skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Well, I guess 'it depends'. Generally I agree with hybrid systems being more complex that ICE only systems, but having a high(er) voltage electricity source and powerful electric motor available does remove some complexity.

Depending on the setup, the hybrid electric motor also acts a the starter, and generator for the ICE.

The hybrid drive may be used to move the vehicle in reverse direction (depending on how the hybrid system is implemented), removing the need for a reverse gear.

Electric power steering can powered directly from the hybrid battery, simplifying the steering rack.

So it does remove some complexity, but from an engineering point of view, I still think they are just too complex. Manufacturers just should give their customers the option to have full electric models, or fully ICE powered for those living in very remote areas.

After having driven some of the supposedly latest and greatest hybrid powered Lexus models (AFAIK Toyota is still king of hybrid drivetrains) I am not convinced. They drive nice, but would have been better if they were fully electric. I just cant believe how badly Toyota missed the EV market.
Are you trying to tell me that some random self-help dude shower thought isn't making you get better at being human?
Regarding "Ungoogled-Chromium":

> "The binaries are provided by anyone who are willing to build and submit them. This means that authenticity cannot be guaranteed and there is always a risk that the binaries may have been tampered with"

This does not seem (entirely?) correct, builds seem automated:
https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium#automated-or-m...
Just in the US. The second place that pays swes good money is Europe… and in the majority of western european countries it’s not easy to earn more than 90K Eur gross per year. The average is probably around 60K, which is not bad but definitely far away from US salaries.
The -10 indicates the number of CPUs used.[0] But the `ns/op` should per iteration of the benchmarking loop.

[0] https://blog.logrocket.com/benchmarking-golang-improve-funct...
>For many, being able to pedal, but not being required to pedal all the time, is one of the main reasons to use an e-bike in the first place.

All the e-bikes sold in Europe are pedelecs, they require you to pedal, there is no throttle.
1. Too many visitors to your page due to being on HN
2. A bad thing
How to eliminate GC pauses in .NET app
As formulated, the resistance to D-decoupling is simply a refusal to discuss issues, or a blocking technique to prevent certain things from being understood.

It's in the same bag of tricks as screaming to stop someone from being heard, sticking your fingers in your ears, bluntly changing the subject over and over, Gish galloping, or disconnecting someone's microphone.

Obviously a choice to do any of these things is a moral decision. It is a moral decision to try to prevent discourse from happening; prevent people from thinking things through because you think they might end up at a conclusion you dislike.

Often it's a way to prevent yourself from thinking things through.

Generally I think that if you're choosing to block the discussion in order to win it, you're no longer participating in good faith and should be censured and then ignored because of it. We have a moral imperative to discuss ideas in good faith, not play thought-blocking power tactics.
Zeloof's latest video: Z2 - Upgraded Homemade Silicon Chips: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS5ycm7VfXg

unpaywalled Wired story:
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.com%2Fstory%...
I defended C++ as well, because - even if it's ugly and error prone - I felt like you can express almost any in C++ while every other language felt pretty limited, and from C++11 on and research from Herb Sutter, I thought it would only be a matter of time until C++ would become a actually a modern & safe language.

Well, still waiting for that...
I'm getting the impression that many crypto bros, especially the influencers, have never written one line of code.

So it will probably not reach them anyways and everything will continue as is.

Also embarassing on HBR's part for having a blockchain investor write a piece on how blockchain is environmentally friendly.
Generics absolutely (can) make things faster, if the collection is generic in the first place: the lack of generics would require RTTI and possibly boxing, the article specifically mentions the use of `interface{}` so that seems overwhelmingly likely.

Hell the first benchmark just pushes a bunch of `int` onto the stack, with generics it just does that, without it has to pack the int into an interface{} quadrupling its size. The performance difference may well just come from the increase in allocations (and reallocation), and cache pressure, that sort of things. Nothing complicated, really.

> missed optimization in the compiler.

Go's compiler is pretty simplistic and not a heavily optimising one, so it'd also be unsurprising if type erasure also hindered it.
last time i looked at their guidelines i understood it that proprietry blobs will be tolerated as long as libre alternatives dont exist. for an organisation that values free software above all else (including security) i think this is a principled approach. i fail to see any hypocricy

on the other hand whenever there is some GNU/FSF topic on hn there are always the same people taking the opportunity to throw mud at these organisations. think of this what you will
I see lots of positive articles about crypto when the price is headed upwards, and lots of negative articles when the price is on a downswing. It's almost as if even here on HN, the pump-n-dump crew is getting their say in...
Its not only CPU cache, its the whole CPU.

Having one function per type results in more instructions in total, cause you end up with more copies of the function, but less instructions when dealing with one type, like in a collection of values of one type only.

Less instructions is linear speed up. Single copy of the code enables inlining, constant propagation for type sizes, which enables vectorization of loops. Vectorization alone can buy you up to 32x on modern hardware if the code is flops limited.

Avoiding pointer indirections also trash the cache less, and the BW of caches is orders of magnitude higher than the bandwidth of ram (multiple TB/s vs lower 100 GB/s).

And caches have lower latencies so CPU threads wait less on memory.

So your speed up ends up: less instructions * more FLOPs * more BW, and that can easily be 10x * 32x * 20 ~= 6000x in the worst pathological case.

A 1000x speed up / slowdown per element due to switching between boxed and unboxed generics is less common than a 100x speed up in Rust, but it does happen.
4GB is too low. If you want quality, at least 10GB for a standard 2h movie is needed.
By default I don't buy things on Amazon, but just add it to the cart, and keep in cart for weeks. I sometimes go over the cart. If there's something I truly need, it would come up often enough in mind that the next time I check cart it will make me click 'buy'.
Setting Up Mitmproxy with iOS 15
thank you for your feedback, it certainly was not my intention to lump everything together - can see where you're coming from and will look to do some refinements/edits to the article after doing more background reading. I just got frustrated with the feeling that the waste of energy appears to be accelerating. I've got no beef with blockchain per se, but it's the colossal waste of resources that gets me.
Setting Up Mitmproxy with Android
> ...it's that the bureaucracy is so thick that they couldn't solve extra problems even if they tried.

This is why I called out "...very often due to non-technical factors" of what I found when I dug deeper. It is very rare I find the bureaucracy "too thick", and much more often, I find first a lack of communication, and if the communication is clarified, second I find a lack of desire to work on unglamorous, tedious, time-consuming aspects of the extra problems.

A frequent example: developer has an idea how to improve and existing process. Developer is informed they need the buy-in of SRE, Devops, and NOC teams. The presentations are made, and the team representatives/managers/directors Swiss cheese the idea pointing out all sorts of gaps to address. Endless forms to fill out, approvals to obtain, more presentations to give. Developer is dejected, and comes onto HN to say it's impossible to improve at BigCo.

When I ask what could it hurt to reach out more than halfway to those teams and find out what it would take to use this experience as an exercise to create and document a "minimal integration with stakeholder teams" package that all future projects can base themselves off of, I get met with "but it's not worth it", or "that's too much hassle", and similar fend-off-the-now-not-so-quick-hit-project explanations.

Except here's the clincher for me: I have yet to meet a BigCo team that has done this even for their big projects. No one wants to do the documentation work, nor the documentation maintenance work, because assistive infrastructure enablement isn't incentivized on annual performance reviews, only what sounds like "new progress" going up the leadership chain.

Every project ends up as a bespoke process to integrate into other teams' processes and mechanisms. The bureaucracy is so thick because no one spends the time trying to document, much less automate what processes look like from other teams' perspectives. And this is one of the pillars of my current working conclusion: everyone agrees there is constant documentation maintenance that needs to be performed everywhere, but in all these discussions, extremely rarely do I see someone say, "yeah, I use the extra time to learn some new procedure/tech, and update the onboarding/how-to documentation from the perspective of a newbie" (hugely valuable IMHO), and tons of other people slapping their foreheads and scurrying off to do the same.

Even thick bureaucracy its very self can be addressed with extra time, and that is arguably one of the most frictionless actions to take; pick up the phone/chat/email and start writing what you find out. That so, so few people kvetching about all this "boring extra time" make this frictionless action their revealed preference signals volumes to me.

I want to stress it's fine that people don't want to do this kind of work. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. But so far I haven't bought into the commonly-accepted wisdom why "soul-crushing extra time" exists in our industry, with exceptionally rare variations (like defense-related highly-compartmentalized or similar contexts).
The author is Michael Huemer, a professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado, so would be very familiar with "the nuts and bolts of deontology".
> occupying the whole lane as a car would

"Taking the lane" is the safest approach in dense traffic. If that pisses of car-drivers, then you would appear to be cycling in a place that isn't safe for cycling. Trying to squeeze over to the kerb to leave more room for cars just makes it easier for car-drivers to ignore you, and runs the risk of you being "doored". Also, squeezing over makes it more likely you'll end up in some trucker's blind-spot, or unseated by a pothole.
I'm not a native English speaker either. The thing here is that audiobooks are quite a bit slower than normal speech, which is what we've been trained on all our lives.

People want 1.5 speed because that's what gets the narrator back to a normal speaking speed.
In most cases monopoly is bad, but with minting currency there is some sense in which it is good for a seniorage rents to exist.

Imagine demand for holding USD grows by $20, a central bank can profit from the minting, e.g. if they make a $20 note for $.5 dollars.

With proof of work, miners have to burn $20 in electricity in expectation (more if the electricity is stolen or subsidised) otherwise someone can profitabily enter.

Even with proof of stake, an opportunity cost of $20 has to occur to the staker to prevent entry.
I'm delighted this protocol for desensitisation works. As the partner of an anaphylaxis sufferer I wish there was a path as good as this for adults but alas, not yet.
Kneejerk dismissals here are sad to see.

L2 is, in my view, some of the most interesting research happening in computer science right now. The article above is not a great explanation--in particular, L2s are not off-chain as the article presents. The point of L2 is that it on-chain, inheriting the security and censorship resistance guarantees of L1.

To simplify: L2 is about creating a fast, high throughput state machine whose state transitions are verifiable on a blockchain. Blockchains, in turn, are about creating a uncensorable state machine that reaches global consensus.

So L1 achieves security, and L2 adds speed.

So why not just make L1 fast to begin with?

The strong guarantees of L1 rely on a lot of validators (on the order of ~10k+, worldwide, often on home internet connections) verifying each state transition. This puts a fairly low practical ceiling on how fast L1 can go.

L2 uses centralized sequencers to run transactions much faster, but uses a mechanism that runs on L1 to ensure the sequencer can't cheat.

The main mechanisms are 1. optimistic rollups and 2. ZK rollups. The latter, in particular, are fascinating. If you care about distributed systems even a little bit, it pays to suppress your skepticism and learn about how they work.

Good starting point: https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/01/05/rollup.html

Alternatively if you believe this is all just a ponzi scheme involving ape jpegs, bookmark this comment and come back in 3 years.
Great point.

In practice, the type of bike I ride (a Rad Runner Plus) is optimised for comfort under power rather than efficiency. Power will come almost entirely from the 250W motor with maybe no more than 50W from me. Once the motor tops the bike out at 25km/h, I'm not going to be going any faster without a major change of stance, gear, and expectation of exercise.

Athletic biking is for the weekends :)
If the critics spent as much time building and selling what they see as the “better option” to WordPress, perhaps we wouldn’t be in this place. As it is, they just do the easy thing, playing “pigeon chess” by making these hackneyed, unsupported assertions.

A better assessment is that WordPress has made trade-offs regarding security, as anybody in the real world must. Individuals must also make their own trade-offs, including whether to run WordPress at all, then how to configure it and which third-party code to use. Sometimes we get the trade-offs wrong, and that should affect how people make future decisions.
Speculative asset != pyramid scheme

(also != ponzi scheme)

It's not going to collapse-collapse for any fundamental reason. Worst case prices will go down (right now Bitcoin is almost 50% down from November's all time high prices), the hype will die out, many people will lose interest, some will still be into it etc.
As shown in the linked guide you'd configure that based on something like an application specific cookie, which is probably required for the shopping basket in the first place anyway. I believe solutions like WP Super Cache handle that the same way, but I might be wrong about that.
Folding Ideas' new (2 hour podcast-ish) video "The Problem With NFTs" is a really good critique of cryptocurrency: https://youtu.be/YQ_xWvX1n9g

Covers pretty much every thought I've ever had regarding centralization, privacy issues, proof of work and proof of stake both rewarding the rich, economic incentives in speculative markets, NFT hucksterism — but with detailed research and examples of each. Some of the NFT security stuff is jaw-droppingly bad.
> n the context of a generic data stucture, unboxing is not likely to unlock a huge number of optimizations.

This is not true, the difference between a Vec<Box<T>> and a Vec<T> is huge. You can't easily vectorize a Vec<Box<T>> cause the elements can be in different memory locations, and this is important because... people do loop over all elements in data-structures super often.

And not only vectorization, but removing the memory indirection would make much better use of caches, depending on the size of T, multiply your memory BW by a big factor, etc.
Seems like almost no SWE jobs in Alaska

https://www.levels.fyi/comp.html?track=Software%20Engineer&r...
I don’t necessarily disagree with you re B2B vs B2C but I think we should question it. There is nothing fundamentally different between apps for these audiences. So why do they require different mindsets?
yes, interfaces have a memory redirection

https://research.swtch.com/interfaces
Strictly from a frontend dev perspective, sure, also just because popularity alone - but why would you not have a separate personal and development browser? I definitely wouldn't want to mix the two - various comfort extensions mingle with DOM and rendering, and reverse I also don't need analytics/dev extensions clutter/slow down non-dev reading experience.
Does the steak actually come out worse if it takes that long or is it just a question of not wanting to wait?
I don't think you see a lot of positive crypto opinions on HN regardless of the price movements.
So this serverless solution has a watchdog process always running and mapping requests to the correct process? It that more like a server than serverless? Will the next optimisation be launching one thread per request? In which case we are back to square one (:
Unboxing is a huge optimisation though isn’t it? No need to allocate when inserting a new item into the queue (beyond the standard allocations which happen when growing a slice), fewer pointer indirections when reading the queue, easier garbage clean up at the end (a single deallocation of a slice).

I think (but am not sure) that the Go compiler can add some small primitive types and structs (precisely: those that fit in a machine word) to a []interface{} by storing them inline, removing the need for an allocation. So perhaps you will only see major speed increases when using larger structs.
> I don't know if Switch could be emulated with Wine-like approach, if not, it would be tricky to intercept syscalls without an ARM-to-ARM DBT. Performance impact should be minimal though.

You don't need a DBT, VMs on arm64 are very cheap. You can just use Hypervisor.framework really.
Beef my way medium-medium rare:

1. dry it out and salt the steak

2. Heat the pan to highest

3. Put the stake into the pan with a lid on

4. Wait till the whole steak changes colour

5. Lower the temperature to 5 or 6 (out of 9)

6. Flip it

7. Flip it again

8. Flip it again

9. Check the temperature

9a. If 54 degrees Celsius take it away to rest

9b. If less than 54 flip it and measure again shortly afterwards - should be done in a minute

10. Done

Something like that. Steak is always tender and good. Guests are amazed every time. Better than any restaurant I've ever been.
Another thing (usually) not discussed in such articles is that a group may benefit more from different types of thinking, which balance each other out naturally. I’ve lost a link to the video about it, but it shows how a group of behaviors A and B is unstable and leads to either all-A or all-B, which then heavily underperform because of their traits. But if you add enough C proportion into this group, it eventually stabilizes, or cycles more effectively (depending on a definition of it). So you may be or not be foo/bar-ian, but in a sense of a system you live in, it may produce different results than if everyone were acting like that.

This simulation was indeed very simplistic and cannot represent or predict reality, but neither can you. Until you test it, you won’t figure out if it’s beneficial or not to someone, everyone, anyone. Watching these dilemmas in isolation does nothing to your understanding, whichever philosophy you use.

We don’t build our way to our goals, we explore the insanely complex network of possibilities and choose (and stick to) those which worked good enough. It’s like an edge of a fractal, sometimes a little change converges to nothing different, sometimes it turns everything upside down.
The claim that Go 'forces people to be pragmatic' applies a pretty strong value judgement to the way things Go does. You could say "Go forces people do things the way Go wants and this way is wonderful for many use cases" (I don't disagree), but whether that way is pragmatic or not depends on the use case.
P.A.R.A. vs. Zettelkasten: The False Binary
> But mining and transactions are conflated here!

The author is right to point out the HBR author's conflict of interest, but there's a more direct rebuttal to this. One of the purported advantages of bitcoin is that transactions are (practically) irreversible. It's extremely expensive for a bad actor to reverse a transaction because the mining power of the network is subsidized by mining. Since the people making transactions are the ones directly benefiting from the power spent on mining, it is reasonable to look at the energy use on a per-transaction basis.
> Launch apps w/ Spotlight (cmd space) so you don't see cluttered Dock or Launchpad or Apps folder

If you'd like to go beyond apps: https://www.raycast.com/ (I found it better than Alfred)
I think the commenter’s point was that making “serious use” of WordPress generally requires also using plugins or theme(s).
YC Startup School Deals
There's plenty of money in the hands of religious people. Where are the ultra-tall cathedrals? It would be absolutely staggering to see modern construction techniques used with traditional-style facades, to produce church towers competing with skyscrapers.
Seems normal to me. Why would the pump-n-dump crew promote anything but positive articles?
> The people that work 80 hours have an intensity of work that is extremely weak, or else they will not be able to work in a sustained way

I don't think this is necessarily a fair way to frame this side. I was very close to burnout in a previous job, and it's taken me probably two years to realise that one of the root causes of my problems was that I just never, ever ever got a chance to switch off. I would be doing "light" work on the weekends (responding to people, messages, build issues), and in the evenings people would be messaging me with questions because I was in a different time zone where my evening overlapped with their afternoon. I turned off notifications outside of work hours and started getting feedback that my work was suffering so I turned them back on. What started as one message a week from a stressed coworker was now 4-5 messages every evening. I was starting work at 9am, finishing at 6pm, and then connected and pretty much unofficially on call until midnight, and then basically on call from 3pm until midnight on weekends. It was probably 90 hours a week all in, and I was definitely doing probably 50% more work than another engineer doing a 40h week, but I was doing it because I was working 2x the hours.
Having been there I found there are two side, removing distractions and mentally retraining yourself. The latter takes time.

To remove distractions I have turned off all notifications (you don’t need them), declutterd my desktop (delete unnesesry apps, remove distracting ones you still need from the dock on macOS). The biggest for me though was blocking sites like Reddit, just point them to the loop back ip in your host file, no need for clever blocking software, just pertinently block them.
Or use 1 dice 1..6 and one dice 5..10

The result should be (excel syntax) mod(d1+d2;12)+1.
You can adjust the lowest start number of dice 2 to control which result gets the highest probability
Just to further complicate things.... native English speakers often use "dice" as the singular i.e. instead of "die". While technically incorrect, it's very common, probably more common than the "correct' form.

The plural is "dice" and unfortunately "dices" is definitely incorrect :-)

English is crazy.
that would change the probability distribution of the remaining numbers, which is to be avoided