skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
ARM enabled a class of devices that x86 outright didn't support at the time (and largely still does not). In my eyes, that's the exception to the rule: when something is not merely incrementally better, but actually a difference in kind. That's what it takes to supersede backwards compatibility.

I said in my last post that I expect h.264 to become the MP3 of video files—but if that doesn't happen, I suspect it will be due to the format's lack of HDR support. That's also a difference in kind—something every consumer will immediately notice, if high quality HDR displays become common in the future.
>246 Dino

One of the most beautiful cars of all time. Ironic that it was produced under the budget Dino marque; it is far prettier than anything contemporaneous that was badged as a Ferrari.
As computing has matured, we have added layers of abstraction. All of what you describe is still there if you want it. Most people have moved to a different layer of abstraction, however.

Think of the people who grew up manipulating network data before the OSI model. They probably felt the same way when later 4 was abstracted away.
> Personally, I think this slow moving inflation disaster is the result of the US government's inability to raise taxes

I'd argue the opposite. We print absolutely insane amounts of money, which is an indirect tax via inflation (and a regressive one at that, since the rich own more inflation-resistant asset classes than the poor, who don't really own any assets). Higher taxes and less money printing would make that hidden tax less hidden, which is good, but the core problem is spending/printing too much, not taxing insufficiently.
It’s not just that the hardware was lacking, there was no good solution for running x86 binaries. ARM windows has no Rosetta.
Most of the things I read about AGI is, in my opinion, highly speculative and low value.

Human Intelligence is not General Intelligence. Trying to mimic Human Intelligence might be a good idea because we can use ourselves as a benchmark, but it might also be a bad idea because the process followed by biological evolution might not be the shortest or optimal path to intelligence.
I didn’t make the original comment about liberal judges, but Burger voted for Roe vs. Wade.
Another article [1] suggests that the very largest container ships have a crew of around 25. Reading between the lines, it seems that the ship's crew is a relatively small portion of the total cost of shipping a container.

Perhaps instead of eliminating labor costs on the largest of ships, this type of feature enables much smaller ships to be cost-competitive.

What I would be worried about is that reducing or eliminating human crew could encourage shippers to take more risky routes. I would also expect these ships to be followed and probed for weaknesses in their AI.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31660571
> I'm open to any system of government that systematically tries to pass John Rawls' veil of ignorance[0] test. In theory, it doesn't even have to be democratic. In practice though, I haven't yet seen any non-democracy get even close.

What about somewhere like Singapore (nominally democratic, but with a single party in power for decades and widely seen as authoritarian)?

> Imagine being Uyghur, critical of Xi, religious, lgbti+, black or a combination of the above.

Those are very visible examples, but if you're applying the veil of ignorance test you have to weight by how many people they actually apply to. (I wouldn't be surprised if all of them put together represented a smaller proportion of the population than incarcerated Americans, say). Every government system has some fraction of the population that it "gives up on", that much is unavoidable.
Balmer or not, Microsoft is still in direct competition with Apple for much of its core business. So encouraging customers to buy a laptop where they get $50 for the windows license and if they're lucky another $100 in software sales, but their key competitor gets >=$1000 of profit -- yeah, it's pretty clearly a bad business choice.
How about ISC-style like for BIND?

* https://bind9.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reference.html#config...

* https://wiki.debian.org/Bind9#File_.2Fetc.2Fbind.2Fnamed.con...

* https://www.zytrax.com/books/dns/ch7/#overview

I've been experimenting with NSD (and Unbound) recently, and their configuration is JSON-like. There seem to be some 'arbitrary' attributes that are treated as "top-level":

> At the top level only server:, key:, pattern:, zone:, tls-auth:, and remote-control: are allowed. These are followed by their attributes or a new top-level keyword. The zone: attribute is followed by zone options. The server: attribute is followed by global options for the NSD server. […]

* https://nsd.docs.nlnetlabs.nl/en/latest/manpages/nsd.conf.ht...

It seems to be good/best practice to indent the sub-attributes of the 'top-level' attributes to know where the 'stanzas' for each top-level start and end. The white space has no significance.

While I like the functionality of NSD/Unbound, I lean toward liking the use of braces (curly brackets; {}) à la BIND to explicitly denote stanzas and statements, even if one also uses indentation for human consumption.
Ferrari and Lamborghini each sell about 10k cars a year.
What's more impressive is Pagani and Koenigsegg each only made about 200 cars ever.
jsonnet[1] might suit your use-case better, it was created to do exactly that.

[1]https://jsonnet.org
> ...earning it with an imperative background is like starting from scratch, even for experienced programmers. This is true even if you look at the base language, without involving Template Haskell or any of the weird language extensions.

As a somewhat experienced programmer, I would actually say that the language extensions are an important part in disincentivizing learning Haskell for me, because even if I learn the base language, it seems like I would need to understand all these weird extensions to read real-life code, which always seems to involve half a dozen of them.
The most diverse group possible consists 100% of black disabled trans lesbians, of course.
ofc, but if you want to go to the US from UK, you must have a UK biometric passport with sufficient biometric data in the chip to satisfy the US customs.
The EU law also requires headphones and headsets recharge over USB-C.

The annex says "Hand-held mobile phones, tablets, digital cameras, headphones, headsets, handheld videogame consoles and portable speakers"
If it's not insurance or drop shipping, what does GoodRx do that results in cheaper prescriptions for customers? For awhile, they were saving me $100/mo.
Because calling it what it is - loan for equity for SMB businesses - isn't as sexy . Using some exotic name for an old thing makes the old boring thing seem better, even when it isn't.
> Performance wise, Chrome/Blink had a brief lead in March but since WebKit has again surpassed it. Currently WebKit is about 10% faster on macOS.

I've also heard no such claims, seen no evidence Safari has found new vast wins to "beat" chrome on, whatever that means.

I think it's also absurd that we accept such primitive rankings in the first place, although I myself have shared some of these reductionist claims. Fast at what? There's so many different conditions, so many things we could measure. Is Safari the fastest WebGPU engine? Are they best time-to-first-paint? For what kind of site complexities? Is there JS or just pure HTML? Apple themselves invented Speedometer- an interesting & creative test of loading a lot of different TodoMVC apps, one after another- and for a while dominated it, but Chrome continues to excel[1] (day old article). What data were you looking at, if any, or just heresay?

One category I'd point out: I haven't heard a single web-game developer ever thank Safari for anything. These people deserve good treatment, are doing great work. Safari isn't helping them, isn't fast there.

(Also props to Chrome for optimizing on a brand new platform that they have had far far less time to optimize for.)

> As someone building a macOS/iOS browser I can say that WebView != Browser. There is so much to be built around a rendering engine for something to be considered a browser today.

As a web site developer, it all looks like the same shitty, low feature, piece of crap turtle that doesn't implement shit. I can offer my users no more features on your browser than any other turd bucket WebView based browser. It's not your fault, the platform is just deficient, grossly.

As for wpt.fyi interop testing, I dig it. There's some very good stuff Safari is up to, thank you for sharing. Better colors is excellent. I would note however:

> These scores represent how browser engines are doing in 15 focus areas and 3 joint investigation efforts.

This seems to be 100% only agreed upon areas, where each browser already has some stake. It's all rendering, not platform features. So we basically ignore the fact that Safari doesn't have web bundles, doesn't have early hints, doesn't have http3, doesn't have gamepads, doesn't have midi. I'm barely getting started. Safari isn't always- but quite quite frequently is- an obstacle to modernity.

> Also consider that most users these days do not care about web bundles or early-hints. They care about speed,...

These two statements contradict. Webbundles and early-hints are techniques for performance optimization. I'm willing to bet by 2030 Safari is dragged into doing the right thing here, but right now they keep the web slow.

[1] https://9to5google.com/2022/06/06/chrome-mac-speedometer/
It is reasonable to imagine that, with the right algorithms, we could simulate a human-level AI on a high-tier modern GPU.
Isn't it guaranteed issue? That's an expensive option.
> I realised that anyone who actually did this would have to be utterly morally bankrupt. To get from micro-organisms to intelligent life this way would involve an immense amount of suffering, with billions of sentient creatures living, struggling and dying along the way. Yes, this happened to our own ancestors, but that doesn’t give us the right to inflict the same kind of suffering on anyone else.

But by this logic, it's better not to have children, because they will inevitably experience some suffering, and if they have children, so will they, and so on. It's not that the logic is necessarily invalid from its own premises, but that it's self-extinguishing logic because entities that act based on it will stop propagating.

There are also things that we can find worthwhile in living and creating new life. Not that that excuses any creation regardless of suffering, but it puts it in a gray zone where it's important to weigh the specificities of various suffering vs various joys as they come.
So in the 15 years since micro-USB was developed, that is just one vendor which has been able to produce something better, and it happens to be the most valuable corporation in the world with access to economics of scale that no other manufacturer could compete with. Are you saying that's a valid justification that allowing manufacturers the freedom to innovate on charging ports is more important than interoperability?
FSF-compatible licenses absolutely can exclude commercial usage, and software can be made simultaneously available under a separate (paid) commercial license if the authors wish. It's only the OSI that doesn't allow this.
We have been talking about two separate things, and I reckon they are getting conflated. To be more clear, one is about the "Closed SaaS" vs "Free Software SaaS", the other is "outsourcing vs doing in-house".

My argument is more against the former than the latter. And it's not just about cost. It's about lock-in. It's about shitty customer support that takes 11 days to respond to a ticket. It's about building your systems on the "no-brainer cloud provider" that leaves you empty handed on the semi-yearly outage, and all you can do is pray to be resolved it quickly and console yourself that your competitors are offline just like you.

The point on the second issue was not just "they could do it in-house and cheaper". It is also "they are paying this much money and they are still in a weak position, where they have no control about some critical piece of the organization. I would understand if someone takes this route as a temporary measure while better processes are being developed and putting in place, but if this paying $1M/year is accepted as the "natural way of things" of things, it seems like management is saying "we are incapable of doing it ourselves, and we are too lazy to even care. Let's just hope that the money keeps coming, and if doesn't we just lay some people off".
How does this compare to Matomo ?
I'm not saying it's not, but I stand by my claim (completely unsupported by evidence, I'll admit) that somewhere between 4 and 6 nines of drivers are completely outclassed and lack the experience to drive a 500hp+ car competently, nevermind get the most out of it on a track, with a manual.

I owned an '86 Subaru BRAT with an EJ22 swap and a cranky transmission (heel-toe and double clutching required down into 1 and 2), and truly nailing a smooth 3-2 downshift with the transmission shifting sweetly into 2 was an occasion to be celebrated. I am 100% confident that I'd nail it less than 1/10th as often in any modern supercar with a manual.

I've also driven an E36 M3 (US spec) and a 458. I know I lack the training and experience to stay ahead of either of them on the limit. I suspect most other people do too.
How do you feel about a universe made out of paperclips?
I've been trending this way as well. Being asked to work on a needlessly complex React project turned me into a luddite. The more complex web development gets, the more I strip out of my own projects, until I'm left with the absolute basics (even opting for the short CSS and JS sections right in the HTML file).

I figure the more vanilla I make it, the longer it will last without needing a re-write. I often find HTML/JS a great way to mock up ideas or to create little utilities, that are also easy for others to use, without having to install anything or pass around executable files.

Although talking about the browser as the ubiquitous runtime makes me think of Windows XP. Wasn't Windows Explorer essentially running on IE? IE was also the default file viewer for a ton of formats. That all probably left a bad taste in people's mouth.
I wouldn't, because speaking out is useless. Our current freedom of speech hasn't brought free healthcare, jobs, living wages, or affordable homes any closer. The genius of the American plutocracy is convincing the working class that free speech enables all of these, in spite of the last fifty years showing that it does nothing of the sort.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Em6Bwp_UcAA_8Ou?format=jpg&name=...
So you say that UK citizens don't need pertinent biometric data on their passports (not even a visa) to get in the US due to some agreement between the 2 countries.

That, I can believe.
Just skip to WEBP.
TBH I have a hard time understanding why people choose to run windows at all, except for playing games. If you're stuck using windows because the corporate overlords insist, then yeah that sucks.

Also you can always run windows in a VM. Even on an M1.
Grand Prix (1967), at the Ferrari factory:

"What means far more to me than anything else is: our good name! Our reputation represents desire for perfection of the highest quality. I gamble that reputation gladly, because I have absolute faith in every car that leaves this factory. But I will not risk it on a driver in whom I cannot have an equal faith. There are fewer than thirty men in the world qualified to drive Formula One; a mere half-dozen, perhaps, to win. At this moment, I am inclined to think you are not one of them."

Ferrari was the shiznit for me after I saw that movie.
I don't think it's useful to debate fictitious scenarios. You know of a place where there are only Starbucks selling coffees? I can't think of one, as someone that never steps in a Starbucks, yet often buys takeout coffee in other fastfoods.
https://grabbyaliens.com/

Because we're pretty early in the universe's evolution and there hasn't been enough time yet
Yes, but it solves the main problem that traditional dollar bills have, which is that I can’t get VC funding for handing people dollar bills.
Apologies in advance for the meta comment, but: could you just reply to the comments you're replying to, instead of their parent? Trying to find the context for your quote extracts is more difficult than it needs to be.
It’s not really a joke, but it is a little funny. It’s just a really fancy ‘paper’ wallet. I actually love the concept. I used to make paper wallets for myself and friends, and this is basically the best version I’ve ever seen
They will be invaluable for future archeologists studying the 21st Century Global Peak.
This is really interesting! I'm interested in knowing more and sharing with colleagues in academic library/publishing tech, if you want to drop a link! (and are interested in sharing your work :) )
How could both be compatible? US plugs are meant operate at 120 volts, EU at 240. I don't see how both could be supported safely.
Don’t pay attention to haters, it’s sorta cool, even if it’s not the most efficient or safe way of holding Bitcoin.
If you can explain why you're going back to junior, employers will be more than ok with it. Today it's not uncommon to see people changing careers in the industry, you seem to be going from a freelancer/"webmaster" type of role to a better-paid SWE career. Not a big jump, but still a change.

Do you get contacted by recruiters? It's in their interest to be honest to you about your chances, they might be able to provide good feedback or even direct you to companies that fit you.
I was thinking about Rust a lot when I wrote this comment, actually.

IMO, imperative vs. functional aside, Rust does suffer from a lot of the same learning curve issues people commonly pin on Haskell. Rust has plenty of libraries with weird, excessively "clever" APIs, weird experimental language features, a complicated metaprogramming facility, and so on. Personally, I have found lifetimes in Rust more annoying to deal with in semi-nontrivial situations than anything I ever encountered in Haskell, and it doesn't help that things that seem like they should work often don't.

(I always figure that's the language telling me that I should use a different memory management strategy, and I generally follow its advice, but I digress.)

This is very much my opinion, but I'd attribute Rust's success over Haskell to three main points:

* Functional vs. imperative, skill curves. Rust is still vastly more familiar to most programmers at a first impression, and IMO it also has a lower skill floor.

* Rust's tooling feels a lot more modern and streamlined. `cargo` is a joy to use. Maybe Haskell's ecosystem has improved, but back when I was actively using it, it was clearly inferior to Rust's. For me, this manifested mainly in significantly greater difficulties managing dependencies and reproducing builds. This stuff is a first-class priority for the Rust team, and it shows.

* Somewhat related to the last point, Rust is "cool". It isn't burdened by decades of academic cruft; it just feels approachable, modern, and relevant in a way Haskell doesn't.

The last two points aren't really Haskell's fault. I think the Rust team has done an absolutely top-tier job of making the language approachable and usable, obviously building on lessons of the past (including Haskell, Stack, cabal, haddock, etc.) and I'd almost say it's succeeded despite the essential nature of the Rust language itself.
who cares what your car looks like. owning one is a hassle and a money sink and i resent that i've lived in 5 cities who have de-prioritized mass transit.

cars look boring is like saying it's a bummer cancer isn't cool.
Ask HN: How to Quit Social Media?
I want to quit social media, I waste so much time scrolling and scrolling forever. Whenever I delete my accounts, one month later I end coming back to it and I get stuck in this unhealthy loop.

Effective tips are appreciated!
How to Take Creative Action
No one takes risks only for the sake of efficiency. They do so because taking risks to be efficient (can) make them more money. Efficiency for the sake of $$$
Not OP. Looks interesting, but I'd bet that typescript's type system would enforce constraints a lot better
Do you navigate in your car by staring only in the rear-view mirror?

There's parlous little contention that fossil fuels transformed the world for exceptional capabilities and productivity over the past 250 years. That's simply not the argument.

The problem is both what their continued use will do to the overall environment, and what their finite supply means in terms of continued prosperity.

Quite simply, you're ignoring (and repeatedly) the elephant in the room: unintended consequences of the continued use of fossil fuels.

You might care to recognise the beast. It's formidable.
What are some other examples? This is the first I've heard of Dhall and would be interested in learning about alternatives as well.
Switching this mindset might be one of your biggest potential game-changers and frankly something you should have done years ago.

Over my life, I've gone deep down countless of such "dead ends". The same goes for most distinguished people I've worked with. Except they're not necessarily dead ends - syntax and APIs aside, so many concepts, practices and thinking can translate across. Ideally focus on first principles.

Being comfortable with picking up some new obscure thing, getting up to speed quick, and then moving on to the next one after x days/weeks/months/years, is one of several distinguishing aspects of a veteran.

That doesn't mean you should scurry around drilling down on random things for the sake of it, rather that a curious and fearless approach will naturally bring you there over time.

Maybe set aside x hours per week for some small personal project where you apply new technologies to get familiar with them and the process. For example Laravel, or whatever else seems relevant or fun to you. Move on to adding on some new frontend library like React or Vue or whatnot. If nothing else it should make you feel more comfortable during interviews.
As far as I can tell, you're relying on non-standard behavior. This is what [the standard][1] has to say about keys being unique:

> * The JSON syntax does not impose any restrictions on
the strings used as names, does not require that name strings be unique, and does not assign any
significance to the ordering of name/value pairs. These are all semantic considerations that may be defined by
JSON processors or in specifications defining specific uses of JSON for data interchange.*

This means that different tools can—and, if experience is any guide, will—handle your example inconsistently. This can be especially troubling when JSON processing tools are used internally by some other system like a database, queue or server; most of the time these tools parse and serialize JSON without changing its meaning, but they can change or lose information when people rely on patterns like the one that you used.

I would honestly be surprised if there isn't at least one realistically used tool that interprets your example differently, like producing {"this_article": "// would be better"} instead.

[1]: https://www.ecma-international.org/publications-and-standard...
Agreed. I'm trying really, really hard to be hyper-aware of the instinct to react to "your supposedly original thoughts are actually sourced from this schema" with "NO THEY AREN'T!" but I feel like it's not all that difficult to critically interrogate the sources of your own desires if you have the privilege and time to step back and think about those things. I vaguely resent the implication that wanting things is so rarely coming from endogenous desire of self-fulfillment for purely self-motivated reasons rather than sourced from some other source of power or peers.