skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> it is not at all clear why one would multiply matrices

I disagree. Matrix multiplication is the composition of linear maps. AB is the transformation you get by applying B, then applying A to the result of that. Furthermore this provides a great intuition for why matrix multiplication is not, in general, commutative. If your professor didn't make this clear when you learned the definition of matrix multiplication, then they didn't do a great job.

>That determinants are multiplicative is really wonderful, but not at all obvious

Again, I think it is kind of obvious. The determinant of a map measures the degree to which it alters the area/volume/measure of the unit cube. So if A doubles it and B triples it, then BA should scale it by a factor of 6, since matrix multiplication is the composition of maps, and you're tripling the size of something that was already doubled.

This is why in a first course on linear algebra, it's more important to get the intuition and logical structure down than learn advanced matrix decompositions. Now your complex number example is a little less obvious. I actually think using the 2x2 matrix representation of complex numbers is the best way to introduce them because it sidesteps the part where you take roots of negative numbers, which is the most conceptually problematic part for many people and usually requires some kind of handwave.
> My suspicion is they have an interest in creating new language features, that users will need updated IDEs for.

Don’t throw me in the briar patch?

If they are pushing languages forward so that developers can do more or things more efficiently then sign me up haha.
> Australia is an Anglo nation that thinks they're us.

No. Australians think they are british.

> We're a German nation that thinks we're British.

No. We are an anglo nation. We speaking german right now? Don't think so.

> The state we occupied doesn't exist anymore unless you think we're going to re-invade Germany and Japan from our bases there.

Re-invade? For what? We already are occupying them.

Yours is the most bizarre and nonsensical comment I've read in a while.
An excellent article. I'm not a cricket player (I did try it once), but I think there's a lot here that a baseball or softball hitter could benefit from.

You hear about "red dot sliders" in baseball: a slider that's spinning in such a way that the seams appear to form a red dot. A good hitter can see that and predict where the ball's going.

I've also heard (not sure about this) that a lot of baseball players have better than 20/20 vision, enhanced by Lasik, just so they can see the ball better.

One thing that I don't see here was a recent issue with Shohei Ohtani of the Angels, where they suspected he was "tipping" his pitches. A pitcher always tries as hard as he can to make every pitch look exactly the same when it comes out of his hand. If he does even the slightest movement differently for an off-speed pitch versus a fastball, the other team will notice it and start hitting him. Otherwise, the batters have to do what Chappell does and pick it up from the ball.
That doesn't come up on LeetCode so must be pretty difficult to implement.
Yeah, the Oberon OS might be a bit much for your applications, eh? The chip is interesting as a target for a low-tech 32-bit platform. I've heard that the folks at Noisebridge (here in San Francisco) are playing around with making their own silicon ICs.

The "Provably Correct" book presents the work of Dr. Margaret Hamilton (she of Apollo 11, who coined the term "software engineer"). It shows a simple elegant way to make easy-to-use safe programming systems.

I just gotta say, I envy you guys. :)
From an outsiders perspective, etherium definitely has the stronger PR.
This sounds like a kind of confirmation bias—before you started paying attention to the climate, you didn’t notice its detail.
They even reference Backstreet Boys in the bibliography section. Golden.
I'm sorry, no, you must be mistaken about the sheer scale at which google operates. Sanity checks simply don't scale, you see.

By necessity, it'll be "pour it into this big stew of linear algebra" or nothing. Any kind of sensibility is simply impossible when you're as big as google!
>The WHO and it's director has an enormous amount of centralised global power on this matter, which anyone would argue is ridiculously dangerous and disproportionate

better phrased: 'I, personally, as 1 of the people in the world, argue this thing'

so, argue it, but try to stick to specifics: "This is the direct evidence that the CDC killed scientists who disagreed with this study" or whatever the specific conspiracy theory is as it pertains to this article
Designing Data Intensive Applications is 600 pages, but very readable.

100 page Machine Learning book is also pretty good.

A Philosophy of Software Design is short, and opinionated as such books go. I liked it - it articulates a few concepts that we encounter in our daily work and don’t really learn about in school. You don’t have to agree with what the author says, but by engaging with the ideas presented at least you will know what you have internalized about this business of writing code.
This article looks really uncritically at people who had their children taken away for abusing them, but in most of these cases it looks like these same people are trying to take their partner's children away from them. The article keeps calling this form of abuse "rare" but doesn't actually offer any evidence.

The picture of a mother losing custody of their children is always going to be an emotional picture to paint, but if you step back and focus on the well-being of the child, then you need to take this stuff into consideration.
Most of these SoCs can boot from SDcards so you'd probably buy a phone+boot disk at the same time.
Are you ignoring the 'perpetual fallback license'? I would expect you'd welcome it if it is such a strong point for you.
You can pay once for JetBrains IDE and never ever update (or even access older version) and keep using it after that.
Slave mentality back in the day (2000+ years ago) was converted into religious beliefs and then it got “mainstream” and all the religion that was focused on being a chad became unpopular thanks to this slave religion which made being a slave cool and being a chad uncool.

That’s the tl;dr of your argument afaict. Problem there is that religion was the problem in both contexts - so I don’t think it provided a solution so much as it caused the problem in the first place. Even then - it forced slave mentality onto the masses and that wasn’t exactly great for everyone either… Self-flagellation anyone?
K8s gets as much hate as SPAs if no more - already mentioned few days ago [1] - to the point that a dumb webpage with no arguments whatsoever reaches the frontpage. It'd be great if we could stick to good discussion and avoid such hyperbolic flamebaits.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31552122
Thanks, that helps a bit. So I get the what: a way to make an anonymous function recursive. As for the why, it seems to me it's because "lambda calculus doesn't have named functions." So this tells me this is a programming language design concern, as opposed to a pattern that can be used in everyday programming. Based on this, providing examples of how to implement a Y combinator in Clojure, Python, and Go is of questionable value IMO. And that's OK, since a lot of things we do don't need to have practical value (e.g. learning, understanding, etc).
Kubernetes has been the worst piece of software I have used in a very long time. It's absolutely horrendous to work with and debug. It either runs fine and gives you no problems or it breaks in unexpected ways and you literally want to kill yourself.
Vim has auto-completion and snippets. I don't use VSCode, but I'm pretty sure it does too. So what's the point of paying for them?
Wow. This satire is so pitch-perfect that I honestly believed this was another scam at first. Thw sad thing is, almost any scam-coin will list things like this. I had a good chuckle at quantum-proof and P=NP-proof.

However, I give it at least a 30% chance someone spins up a ZeroStableCoin chain in the next 7 days.
It's worth noting "the founders" were mostly figureheads who took over from the actual founders through power plays, and knew nearly nothing about online learning, or much of anything other than corporate politics.

The original founders built platforms which worked pretty well. In the end, MOOCs were videos and multiple choice questions. No one can stomach that.

The original Stanford AI course, from Norvig/Thrun, did pretty okay. Coursera steamrolled Udacity by building a massive number of crappy courses.

The first edX course, 6.002x, mis-attributed to Agarwal but mostly built by Sussman/Mitros/Terman, did even better. Within a few years, edX was run by corporate types who did massive numbers of crappy courses.

The actual founders had bold plans for how to make the platforms and courses even better, but those never panned out, due to politics, incentives, etc.

Good online can be really good.
>So why here?

99.999999% of internet comments on M2, or even anything hardware related are pretty much junk. Anandtech used to do some explanation into these sort of things, but as it turns out people aren't interested in in-depth analysis, they just want benchmarks. You end up having them drifting towards mass / mainstream media or LinusTechTip type of content. RealWorldTech doesn't do any these anymore, partly because there is very little money to be made on the consumer side of things. You have other site which talks about Semiconductor Engineering and Business type of content. Unfortunately every time they were posted on HN, no one has shown any interest or complaining about how the content looks too "Enteprisy or Cooperate" because they were intended for B2B settings.

It also isn't just consumers or enthusiast. When viewed from the outside most people would have expected programmers, or what they now called Software Engineers to have some sort of High Level understanding on hardware. But most developers, especially Web Developers, are so abstracted from hardware they dont know or do not care about it.

Broadly speaking this isn't just with hardware, but also every other subject.
This. And actually only up until a while ago did my co-workers still think using Vim was just some weird flex. Then a live coding session which was not about Vim at all I did somehow showcased how fast I was able to be in Vim, now everyone is interested in obtaining the superpower.

That being said I'm still extremely grateful for what Microsoft has done in standardising things like LSP, DAP, etc. It changed the game for Vim, Emacs, Kakoune, not to mention new players like Helix.
And it’s *so* slow, on every PC I’ve used. It’s usually easier to just copy and paste the table, if you can.
The same, only reason I clicked the link.
Ironically, if this coin was traded on a cryptocurrency exchange it would probably trade at above 0$ and therefore deviate from its 0$ peg.

Edit: I spoke too soon. They anticipated this issue and prevented it by setting the total supply to 0. Brilliant.
A Newspaper Generated by AI
I think Gnome / GTK is a good example. Famously, the Budgie Desktop Environment will have to be rewritten on top of Enlightenment because they don't like the GTK 4 changes. So now they're forced to go to a different widget system. [1]

[1] https://joshuastrobl.com/2021/09/14/building-an-alternative-...
10 whole years? Wow, cryptocurrency truly is unstoppable!
Interview with Andreas Wendker and Wiley Hodges from Apple [video]
> Santa Claus is real.

I'm going on a tangent here but I will make a bold statement: I think one unfortunate side effect of the sciences, is the acceleration of the demise of other domains of humans knowledge, specifically philosophy.

After all, why bother reading the works of Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther or Dietrich Bonhoeffer and compare their arguments against the likes of Nietzsche, Kant and Jean Paul Sartre when we know about Evolution ? Those old ancient texts and discussions are silly and passe.. It is clear that these poor uneducated people were busy arguing over the existence of Santa Clause.

The 21st century has regrettably produced some of the most illiterate minds in _this_ area. We have incredibly bright people who can build complex systems, think logically and excel at sciences, yet they fail at expanding their minds slightly above the materialistic universe; This is where arts, philosophy and theology reside. We call it the realm of transcendence.

The side effect of such phenomena is that bleeds into today's thought process and prevents nuanced discussions regarding any topic (whether it's equality, religion, freedom, justice,..). We have completely forgotten how to form coherent arguments and this thread itself is a great example; The basis of modern discussions boils down to: I can shout the loudest, therefore I am right. The lack of humility is rampant, especially on social media and everything is black and white.

I don't care if you are an Atheist, a Theist, an Agnostic or a Marxist, but if you have the urge to start a discussion with "You think Santa Clause is real", I plead you to think twice before posting it and go read any pages of Francis Shaffer or Soren Kierkeggard and then come here and assert that these people had completely surrendered all thought and reason.
When I was a kid we didn't have a computer. Home computers didn't exist until I was in my teens. We had one 12-inch black-and-white TV that received four channels when the rabbit ears were set up properly. I spent a lot of time outdoors.

This is of course anecdotal, but I have needed glasses since before fifth grade.

(I got my first pair of glasses in fifth grade, but in retrospect it was clear that I needed them much earlier. I can still vividly remember the first I ever tried on my new glasses and being astounded at the level of visual detail that existed in the world. Stars! Leaves on trees! Wow! I had no idea.)
It’s pretty funny, admittedly.
99% of devs don’t need Kubernetes.
most oppurtunty are "handed" by the society, few created their own chances from very different backgrounds, but those who do for sure deserve to be called "selfmade". Still nothing bad in not being a "pioneer"
I just proved #2 > #1 while sitting on the toilet.
The dude won crypto. Sure it was the most transparent fraudulent scheme, but he successfully tricked everyone, which is kinda the point of crypto
Hah, it's pegged to e^{pi * i} + 1 Pounds. This is the most honest valuation of a coin I've ever seen.
If you are a Mac user using Numbers and Safari, you can do this by literally selecting the table, and copy pasting it right into Numbers. I do this quite often.
Strategic title to get more clicks
That part of the book stuck with me because she said the NSA (and friends?) gave the most important tasks to the A team and the rest to the B team just like a software company would. Ever since I’ve been conscious about what “team” I am assigned to at my own private sector job.

I didn’t know there was a movie, but I found the book mostly boring too. She dived deep(ish) technically in three areas: malware, nuclear centrifuges, and policy.

Who exactly is that for? I enjoyed the long description of the program itself but I doubt most non-tech people would. The scientific background on centrifuges was painfully dry to me. By far the best part of the book was the human interest stories about the security researchers who found and reverse-engineered Stuxnet.
The Y combinator lets you implement recursion without using recursion. For example, a Javascript closure can't refer to itself. But if we define the (strict) Y combinator using JS closures:

let Y = f => (x => x(x))(x => f(z => x(x)(z)))

then we can call it, again only using closures, and define a function that sums the numbers from 1 to N by "calling itself":

let sumToN = Y(sumToN => n => n == 0 ? 0 : n + sumToN(n-1))

sumToN(4)
// -> 10

In practice, no one actually implements recursion this way because it would be slow. So instead it's more of a statement about the expressiveness of languages, and how "we have recursion!" doesn't actually give you any power you didn't have before, if you had functions.
Because people make mistakes, the true value of a company is often not known anyway, etc.

You may as well ask why someone buys a stock that then goes down. You didn't think it would go down when you bought it, obviously, but you were wrong.
I'm not sure if you're being satirical or not but I definitely chuckled.
>The author is missing the point by lambasting Stuxnet for not having a feature it didn't need.

Indeed. It's my understanding that to this day we don't officially know who built/launched it. Mission accomplished?
> I am an empiricist. For my own ailments, the track record has been:

> Dr Google & Dr. Wikipedia: 4

> GPs & Specialists: 1

cool! mine have been internet-1, professionals-5, which cancels out your own sample data.

consequently, you've got no more complaints about this, being an empiricist who follows the data and everything, right?
I agree about the scalar code, I know from experience JIT compilers can be awesome, sometimes they indeed outperform AOT.

Automatic vectorization, on the other hand…

Modern SIMD arrived in 1999, SSE1 in Pentium III. For the 20+ years which followed, very smart compiler developers tried to improve their automatic vectorizers. Yet they only achieved very limited success so far.

They do a good job when all of the following is true: (1) pure vertical operations (2) no branches or conditions (3) the numbers being handled are either FP32 or FP64.

I think building a sufficiently good automatic vectorizer is borderline impossible task. Even when the runtime is very sophisticated like modern Java, with several of these progressively better versions based on the real-time performance profiler data, the problem is still extremely hard to solve.

For instance, here’s a fast way to sort 4 floats with SSE https://godbolt.org/z/c97Yf5js8 I don’t believe a compiler could have possibly figured out these shuffles and blends from any reasonable scalar implementation.
I've tried IntelliJ for both Elixir and Clojure. While Cursive is ok, I can confidently say that the vscode Elixir support is far, far better, and in Cursive vs Cider I'd take Cider any day.

Yeah, if your writing Kotlin/Java IntelliJ is a no-brainer, but for many of us the situation is much more nuanced.
What if you replace religion with Tahiti?

Can you tell how stupid the question is then? You can’t just do arbitrary word replacement. Words have meaning and are context dependent.
I was expecting a collection of DNS utilities, but this is much more fun!
By “the course” do you mean Strang’s MIT OCW class or something else?
That's pretty easy to workaround:

type shapeContainer struct { Shape }

The usual way to use atomic.Value is by writing strongly-typed wrappers anyway, so that doesn't affect your codebase beyond about 3 lines.
How myopic of you
Well at some point you may want to actually calculate the eigenvalues. Unless you just dive in and try and compute the characteristic polynomial directly.
My understanding is that California’s language is pretty unambiguous that businesses are responsible for all work expenses. I think on the legal merits the engineer may ultimately prevail, but I just don’t see how this is a battle worth fighting considering the massive savings that work from home already provides. It’s likely a lawsuit like this could also damage one’s long-term career prospects.

It will be interesting to see whether the courts see a difference between incremental expenses vs things the employee was already purchasing (e.g. internet vs electricity)
How are you screwed?

If you don’t like something, switch editors. I don’t understand why some people self-flagellate and don’t just pick the right tool for the job. I’m very pro-open-source but that doesn’t mean proprietary software is all evil, you’ll drive yourself crazy if you take that to its logical end.
I'm just saying that I would think twice before agreeing on letting an alcoholic run a bar or a short-sighted person flying a fighter jet.
Eating more fish may be linked to higher melanoma risk
The article also has an example of the reverse situation, where the kid wanted to live with the father and the mother claimed it was parental alienation.

The point of the article is that courts are (sometimes) ignoring childrens' testimony and instead siding with unqualified experts who have a financial incentive to remove children from their preferred parent.
I'm not sure I agree with the article. I'm not even sure that I get corporate logic at this point.

Offices cost money, much more money than configuring an enterprise for remote work. There's always that minor percentage of employees who cannot develop successful patterns to work from home. As the pandemic showed, these folks are the minority today.

Under this paradigm, as long as remote work costs less than a building then remote work should be attractive to a company. Yet, many companies are chasing hybrid models even though that direction causes a good bit of attrition as well (people want the whole thing).

My personal hypothesis is that companies are doing an organized, long term pull out of offices, but are resisting doing it all at once because they'd impact each other's commercial property values. This confusing state we're in is purposeful.
> I am sure that whoever develops Codium will eventually get into a dead-end at some point because they won't have any telemetry connected to the product usage.

Note that VSCodium is not a fork; it's just a build of the open-source VSCode parts with telemetry patched out and a few other minor changes.
Much of the point of the Y combinator is the construction of a fixed point operator without appealing to self-definition. Using fix in its own definition violates that, one could say that the recursion arises due to Haskell's recursive bindings.

The standard definition in untyped lambda calculus is

\f -> (\x -> f (x x)) (\x -> f (x x))

but if we try to give a type to x, let's call it X, we'll see something funny

X = i -> o -- we know it's a function type because it's applied
X = X -> o -- it's self-applied, so the input must be X
X = (X -> o) -> o -- expanding the inner reference
X = ((X -> o) -> o) -> o -- oh no

Unfortunately, this won't type in Haskell because `type X = (X -> o) -> o` is invalid and would loop the type checker. We must introduce an explicit indirection. This explicitness forces us to control if and when this type expands and prevents the checker from looping.

newtype Loop a = Loop (Loop a -> a)

defer :: (Loop a -> a) -> Loop a
defer f = Loop f

apply :: Loop a -> (Loop a -> a)
apply (Loop f) = f

This type is exactly a solution to `X = (X -> o) -> o` but with the recursion explicitly tagged, as

x :: Loop o
apply x :: Loop o -> o
apply x . defer :: (Loop o -> o) -> o

So now we can type the type Y combinator without utilizing Haskell's self-referential bindings.

y f :: (a -> a) -> a
y f = apply half half
where
half :: Loop a -- the type of X
half x = defer (f (apply x x)) -- i.e. \x -> f (x x)

Still pretty concise compared to Go!

(Probably saw this first at https://r6.ca/blog/20060919T084800Z.html)
To me, IntelliJ IDEs feel clunky, slow, feature bloated, and messy. I did pay a couple times for AppCode, but eventually stopped doing that. VSCode on the other hand feels lightweight and fast. I use it exactly _because_ I value my time.