skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> This comment is saying "No one else here knows as much about this as I do", and little else.

No, it's not. Not at all.

But your comment is saying "How dare you suggest that we listen to experts? We all should have a say!". And that's the problem the gp post is pointing out. Do you argue like that with your doctor before surgery? With your lawyer before they defend you in court? With a chef before they cook a meal you ordered in a restaurant? No? Then why is education any different and suddenly everybody claims to know how it should work..
Some say it should be in a test.
Maybe I'm conceited but I think curiosity should guide you. Obviously something about ML inspires you. Envision what you want to achieve and fill the gaps as you go. Yes, there are more or less optimal ways to learn, but maybe it's more important to keep the fire alive than to push through quickly. The harsh truth is that maybe you still harbor an aversion for math. Most ML practitioners have dark spots, that's fine. But you need a genuine interest to navigate.
I've never said you should hire people who can't tell var from const.

I've said that even if you hire people who do know the basics of the language, and some algorithms, and even could solve a toy problem on paper, you might still hire someone who can't code at scale. Coding interviews typically don't test design skills, documentation skills, ability to not get lost on a larger code base, debugging skills, tendency to avoid hacks and increase tech debt etc.
That's a good point, I was calculating based on max thrust only. If we take in to account all the weight at take off, it'd be a much smaller section.
>> So ignore accessibility. It's not a legal requirement and it doesn't pay.

Firstly that is just plain incorrect in a lot of areas (of business) and jurisdictions. Secondly your outlook on accessibility is just ... SMH and walks away from keyboard.
become recognized as more intelligent
The issue with the tooth isn't a bug in the renderer. That's how the image is defined. The skull's teeth are two pixels wide. Their edges are stored as vectors, with yellow fill in places.

The missing tooth consists of a black line painted over the (already-drawn) teeth. It is one pixel wide, and it either covers both pixels of the tooth's width due to being drawn over a pixel boundary, or it covers the lower (rightmost) half of the tooth while the upper half is covered by the strangely pointed jawline that you can see in the "upscaled" image. The "upscaler" sees that it's defined as a line and renders it at the width of a line, which ruins the artwork, but it's a faithful interpretation of the stored data if you really believe that the stored data is vector art rather than compressed pixel art.

Exactly the same thing happens with the blue lighting on the same skull's forehead. As you can clearly see by looking at the original artwork, this is blue shading over a three-dimensional roughly spherical surface. But, because the image has a low resolution, the shading is defined as three vertical lines, one pixel wide each, which just happen to paint over the edge of the skull shape. Those three lines are still present in the rerender, but it has interpreted them as lines instead of areas, which is nonsensical.

> Either way, the second skull to the right has the tooth blacked out correctly and looks great.

But that skull also looks terrible. It's covered in weird squiggles that have no image data for the space between them, because they're supposed to be wider. Look at the lower jaw, right under the teeth. Look at the blue lighting in the skull's upper right. Look at the lighting on the neck vertebrae. Look at the nasal opening.
A better way to put it,

We have two math systems that do not mesh together, one applies to macro and one applies to micro. We have no mathematical construct that tells us when micro ends and when macro begins.

My biased guess is that it might be a transformation process and math based on Gravity itself i.e. a reformulation of the Maxwell magnetic equations including gravity.

Probably a phase transition in the gravity space that gives the real world transition from micro to macro switch from quantum to classical physics
I think Liberation Sans is pretty common on linux, at least for the systems I know.
It's rare to see a car pulling a trailer, but it's not experimental.

The "fifth pod" thing was designed in from the start.
It does -z lazy but not on PE i386.

So if you need that you'd need to either fix dlltool, or do it manually in the code.
> ...break the shared code paths into a palette of smaller subfunctions/subcomponents and then have each use case have its own high level code path that picks and chooses from these subfunctions: One does ABCDE, another does ACDEX. It makes it supremely easy to reason about what each of them actually do, because they read almost like a recipe. It becomes a sequence of high level steps, some of which are used by several use cases, while others are unique.

Isn't this just the Command pattern? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_pattern
I never gave a fuck about grades. For some courses I had below average marks, for others I was the best.

I studied because I wanted to genuinely understand how things work and how I can solve problems and how, beginning with one ideea I can extend it or come up with an entirely different idea.

And I know I will get downvoted for saying this, but for me, programming without having a solid understanding of CS background and how computers work it would make me just a code monkey, able just to do what I saw in tutorials and copy pasting SO answers without understanding them. Which can be fine, lower level work is ok and highly needed. But wouldn't make me as good as someone who knows his stuff from a to z.

I hate it when I hear someone considering himself a programmer after he modified a WordPress theme or did a 3 weeks boot camp.

Why should this field be hold to much lower standards than medicine, physics, math, chemistry?

I never heard someone bragging that he is a doctor after watching YouTube videos, which happens often with writing and architecting software.
Bitcoin is safe from quantum computers for now:

https://physicsworld.com/a/bitcoin-encryption-is-safe-from-q...

But there is such a thing as post-quantum secure cryptography. It seems, however, the biggest risk is human.
Create accurate online calenders with deadlines ahead of time.
This is just another potential problem of "overengingeered" libraries: they often try to offer a general solution to a whole set of somewhat related problem, but each individual user may just need one specific problem solved, and the correct solution for this one problem may indeed just be a very simple "two-liner".

Best example are C++ stdlib classes like std::vector. Sometimes you just need a trivial growable array implemented in a few dozen lines of code, but std::vector pulls in roughly 20kloc of code into each compilation unit, and only if you're very lucky the compiler will condense this down to the same few dozen lines of actually needed code (the fabled "zero cost abstraction").

IMHO OOP languages are more prone to this sort of code bloat problem because they require (or at least "expect") to write a lot of "ceremony code" which is entirely unrelated to the actual problem (such as in C++: constructors, destructors, copy-, move-operators, etc etc... and the actually important "two-liner" problem-solving method is completely buried).
Explicit types are a form of assertion. In the example

{ let y = g(x); f(y) }

I do not want to assert anything on the type of y but in

{
let y: Foo = g(x);
// Do complex stuff with y
f(y)
}

I wrote the middle part with a specific mental model of what y is, and if that changes, I want to review that section to make sure that the semantics still match what I thought they were and does not just happen to be valid syntactically.

I do not want some automated tool to either strip assertions from my code, nor do I want it to synthesize assertions from a static analysis run of a particular version of the code. If I'm just gonna mindlessly remove all assertions and re-synthesize them on every refactor, they're useless.
No it doesn't.

It's perfectly explained by you becoming entangled with the system when you interact with it. No spooky action at a distance needed.

The wavefunction exists. Entanglement exists. Why is it so hard to extend that concept to the experimenter?
Scaling solutions invariably rely on parents. Ignoring parents seem like a great way to design broken systems.
> How do you, first of all, "remove diplomas"?

Very simple - just stop giving them to people and let them be forgotten as a concept.

> Do you suggest that we fundamentally overturn how our entire society works just to remove cheating?

Are you suggesting that university diplomas are a fundamental factor of how our society works? If so, would you please explain how?

> First of all, which of these are you saying should be "removed"? Only the ones from universities? All of them?

Only those from the universities. Universities are officially recognized "places to learn" and they should be kept that way. Studying for longer than "appropriate" number of years should not be frowned upon, but encouraged. The whole process of "verification" should be completely independent of learning.

Bundling "learning" and "verification", the way universities do, inevitably leads to hordes of people who want verification, but not learning - i.e. cheaters.

> Secondly, how do you remove them? Do you outlaw them?

Very simple - stop issuing them (I suppose a country-level ban of university diplomas could do, but politics depend on the country so I can't give you a general answer). If you want a certificate authority, make a certificate authority and make it its sole purpose to verify that people have the knowledge. Leave university out of that.

> Thirdly, what happens when they're all gone? How do you certify a surgeon?

A certificate authority (that only verifies surgeons' skills, and doesn't bundle the process with "learning").
Ivan Sutherland's Sketchpad
Not if you do software the right way. Try to prove correctness of a CAD program, for example. Or of a graphics card implementation. Or ...

Furthermore, I don't think cutting-edge math needs a much different approach from cutting-edge software. You need to be able to express your thoughts succinctly, and have the tools to reason about them.

It is often said that software verification is different because there is much more to verify, but on a more shallow level. I instead think software is just not done at the right level of abstraction.

Software is at the same time more and less than math. More, because in addition to understanding a topic, you also need an implementation, which has additional issues like speed and memory usage, battery life, etc. Less, because if you do a nice implementation, nobody is asking about its correctness, or how well you understood the topic in the first place. For software today, a nice implementation is much more important than a correctness proof.
> "Also look up the story of him jumping into a cactus... Ouch (I think they mention it in the film)"

Not to forget when he was shot during an interview and plays it cool.

https://youtu.be/HrRNM9cMBDk
Since you mentioned ML, I assume you'll need linear algebra (LA). I hated it for a long time since the notation abstracts away too many things. You can look at an equation involving matrices, but you cannot imagine how it would be coded. Unlike calculus where numerical approximations and code implementations are relatively obvious.

But I eventually needed to learn it as I have to code something not in Python/Matlab/etc as part of an app and would like to postpone using LA libraries unless absolutely needed for performance. What helped me get the grips on LA is Jeff Chasnov's lectures on youtube and Mike Cohen's book. I would also recommend 3blue1brown for appreciation, if he happens to cover the topic you wish to dive into.

I'm many years older than you, by the way.
No, not really. Minimalism where I had seen it lead to spaghetti like hard to maintain and decipher the code. It was impossible to think about larger units, you had to juggle details of everything in head at the same time.
because, uh, the previous referendum was on AV, which isn't PR?
Because it's true?

Bad features of fission: generation of large amounts of radioactivity, proliferation, waste disposal, afterheat/meltdown concerns.

Bad features of fusion: complexity, cost, reliability.

http://web.mit.edu/fusion-fission/WorkshopTalks/skepticsvg.p...
No wug is too dax to be zonged
Type inference isn't about reading or writing code. It's about proving that the code is correct with respect to the language semantics: type inference and checking are relatively lightweight forms of code verification. If you have code that works and passes the type checker, and upon modification fails the type checker, that often reveals issues about how that code composes with code that calls it. That isn't "blocking" you from modifying the internals of a function: if those modifications cause the type checker to fail, you've likely got a problem with how that function is used. It isn't trying to make your life difficult - it's telling you that assumptions you may have made about your code in isolation are not valid assumptions when considering how that code you're working on interacts with other code that you aren't focused on.

Type inference isn't an IDE feature related to autocompletion. If that's how you perceive it, you might benefit from learning what type inference is about and what role it plays in the development process.
https://youtu.be/LmISP_fAAws?t=15

I find the images gorgeous and could watch this for longer. Anyone know if there's more footage anywhere?

Also how big could one theoretically / practically scale this up? How big a wheel would you need for a public display?
Hackable GUI SQL-manager written in SQL itself
Please check it out and give it a try https://github.com/mgramin/malewicz
I am ready for any questions, suggestions and criticism
This will only increase with AI.
The MIT online lectures are amazing. I can't recommend them more highly. They got me through an engineering degree.
As an East Coaster, I 100% support your calls for California secession!
I love this answer.
I'm not sure how you're failing to understand. Apollo was a dead end, obviously, since we gave the entire thing up and still haven't been back. It was an artificially inflated exercise in national ego. In no way was it worth the money expended on it.

(If you bring up science or spinoff arguments, I will demolish those in detail.)
[url=https://timetomovekw.com/]نقل عفش[/url]
[url=https://timetomovekw.com/]نقل عفش الكويت[/url]
[url=https://timetomovekw.com/]نقل عفش مبارك الكبير[/url]
[url=https://timetomovekw.com/]نقل عفش العاصمة[/url]
[url=https://timetomovekw.com/]نقل عفش الاحمدي[/url]
[url=https://timetomovekw.com/]نقل عفش الجهراء[/url]
[url=https://timetomovekw.com/]نقل عفش الاحمدى[/url]
[url=https://timetomovekw.com/]نقل عفش مع التغليف[/url]
[url=https://timetomovekw.com/]نقل عفش حولي[/url]
[url=https://timetomovekw.com/]شركة نقل عفش[/url]
[url=https://timetomovekw.com/]شركة نقل عفش وتغليف[/url]
[url=https://timetomovekw.com/]نقل عفش مدينة الكويت[/url]
[url=https://timetomovekw.com/]نقل عفش الفروانية[/url]
[url=https://timetomovekw.com/]نقل اثاث[/url]
[url=https://timetomovekw.com/]نقل عفش بالكويت[/url]
[url=https://timetomovekw.com/]افضل شركة نقل عفش[/url]
[url=https://timetomovekw.com/]نقل عفش الكويت الجهراء[/url]
[url=https://timetomovekw.com/]تغليف اثاث[/url]
[url=https://timetomovekw.com/]نقل عفش العاصمه[/url]
[url=https://timetomovekw.com/]نقل عفش حولى[/url]
[url=https://timetomovekw.com/]تخزين اثاث بالكويت[/url]
[url=https://timetomovekw.com/]شركة تغليف ونقل اثاث[/url]
There was a version of Lean that supported HoTT, and I think it helped in making Lean popular. But that support has been dropped in Lean 3, and Lean 4 does not support it either. Lean 4 itself seems to be a radical rewrite, and libraries written for Lean 3 do not work in Lean 4.
> You're always free to use a final class with a private constructor as a namespace for static methods. Many classes in the standard library are of this kind, including `Math`. It's not ideal (see my next point), but it's a far cry from adding extra object instantiations everywhere.

And you literally gained nothing. You do exact same thing with slightly different syntax.
In this case, the surgeon isn’t conferring with a colleague; the surgeon is wholly unable to perform the operation. Collaboration is not cheating. A WhatsApp group used to collaborate on simple assignments or complicated projects is one thing, wholesale copying multiple choice answers or plagiarizing whole essays or projects is something completely different.
Transaction merging allows you to handle that nicely. By handling concurrent writes and merging them into a single write to the disk.
The guinea was imo a rather elegant thing, as it allowed retailers to impart additional value or eminence to a good simply by pricing in guineas rather than pounds. From wikipedia: "Savile Row tailors, bespoke boot makers, fine jewelers, and expensive motorcars were always priced in guineas".
By removing any kind of formal authority by them. They should be places to learn, not a bureaucratic machine for deciding who is "worthy" and who is not.

There could be another organization that specializes in knowledge verification and certification. But that should be completely independent of learning.

Of course, now the question becomes "how do we prevent a verification and certification authority from abusing their power?" - but that question is not particular to this context and can be applied to any human organization of any kind. However, in this particular case, I think that employers would be the verification authorities themselves. They are the ones that need the real-world knowledge, so they should be the ones to measure it.
Yes, absolutely. I don't see why this is noteworthy, the 747 was specifically designed to be able to do this.
In Poland, there is a LARP group that roleplays as contemporary Americans
This has to be the longest blog post I have read in years. Quite enjoyable.
Start with reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playing_with_Infinity it might help with hating math.
High speed train between Paris and Berlin could start operating as soon as 2023
they did lend their original out to be copied... thus facilitating dishonesty.
> While it's true that the 747 was originally meant as a cargo carrier

I was surprised by this so I consulted Wikipedia. Apparently when the 747 was designed they were convinced enough that passengers in the future would not want to travel subsonically, so they designed the 747 to convert to a freighter, to not have to throw the design away when it's hard to attract passengers due to the "low" 0.8 mach speeds!
Indeed not all schools, and not all subjects, are created equally. And your education is not limited to the specific subjects, or competencies of the school you happen to be at.
Huh, I wonder if these long-expiry promo code campaigns are actually intentional referral marketing. Not accusing, just noting how it worked here!
This is a great example of dogmatism prevailing in this industry, and the resultant cargo cult programming.

There's a long-standing trend of inflexible dogmatism that's pervasive in software development. If some thought leader, blog or Google/FB/Microsoft/etc said to do something in one way, then things must be done that way.

I once had someone get red in the face and call me stupid because I suggested that hiring more employees to run things after-hours would be preferable to forcing developers to spend their free time working on-call, because apparently Google's SRE bible says that developers must support operations themselves, even if that means they're doing free work in the middle of the night after putting in their 40+ hours a week in. That was unacceptable because Google said so, who cares if employees are leaving in droves and those that remain are spread so thin that their contributions during actual work hours were suffering. Google knows best, we must do what Google says to do, even if that tanks productivity and retention. The company eventually hired teams in different timezones to keep things running 24/7.
>It seems silly looking back that I was solving problems on the number line as an adult.

I study biostatistics and dabble in population genetics research. I still resort to number lines and venn diagrams frequently. There is a reason we teach number lines - they are very useful!
In retrospective now I know that I unconsciously sabotaged myself, I knew the best way to pass subjects was to have a basic understanding of the theory and then practice a lot of exam question examples, but I just couldn't get myself to do that until I had in fact understood the theory in depth.

That led to my grades ending up exactly average, but also at one point I challenged myself and got the highest marks in the most difficult course in my degree. Everyone, specially those who were normally top of the class, were like "WTF did you do??" lol
Could it be that introducing compliance at a later stage in development is just that much more expensive?

That's after shitting on compliance for years as part of your business model.
There has never been a referendum on PR.
For sure, you'd likely have heard of chrom-molly steels.

Got example, 4140 is a 1% chromium - molybdenum medium hardenability general purpose high tensile steel - generally supplied hardened and tempered in the tensile range of 850 - 1000 Mpa.

Three to four times greater tensile strength, so two 127mm (5") diameter rods would do it at 1000 MPa.
an indicator is not a proof
Havent read the paper, but I think when she objects to 'averaging' she means the tracing out the environment; which I think is ok. Especially since all lokal measurement give the same result on the reduced density matrix.
A friend asked me to do some web scraping for her. Since I didn’t have much time, I figured out the difficult part — some home grown encryption/obfuscation scheme used by the website in question, and handed ~30 lines of Python to another programmer friend of hers, a Fortune 500 Java programmer, to finish the remaining boring work.

A day later the Java guy got back to me with a full blown Java project three levels deep which was just a translation of my ~30 lines of Python, and it “didn’t work”. I had to read what was now hundreds of lines of Java to find 3(!) bugs in it.

That day I realized FizzBuzzEnterpriseEdtion is much closer to reality than I thought.
Cheating matters little. The folks who cheat will spend their whole lives pursuing meaningless petty goals and will end up with average lives .

And that’s fine, maybe it’s all they want
I designed my own PCB and I must tell you, analog electronics are brain melting. Software development is literally baby shit. You better learn as much as you can because theory actually matters here unlike in computer science which is just a math degree and is supposed to have no relation to any physical world you have experience with.
Upmost importance was to attach the orbiter black side down:

https://i.stack.imgur.com/vaPH0.jpg
I would care about the reading optimization. So if someone tells me "I chose a forEach instead of a for because it provides almost the same performance, but is more readable, and my code does not need the index", that's a very good sign of someone making conscious choices.
Give me a break. The professor went above and beyond to be understanding. The mental gymnastics from many on this thread seeking to blame anyone but the students lack of integrity is pathetic. It's from the Boris Johnson school of 'I didn't know it was a party'.