skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think it's important to remember is corporations are just groups of people, and each individual will have a different personality and motivation. Some will be empire builders, others will only hire when push comes to shove.

When it comes to an actual companies personality, it basically boils down to the behaviour you reward, the behaviour you put up with, and when exceptions apply. As an example, how many time does the "no asshole" rule get overrides by someone talent? Suddenly you're full of assholes.

Of course patterns emerge. If the market generally rewards empire builders, then you're going to get people empire building in your organisation. Even if you do not directly reward it, they'll just leverage the title and the reports to land a job elsewhere.

Why do we put up with this? Well quite simply, you tend to be hiring for roles you yourself don't understand. Here me out. If your CEO is a sales guy, which is perfectly fine, he's going to be taking a leap of faith somewhere when he picks a CTO.

I read on linkedin on a regular basis that you shouldn't promote your best developer to CTO. There may be some truth to this, but the reality is that there's a bunch of non-technical people vying for the top technical job. Now from your position as CEO, do you pick the guy who's a bit more salesy and familiar, or the tech you don't understand or empathise with? After all, that CTO with 2 years as a junior programmer in 1993 does articulate a really good argument.

Personally, I think you doom yourself to mediocrity by having a monoculture of bean counters run your business. I might be wrong, but if you hire a person who needs to hire a person to do the job, it's likely they'll want to hire someone a bit like them, and suddenly you'll be hiring a person, to hire a person, that needs to hire a person, for many layers, until one of those people will be a person that does a thing.

Bit like this picture:

https://digitalsynopsis.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/funny...
> If you like TV, great for you, but it being the 'default' might be a problem

When I was younger, I multiple times tried to cut of all mindless crap like tv or browsing. It led to lite depression and low productivity every single time. Conversely, when I had a lot of free time or worked on easy boring project, the stuff I do in free time became more intellectually difficult without me intentionally going for it.

My point here is that people cant be productive all the time. We do need some amount of mindless chill, be it tv or low key socialization.
Investment.

GitHub then Microsoft invested heavily into Electron. Tons followed. Not to mention the existing web ecosystem.

There are like two dozen random open source developers who bothered to work on Go GUI libraries, on the side.
Proof?

The point aiui is mostly arguing that the FDA errs too much on the side of caution in this area, and the trade-off would have been worth it to approve earlier. Not insinuating that like, there was some corruption (or laziness or something) that delayed it.
Have boomers stolen their children's future? [video]
They haven't given up in trying. Trying is just not enough. The system should degrade into a state which is still safe when a memory bug happens.
You turned my point around. I’m not talking about a random colleague forcing a peer to do something unsafe.

I’m talking about a random colleague seeing their peer wanting to do something and their reaction being “I don’t think you should do that because of a contrived reason which an auditor will say is against security / safety best practices.” Except they don't know this – their just making stuff up to be disruptive, show-off, sound-clever, boost their esteem, etc.

Bystanders whose sole contribution is to think of reasons not to do something — without taking responsibility for getting stuff done — are net-negative strong no-hires.
Tell that to Ross Ulbricht...
See roca's post earlier for some information from the original rr dev regarding their pernos.co service.

The principles are very similar - each has some advantages over the other but as an Undoer I have an obvious bias as to which I prefer ;-)

rr uses snapshots and deterministic repay in the same way, though they ensure determinism differently. I don't know if rr can do parallel reverse ops but evidently Pernosco does parallel pre-processing to build its database (which is magic as it then allows very fast queries about program state).
The problem with this is that economic models are (to be kind) incomplete, so playing a game like this is essentially "how to make an economy work if economies worked how we think they work."
They did not lose all territories outside of Russia proper (so to speak) at that time. Things wobbled dangerously but they made it through.

To take a current example, in 1922 Ukraine was a Soviet Republic. They lost it in 1991. Hence the situation today.
It's never a bad time to remind that avgas still contains lead.
One related property of GPT-3: It's very bad at traditional computational tasks.

* "Make a list of 20 items" results in a list. The number of items is as accurate as if you asked a toddler the same question.

* If you ask GPT-3 a simple combinatorics question, it will be 100% confident in the wrong answer.

Origami is sort of the same. It takes a conceptual understanding of how paper folds, which DALL-E Mini doesn't have. It has a feel for the general origaminess of a picture.

If I showed a human being a few pieces of origami, including a paper crane, and they had never seen origami before, they'd likely result in similar pictures.
In other words, assuming falling probability doesn't vary with height, its estimating what % of time people spend at each height * probability of a fall being reported at that height * probability of death at a given height.
That's a very good question. I started but abandoned a fairly deep answer, mostly because this is an area far from my expertise and in which it is easy to be howlingly wrong. (To be fair to me, subject matter experts have been arguing about this in the literature for some twenty years.)

Instead I'll direct you Sean Carroll's "Quantum Interrogation" blog posting as a starting point: <https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2006/02/27/quantum...>. ("how you can detect something without actually looking at it")

There is also the 2021 work by the Google & Stanford team (decent press release: <https://news.stanford.edu/2021/11/30/time-crystal-quantum-co...> open-access paper: <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04257-w>, the PDF version of which (click in top right) is legible) which is at least suggestive that certain types of time crystals can be interrogated without breaking them.
I think you’ve got to call the bluff and try to level up. Progress through Physics isn’t monotonic and a bit like the speeding cars of the freeway, you’ll probably meet those going faster at the traffic lights due to the throughout bottleneck of your environment.

Grinding is a separate super power — few can grind at an elite level.
Arrest is kidnapping. When someone other than the state does the crime of imprisonment, that crime is "false imprisonment," so there doesn't seem to be a big divide between the language we use for the two things.

Totally unrelated to language issues, kidnapping and imprisonment are very harmful and people ought to exercise great care to do them very little.
Inn-Yard Theatre
> What makes you think the US wouldn’t have nuked half the world by now if they were the only ones that had it?

Mainly because Americans just aren’t they kind of people. Had the opportunity, actually, after Japan surrendered and the US could have went to war with the USSR and built and used more atomic weapons but it didn’t. It has had ample opportunity and actual generals in the military during war time who advocated for their use and they still weren’t used again.

I sympathize with the OP (though I don’t think the US being the only one with nuclear weapons would make a difference) because proliferation has largely fallen into the hands of bad actors and as they continue to proliferate it effectively locks their awful governments in power.
Fred is from a time where there were no other means to climb a chimney. He worked safely for that time period.
Worlink in a lithium mine these days is more dangerous.
Try it! codex model.

It's pretty random. It will do a fine smiley face, for example. Most other things, it won't do.
That's an interesting idea. This would probably curb bad behavior, when you get reprimanded from several folks who have an actual stake in it.

But - and sorry if I'm overly negative here - I see other issues: First, you wouldn't want to dilute the stakes too much. If my bad behavior is a very small problem for 100 people, they probably don't care too much and nor do I.
The more pressing problem might be that growth is now really heard. The easiest way is if someone takes 100% responsibility, but then you only get very similar people and no new ideas.
Or you need several people inviting the same person, so your community cannot grow exponentially (I think).

This might be a good approach if you strive for homogeneity and accept small growth.
> Soviet Union collapsed Russia lost pretty much everything

Present-day Russia is still an empire, with ethnic Russians ruling over a host of minorities [1]. Those minorities feature prominently in Russia’s mineral-rich corridors. They are far more scarce at, say, the KGB or Kremlin.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Russia
> many have now refused to return to a job

They are not unemployed, they stopped getting money too. They did not returned to previous jobs and found new better jobs.
//Real progress would be improving technology to make the things people need and want cheaper

I agree about the goal.

But technology isn't what makes housing near reasonable places to live(employment, good community, etc) expensive.

So given socialized medicine, good public transportation and affordable housing takes us quite close to basic income - when a single adult needed to needed to work less than full time to provide for a family. That is possible in some places in Europe.

And those are centrally managed things.

So it's a combination of bottoms-up and top-down.
Weird path to this:

Terry Thomas

-> cad

-> a cad is also a word used for an innyard, the amazing area an Inn is built around

-> which was one of the original venues for a plays in London
For our approach, it's effectively a sort of virtualization.

At recording time we're collecting info about all the program's interactions with the outside world. In replay we prevent it from actually running any operations and instead just reinject what happened last time.

So if you had a program that did some IO and compute then we've have recorded all the system calls it did. When it's reading CSV data in replay we're feeding in the came data it read before. When it's doing things without outside effects we just say "sure, you've done that" and give it the original return code back.
Making HA easier while self-hosting is definitely something that's high on our list of future improvements. I wouldn't be surprised if there will be some announcements regarding this in the coming year. One of the main issues (imo) is configuring HA for PG isn't easy, even when using regular PG. And this becomes even more complicated in the case of Citus, because you're effectively running multiple PG servers, all of which you need to configure HA for.

For my understanding about the multi-region DR capability you would want: Do you want to be able to write to the DR region all the time? Or do you want to be able to switch over to the DR region in case the main DC is down?
For example, IRS paying $625,000 award to company who can help trace Monero

https://sam.gov/opp/5ab94eae1a8d422e88945b64181c6018/view
Tbf to Dibnah be belonged to a different era, pre Heath and Safety at Work Act (1974). He was in possession of a very much niche and specialised skill and worked in a normally very contained environment where only two people were normally at risk. With modern rope access equipment much of the residual risk of falling could be mitigated in the video, but the method could have been maintained. FYI the video is mislabelled (like a lot of Youtube) as from 2011(upload date). He died in 2004! I believe it was filmed in the early 1980s.

If you want to attack Fred, maybe attack his selfish devotion to his hobbies at the expense of his family, but not for having an attitude to health and safety that was somewhat normal for the era he worked in.
Your comment is not inaccurate. According to the almighty wikipedia, during a 1986 survey of the statue..

[1] Careful study had revealed that the right arm had been improperly attached to the main structure. It was swaying more and more when strong winds blew and there was a significant risk of structural failure. In addition, the head had been installed 2 feet (0.61 m) off center, and one of the rays was wearing a hole in the right arm when the statue moved in the wind. The armature structure was badly corroded, and about two percent of the exterior plates needed to be replaced.[138] Although problems with the armature had been recognized as early as 1936, when cast iron replacements for some of the bars had been installed, much of the corrosion had been hidden by layers of paint applied over the years.[139]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Liberty (Renovation and rededication 1982–2000)
I just got that app until Shottr has similar features (Image manager and S3 with custom url), thanks for recommending!
It's sour grapes. I first heard of bitcoin in a HN post 11 or so years ago and I'm still kicking myself for not mining a few thousand then. "Nice idea but it wont succeed" were my thoughts...
It all makes perfect sense in the many-worlds interpretation.
It's what happens when the government, industry, and investors create feeding troughs of funding, whether it's through deals, grants, VC funding, stock offerings, tax breaks, backroom handshakes, and so on.

I wouldn't say that all the jobs I've had were outright bullshit, but they were often made bullshit by the powers that be. When an organization is frequently making sub-optimal decisions that impact the quality of the product, the role of an employee carrying out those decisions can become that of shoddy workmanship, or performing tasks that aren't as beneficial as management thinks.

At this point, I've learned to accept a certain amount of bullshit. As much as I'd like the world to be free of bullshit, there's some utility to corporate bullshit. When companies succeed and grow, bullshit is created to inflate importance and create job security. If the company has entered the "cash cow" phase of its life, actually addressing bullshit almost certainly means threatening at least one person's job. If everyone is making money, why bother, then? Jobs are supposed to suck to some extent, else they wouldn't be jobs. It's not that I wouldn't do what I can to inform a team or business on how something can be done better, but when the forces of business and corporate politics inevitably push back, I let it go. Be somewhat glad that yourself and others get paid to do stupid shit. In any other time in history, our jobs would have been physically a lot more grueling. By tolerating bullshit, we can actually get away with quite a lot. It's one thing if it's a small company where bullshit early on can really hurt them, but why care if BigCo is full of bullshit? If it's full of bullshit, everybody might as well feed from the trough.
Elon Musk left the board of OpenAI in 2018.
SPAs return those roundtrips with a vengence.
Not only do we have less time:

1. Both couple partners have to work in the past only one.

2. We work more.

3. We take loans (obligate to future work).
In what respects is Rust safer than Go? They are both memory safe, and both have safe concurrency options (in addition to unsafe ones).
> The point of having principles is to optimise decision making for good outcomes.

Having principles optimizes for consistency, not outcomes. To me, turning around on a dime 10 times a day can be perfectly justified, so long that in the end you end up somewhere better than before. Same as going forward in the same direction for a thousand years, so long that's the thing that works.

> Having mendacious politicians succeed in their mendacity so easily is of benefit to whom?

The voters who want the policy they propose.

> Of course. In this case I do not see the necessity. The polling figures split yes/no in much the same way as they've been since the last time.

That's quite unimportant to my point here. I'm not talking about UK politics, but specifically rejecting your view of "once in a generation choice". I wouldn't make such promises myself, and would ignore concerns about breaking such a promise.

"Once in a generation" to me is never a legitimate rule. "However often, and whenever needed" is. If somebody made that promise, I'm all for breaking it whenever it seems there's any benefit from it.
This is a really awesome project and I hope it goes far!
To second this: explore tangents to your core knowledge - electrical engineering, mathematics, logic and human systems (eg governance structures, group decision making etc). These all likely intersect with what you do and are each fascinating domains on their own.
The reason browsers have a "reader mode".
It's really a lot more than this. Top earners (which is a narrower group than a full quintile, but just bear with me) are producing huge value for their fellow man, which is certainly more interesting than hourly work and can be addicting or at least very satisfying. There are also huge incentives to overwork yourself if you're specialized and very knowledgeable, because the coordination costs of finding someone else capable of sharing the load and then doing all the delegating, meeting, review, etc. can be extreme. If you're working for yourself on some earlier stage ventures, it may take you 35 hours of work just to keep the business running; in that case working 50 hours vs. 40 triples your 'productive' time. And on and on.

>One way to make more money is to work more.

In these discussions it's worth remembering the second order effects of hours worked on pay. The first order effect is that an hourly rate multiplied by more hours is a higher number. But if you're hourly, working long hours puts more of your time in overtime in any official hourly sort of situation. More importantly, it means that you're getting good at your job at an uncommonly high rate, and you're the person who's always around, who knows more and is getting things done. It's hard to promote someone else in this scenario. And for the person working, it's hard to not quickly outgrow the job in this way.

Finally, an analogy: my brother spends way more of his time playing basketball than I do. It's not that I can get all the basketball I need done in 20 minutes a week whereas it takes him 5 hours. I just suck at basketball, so I don't care to play.
> Bitcoin has value for the same reason Visa has value.

No. Bitcoin has utility. Screws have utility also, they just don't have very much value.
The Internet Tidal Wave, Bill Gates Memo (1995)
Right... I read a quote somewhere a few years ago by an architect: "anything that is not necessary, you will end up hating".
Might have missed a word there. When I want to go back 3 screens it’s a drag having to wait each time.
Much thanks, didn't know that, edited my comment.
Did something similar and that program turned into a milestone on many engineers’ promotion journey. (It wasn’t mandatory, but most everyone who made a certain level had successfully completed the program because you learned so much in and got such broad exposure from it.)
Reading about these kinds of experiments always fills me with lots of little questions like "well what if we did THIS" or "what if we tweaked THAT slightly". I have the urge to try and "catch reality out", to expose the trick.

Makes me wish you could do these experiments with a laser pointer and a piece of paper instead of needing lots of very expensive machinery and a research grant. Everyone should have the chance to play around with quantum weirdness.
>Only the compile time check makes an issue really go away.

The issue that goes away in both cases is the issue of unsafe memory access. There are disadvantages to runtime checks, as you mention, but there is no difference in the level of safety achieved.
You can certainly implement generational pointers in C++ code without further language-level support (given that you’re using your own handmade object pools). Don’t know if this can get to the STL though, since it requires a malloc (or object pool) implementation tailor-made for it.

I’ve implemented this in my current C++ game engine, and works wondrously well. You can even pack that generational index in the unused 16-bits of a 64-bit pointer, if you have further constraints (like a C library only allowing void* as userdata)!
Lots of really cogent points. Hopefully he reads this comment and swiftly begins working on designing a Diplomatic Agent to avoid the MAD or getting a good peace treaty
Lightweight Vue Desktop Apps
Bitcoin Falls Below $20k
Sure, doing it for 8 way would require a different approach and would likely be a lot harder to make work (not impossible, but it would likely constrain level design quite a bit)

To be clear, the one you showed is a great baseline, and likely the best option for most cases unless you hit a wall where you absolutely need to save extra cycles.

Only then it'd be worth exploring something this much more complex.

I guess my main point is that if you hit that wall, then an approach specialised for the level design can give extra savings.

But of course you're probably absolutely right that it'd not fit the budget of a typical C64 game back in the day.

I'd also add that this is far easier to do today, so it's easy for me to propose as an alternative now, but it's unsurprising if nobody used it back then.

E.g. I could throw together a script to do near optimal arrangement (I'm pretty sure finding optimal arrangements reduces to bin packing, which is NP hard) of transition function to maximise the minimum saved cycles for any given level data on screen and run it fairly easily on my laptop, but the number of permutations of "flattening" of layers would have forced you to resort to educated guesses back in the day, and so your savings might be more marginal.

(But now I kinda wish I had the time to put together a working example and see how far it could be pushed)

In terms of the worst case, to be clear for this to be useful at all you'd need to verify it never hit it. Given how many random colour changes would be required to hit it, I think you could guarantee that simply with a few minor constraints on the tile set (e.g. every 2x2 tile on screen with the same colours in all four positions saves you 2xSTA's and 2xLDAs) coupled with a willingness to make small tweaks (e.g. deleting a window from an otherwise "busy" part of a level etc.).

You can relatively cheaply validate it, since calculating the cycles for any given screen contents is easy, so you could validate levels by "scrolling" through the whole thing and calculating a graph of cycle counts at any given point. Of course, this is again much easier to do today when we can hack up a trivial script to run through the level data in seconds than it would have been back in the day.

And of course as you point out, you'd have needed a very good reason to spend the extra time (and impose the extra limitations on the level design) to make such small savings, or you'd just not have been able to justify it.

So unless you had a game so complex you absolutely had no choice but finding ways of cutting it down, it'd have made no sense. Even then I'm guessing back then people would have made the static parts of the screen bigger instead of anything complex like this.
yes and there's these for some models https://github.com/OpenHantek/openhantek
Ah, you know - phone autocorrect