callback logic needs to be defined completely separately from the calling logic.
> And every step of the way is a huge filter that break and washout many promising potential doctors.

> And then there is the medical school debt that you will be saddled with even if you washout.

> This system is madness and we need something more efficient to both incentivize more people becoming doctors and less people washing out.

Who has the control over this? A legalized monopoly here in America (the AMA) that also famously restrict the number of available residency spots. This creates an artificial scarcity and props up the price of care for the public. Same organization that lobbied and got the government to create laws mandating “certificates of need” [0] to make sure they wouldn’t have to compete in a fair market.
This can end at any time. But it won’t because this would go against their interests.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_need
I feel

confused
Ask HN: Looking for Web3 communities excluding cryptocurrency,DeFi NFT,Metaverse
Hello Everyone,
I am looking to connect with people working on web3 products focused on composability & dataownership. The mindshare of web3 today is dominated by cryptocurrency, DeFi, NFTs, metaverse ... but my focus is on challenging data monopolies and simplifying users fractured internet experience. To give an idea, here are some products I am currently tracking: anytype.io fission.codes inrupt.com login.xyz museapp.com textile.io brave.com/themis/

If you have any groups (discord, lobster, matrix...) or people that are engaged in this space please share them below. Also if there are other products I should track drop a share those as well.

Thank you,
-Yonz
Excuse me for the (unusually for me) negative attitude and ranting, but I for one would never even think about posting feedback to edge as it so aggressively user-hostile that I would never believe UX matter at all to anyone on board. Even the most common use case - downloading chrome - is a painful experience, which the browser serving you with tears all the way. Opening edge for the first time throws chain of undesired bold messages and then the NSFW msn.com.

Sometimes I have to open edge on multiple costumer servers, with new user profile in each of them and with no customization of the defaults in place. Terrible experience, multiple clicks to do what you came for in the first place, and then again serving you the delightful and stylish MSN homepage,
While avoiding Chinese-made computer components approaches impossibility the deeper you go, one vendor I'd trust not to fool around with AMD's PSB is System76. Not only are they non-shady, but they also try to open the firmware of the motherboards they use. While their AMD systems aren't quite there yet, the laptops they sell are.

https://github.com/system76/firmware-open

https://github.com/system76/ec
See: The Sony PS3
I don't know much about statistical uses of Bayesianism but can say something opinionated about the underlying philosophy.

From a philosophical point of view, Bayesianism is fairly weak and lacks argumentative support. The underlying idea of probabilism - that degrees of belief have to be represented by probability measures - is in my opinion wrong for many reasons. Basically the only well-developed arguments for this view are Dutch book arguments, which make a number of questionable assumptions. Besides, priors are also often not known. As far as I can see, subjective utilities can only be considered rational as long as they match objective probabilities, i.e., if the agent responds in epistemically truth-conducive ways (using successful learning methods) to evidence and does not have strongly misleading and skewed priors.

I also reject the use of simple probability representations in decision theory, first because they do not adequately represent uncertainty, second because they make too strong rationality assumptions in the multiattribute case, and third because there are good reasons why evaluations of outcomes and states of affairs ought to be based on lexicographic value comparisons, not just on a simple expected utility principle. Generally speaking, Bayesians in this area tend to choose too simple epistemic representations and too simple value representations. The worst kind of Bayesians in philosophy are those who present Bayesian updating as if it was the only right way to respond to evidence. This is wrong on many levels, most notably by misunderstanding how theory discovery can and should work.

In contrast, frequentism is way more cautious and does not make weird normative-psychological claims about how our beliefs ought to be structured. It represents an overall more skeptical approach, especially when hypothesis testing is combined with causal models. A propensity analysis of probability may also sometimes make sense, but this depends on analytical models and these are not always available.

There are good uses of Bayesian statistics that do not hinge on subjective probabilities and any of the above philosophical views about them, and for which the priors are well motivated. But the philosophical underpinnings are weak, and whenever I read an application of Bayesian statistics I first wonder whether the authors haven't just used this method to do some trickery that might be problematic at a closer look.

I'd be happy if everyone would just use classical hypothesis testing in a pre-registered study with a p value below 1%.
>A C interface (a function) is exposed only through its name, and no other data; the name does not encode either the number of the type of parameters, which means that you can’t reflectively load the ABI based off the symbols in a shared object.

What prevents GCC and Clang (and co from Intel/MS) saving a sidecar file next to a program/.so with all the functions and their argument types, struct structures, etc. in some agreed upon format for easy parsing / use? Could even be emitted based on some annotation/pragma like #export before the function declaration.

Is it just that nobody really cares to coordinate such a solution?
Terrorism from within the country seems like it falls under the FBI’s purview. Malware from people residing in other countries seems like a job for a government agency that can operate outside US borders.
> it is getting tied into the existing financial system

The fact that its price somewhat correlates with the stock market and the fact that two parties can exchange bitcoins without any government being able to prevent the transactions from happening are two entirely unrelated things.

What's more, the first matters little (only because volatility can sometimes be annoying), while the second is an essential, even defining property of the system.

> It's not supposed to be doing this.

Why not? Again, Bitcoin was designed to solve one problem: allowing economic entities to exchange value freely.

Other than - maybe - the fixed supply, nothing was ever built in the protocol to control its price.
If a road could get a cut of all attached business's revenue, and revenues shifted back towards small businesses (i.e. away from mega corps), I could see private roads being a boon and lawsuits forcing regular, quality maintenance. In practice, though, I'm sure it would get muddy quick.
I wrote part of an NES game for my senior project just a couple of years ago. It was tough at the time, and quite Beyond anything I’d ever done programming otherwise.

I just recently started going back through the code (6502 Assembly) trying to figure out what a given subroutine does.

If you’ve got nostalgia for one of these systems, and enjoy programming, I encourage you to give it a shot.
Private individuals and organisations are not obliged to give their surveillance footage to the police without a warrant. There's no centralized system, so the data is not in any way available 'at a moment's notice'.

>Can't really believe anyone on HN is standing up for 24 hour surveillance with cameras.

As explained in the guidelines, there's a broad range of opinion on HN. However, I wouldn't say I'm 'standing up for' it. I'm fairly ambivalent about CCTV. I don't think it makes a large amount of difference, either positively or negatively. I do, however, think it's important to be accurate about how (un)sophisticated and (in)effective the surveillance apparatus actually is.
Yeah, but do you know of any creators that would be recommended based on my criteria? I'm not really watching for entertainment quality.
Maybe not the worst track record but they have made other terrible choices...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfish
Haber process was developed while Fritz Haber was at University of Karlsruhe, a public research university. BASF was hesitant to invest in it, but luckily employee/engineer(not exactly an entrepreneur) Carl Bosch was there to convince them otherwise, and was able to industrialize the process.

Haber process also has its negatives, such as an ammonia resource for war, and the growing use of factory/unsustainable farming actually threatens environments and clean water. It is also one of the biggest consumers of energy on the planet.

Maybe a better example is the transistor(and tons of other stuff) from Bell Labs, but AT&T wasn't exactly a plucky startup, and has a monopolistic/anti-competitive past that tarnishes its history.

Maybe both of these examples show the importance of research, and the ability to tinker/explore solutions without profit motive pressures getting in the way.
I have a phone, a soon to be useless, 3g candy bar phone. It serves as a notification and communications channel for me to other humans. It doesn't do email, or internet, it doesn't do images or apps. It does do texts.

If I didn't need to be on call for family or friends, I'd turn it off and only use it when I needed to communicate, but that's not an option for me.

I navigate without it because I'm old and learned to do so well before google was invented, let alone google maps. However, google maps has utility (specifically, real time traffic), so it's likely to be something my next soon to be useless phone might have on it.

I will not ever put Facebook or any other social media on something I carry everywhere, because I would become addicted to it.

As stated elsewhere, separate tools from garbage. You don't have to use this tool in the same manner as others. You can turn it off and pull the battery, and put all that in a ziplock bag inside a tin can if you want.

It's your tool, use it how you want.
But liberal humanism /is/ an ideology and denying that gets you further from the truth. You can accept that as your ideology or you can say "actually this is just factual reality" but then you're being a closed-eyes ideologue just like the author. It's OK to be ideological because ideology is just the axioms you choose. If you think that equality is good or bad (in some specific situation like access to resources) that's an ideological stance. There's no "non ideological" position.

Of course there are better or worse ideologues (and blind ideologues tend to be the most insufferable because they believe they're non ideological but turn out to just be neoliberals), but nobody is non ideological.
People are weighing the worth of a college degree versus the cost of obtaining one (both time and money) and the scale is tipping towards going to work without one.

This is probably because the tuition fees have become so inflated that most people cannot recuperate the costs during their working career.

Whether this is good or bad is still an open question. I'd claim that we have too many college-degree professionals and that companies claim they need them, when they really don't.
> Have you looked into other opportunities that would combine your interests?

I did. I also got offers in "my" field, just not such good ones. Perhaps got carried away a bit by the other offer i received. I'll have a look at Argo, thanks for sharing!

> Don't pick an option out of fear of missing out on a job, there will be more in the future.

Feels like so much of the career discussion in CS is concentrated on TC optimization - it's good to remember that one can choose to optimize for different things too.
Can you give an example link? All I seem to find offered is tritium gun sights.
How do you propose to enforce this? (for human or machine)