skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I've been following their progress from a distance and for a while I really believed it would explode in popularity, but the whole renaming things a thousand times over and splitting the project in confusing ways pretty much killed them. And now the introduction page won't even mention OCaml. Why do they seem to make it a point to hide the fact that the language is an OCaml derivative? Do they perhaps believe this is going to make the language more popular? Because I think it will have the opposite effect (it will be easier to dismiss it as "weirder underground TypeScript").

I really wish them success (I'd LOVE to live in a parallel universe where this is the default web language), but it seems like whoever is responsible for attracting developer mindshare is completely clueless.
Theoretically, the laser doesn't need to "burn" through the metal, i.e melting it. it only needs to heat it beyond or close to the detonation temperature of the fuel that powers the rocket.
A "nudge" is synonymous with a "dark pattern."
You don't need to keep up with anything if you use bogofilter, or similar statistics based methods, to classify it. You can do server side filtering based on other non-content things like DNS lookups, or IP blacklists, but that's just adding needless failure modes on the receive side. I don't do any non-content filtering, to keep things simple for the senders and latency down. Statistical methods are just that effective on a personal mail server level.
That wasn't really a cycles issue exactly, it was they used square windows rather than round, leading to stress concentrations.

Per your last point, BAE and Hawker are still around. The UK also does plenty of Airbus work.
Are you saying you cannot write code from scratch?
> you can destroy money in the conventional banking system eg by burning paper money.

But that's an accident or intentional vandalism by a user of the system; it isn't built into the system itself.

> In both conventional banking and crypto, yes, there are situations of “sorry, you’re fucked, but like, you’re just supposed to know not to do that” (where “that” is send wires you’re not 100% sure of or guard your physical cash carefully).

In conventional banking the “sorry, you’re fucked” situations don't destroy the money banking is all about handling.

> you really seem to be drawing the abstraction boundaries poorly here.

My "abstraction boundary" (if I understand the term correctly?) is: A system that can have parts that do this -- destroy the very thing it's supposed to handle, "money" -- is a crap system. "Yeah, but you can burn cash!" (vandalism) or "Mistype an account number and the money is lost (to you)!" (not destructive) are not system critiques but whataboutism.

Currency-changing ATMs (do such things exist? If not, why not?) or vending machines like for petrol don't have built-in banknote shredders.

[Edit: Left off half a sentence, screwed up emphases.]
some of the fonts used in the article;

nyt-magsans,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;
nyt-imperial,georgia,'times new roman',times,serif;
Death threats? People saying that they're what's wrong with this country? You genuinely think he'd get that?
I doubt that full self driving is possible in the near future without changes to the cars and the infrastructure to help the autonomous systems.
So imagine a world where telepathy exists, and everyone can hear everyone else's thoughts. And there are no filters. With enough effort you learn to only "hear" thoughts in a certain range, but you can't filter out or block thoughts at will. And no one is able, or willing, to filter their own thoughts. They're just out there for everyone to hear. And they can be aimed at specific targets.

Imagine the cross-section of thoughts you would hear all the time. Most of it mundane - work, family, food, shopping, day to day life. Some stand out through the noise - strong emotions like love, lust, happiness, pain, hatred. Some beautiful, some terrifying, some outright vile. A true cross-section of humankind's deepest thoughts.

Now imagine the loudest ones start finding others like them, and start to aggregate and cluster - mentally, not physically. Feeding and amplifying each other and getting louder and bigger. And they start to look outward, and find the thoughts they hate, and feed on those. There are no physical restrictions, no limits on distance or speed, just thoughts bouncing around and searching and filtering each other.

And imagine that once groups hit a critical mass, they also start to gather physically. And it's no longer just thoughts, but physical actions, encouraged by the entire group.

Of course - the Internet is not telepathy, there are filters, and not everyone participates. But it's the closest we've come to it as a species so far. And this is who we are...
Wait, what happens to brick after 180 minutes at 1000 Celsius? I assumed they would either burn or not burn, melt or not melt.
He never said he was surprised.
> That's why we need pseudoanonymity.

What do you mean by pseudoanonymity? You can't hide the fact that you're a woman on the internet if you're writing about the experience of being a woman, for instance. And the author here got her share of anti-semitic and anti-trans hate, despite not actually being either of those things.
From the “see also” on that page, this looks pretty incredible (to my untrained eye): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_X-Jet
I forgot to mention that cars don't really have high accuracy speedometers; they could be 10% off which could easily cause a conscientious driver to speed. What's the point of giving somebody a ticket for driving 26mph when their speedometer says 24? That's, like, just silly.
Exposure to Computer Modern primarily via PDFs in the late 1990s-early 2000s was the reason I became interested in learning what produced such documents in the first place; I don't remember how, but it wasn't hard to learn about TeX after that.

The outstanding quality of Computer Modern even on the low-res screens of those days is what appealed to me (to be fair, TeX's ability to produce professional-quality kerning, hyphenation, line density, et al, also contributed). I fell in love with it even before I knew what TeX was.
Obviously there are limits on what you can shoot your guns at or crimes like murder, for example, would be legal as long as it was accomplished with a gun.
Grasping React Hooks
Did you read the article? They make a comic. Their tweet didn't have any other context
From the comments:

>Fun fact: this car scene was kinda an actual car chase. The director made the stunt man drive the car in the middle of street of Brooklyn without any acknowledge from the people and drivers there so they can capture real reactions. (It's illegal but apparently nothing happened to them)

(!) If that's true that's definitely why that scene is so good but hard to replicate. Though there are some props getting destroyed so maybe it's only true for part of the scene.
Thanks! Good points, I think in general the fixed-width "packed" SIMD ISAs have the downsides that you mentioned.

But it seems that WebAssembly doesn't have length-agnostic SIMD instructions yet. There is an open proposal to add this though: https://github.com/WebAssembly/flexible-vectors
I assume you're aware, but just in case: https://tolkieneditor.wordpress.com/

Obviously doesn't fix tone issues, but does chop the runtime in half by eliminating much of the most-obviously-superfluous content.
Of course program synthesis has been a thing for years, I remember some excellent papers out of MSR 10 years ago. But which of those could read a prompt and build the program from the prompt? Setting up a whole bunch of constraints and having your optimizer spit out a program that fulfills them is program synthesis and is super interesting, but not at all what I think of when I'm told we can make the computer program for us.
For instance, RobustFill takes its optimization criteria from a bundle of pre-completed inputs and outputs of how people want the program to behave instead of having the problem described in natural language and creating the solution program.
It may not be the question that interests you but who are you to say it's the "wrong question" for me to ask? I want to know if I'm on the verge of having access to a tool that is going to transform the way I do my job, as people keep claiming.
>Several major accidents (including the top of an airliner coming off and sucking a flight attendant out over the pacific on the way to Hawaii)

It was actually an inter-island flight so lots of short flights (and therefore pressurization cycles relative to flight hours or miles). The amazing thing was that the plane was able to make an emergency landing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243
Uh no. Nolan used a ton of CGI in all the Batman movies he made, in Interstellar, in Dunkirk, Tenet and especially in Inception. Yes he likes to use practical when possible, but the idea that he doesn't use CGI is ridiculous. Everyone uses CGI. Even when it's simple compositing stuff. Everyone conflates CGI with doing a shot/scene entirely digital. Some films do that, but most don't.
My feeling is that the Lindy effect largely holds: The expected lifetime of any given document is proportional to its age. Old websites for the most part seem extremely stable. Young websites change drastically and often.
It is on purpose. You only see a difference when posting the link in a messenger or social media post with link preview.
Is there anything like this for Voxels (what's used in Roblox, MineCraft,etc)?
To those confused:

It looks like this only adds social graph info but is otherwise a redirect. The resulting page looks like

<!doctype html>
<html>
<head>
<title>…</title>
<!-- lots of <meta> tags -->
</head>
<body>
<script>
document.location.href = "https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30180253";
</script>
</body>
</html>
> Also, when I try to remember something I have red on a printed book, - sometimes - I can remember where on the page it was written, what else was on the page, or even what the page looked like. I experience none of that when reading on my smartphone.

This is so obvious to me but more than once I have hit the typical robot HN user on this topic for whom it doesn't matter the medium because he's an eidetic machine. So I'll just post this:

> Beyond treating individual letters as physical objects, the human brain may also perceive a text in its entirety as a kind of physical landscape. When we read, we construct a mental representation of the text in which meaning is anchored to structure. The exact nature of such representations remains unclear, but they are likely similar to the mental maps we create of terrain—such as mountains and trails—and of man-made physical spaces, such as apartments and offices. Both anecdotally and in published studies, people report that when trying to locate a particular piece of written information they often remember where in the text it appeared. We might recall that we passed the red farmhouse near the start of the trail before we started climbing uphill through the forest; in a similar way, we remember that we read about Mr. Darcy rebuffing Elizabeth Bennett on the bottom of the left-hand page in one of the earlier chapters.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reading-paper-scr...

And repost my comment from one of those times:

>> The value provided by a physical map of a book is knowing how far along you are in the book, yet that's also available in a visual form in an ebook as well. You can even riffle through pages on most e-readers as well, seeing a preview of the page as you move quickly forward or backwards.

>> Aside from weight, what value is the physical map really providing?

> No, it provides more.

> Actually your brain maps physical properties of the book to actual content, creating an overlay map over the story or the content (and our brain is really good at mentally mapping things). This is that map that is being used to know where in the book a particular piece of information is.

> Reading on e-reader is more linear than reading a paper book. See: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reading-paper-scr... https://insights.uksg.org/articles/10.1629/uksg.236/ and https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/19/readers-absorb...

> Besides, no e-reader today can let your riffle through pages as fast as paper book.

> When you are in a novel, or in a manual, you have some kinetic and touch feedback to build memories of where's what. The book becomes an extension (à la proprioception) with much less friction than an e-read for which you have to wait for visual feedback (screen refreshing).

> With paper books things are at the tip of your fingers.

> E-reader have more friction.

> That's a reason why I only read novels on e-reader and jot notes in a notepad for non-fiction books.

> If I had the budget I'd only have physical books.
Yeah Uber adds 1-2$ per item as well they hide half the fees that way. If you aren’t getting 50% off you are paying more than you would picking up yourself
Note that the redirect is intentional. This is specifically for opengraph tags appearing in Slack, Discord, Facebook, etc.

This is what it looks like in Discord:

https://i.judge.sh/XWc64/D_jqGLfScD.png
My company makes products that have computer controllers, and lots and lots of code to run them. They are bending over backward to make them impossible to hack here in the States, but (so I am told) giving the source and the encryption keys directly to the Chinese government as a requirement of selling products into that market.
The other side of this is that you were getting requests for those settings, users wanted to be able to set them. Agreed that discoverability was a problem, but behind the discoverability, people wanted the ability to define custom behaviors or change default behaviors. I think you sum it up perfectly with:

> If you can do the right thing automatically

I think a lot of software will shoot for doing the right thing automatically when they don't actually know what the right thing is. Or they'll remove the options because they think that the users don't want settings at all. But users do often want all of the behaviors (even the contradictory behaviors) that settings enable -- they just also want those settings to be discoverable and intuitive, and ideally they don't want to think about what they're set to most of the time.

As an analogy, as a user I like automatic high beams in my car if they work well. And having an automatic mode that's turned on by default might mean that I don't need to spend as much time messing with my high-beam brightness, and that's great. In a world where they worked perfectly, I might never even need to learn how to adjust the beam brightness myself. But I still want the behavior of different beam brightness in different contexts.

There's a trap designers fall into sometimes where they say, "settings are too hard for users, therefore the headlights should only have one brightness." If a bunch of users are asking you about something, that means they're engaged with and care about the functionality they're asking about. It might of course indicate that different defaults should be set, or that UI should be reorganized. And if you can do the right thing automatically, then you might be able to get rid of a lot of those support calls by doing that instead. But make sure you actually can first, because users are signaling with those support calls that they do care about that feature/behavior.
Just some reasoning really. Statistics and proper normalization are hard.

Tesla tends to say that autopilot crashes occur 1/2 as often as non autopilot crashes. That's likely not normalized to road conditions. But if you assume that Tesla is secretly just putting all the hard miles on the humans, then that would imply humans are driving many more hard miles and should have higher accident rates. The autopilots meanwhile must be performing worse on the easy miles and racking up additional accidents that wouldn't have otherwise happened.

If you combine those two, the overall rate of accidents should be higher than average, but it's actually lower by a fair margin. Again, normalization is hard.

Ideally you would be able to compare human drivers of another comparable car brand to the human drivers of Tesla to confirm the Tesla drivers don't seem to be being judged on unreasonably difficult conditions.
Right! A few years ago, claiming that a robot car would drive as safely as a human driver would have been an incredible claim. Just saying.
You're talking about the Amazon app. Technically, the fact that you can add your credit card to pay for things violates the TOS. You never see anyone put up a fight against a giant.
It seems like a good reason to have settings be something that are _automatically exported / stored_, so that you can put them in version control and re-fetch them later, or at least export/import.
AI is being aggressively applied to areas where AI practitioners are domain experts. Think programming, data analysis etc.

Programmers and data scientists might find ourselves among the first half of knowledge workers to be replaced and not among the last as we previously thought.
Not really? I mean I would never say "let me know when computer can do X" when X is something that doesn't require too much creativity and imagination. Like, a computer composing music, doesn't impress me too much because music itself has structure. A computer creating music that would wow a professional composer? That would be impressive. Same with this topic. A computer that solves some (because it failed several) short programming challenges and OP says it will kill programming entirely? Not even close. Pretty cool though.
John Poindexter (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Poindexter>), Reagan's National Security Advisor:

* First in his Naval Academy class

* PhD from Caltech

* Reached flag rank

After leaving office because of the Iran-Contra scandal (during which Poindexter reportedly set up a secret communications channel on the IBM PROFS system the NSC used), Poindexter became a software developer!
I had to write dozens of long technical documents for a company that used Garamond as their standard font.

Except that the guy who designed the templates used a Mac and had no idea how bad the Garamond font looks on Windows.

The italic especially made my eyes bleed.

My solution when I couldn’t take it any more was to use an Adobe Garamond font and embed it in the document…
> One of the small preferences we introduced in the Linear app is not displaying the mouse cursor pointer over links. We want to mimic the feeling you natively have on the desktop with our Mac app.

Hmm. This might actually be an example of settings as a result of design failure.

The text in the screenshot describes the setting as applying not just to links but to "any interactive element". But most native desktop apps (which they're trying to mimic) would use a special cursor for links and a regular mouse cursor for other interactive elements, so it seems that (by entangling links and other interactive elements) the setting allows a choice of two incorrect behaviours instead of just behaving correctly by default.
Some puzzles cannot be solved with constraint propagation alone, but require trial and error at some point.
Exactly. A math study is not a "study" in the sense of "hey i saw a funny pattern in some data maybe it's a sign of my pet theory" - it's literally already proven when published. There's nothing more to do.
The difference between me and you is that I implement neural nets professionally. Here is one of my (non-professional) open source projects: https://NN-512.com

I'm sure if you understood what the transformer was doing, you would be less impressed.
It is only dangerous thinking with the most uncharitable interpretation of what I wrote.
> I found it hard to stay focused because the applications and usefulness of the concepts weren’t immediately obvious

Yep, I had that experience with electronics, but I applied the lesson you’re pointing to - you need to have practical projects that are relevant to you (that you care about), and then learn by working through problems and concepts as they present themselves on the road to solutions. I guess that makes me a hands-on learner, though I appreciate the conceptual once I have enough practical exposure to provide context.
> tweeting about the time she put a cocky man in his place is deliberately (and, maybe, justifiably) antagonistic

Are you referring to the bit where a man told her something and she agreed with him? That's what you are calling deliberately antagonistic?
He's a pen tester. It's free advertising.
It's weirdly difficult to get grep to search for fixed binary strings, with lots of gotchas if you don't understand grep internals. I still don't, but this is the best I have been able to do after knocking my forehead on three or four of said gotchas:

LC_ALL=C grep -larP '\x1A\x2B\x3C\xFF'
Despite the title (a title with a question in it invites people to comment without reading the post, even more than the usual already high level), this is a really good post IMO, with valuable insights into not just mathematics but also the replication crisis elsewhere. (And it does discuss Mochizuki's claimed proof of the abc conjecture, and links to MathOverflow on formalization with proof assistants, to a recent paper discussing Vladimir Voevodsky's views, etc.) This from the first part is sound:

> The replication crisis is partly the discovery that many major social science results do not replicate. But it’s also the discovery that we hadn’t been trying to replicate them, and we really should have been. In the social sciences we fooled ourselves into thinking our foundation was stronger than it was, by never testing it. But in math we couldn’t avoid testing it.

But the post doesn't stop there! The second part of the post (effect sizes etc), with the examples of power posing and the impossibly hungry judges, is even more illuminating. Thanks!
Because they are buying an expensive, new car, meaning higher income, meaning that those things are less likely : https://academic.oup.com/alcalc/article/46/6/721/129644
Don't make me tap the sign.

https://ometer.com/preferences.html
I’m on the fence about intent. It could easily be a team that wishes to limit the inputs to something “manageable.”
I think the idea is that bad guys would have to censor every visitor's ISP, which is a lot harder than censoring at just where it's hosted. The idea is that the latter, e.g., the way Amazon attacked Parler, won't be possible.
The skills are pretty easy to acquire, it is the maturity that is hard.
So to summarize:

- Freeways account for 93% of distance travelled with Autopilot

- Freeways account for 28% of the distance travelled by regular drivers.

- "vehicles on non-freeways crashed 2.01 times more often per mile"

a quick back of the envelop calculation suggests merely driving on the freeway lowers accidents per mile by ~40%, which accounts for most of the difference between Autopilot and regular drivers.
Or as noted in the article:

> But one of the distinctive things about math is that our papers aren’t just records of experiments we did elsewhere. In experimental sciences, the experiment is the “real work” and the paper is just a description of it. But in math, the paper, itself, is the “real work”.

And

> And that means that you can replicate a math paper by reading it.
Anyone who's interested in this topic should be watching Corridor Crew. They spend a lot of time analyzing why good CGI is good and bad CGI is bad, how great CGI can be invisible, and how, yes, practical effects are grounded in a way that can be difficult (but not impossible) to replicate with computer imaging.
From the paper:

(1) Statistics obtained from Hardmanet al.(2019)
(2) Statistics obtained from Blanco et al.(2016)
(3) Statistics obtained from Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences (2013)

I don't understand how such chronologically disparate sets of data could produce reliable statistics. The Telsa demographic data (1) was from a "2018 demographic survey of 424 Tesla owners"