skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I played with a similar idea a while ago: https://github.com/ecordell/cuezel/ (cuezel as in: "Bazel but with CUE"), but I was never sure that what I was doing was in the spirit of CUE.

CUE pushes nondeterminism into "_tool.cue"[0] files that are allowed to do things like IO and run external processes. Tool files scratch a similar itch to Makefiles, but they lack an integrated plugin system like Bazel (hence why I played with the idea of CUE + Bazel).

With Dagger you seem to be restricted to the set of things that the dagger tool can interpret, just like with my Cuezel tool you are limited to what I happened to implement.

In CUE `_tool` files you are also limited to the set of things that the tool builtins provide, but the difference is that you know that the rest of the CUE program is deterministic/pure (everything not in a _tool file).

There's clearly value in tooling that reads CUE definitions, and dagger is the first commercial interest in CUE that I've seen, which is exciting.

But I'm most interested in some CUE-interpreter meta-tool that would allow you to import cue definitions + their interpreters and version them together, but for use in `_tool` files to keep the delineation clear. Maybe this is where dagger is heading? (if so it wasn't clear from the docs)

[0]: https://pkg.go.dev/cuelang.org/go@v0.4.2/pkg/tool
Doesn't Linux create device files in userspace these days, anyway? I thought that's what that udev stuff was all about. So I'm not sure that the Plan9 workflow is inherently unfeasible, there's just no idiomatic support for it just yet.
Sequoia, FTX Ventures and A16Z Lead $135M Investment in Crypto Firm Break
And more useful, too. They can be turned into things like Pez, or Tic Tacs.
> Ignorance of how your language works is a bad thing.

And I never said anything remotely close to contradict this statement.

> Knowing where performance issues with certain techniques might arise is not premature optimization.

It is:

- Python: should I use a for loop, a list comprehension or the map function?
- C++: should I use a std::list, std::vector, ...?
- Go: should I use interface{} or generics?

The difference between those options is subtle and completely unrelated to the problem you want to solve.

> Implement with an appropriate level of care, including performance concerns.

Step 1: solve your problem naively, aka: make it work
Step 2: add tests, separate business logic from implementation details, aka: make it right
Step 3: profile / benchmark to see where the chokepoints are and optimize them, aka: make it fast

Chances are that if you have deeply nested loops, generics vs interface{} will be the last of your problems.

To take the C++ example again, until you have implemented your algorithm, you don't know what kind of operations (and how often) you will do with your container. So you can't know whether std::list or std::vector fits best.

In Go, until you have implemented your algorithm, you don't know how often you will have to use generics / reflection, so you can't know what will be the true impact on your code.

The "I know X is almost always faster so i'll use it instead of Y" will bite you more often than you can count.

> Not every kind of poor performance appears as a clear spike in a call graph

CPU usage, memory consumption, idling/waiting times, etc... Those are the kind of metrics you care about when benchmarking your code. No one said you only look at spike in a call graph.

But still, to look for such information, you need to have at least a first implementation of your problem's solution. Doing this before is a waste of time and energy because 80% of the time, your assumptions are wrong.

> and even fewer can be fixed without changing any external API.

This is why you "make it work" and "make it right" before you "make it fast".

This way you have a clear separation between your API and your implementation details.
Their reliability score does not take into account severity. Most things reported are super minor, and all are within the first year. Luxury cars are the 'worst' in these surveys, because owners are pickier.

True reliability metrics are average years on the road and miles driven.
Not really sure what you're on about here. There's a time and place where bending the rules is possible. Attempting to get a government issued ID and not following the basic rules of showing up in person is not really one of them in my book.
It is sold over the counter in most US pharmacies under the Vicks inhaler brand. The active ingredient label conveniently uses a spelling that most people will not recognize which is probably effective in preventing alarm from customers who aren't familiar with the dramatic difference in the effects of the two enantiomers.
It's *one* political party wants to make taxes hard so people hate it. If your taxes are simple and if you misfile something, government will fix it before sending you refund or send you notice that you owe them. That means IRS can calculate the taxes. But it doesn't have authority for send you prefilled tax documents.
Sounds like a thing you can do with Uber already.
I run a Discord for this [0] and I started a virtual software internals meetup as well [1]. Next event is tomorrow at 8pm ET with Simon of Napkin Math and Philip O'Toole, author of rqlite.

Basically looking for people interested in hacking on databases, compilers, emulators, browsers, operating systems, distributed systems, etc. Anything cool software internals? Come hang out. Introduce yourself in #hacking-introductions.

But also, you're in the right place. Hacker News and Lobsters are great communities for this. Plus good quality Reddits like /r/programminglanguages, /r/compilers, /r/emudev, /r/databasedevelopment, /r/networkdevelopment, etc.

The /r/emudev sub has an awesome Discord server and I hear the /r/programminglanguages sub has an awesome Discord too.

[0] discord.multiprocess.io

[1] meetup.com/hackernights
In banking and financial services we have regulations that require "model validation". Any automated decision needs to be tracked and compliance needs to check the decisions to see that they are sound. They were required after the financial crash in 2008 in order to get a better handling on financial risk modeling, but the laws were written broadly enough that they apply to other automated decisions in financial institutions. We could take lessons from these regulations and apply them elsewhere.
does docker slowdown the server if you have too many images running?
One side is doing whatever they can to force everyone to not only accept but live their views, impose their restrictions, and snatch up as much "emergency" power as legally possible. All because they see themselves as morally superior and more intelligent than the other side. They're the smarties "following the science".

And so now we find ourselves at the unceremonious end of this pandemic. One day we woke up and restrictions are gone. Fear mongering by the media and our government is gone. COVID is old news. Kinda strange, huh?

Regardless of which group an individual falls into, I believe all people intuitively know that this crisis was at best exaggerated and at worst manufactured, but absolutely exploited to the max. Now that the fear binge is over, we can see that arbitrary and ultimately unnecessary restrictions were imposed on us, how purchasing power has been eroded, countless choices and freedoms taken from them without any recourse.

We should all be mad and unruly. Something is deeply broken and wrong which allowed power hungry individuals to POINTLESSLY disrupt so many lives for so long.
By that timeline they never fully terminated the association with H. H went from FTE to consultant, who had privileges for what he was working on.
and disadvantages being it will be never as clean, as easily optimizable or debuggable, as the one implemented in language.

UFCS is better than C++ ranges. builtin sum types are better than std::variant, etc..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peep_and_the_Big_Wide_World

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocoyo
Party that doesn't believe in effective government sabotaging all efforts to make government effective. It's been documented; it is literally what they claim to do.
The article also ignores that e.g. the CUDA API looks nothing like a local function call. People are explicitly aware when they are launching GPU kernels.
> Regarding The Bell Curve, it being a poor academic work (i.e. technical critiques) is probably the main reason it is so heavily criticized. It used deeply flawed studies to back up its case, the conclusions did not logically follow the premise, it relied on dubious assumption with weak justifications, etc.

The main reason Murray gets criticized is for his alleged racism and his politics. The attempts I've seen to discredit his actual arguments tend to be more self-righteous than serious.

I haven't read all of The Bell Curve (though I have read the sections that deal with race) but I have read other works of his, as well as criticisms of those works, and to my layman's eyes I find little credit can be given to his critics. Indeed, Murray often goes to great lengths to highlight to what extent each of his claims can be supported by facts, and does a great deal to acknowledge where there is disagreement in the scientific literature.
It may be that good critiques exist, but they are hard to find in the deluge of low quality hit-pieces.

> The fact that it then goes on to advocate for conservative policies based on such a weak case is why people conclude it is simply a racist work masquerading as academic

Frankly, this is why it's so hard to take his critics seriously. The only practical effect of the political Left's use of the label "racist" is to inhibit critical thought. We've spent much of this discussion talking about his alleged racism, when it still has nothing to do with the actual core thesis of The Bell Curve or my initial reasons for citing him.

> In an alternative world where the premise wasn’t of such poor scientific quality and the findings were sound, I bet people would still criticize it, but the overall reaction would be different. We would be trying to find a way to accommodate groups of lower IQ. Social scientists would try to identify barriers and advocate for their removal etc.

What do you think Murray's advocated policies entail?

Regardless, in a world in which people acknowledged group differences, there would still be genuine differences of opinion in how best to address those differences.

>However given this work’s poor scientific quality, the whole notion that this group different a) exists, b) is significant, c), is innate d) is immutable, and e) largely inherits, should simply be ignored as false. Our current scientific understanding does not allow us to conclude this, or at the very least. This book is wrong in reaching these conclusions.

That group differences exist is an incontrovertible fact. The extent to which those differences are driven by genetics is certainly up for debate, but Murray never claimed (and indeed, specifically argued against) that those differences were completely genetic.

The idea that genetics has no role to play in group differences is quite astounding, and attempts to defend that position tend to fall afoul of Lewontin's Fallacy[1].

[1]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12879450/
Hyperbolic for sure but I do not think it is naive at all. Facebook has proven many times over they are basically the Mafia of Silicon Valley and nothing they say should be trusted or taken at face value.

That being said there are many other threats to western society and while many or most of those will exploit Facebook as much as they can for influence they will continue to exist should Facebook fall.
That is basically how "grass roots" lobbying works. Someone starts a group - like the ACLU or AU - raises some money, and then uses that to either support themselves while lobbying in Washington or to hire a dedicated lobbyist while they focus on fundraising.
Golang: When 'nil' Isn't
To be clear, the book is significantly more nuanced than the title might suggest.

It's ultimately a study of affordances, thinking about what makes paper useful beyond merely storing information.

That's as relevant as ever, even if many of paper's uses have been superseded today.
"i was going to sign up for this but now im really afraid now"

If you were seriously considering signing up for the study, I encourage you to contact the investigators who are running the study and/or MAPS and voice your concerns.

Not only would it help them understand what concerns prospective study participants have, but they may be able to answer your concerns to your satisfaction.
I think you're contradicting yourself. You end up with fewer third party dependencies in C because C developers end up rewriting from scratch what they would otherwise import, and these rewrites have much less battle-testing than popular libraries in other languages. Moreover, they also have more opportunity for failure since C is so much less safe than other languages. Even in those few libraries which have received "decades of battle-testing" we still see critical vulnerabilities emerge. Lastly, you're implying a dichotomy between C and JS in a thread about Go, which doesn't have the same dependency sprawl as JS.
> I would like some kind of visual feedback

Good idea. Maybe the car can turn on an indicator when it has made the decision it is going to move, something that even gives an idea of where it is intending to move.
> Inlining code is great. Monomorphization is a total win for systems programming languages: it is, essentially, the only form of polymorphism that has zero runtime overhead

Blowing your icache can result in slowdowns. In many cases it's worth having smaller code even if it's a bit slower when microbenchmarked cache-hot, to avoid evicting other frequently used code from the cache in the real system.
Didn’t they also drop the alcohol percentage? It’s 10% now (I know this because post Covid I seem to be catching EVERYTHING), I could have sworn it was 14% or higher growing up.
I thought it was really interesting that they fixated on 6502 NES and then Raspberry PI. If you were going to make something that hoped would work anywhere anytime including far into an unknown future, I think Raspberry PI is the platform you would work on. Nxn looks really cool.
The article is about "AM radio", which I think is commonly understood to be medium wave (also known as "AM band") transmissions.

https://www.fcc.gov/general/am-radio
It mostly solves this problem:

- write code

- run tests

- commit code

- update CI

- commit

- CI broken

- update CI

- commit

- CI broken

- update CI

- ...

The workarounds for this are generally awful.

For Jenkins, you stage your own instance locally and configure your webhooks to use that. It's exactly as terrible as it sounds, and I never recommend this approach.

For Travis and Concourse (I think), you can use their CLI to spin up a runner locally and run your CI/CD yaml against it. It works "fine," as long as you're okay with the runner it creates being different from the runners it actually uses in their environment (and especially your self-hosted runners).

In GitHub Actions, you can use Act to create a Dockerized runner with your own image which parses your YAML file and does what you want. This actually works quite well and is something that threatens Dagger IMO.

Other CI systems that I've used don't have an answer for this very grating problem.

Another lower-order problem Dagger appears to solve is using a markup language to express higher-level constructs like loops, conditionals, and relationships. They're using CUE to do this, though I'm not sure if hiring the creator of BCL (Borgmon Configuration Language) was the move. BCL was notoriously difficult to pickup, despite being very powerful and flexible. I say "lower-order" because many CI systems have decent-enough constructs for these, and this isn't something I'd consider a killer feature.

I also _also_ like that it assumes Dockerized runners by default, as every other CI product still relies on VMs for build work. VMs are useful for bigger projects that have a lot of tight-knit dependencies, but for most projects out there, Dockerized runners are fine, and are often a pain to get going with in CI (though this has changed over the years).
> Systems/infrastructure code on the other hand is subject to very different economics. It runs all the time. The ratio of development time to runtime is incredibly small. We should optimise the heck out of infrastructure code to drive down resource usage whenever possible.

I will assume by "infrastructure code" you mean things like kernels and network stacks.

Unfortunately there are several intertwined issues here.

First, we pay in completely different ways for writing this software in manually-managed languages. Security vulnerabilities. Bugs. Development time. Slow evolution. I don't agree with the tradeoffs we have made. This software is important and needs to be memory-safe. Maybe Rust will deliver, who knows. But we currently have a lot of latent memory management bugs here that have consistently clocked in 2/3 to 3/4 of critical CVEs over several decades. That's a real problem. We aren't getting this right.

Second, infrastructure code does not consume a lot of memory. Infrastructure code mostly manages memory and buffers. The actual heap footprint of the Linux kernel is pretty small; it mostly indexes and manages memory, buffers, devices, packets, etc. That is where optimization should go; manage the most resources with the lowest overhead just in terms of data structures.

> GC has significant memory and CPU overhead. I don't want to spend double digit resource percentages on GC for software that could be written differently without being uneconomical.

Let's posit 20% CPU for all the things that a GC does. And let's posit 2X for enough heap room to keep the GC running concurrently well enough that it doesn't incur a lot of mutator pauses.

If all that infrastructure is taking 10% of CPU and 10% of memory, we are talking adding 2% CPU and 10% memory.

ABSOLUTE BARGAIN in my book!

The funny thing is, that people made these same arguments back in the heyday of Moore's law when we were getting 2X CPU performance ever 18 months. 2% CPU back then was a matter of weeks of Moore's law. Now? Maybe a couple of months. We consistently choose to spend the performance dividends of hardware performance improvements on...more performance? And nothing on safety or programmability? I seriously think we chose poorly here due to some significant confusion in priorities and real costs.
A7 SII has continuous autofocus now via a firmware update? That would be very exciting to me.
Sure, but the argument in this thread suggests that the US is making an overall loss by funding the research carried out by foreign nationals. This is hardly the case - the value of the research is worth more than the manpower costs spent on them. Is there greater value to be had by encouraging them to stay within the country? For sure.

Look at postdocs - the US gets them at a pittance, they are more productive than PhD students and rather mentor them; and unlike graduate students, are usually overwhelmingly foreign nationals.
I am one of those 70,000, moved out of Russia, currently in Georgia. I'm no infiltration force, and I'm not any kind of force really. Outside Russian borders, I'm able to work with my clients all over the world again. Here are my feelings and thoughts if you're interested: https://www.facebook.com/vladstudio/posts/10157916079336377
> The harsh reality is that there is no single thing a 1x person can do to become 10x.

Any evidence for this? You may say there's no evidence that a 1x person can work up to 10x its performance, but stating it's impossible without evidence lacks merit.
Strange that you were reading all the comments about the article you weren't interested in...
Chris Rock has a few brilliant, hyperbolic, minutes on how in some neighborhoods "tussin" is a cure-all.
Apologies you're right. I oversimplified.

Though I would assert that my premise for this particular distribution held true and that binned analyses were misleading. I tried to find the article. I could not.

This particular example was had no lower bound on the left below overweight, and was skew right with the peak of the curve in this lowest category if memory serves. I remember thinking it was visually obvious that the bin would get on average fatter but I suppose it does not generalize.
That ad for A2hosting is bringing me back!
It must pain you deeply whenever you look at your car radio and it says "AM" and "FM" instead of "medium wave" and "ultra-short wave".
Show HN: Wordle Duel
Wordle Duel hosted at replit. Backend uses Node.js and socket.io; frontend is in React and Typescript.

Demo video available at: https://twitter.com/ersinesen2020/status/1508519183637696519
This means that either your calibration mechanism for 'wrong side' is flawed, or the system is rigged in a way that it consistently produces bad outcomes.

Speaking for myself, am shocked and outraged that red senators and other congresscritters are consistently on the wrong side of seemingly everything, yet they keep getting elected. Of course, my political calibration mechanisms are quite in tune.
Does anyone else develop a sense of cognitive dissonance while considering the concept of an end-to-end encrypted workplace where employees are encouraged to speak mostly in public channels?
You can 'disable' a core in Linux pretty easily, although I'm not sure to what extent you'd consider this graceful (in the sense that you write to a system file and then some magic, which may be arbitrarily complicated I guess, happens in the background. So it doesn't seem equivalent to just yanking a core from the package, if that were possible).
That's true and all, but the person I was replying to already has a federal passport, which suffices for all levels of state ID.
Which category does vector databases belong in?
There is a very similar cycle with a lot of financial fraud.
There's an up to date version following modern specs linked in the twitter thread:

https://twitter.com/OrphisFlo/status/1508954585993461763
http://wpt.live/acid/acid3/test.html
Use a browser that let's you disable JS by default and whitelist websites where you have no choice.
People often contrast loot boxes with Magic the Gathering: "At least you can resell your cards", but this makes it more like gambling, not less! CS:Go has far greater potential for economic harm & fraud--due to resale--than the much hated Star Wars loot boxes.
I know exactly what you mean. Earlier versions of Dagger actually took this "embedding" approach: any CUE configuration is a valid Dagger configuration, with an extra layer of annotation that describes how to make that configuration runnable. What we learned is that this model is thoroughly confusing to almost everyone except hardcore CUE enthusiasts.

Now we use CUE in a more straightforward way: as a superior replacement for YAML. There's a (simple) schema that all Dagger plans must follow; beyond that, you can import any CUE package and apply any definition into your plan. But you don't need to go upstream and annotate these packages with additional Dagger metadata.

I'm not sure if my explanation is clear - even I get confused by this embedding business sometimes.