skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Life saving Jira tickets?
Cool but I’ve found two bugs in the first few seconds of using it. Not ready for production IMO.
Change your mind about what? The performers aren't trying to convince you they have psychic powers, they're trying to convince you to buy a ticket to their show.

Anyway, think this through. Derren Brown claims not to use stooges, and has been doing tricks like these on stage (per his wiki page) for 19 tours each averaging 50-100 nights. If he's using stooges, he's going through an awful lot of them, isn't he? Including his TV work, there must be thousands of people in the UK that could go on TV and blow the lid on the whole thing. I ask you, which is the more impressive feat of mentalism: keeping all of those people quiet, or guessing that an audience member drew a picture of a cat?
Yeah, for sure a bit unhinged. Maybe with reason though.
How about black holes?
By your logic, Osama bin Laden and/or rather the instructors under him were only engaging in free peaceful expression when they were training men how to be engage in war and acts of terrorism against the United States and the West.

There has to be a limiting principle, and we have one in the law: giving comfort and aid to enemies of the United States and exporting controlled technology to sanctioned countries are prosecutable offenses. Sounds scary, but even those laws are limited.
Oh I’m sure that Comcast the company knew about a serious issue plaguing a huge percent of their modems. It’s likely they just decided to play dumb so that they didn’t have to do anything about it. A calculation was done and fixing or even acknowledging the issue would have been more expensive. So don’t even tell the front line support people about it.
Latest Data Shows SOFR Trading Soaring
I think the answer here is somewhere in between. You're right that there will probably never be someone with a comprehensive understanding of low level programming who is also a physics prodigy and understands every minute detail of computers, but that doesn't make it "magic". We build abstractions in layers so everyone can granularly learn what matters to them and ignore the parts that don't. The amount of magic in a computer is inversely proportional to how deep you are in the abstraction layers, but I don't think that means it can't be understood.

The word "grok" does a pretty good job of summing up how I feel on it. I think most people can grok a computer, but that doesn't mean they could tell you every detail about it's use/manufacturing/operation/architecture/lithography. But we know enough to have a working knowledge, and for the purposes of this question I think that's what matters. Computers are designed to output predictable, reproducable behavior. They are meant to be unferstood by design.
Original URL currently offline. https://web.archive.org/web/20220414041010/https://nickfa.ro...
Yeah, that's the thing I think you imagine is true but actually isn't. I'd guess that the majority of HN readers don't do this, assuming they represent average technical employee across the industry. They probably _could_ if they needed to.. but I bet they don't. (Just based on my sample of: all the people I've worked with).
So the hypothetical UX designer for a new mobile app showed serious incompetence by allowing the infrastructure cloud team to mess up ops?

whether this is cancel culture not it definitely looks like finding an easy target to shout at
> "Guessing names is a very common stage trick; here's Derren Brown getting the name of someone's pet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1IV_kkh1Xs"

Oh, but it IS an act of non-mental tricks (confederates, research, etc). From the comments on the link you provided, and do note this person is appreciative of the showmanship of it all:

> "Notice how the letter F was clearly not random and he specifically chose that girl from the audience. What also wasn't random was that he asked specifically if she had any pets. He did research on one of his audience members beforehand and decided upon this girl and mind-reading a pet name - because she had her pet name on one of her social medias. What makes this even better is that they probably would have chosen a social media account she hadn't used in ages or a post from years ago to maximise disbelief. It wasn't mind-reading or looking intently at her face for plosive sounds or anything. It was just audience research and epic showmanship and story-telling."

Now, I like a good trick and I enjoy magic acts. But this has nothing to do with intuition or suggestibility or mind-reading of any kind.
Is this such a difficult skill that needs a dedicated in-depth post? I though this was the norm. I have always interviewed while having a job. In fact I would find it weird and risky to leave your job to focus exclusively on interviewing. Heck, often I have interviewed around with no intention of leaving my job, just to check the market and see if I still have an edge.
How about a really cheap Kindle version as well?

(I don't know much about selling on Amazon so I don't even know if this is a viable suggestion).

> And don't believe that people who have a free copy will never buy a formal edition

Yep!

Operating Systems: Three Easy Pieces is an excellent book which the authors have made freely available online.

After reading it for a while, I purchased a physical copy, both to support the authors for their excellent work, and also because I personally prefer physical books. Keep in mind that not everyone prefers physical books.

I mean, I could've easily printed the book as my college offered free printing. But I didn't.
> More and more (professional) apps use the gpu for compute.

I expect 3D rendering applications, video editing applications and image manipulation applications to use GPU, as they always have since they first could. Machine Learning uses GPU, but the bigger M1 chips have the Neural Engine for that, so maybe not so much anymore on macOS. I doubt anyone would bother mining crypto on commodity hardware. But when you refer to, "more and more (professional) apps," I don't know what you're referring to. DAWs will only use GPU for displaying the interface, iow, barely perceptibly, not for applying filters or effects on audio. Spreadsheets, accounting software, financial software, municipal software, inventory software won't need GPU. Desktop publishing applications don't need GPU. CAD software doesn't need GPU. Beyond rendering, video editing, accelerated image manipulation, Machine Learning, cryptomining and games, I don't know for what else a GPU can be used.

macOS uses GPU to drive displays and for the GUI, but hardly, and otherwise, not so much. Why would it? How could a GPU make system operating more efficient? Open up your Activity Monitor, under the Window menu open the GPU History window, and you can watch how macOS doesn't really utilize the GPU. It must use it for Quartz screen rendering, but it is such a tiny amount it doesn't even register.
Surely, Derren Brown's team talked to the lady, asked her a few questions like her name, her age, her dogs names etc, and fed that information to Derren. It's very easy with a few pieces of information like that to completely narrow it down to one person. You can see in the video, he asks for all the Fs to stand up, and he selects one person.

I'm sure there's more to mentalism, like reading body language but it feels like 90% magic (lots of prep work + hard work + presenting / misleading) and 10% improvisation.
This landing page is exceedingly light on explaining what problem they solve for me.
I don't know much about the M1.

But I can say for sure that Intel iGPUs, AMD GCN, AMD RDNA, AMD CDNA, and multiple NVidia-generations of GPUs all have hyperthread-like rescheduling of independent workgroups.

In fact, something like 8x wavefronts / warps run in parallel on modern GPUs. When one wavefront / warp stalls due to a memory read/write (or a PCIe read/write), the GPUs universally "hyperthread-out" and hide the latency.

Its "different" from how CPUs do it, but the fundamental principals are the same. (CPUs have a redundant set of registers tracked in a register file. GPUs on the other hand, have a set of registers and the kernel-scheduler (or whatever handles CUDAstreams) carefully assigns those registers to not conflict with any running wavefronts).

-------

The statement so listed is blatantly false, at least for Intel, AMD, and NVidia GPUs. Maybe Apple iGPUs are built different, but I find that unlikely.
No mention of how far away from the prediction the mass is?
I'm an undergrad and know nothing about GPUs so forgive me for these questions (I tried reading a bit just now). Where does the tile buffer come into play for GPGPU workloads?

From my simple understanding of it. TBDR GPUs extract performance by tiling and binning primitives and handing that out for rasterization. The multiple passes allow it to work on both at the same time? Kinda like how a CPU pipelines stuff? I thought GPGPU workloads means that it skips the rasterization stage? So what's the problem with treating it like an IMR.
Took about a year to finish a TradingView like app, with features TradingView doesn't have and missing features it has that I don't care about. Intention from the start is it's just for myself, as making publicly available would take longer plus time needed to support, which may or may not be recoupable even if I charge for it.
> definitely not lower than Digital Ocean

2 vcpu 8GB:

DigitalOcean $ 60 with 4 TB transfer

Oracle $ 25.75 with 10 TB transfer

(DigitalOcean includes local ssd, but you don't want to use that.)
I think you're being too kind - TFA strikes me as basically a long confused "if we assume X then we find X".

I mean, in the introduction the author gives a standard definition of the Gambler's Fallacy, but then he immediately says "but it can't really mean that, because that's clearly irrational". It's not very hard to prove something is rational if you start by rejecting definitions that are irrational!
I still haven't bothered switching my account over. It's a pretty awful move, not sure if I'll ever create another Microsoft account just to play the game.

Thanks for keeping things simple for my 700-some hours I've put in since middle school, Mojang. Your barebones but respectful competency will be missed.
I will name your startup
Hey folks! I've named several startups over the past few years and I think I have a knack for it. Great names I've come up with that have had domain names available include Ferryhome, Moonbeam, and Kaleidoscope. I'd be happy to help you come up with your name or help you find a new one! :)
You are bringing a very good point.

On the Google side, I think it’s an issue that has more consequences than just the moon landing.

For instance, for me “When is the francis election” (where I would have men “french or france instead of francis”) gives me a big and bold “Mar 13” with smaller below “Anniversary of the election of Pope Francis Observances” and an long anniversary Year/Week/Date table taking 80% of the widget display.

And as with the other examples, there is nothing showing the word approximations that has happened regarding to the original query.

There must thousands of other instances where a search result will come up with a big widget, an answer in big and bold font, except it will be completely wrong and have a direct impact on the user missing a deadline or taking the wrong action.

Of course users are supposed to know better and check the full result, but as you point out, if it’s almost always what they expected, they’ll learn to rely on it and be more complacent.
I agree, I love Penn and Teller and their style of magic. It _feels_ very science-y to me. Like they explain a trick but still blow your mind at the end of it. They show you they are masters of their craft, and most of the time (not always) they aren't trying to deceive you.

Mentalism on the other hand is the exact opposite. The only point is to impress you with pseudoscience, as far as I can tell.
Is this your password?!
Nobody likes using this stuff though. I think the new github boards might give jira a run for their money given the cost... free.
> How is insider trading a form of fraud?

It is a type of fraud because the insider is selling you a stock at a price they know is wrong (or buying it from you). They are hiding from you information that they know would affect your decision to trade.

Further, imagine that I as a CEO (or more realistically, executive team) buy a short contract on my own company's shares (through intermediaries, so people don't find out I did it), and then intentionally tank the company to force the stock price to go down at a later date. Wouldn't this be extremely similar to insurance fraud?

> If I own shares of company $x and an insider sells their shares of $x causing the stock to plummet, I do not lose anything. I still own those stocks, they’re just valued more accurately.

Again, you're assuming that the insider would trade at the new price. This is a completely unfounded assumption.

If I'm an insider and know that a company whose shares are currently worth 100$ will announce 0 revenue two months from now, I will sell my shares at 100$ to someone who still believes the company is doing ok. Depending on how big of an insider I am, I will have to do this carefully so as to keep up the ruse as long as possible - hopefully all the way to the announcement, when the stocks will plummet to 10$, and all the dupes who I got to pay me 100$ will be left holding the bag.

Now of course, if all insiders start trading away their stock, the price will start dropping, so maybe they won't be able to sell all their shares at 100$, maybe the price will settle at 90$ or 80$ or even lower. But if the market has been told the company is doing well in terms of sales (even though the insiders know its not) they will not allow the price to drop as low as it should.
Well, copper at least has the very nice property of only requiring electricity at the central phone node, and still have working communications.

This makes it the best option by far for communication in hour-long blackouts when, for instance, cell phones and cellphone towers would have ran down their batteries.
How would version control be done?
I believe that the article agrees with you, and is arguing for a narrower claim.
Hmm, well Go itself has gone through a ton of revisions where the GC saw large improvements. And other languages coming up are experimenting with various types of GCs. Its really up to the use case though.

With discord, I imagine a big reason why Rust was considered as an alternative to Go is because they already have a substantial Elixir codebase. Rust and Elixir have a very easy time communicating with one another via Erlang NIFs (native function interfaces). You can embed languages like C/C++/Rust into elixir without much overhead. While I've never personally tried do to such a thing with go, I can't imagine its a smooth experience. You'd probably need to use Ports or CNodes for Go simply for this reason.

I love go myself, but one of the biggest turn offs for the language is its FFI support for C and other C connected languages. CGo is a relatively expensive investment when compared to many other comparable alternatives and it should be avoided if possible.
Good angle. I'm just projecting my own experiences. I feel that I have a lot in common with him.
Me too. Not sure why artifact_44's comment is dead so I vouched for it, I don't see what is gained by throwing around psychiatric terms, used pejoratively, for no good reason (could there be a good reason on HN? I doubt it but I don't see one here).
Definition of Science:

1 a : a study where participants seek to disprove their own conjectures

b: the practice of getting excited when proven wrong because it means more work

2 : a complex study where everything that can go wrong will go wrong, often small or trivial errors (frequently difficult to observe) leading to insanity within participants as they have an existential crisis coming to terms with a new world paradigm, only to then have it shattered (again) when they realize their mistake.
Never mind stitches–it is possible to solder wounds closed
What bothers me a lot sometimes is that i fear there is a bug in the software mute. Specially when this is implemented separately by each VC software. The bug that even if you think you are muted, the software still fed the audio to the audience.

The reason i’m raising this is knowing software is very complicated nowadays and are more susceptible for bugs. The other day my MS teams froze. I closed the app and tried to open it again. That didn’t work. It felt like i merrily closed the frontend while the backend was stuck. I remember the days a window was a task, closing that window terminates the task. These days are over. Somehow these softwares are made so complicated, not sure for what reason, that the likelihood of introducing bugs is increased.

So taking this frontend-backend example. Imagine the mute button just sends the command to backend for mute but the backend failed to do so. And the frontend assumed all was fine. The user would have been misinformed.

I would use the (hardware) button that stops the audio at the microphone level all the time.
He does all sorts of stuff - card magic, big stage props, coins, mentalism, memory tricks, hypnosis, walking on broken glass, you name it - and as with any magic act, part of the fun is figuring out which is what. I did think the lottery thing was not a very good trick though, and the following special where he said he would reveal the trick was (I think) widely considered a disaster in his otherwise fairly successful career.
Many years ago I visited Buenos Aires, Argentina. In the flat parts of the city center, people would parallel-park their cars and leave them in neutral (very few cars had automatic transmissions) and without setting the parking brake. When you arrived and found a parking spot, there would be a man that, for some standard tip, would push all the cars in front or behind you, one at a time, until they were all bumper to bumper. This expanded the slot where you wanted to park, making your parking very easy.

When you wanted to leave, he would likewise push cars in front or behind you to widen the slot where you were, making it easy for you to pull out.
It would be awesome if you'd be willing to report them on GitHub :)

https://github.com/facebook/lexical/issues/new?assignees=&la...
This is interesting. Is there some way I can have access to this script?
Is bloody cold here. San Diego I get, but here?
The original commenter (OC) did not call for anyone to be fired. They stated an opinion; they did not make a demand.

The OC is directing us to information made public by Atlassian team members themselves. The OC did not make the information public. Anyone could find that information with little effort.

I’m not really sure why you attribute such intensity to the OC’s rather benign comments.
I’m willing to bet it’s AWS with 90% certainty - they seem to have very lenient card policies compared to other cloud platforms I’ve worked with. (GCP, on the other hand, won’t even accept debit card - only credit)
>Modern software and hardware systems contain almost unimaginable complexity amongst many distinct layers, each building atop each other. It is common — and substantially correct — to observe that no single human understands all of the layers in, say, a modern web application, starting from the transistors and silicon up through micro-architecture, the CPU instruction set, the OS kernel, the user libraries, the compilers, the web browser, and Javascript VM, the Javascript libraries, and the application code, not even to mention all the network services invoked in loading that code.

>In the face of this complexity, it’s easy to assume that there’s just too much to learn, and to adopt the mental shorthand that the systems we work with are best treated as black boxes, not to be understood in any detail.

>I argue against that approach. You will never understand every detail of the implementation of every level on that stack; but you can understand all of them to some level of abstraction, and any specific layer to essentially any depth necessary for any purpose.
I used to walk around with a queen of hearts in my pocket and, as a party trick, ask a female friend or acquaintance to "name a card, any card, just not ace of spades, everybody picks an ace for some reason". If I got it right, I'd produce the card, otherwise I'd blurt out some "character reading" bs based on what card they picked as an "out".

I learned the trick from a Derren Brown book in which he describes a much more elaborate version. You would be amazed how well it worked. It's just one of those things: A number between 1 and 5? 3. 1 and 10? 7. 1 and 20? 17. And the famous "red hammer" trick. Humans are lousy PRGs.

Of course I could hide several cards in several pockets to increase my chances but that would be "cheating".
Ask HN: How to build a startup when your network is zero?
Can I build a successful business if I don't know whom to talk after building my SaaS product? Can internet alone help me to build a successful SaaS business?
Wouldn't it be the opposite? If I had to rotate passwords frequently I'd want to use a password manager that could handle it for me.
We know the standard model is wrong. It explicitly calls itself out.

New physics are the only thing that can guide discovery of the correct answer.
They are ridiculous. Nonetheless, they are legal obligations.