skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I got lasik eye surgery and got perfect vision in 20 minutes, more than 15 years ago. Best decision ever (don’t skimp on this, go to the best professional you can afford)
4. Need to understand the cop who is directing people into lanes by jutting his chin subtly in different directions when you make eye contact with him

5. Need to understand that occluded objects have not vanished from the universe never to be seen again
might be dirty bomb or not delivered by missile
A bit of a weird article.
It announces super streams-which are basically topic partitions in Kafka, acknowledges that, but then hand-waves “oh but they’re different” and then spends the rest of the article talking about all the features that are identical to how topic partitions work…

It’s a good feature, there’s nothing wrong with that, but there’s nothing wrong with saying “we’ve brought this feature to RabbitMQ too” rather than trying to pretend it’s totally-not-the-same.
As beginner try the old frameworks.
They always have amazing documentation with a lot of wisdom.

most corner cases has been explored and discussed.

Even the source code is well documented
If I had to nominate a piece of software, as an SRE, that is as close to "set and forget" as possible, it'd absolutely be RabbitMQ standalone and a close runner up would be its clustered form.

I've worked in 3 places where RabbitMQ has been a fundamental cornerstone of the architecture, and while it does require a little tuning around performance occasionally (generally because it's being used inappropriately or without full consideration of its limitations/best practices), it's rock solid, easy to debug/inspect, has an active and supportive community, and is generally just all around pleasant to work with and maintain.

Kudos to RabbitMQ and its developers!

As an aside, the addition of recent features such as super streams, streams and quorum queues make it a compelling all-in-one tool for solving a bunch of architectural based concerns/requirements in application and infrastructure development. I've often thought about why it's not more utilised in the ops side of the world for metrics gathering and other usecases. I have also wondered how useful it'd be for log ingestion with lazy queues etc.

Does anyone out there have examples of unusual use cases for RabbitMQ where it's outshone some alternative product? Would love to hear about them!
Portland got some pretty negative press in the last few years.

I barely knew Portland existed before that and now I just know I wouldn't want to settle there.

Real estate seems still up in general, I assume because of a mix of inflation and BlackRock / investors overpaying for it to escape all the other failing assets
I'm having trouble understanding the question—there's plenty of open-source games that do not use ECS or a Unity-style scene graph. this mode of thinking being the default is relatively recent in the history of video game development. if you've never tried something like that before, PICO-8 might be a good starting point. this blog post might also prove useful: https://www.gamedev.net/blogs/entry/2265481-oop-is-dead-long...
I assume this means things like cars, factories, infrastructure,
building industry, military and so on.

One of the biggest/famous companies in the world with the most cash is in the US needs China to make it’s devices still. That might tell us something.

Are we (westerners) the sheep being well fed, for now?
I'd suggest Scheme instead of Lisp.
What kind of ARM machine should I buy if I want to self-host an ARM server? My not-that-recent look at the market shows everyone kind of doing their own thing; Amazon makes Amazon's ARM servers, Apple makes Apple's ARM chips, etc. As some random guy who wants to test on ARM, it's annoying. Maybe things have improved recently, though?

(I'm guessing self-host realistically means "get a VM on AWS", which is probably fine for CI if you already use AWS. A little annoying to have another monthly bill to pay if you don't, though.)
Was it more than zero? Did they pay to take the test?
As a child of the 80's - that's probably where you want to be. Right in the epicenter, if you can make it. At least it'll be over quick.

I'm fairly certain that's preferable to the scenarios survivors of a large scale nuclear exchange will face in the weeks, months, and years after.
Good question :)

Yes, all students took the test together on paper and pencil in the classroom; a digital version of the test was not available.

I just went through my files to check, and indeed the final exam for my artificial intelligence class was in-class, 2 hours, pen only (no pencil).
they want a direct line to NSA
> $280k per child cost savings of not having them can be directed to investments

and what exactly those investments will be when you grow old if everyone decides for themselves and has no kids? stocks need underlying companies which needs workers. Same for corporate bonds. Government bonds need taxpayers, i.e. a working generation, which again means someone's kids. So tell me - where exactly are you going to put these 280K when there are very few kids?

> Individuals do not owe society perpetuation of the status quo through reproduction.

That goes both ways. If a society with thinkers like you have 1 working adult for 3 old people when you grow old, it may decide to ignore those who didn't do their fair share in building the next generation.
The ads in smaller games push players away from those games, while pushing ever more players into the F2P megahits that are perpetually at the top of the store charts and still rake in millions per day (and therefore have great big advertising budgets).

There's little point trying to enter the mobile game market at this point.
A browser tab and “just” shouldn’t appear in the same sentence, any given browser tab is running a large piece of complex software written entirely in JavaScript with no performance testing.
Ngl both do a pretty great job, OP's may be slightly better even.

Unfortunately both output images at thumbnail quality, so it's an academic exercise only and not anything actually useful.
These kind of conundrums easily disappear when you factor in housing(or healthcare). Labour is expensive, but housing is even more expensive. The delivery guy needs to pay their landlord before they can pay other delivery guys.
> docs / resources on this online?

Surprisingly the old textbook went to three editions, the last in 1997
[1] It looks as if it may be on archive.org [2], and is definitely in
Google Books and LibGen.

> How would you go around building a computer out of commodity
components today?

Good question. You could of course retrace my steps using 1980s
technology, but I wouldn't advise that. The problem today is physical
scale. Most components are surface mount and you really need to build
multi layer boards and use a bench microscope to place and solder.
Getting anything hand-built to reliably run faster than 100MHz without
knowing what you're doing is no fun. Everything I spent a thousand
hours building is in a SoC for $1 now.

> Do you think compiling everything on own computer results in
noticeable increase in performance?

That's a question to ask Gentoo/Arch users (and BSD people who use
Ports). I think yes, because hopefully you'll optimise for the
architecture you have. But is is worth it? Given the many hours you'll
wait, maybe not at my age :) Do it while you're young and can learn
cool things from it.

[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/950048.Microprocessor_Sy...

[2] https://archive.org/details/microprocessor-systems-design-68...
The job postings all say: "We believe in hiring individuals. If you do not check all of the boxes, we still encourage you to apply. If this job isn't a fit, we have many other openings that may be one. "

So maybe if you have relevant experience and can show it, apply anyways?
My opinion is that someone who is comfortable with graduate level signal theory can reach synth mastery in one year. The physics and math are shallow and can be picked up quickly. The psychoacoustics takes more time for experimentation and reading research papers.

Whereas, audio professionals who avoid mathematics because it looks hard, like complex analysis, do not ever reach an acceptable level.
Driving is a social problem, not a technical one. It's functionally the same as walking down a crowded sidewalk. The car is just a tool, just an extension of our bodies.

We can't build a robot which can walk down a sidewalk without running into people either. The sensor tech and mapping fidelity are red herrings. People drive well because only people are good at predicting human behavior.
Am I the only one who can't connect to this host? It resolves to a Russian IP address. Home ISP
Yep. Once your lenses get above -6 diopter or so it starts to become a serious concern. By -10 diopter it's the driving choice in lens material and design.

At -10.5, -11 I always get relatively low refractive index (~1.5) CR-39 based lenses because it's Abbe number is 60. This means I can still read, say, street signs or flanking computer monitors out of the corner of my eye despite the light going through literally >1 cm of material.
What is it neutral or negative? The link says neutral the title negative. Big difference actually.
That's pretty much a totally different category of employee, though:
"Tesla is laying off 229 data annotation employees who are part of the company’s larger Autopilot team [...] Most of the workers were in moderately low-skilled, low-wage jobs, such as Autopilot data labeling"

Data annotation can be cheaply outsourced or scaled up and down without much affecting progress on self-driving. Karpathy leaving says more about that progress to me.
The 2012-2015 model was uniquely uncomfortable for me. The Touch Bar first generation with the butterfly keyboard is my gold standard for comfort, if not necessarily reliability, with the current generation of M1 Pro/Max MacBook Pro being a close second. Joint second goes to the aluminum PowerBook.
If I have to pick a side in the battle of who can produce the most cheap batteries, an insane Twitter addict or state-controlled industries of South Korea, I'm going with the Koreans.
I installed it on a 486 (DX2!!) with 4MB of RAM. It... worked, kinda. I reverted back to 3.1 a couple days later. The machine was just too slow.

It would be another two years before I could afford something that could run 95. I think I went straight to 98 IIRC.
you make good points but please use paragraphs. It makes reading easy.
Yea, or just use a Firefox add-on[0] to change the user-agent to Edge for the Teams web app

[0]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/teams-phone-f...

(or even better, don't use Teams at all, obviously)
It never made any sense but there was too much money to be made in pretending.
The Open AI clear content policy is quite interesting to me. It's reasonable but clearly controlling.
They own it legally, and they are absolutely unsuccessful in stopping unauthorized copies. Same with the Ring videos, no? The owner of camera owns the recordings, maybe, but they can't really control disclosure.
FWIW I really don't like async in rust. It's improved significantly over the past couple years and it's nowhere near as bad as callback hell in Javascript but things still feel opaque. I've been toying around with a little monitoring agent (think Nagios or Sensu) to keep an eye on my defective LG fridge. So far I've managed to crash rustc twice. Trying to wrap my head around one library (that I was using incorrectly) I managed to "fork bomb" the damn thing and realize that I've little to no insight into the runtime. Try to find the current number of running tasks being managed by tokio…

The beauty of the rust async stuff is that you can move to a multi-threaded runtime as you desire with minimal effort.
The font I'm seeing this in makes the pi look like a lowercase N.
> but their vision only tech stack doesn’t seem capable of solving it

Well, I'm not sure that anyone's tech stack is capable of solving it; the live examples of robotaxis are, well, not something you'd bet your company on (and generally their creators are _not_ betting their companies on them). There was, I think, a decade ago the idea that fully self-driving cars were a near-term inevitability. That's fading, now.
> you want to be able to show that the VC money is being put to good use, and quickly

That's pretty much it. The VCs, at the height of the bubble, were forcing startups to take far more funding than they needed. A startup company can't just sit on the cash and do nothing with it, the funding needs to be put to work ASAP in order for the VC companies to justify having provided the funding.

Most startups are software companies, so they have limited ability to spend those mountains of VC money on capital expenditures. They can't spend their VC funding on building a factory or something. The largest expense in a software company is human resources, so that's what they end up spending their funding on (even if it's not in the best interest of the founders, employees or customers).

> Personally I don't quite understand why a founder would want to take a huge pile of money and then burn it as fast as possible trying to hit some hyper-growth target, when they could instead take a small amount of money and set up a stable revenue-earning business

They don't have a choice. If they don't accept the huge pile of money, they get nothing. The VC business model isn't compatible with slowly building a stable revenue-earning business. From the private equity investor's point-of-view, if they wanted to invest in a stable revenue-earning business, they can just go and do a leveraged buy-out of a well-established, stable revenue-earning business (like a health care business, or an older enterprise SaaS business, etc.) and skip all the risks associated with the startup phase. They only want to invest in a startup if it's a hyper-growth moonshot, and they don't mind burning founders, employees, customers and their own money in the process because they only need 1 in 100 startups to succeed and the other 99 are just tax write-offs for them.
I'll post the same rant I usually do whenever this article comes up:

"The Blub Paradox" is mistaken. It's a misunderstanding.

To see why, think about Haskell. Haskell users are sure they're at the top of the power curve. When they look at Lisp, they're sure that they're looking down. "How can you get anything done in Lisp? It doesn't even have a decent type system."

But Lisp users, when they look at Haskell, they also are sure that they're looking down. "How can you get anything done in Haskell? It doesn't even have macros."

This situation - two languages, each certain that they're looking down at the other - tells us that there's something wrong. And what's wrong is the idea that languages can be ranked on a one-dimensional axis labeled "power".

So, what is "power"? Or perhaps better put, power to do what? Well, to write programs. What programs? General programs? I've never written a general program in my life. I've written a bunch of specific ones, though.

When I'm choosing a language, I care about its power to write a specific program. (Because why do I care about how good a language is for writing a program that I'm not trying to write? Why would I care about that?)

So, ask what technical issue makes it hard to write the program you're trying to write. Then look at what language goes the furthest in the direction of making that problem easier. (You could go further, to think of the set of technical issues as a vector in a multi-dimensional space, and languages as a tree in that multi-dimensional space. Pick the language that reaches furthest in the direction of the vector of the technical problems.)

But you have to have a somewhat broad idea of "language". It includes libraries and ecosystem. It includes the ability to write code that can be maintained over multiple decades (if that's part of what you need).

TL;DR: The Blub Paradox is mistaken. For it to work, you have to be able to rank languages in one dimension (power). You can't. It's much messier than that.
best cars in the world is a stretch
I think Epic’s doing a pretty reasonable job of distinguishing between Apple, and people that develop in its engine on Apple machines. The 5.0.2 release, for example, had loads of MacOS-specific bug fixes. There are compromises versus developing on Windows, of course - you lose hardware Lumen, for example. No native AS support either yet, but it runs okay through Rosetta depending on what you’re doing.
Same. Lightning gets around them by bunching a bunch of transactions into one bitcoin transaction. Which is exactly what people have been doing with card processing for ages now.

And of course there other payment systems around the world that don't rely on card transactions.

And don't forget that the entire lightning thing is dependent on banks aka nodes with large sums of money to provide liquidity in the system.
> I don't think people should HAVE to have children; I think we should be taking better care of ALL of our people

I don't think these two sentences go well together. To take better care, we need younger people to provide care, food, entertainment, security and other comforts for an old person. And if that person hasn't paid their dues[1] by raising the next generation, then I don't think society owes them anything.

[1] of course, there are exceptions like having medical problems which bar you from having kids. But I am talking about selfish individuals who don't want to do the hard work of raising kids.
Nobody in Europe uses Messages? Pretty sure everyone with an iPhone does.
> This is shown to be a myth, as some other comments here suggested.

There have certainly been a bunch of opinion pieces expressing that opinion coming out at the same time. Which is incredibly weird, unless... oh right, opinions can be bought and China has a history of doing that.

Mystery solved I guess.
Waymo has superior performance based on their historical statistics. It makes sense, since their lidar sensors capture more of the environment, and directly in 3D. Their AI also seems better QA’ed.

The Tesla AI Day[0] surprised me as it showed they only had a simple architecture for a very long time, simply feeding barely processed camera pixels to a DNN and hoping for the best with little more than supervised learning off human feeds. Their big claim to glory was that they rearchitectured it to produce a 2D map of the environment… which I thought they had years ago, and is still a far cry from the 3D modeling that is needed.

After all, sure, we humans only take two video feeds as input… But we can appreciate from it the position, intent, and trajectory of a wealth of elements around us, with reasonable probability estimates for multiple possibilities, sometimes pertaining to things that are invisible, such as kids crossing from nowhere when near a school.

Cruise also seems to have better tech; they had a barely-watched 2h30 description of their systems[1] which shows they do create a richer environment, evaluate the routing of many objects, and train their systems on a very realistic simulation, not just supervised training, which means it can learn from very low-probability events. They have a whole segment on including the probability that unseen cars may travel from perpendicular roads; Tesla’s creeping hit-or-miss are well-documented on Youtube.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0z4FweCy4M

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJWN0K26NxQ
Congratulations on your discovery of dynamical systems.

You describe the very scenario where stablecoins come into being, but you are too perfectly rational to engage in that creative behavior. That’s fine.

You admit others probably will but decide it will be a failure at the point where it works because someone else will have somehow bypassed this whole process.

I don’t hold any stablecoins or care if it works.
Why is it a footgun? I have been using it and I didn't notice anything bad with it yet.
It would not surprise me if someone managed to build DosBox running inside of Flash. Maybe a build made for ASMJS could (slowly) work.
To be fair, Q > 1 in a research system and “commercial nuclear fusion” are two different things. I’m a lay person but it feels to me like SPARC has a good chance of Q > 1 this decade and reasonable that they could build a commercial system before 2040.

I’m reminded of all the NASA people that were highly skeptical of SpaceX when they were getting started and I feel like these big institutions end up with a bias against new companies with new ideas.
I didn’t see it as a defense of religion (it did not express an opinion) - more as a correction of your post.
This is false. Thermal limiting on an Intel Mac is indicated by kernel_task CPU but it isn’t using any power to do it.
That's pretty huge though.
Yeah the parsing for some of the BASICs was weird at times. Some auto-capitalised terms whereas others would list that as a syntax error or some other error. Some even allowed you to abbreviate terms. Locomotive BASIC allowed you to use something like a question mark (I forget the exact punctuation but I think it was a question mark) in place of a PRINT command.
I sure hope the restaurant didn't have to cover the cost.

If they did, they need to sign a less abusive deal with DD.
Logo? Racket?
Elon in 2024: “by 2026 we’ll have actual, real teleportation”

Elon in 2026: “by 2028 we’ll have FTL drives”

Elon in 2028: “time machine!”
> The y-axis has actual meaning: it tells you the purchasing power of a public stock, which will never be 0.

If we are trying to visualize the total return of a given asset since 1987, how is the price of a single stock (an arbitrary unit) in 1987 or any time since, relevant data?

The ROI expressed as a percentage on the y axis (with 0% at the beginning of the period) would be a much better visualization of the relative returns among asset classes throughout the period.

Currently I get USD < VBMXFX < VFINX at the beginning of the chart, for reasons that have nothing to do with the total return since 1987.

The drawdown chart is even more confusing with the USD starting at -81%. If we were plotting a chart of drawdown of multiple currencies, the older ones would start lower (since they've had more time to be affected by inflation) which only makes it hard to visualize the answer to the question "how did they do since 1987".
> Any reason why everyone seems to be stuck on this problem?

Because it's really, really difficult. A lot of AI-ish stuff pretty rapidly gets to the point where it _looks_ quite impressive, but struggles to make the jump to actual feasibility. Like, there were convincing demos of voice recognition in the mid-90s. You could buy software to transcribe voice on your home computer, and people did. And, now, well, it's better than in the mid-90s certainly, but you wouldn't trust it to write a transcript, not of anything important. Maybe in 2040 we'll have voice recognition that can produce a perfect transcript, and human transcription will be a quaint old-fashioned concept. But I wouldn't like to bet on it, honestly.

And voice recognition is arguably a far, far easier problem.
Writing stuff in C or C++ doesn't give you substantial perf benefits over assembler in most cases, so they don't belong to this list.

That aside, no, I don't think we shouldn't be using higher-level abstractions. The problem is that we're using them without any consideration of performance impact at all, and increasingly without consideration of the actual cost/benefit ratio from developer perspective. For that matter, at some point, if you keep piling abstractions on, the amount of leakage from them all the way to the top layer is a tax on the developer operating on that layer - and that tax can, at some point, exceed the purported benefits of the abstraction.

Do we really need to package a browser with every app just to make it easy to do (horribly designed more often than not) cross-platform UI? Or is it just the most expedient hack to avoid having to solve that problem properly?