skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
People cost money to exist and show up for work.

A business that cannot fully fund it's labor is not a business. Who wants to pay a subsidy, which is exactly what happens when labor is underfunded, just so someone can mooch for profit? I don't.

The answer to your question is we simply do that labor ourselves.
If it's an asteroid what is night even like? It seems like it'd be a lot less extreme than a planet.

I could imagine a plant that walks along the surface to stay in the sunlight.

Maybe lay down roots all over the asteroid to do the refining and have long tethered leaves always in the sun.

If the leaf stalks can grow at the same rate as the asteroid rotation, just keep growing and wrapping the asteroid until you're left with nicely spooled refined materials.

I don't think a hot blooded plant is practical or necessary, but there is enough energy that it could be possible.
Could you please tell me what generation is your 12.9” iPad? I am thinking about getting an older model for annotating papers, taking notes, and to use as a whiteboard during Zoom calls. I am trying to figure out what is the oldest model that would be appropriate for these tasks. Would the first gen be performant enough?
I'm dipping my toes into self hosted services, but I haven't tackled photos yet. Ars Technica reviewed a few photo options last year:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/06/the-big-alternatives...
I haven’t watched that video, but I agree — the index is one of the biggest hurdles to making git easy to understand and use for newcomers. It’s not hard to explain the fundamental model of how git works — it’s hard to explain the UI, and it’s hard to explain the index. If you remove the index, you’re only working with commits, and that simplifies the UI enormously.
Have you checked section 9.1 of the System V ABI doc?
Forcing their employees to learn rust doesn't mean Google has the capacity to rewrite all their software in rust. They have tons and tons of code which would need to be rewritten from scratch.

Of course if they dropped all other development and told their employees to rewrite to rust, they may end up with a piece of software written in rust but no customers.
Whenever Tipasa comes up, I always think of Camus's quote from "Return to Tipasa":

> But in order to keep justice from shriveling up like a beautiful orange fruit containing nothing but a bitter, dry pulp, I discovered once more at Tipasa that one must keep intact in oneself a freshness, a cool wellspring of joy, love the day that escapes injustice, and return to combat having won that light. Here I recaptured the former beauty, a young sky, and I measured my luck, realizing at last that in the worst years of our madness the memory of that sky had never left me. This was what in the end had kept me from despairing. I had always known that the ruins of Tipasa were younger than our new constructions or our bomb damage. There the world began over again every day in an ever new light. O light! This is the cry of all the characters of ancient drama brought face to face with their fate. This last resort was ours, too, and I knew it now. In the middle of winter I at last discovered that there was in me an invincible summer.
I see two issues with this. First, there may be other reasons for a reproducible build than simply "trust". This paper only focuses on that one use case.

For example, the ability to exactly reproduce a bug much later and then patch or study it. Say a customer reports a severe bug in a 5 year old build with a specific patch-set something like 3.1.8p16 with the blahmode 2.6 update installed or something. But you'd look foolish if you said we can't find the binaries, don't have the ability to rebuild them, and wouldn't know exactly what sources exactly were used "back then". What happens if it's important to forensically study, like in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25 software case? In any case it's just unprofessional.

Secondly, if you are concerned about trust, it's not necessarily the simplistic scenario presented which is perhaps unintentionally a strawman.

In my view Security/Trust => CM => reproducible (=> means implies, not is-equivalent). In other words reproducible builds is a prerequisite of configuration management. If you cannot produce the same binary twice with the "same" source, something is wrong. Maybe you haven't captured some subtle dependency from the build environment? Does it matter? If you don't know what caused that difference, I don't believe you adequately know what went into your product. CM is next one of a set prerequisites for trust. If you don't know what went into your product, then you can't convincingly argue that there's nothing bad in it - because again you don't know.

Now back to Trust => CM => reproducible. That does not mean reproducible => trust. But it does mean that lack of reproducible => lack of trust.
Your two points are so incredibly key. I've felt and known this for a long time.

The last 5-6 years has made me thing so much of _why_ this is the case is rooted in:

1. Race and how people are perceived--the rise of race issues in the referenced period is so confusing to me, as I thought we were getting past them, but it is very clear that a huge percentage of the US population is still have 19th century views on race.

2. Certain companies (like Amazon) who few low-skilled workers as machines to use up and throw away.

As for the "inflation-adjusted minimum wage" ... the argument used to be "small businesses will suffer" but strangely I haven't heard that in a long time. In fact, I don't hear anyone refuting the idea of IAMW. It's so insane to me that we don't do this. Maybe that would give politicians an incentive to keep inflation low? (Because they want to keep the minimum wage as low as possible?)
> This would not hurt the poor.

I am always amazed by such statements. Are you sure you have thought this through? What do mean with “asymptotically flat”?

As with the poorly understood correlation/causation relationship in statistics, there are many common misconceptions about how absolute and relative amounts influence the result of mathematical calculations.

The following example may highlight this:
Let’s say a person’s minimum financial need to simply stay alive and sane is $X. Now, take two almost identical people that only differ in their income: A’s income is bigger than B’s.

If you tax them both at a flat 15% (or any other rate), the richer will always benefit more from this than the poorer! The reason is because living, eating, and taking part in a society do not come for free.

Surprisingly, this is commonly not well understood and it also seems there are proclivities by some fellow rich and comfortable folk to intentionally avoid understanding this.

Proof by example:
Let’s see what their effective tax is after all the cost to stay alive has been deducted.

Excess Income = Income * (1 - 15%) - X

Let’s say A’s income is $150k and B’s is $40k, and the minimum amount X required to simply stay alive (not being homeless and having health insurance included) would be $25k. These figures are obviously simplified but anyone can feel free to use their own numbers and repeat the calculation. The general result will remain similar.

Then, A’s excess income will be $102.5k and B’s $9k. Relatively speaking, A will have made almost 11.5 times the amount of excess income than B, despite making not even four times as much as B (3.75 to be exact).

Excess income will be the only thing both of them can use to save and invest, purchase a house, or use it for all kinds of safety-net building and stress-reducing things.
I think it's more about what parts of the internet people spend their time in.
Custody services and trading platforms are subject to courts. Cold wallets and trading peer-to-peer only gets you so far.

People keep forgetting that we live in a society. If you create a terrorist organization for example and people send you money without the involvement of banks the government won't just roll over for you. The courts can order the seizure of your assets, and you can be charged with obstruction of justice.
> [..] hey are always met with universal praise for being "worth the price".

> [..] and the group reaction was exactly the same.

A $7.99 bottle better be worth the price.
"The history of semiconductor engineering" was a great read.
As someone with experience in similar approaches - exhausting because of the effort to keep your attention focused on the desired object and away from the destructive loop?
The CPI is already corrupted and consistently below real COL increases because it’s tied to entitlements and taxes. It’s used as a tool to steal from the poor. Further tying it to minimum wage will only add more pressure to politicize and corrupt the CPI calculation. That is the failure point in all similar ideas.
Are there any legit businesses using the .ai TLD?
Yeah, that seems to have been a pretty popular book, but I've literally never seen it. At the time, no library near me had it available, and ordering it from the UK was just too expensive for 13-year-old-me. I did have my own ROM disassembly, in two school notebooks, that I still keep to this day. Mu handwriting was pretty bad already then, though, so I prefer to think of all this as "lost in time" anyway.

Decades later, I did (pre-)order and read "The ZX Spectrum ULA", which documents, in painful detail, the inner workings of the custom Ferranti chip that powered most of the Spectrum.

This really did drive home the message that, no matter how much I thought I understood the low-level workings of my Speccy, there were still many lower-level layers left to explore. Which, I guess, is the central lesson of IT...
But you don't actually need that level of performance? You've made this system more complex and expensive to achieve a requirement that doesn't matter?
It will allow it — just not fast, and if you want that, it still allows it, via Layer 2 solutions,

many of which guarantee the same security as their Layer 1.
Whether one is better than the other depends a lot on your individual use case and preferences.

Both types of storage have their strong suits. BackBlaze is great if you need an S3-compatible storage option that won't "max out" at any particular storage limit. The Hetzner option will be great if you want to be able to tinker around with a Linux instance and not pay for egress bandwidth.

If you're dealing with an amount of data that is consistently at the 100GB and don't have a large amount of egress, BackBlaze is the cheaper option. If you are storing closer to 1TB and do a fair amount of egress, the Hetzner option will be cheaper.
LOL "earn"

The top 1% take out of the economy a LOT more than they put in. Anything that limits their ability to "earn" is benefiting the rest of society. It is also benefiting the environment & future generations' resource availability.
Why don't Apple & Google spend a few billion dollars over a few years to rewrite their (non-crypto) unix stack from scratch? It seems like that would be an enduring competitive advantage, good for their users, and reduce future liabilities.

Every programming language can result in bugs, but some are worse/more frequent/harder to solve afterwards than others.

Better yet, why wasn't "rebuild commonly used standard libraries" in the US Infrastructure bill last year? The government could pay programmers a lot, and pay whitehat pen-testers a lot (+ per bug discovered) and in a few years of iteration, we'd have incredibly hardened, durable software infrastructure that would benefit us for decades to come, in the public domain.
Successful in me noting to avoid anything having to do with builder.ai and engineer.ai in the future. Although the .ai domain was going to heavily lean me that way anyway.
In Apple's case they wouldn't need to move everything to Rust. Swift is a little bit higher level and a lot of stuff could be moved into it, with Rust as the lower level layer to replace ObjC / C / C++.

Still a gargantuan effort, but for them it doesn't require everyone learn Rust, just to learn Swift, which is kind of table stakes for a lot of user facing dev I'm sure there.
On the negative side: In some environments it’s a hurdle to build programs in Rust.

On the positive side: It signifies a certain likelihood of memory and data safety that you won’t get in most other languages.
Probably 90 percent of minimum wage jobs will still be around if they raise it 50 percent. That would mean a large increase in money going to the bottom of the economy. That should help a lot of things. What to do about the 10 percent that end up jobless I dont know.
This is kind of how things work on some Facebook dating groups. You make a post with your dating ad and other users are free to trash you in comments.
I pay some of the highest taxes in the country in exchange for some of the worst highly-visible poverty and most dysfunctional public services. Either would be a huge improvement.
Note, though, that it depends on libgit2 (which is written in C). (As pointed out by someone in https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/issues/56.)
You can find counterexamples, but the big difference is how people reacted. Almost everyone thought Waco was unjust and excessive. Today many people (especially on the left) would say they had it coming. Meanwhile the right now openly talks about the need to regulate business more and Trump’s whole message was more about cracking down on others than freedom for his base.

Back then the left would have drawn the line at arbitrary freezing of the accounts of the trucker protestors. Today nobody cares. The right would never have tolerated January 6th. Now half of them think maybe democracy is a bad idea anyway.

If you’d released an expose back then of Facebook and its shadow profiles, people would have almost universally freaked out and boycotted Facebook. Today nobody cares.

Nobody would have gone for locked down devices and app stores then. Look up the reaction to Microsoft’s original “trusted computing” initiative and contrast it with today’s acceptance of walled gardens. Nobody cares.

Back then we built personal computers with the goal of serving the user. Now the shift is toward thin clients to get people into cloud silos to… uhh… serve the user in a different sense… more like that old “to serve man” Twilight Zone episode.

The biggest difference I see today is general public acceptance of technocracy, surveillance, and authoritarianism.
If you spend 5 minutes in a bank this is not surprising. Probably 99.99999% of most banking loan staff have zero input on if a loan is accepted or not. They just follow the rules set from on high and tell you yes or no to your face instead of a computer. Their job is really just to calm you down when you get rejected or tell you what you have to do to get accepted from their secret rules.

I even worked on a loan program years back to centralize a bunch of acquired banks. They literally told their staff not to tell customers there was nothing they could do and a set of rules in the computer made 99% of the decision for the loans now.
Watershed Rights FAQ (2017)
There’s many ways to do this without incentivizing single motherhood. It’s devastating for the children. It might make you feel high and moral but you’re actively hurting people.

Better solutions involve getting kids out of these homes for as much of the day as possible and surrounding them with positive role models from extremely early ages.
Dancing with the Devil: A Founder’s Guide to Working with Legal (2017)
CISA Compiles Free Cybersecurity Services and Tools for Network Defenders
I agree, but there's so many people at Google (132,000 if you can believe the search results), it's hard for me to believe they couldn't devote a small percentage of them to moving to a secure stack.
Minecraft, in the early days.

I think single-dev games start, similarly to startups, and gradually pick up small teams as they go. Minecraft fits that bill to a tee, I'm sure there are younger, more informed people here who could point to other examples.

The totality of direction that one solo person has over a project isn't actually all that important, in reality. Having one or two or three team members to rely on, delegate to, bounce ideas off, is way more effective towards getting things done, and especially on a schedule.
PoW tries to minimizes wealth concentration by imposing a competitive cost on obtaining coins. Of course it cannot reduce the wealth concentration already present in fiat. It can at best not make it much worse (as PoS does).
PoW still suffers from wealth concentration due to varying block subsidies over time, which is why I'm a strong supporter of uncapped emissions like 1 coin per second forever, which gives no advantage to early miners.
Isn't Google (allegedly) already doing this with Fuchsia?
Ah yes, I'll be back to check on all the solid filled 3d games the C64 had.

The C64 was a great music-synth with the capability to do 1 certain type of game kside scrollers) in 16 shades of brown vut that was it.

The sheer endless variety of games the Speccy supported knocked the C64 into a cocked hat.
Much longer delivery times, angry customers, prime cancellations, tainting the brand, losing market share...

Amazon's retail business has very thin margins. It's not running at AWS margins.
I would respectfully say that you are wrong. I speak from experience. At Netflix we tried to hire for around the clock coverage. But what ended up working much better was taking that same team and having each person on call for a week at a time, all based in Pacific Time.

Yes, you would get calls at 2am, sometimes multiple days in a row. But you were only on call once every six to eight weeks, and we scheduled out well in advance so you could plan your life accordingly.

As a bonus, for the five weeks you weren't on call, you were highly incentivized (and had the time) to build tools or submit patches to fix the problems that woke you at 2am.

> It requires (oh, the horror!) actually maintaining production standards, runbooks, and other documentation.

I disagree with this too. Documentation and runbooks are useless in an outage. Instead of runbooks, write code to do the thing. Instead of documentation, comment the code and build automation to make the documentation unnecessary, or at least surface the right information automatically if you can't automate it.
> As for C-style for loops, they are not obsolete by any stretch and any one who thinks so in think that the compiler can easily optimize a magical complex iterator without any problem. In languages without C-style for loops, you'll see people try to emulate them regardless with variables and a while loop, not just an iterator.

C-style for loops are used for three things:

- worse syntax for `for x in y..z`

- worse syntax for `for x in iterator` (although only C++ does this to my knowledge)

- being Clever, and the resulting code being unreadable

There's nothing to 'emulate'. C-style for loops are the ones doing the emulating, of range loops. It's just syntax for a particular kind of loop. There's nothing whatsoever different between a while loop and an infinite loop with a break condition, and there's nothing whatsoever different between a for loop and a while loop with a particular final operation.

But a while loop represents a construct that is useful more often than not, because you very frequently do want a break condition, while a for loop does not, because the condition-affecting operation is rarely at the end of the loop. It's precisely what I was talking about - adding it because C has it, and not because it is useful. Show me a use of a for loop that isn't an iterator and isn't a range, and I'll show you something that'd be far more readable as a while loop.

Oh, and Rust has conclusively proven that yes, you can in fact optimize ridiculously complicated iterators to tiny loops

> As for syntax, where does it say "don't use it"? I really don't understand why people state things without evidence.

You're right, I had it confused with a different feature: "The expression {} can be used for all types to act as a zero type. This is not recommended as it is not clear and if a type has a specific zero value shown above, please prefer that." Pretty much the exact same question, though.

> * Partial ranges with the _two_ range expressions (a..<b and a..=b) look awful and are inconsistent: `x[..<]` `x[..=]`, `x[..<n]` `x[..=n]`, `x[i..<]` `x[i..=]`

> * You effectively only ever want Python/Go like semantics with slicing because Odin is a 0-index language

It seems very odd to compare Odin's syntax with syntax that doesn't exist in any language, as proof that Odin's syntax is better. Why would you not compare it with the actual range syntax of a common language? Say, Rust. `x[a..=b]`, `x[a..b]`, `x[a..]`, `x[..a]`, `x[..]`, `for x in a..b`, `for x in a..=b`. I see no awful looking or inconsistent syntax there. The point is that no, there is no semantic difference between the two; a range of values between two endpoints is a universal construct, and iterating it means to scan across it, and slicing with it means to produce all the indices contained within it. And you say 'you effectively only ever want Python/Go like semantics with slicing' as though this wouldn't be true for range loops as well.
This blog has been very helpful to follow the recent trends and players from an investors standpoint - https://www.fabricatedknowledge.com
Can you share the file.json? I'd like to understand this difference better.
40 years. I must be old.

My ZX Spectrum was an upgrade from a ZX-81. I had the thermal printer and a microdrive at some point. I have a few microdrive cartridges still sitting around right here (I still have my Speccy and the microdrive as well).

Fond memories trying to write some simple programs, working around the various limitations. Monopolizing the family TV, sitting on the carpet in front of it tinkering with things...

Lots of games, lots of pirating (copying tapes around). I did actually buy a couple as well ;) Playing or programming with other friends that owned Spectrums (and some rivalry/jealousy with the guys with Commodore's or Apple II's).
This is an article about how to write theoretically better code (from a CS perspective) for a scientific use-case - but that is not the same thing as "better scientific code". For most purposes, the effort a scientist will go to in understanding how classes work (as an example) will outweigh any benefit they might see from using them.

One of the nice things about Python is that the programming style arrived at here is totally unnecessary - a point which was soundly missed by the author.
ITRS roadmaps were a very interesting read up to 2017 when they were stopped: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Technology_Roa...

I haven't looked at the IRDS roadmaps, but they're free with some registration to the IEEE.
Hard to answer this question well without a little bit of additional context. I'm very focused on the software side of things, so I am mostly familiar with resources that tackle how software interacts with various platforms and architectures.

I can recommend some resources in that vein (maybe they'll be useful if you/the reader have a software background):

The most frequently recommended book from a software perspective is "Computer Systems: A Programmer's Perspective" (http://csapp.cs.cmu.edu/3e/home.html).

For a nice gentle intro, you can also read "The Elements of Computing Systems" (https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/elements-computing-systems) that accompanies a course called "Nand2Tetris".

George Hotz also compiled a list of topics to cover to learn the computing stack from bottom-to-top (https://github.com/geohot/fromthetransistor).

These resources are mostly software-oriented, so they wouldn't give you much insight into modern chip fabrication, but if you're coming from a software background, may prove to be useful for building on what you already know.
I still have the book...