skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> How would such a platform without file systems handle #include?

I don't think it would, you'd cross-compile for it on a platform with a file system. I think the parent poster's point was that C is the only option for some ultra low resources platforms and that a conservative approach should be taken to add new features in general. I don't think they were saying that specifically that not having a filesystem is problematic for this particular inclusion.
Given how many genres of games popped out of the Warcraft 3 ecosystem (dota, tower defenses, island troll tribes, survival games, rpgs, Pokémon-likes, board game likes, etc), it seems to me that Warcraft 3 is a perfect example of how much commonality exists between games that isn’t being exploited today — that it doesn’t require that much flexibility to support quite the variety.

StarCraft 2’s editor went even further with the game genres it was able to support (though they failed at building the community to utilize it)
And before too long that data will be floating around on a torrent for free.
The beauty of tar is using it as a stream of files. That lets you pipe a tar stream from a program (e.g. git) into another program (e.g. docker context) without loading the entire contents into RAM.
What makes tar files better than zip files? Why should anyone prefer .tar.xz to an even more commonly used format that has even broader support?
It’s definitely not too old for anything, if you want to do it. Source: I transferred from local college to better college at 20 myself.

There will be plenty of 20-year-olds where you transfer, and no one will care what year you technically are. Don’t worry about that. College is not like high school.

As other commenters have noted, the big question is whether you want to spend the extra time in school (and spend the extra money for the extra time - college debt is serious business!) But you know your own situation best, and an extra couple years of classes can be spent profitably if you’re thoughtful about how you use them.

But, here’s another possibility to consider- finish undergrad at your current place, and then go for a Master’s degree at the more prestigious school? It’s an extra two years in either case, and then you have a whole postgraduate degree as well.
Maybe with that attitude, but no.
An intermodal train car with double-stacked containers will replace 4 trucks. Even a traditional box car or grain hopper is much larger volume than a standard semi trailer.
LLMs for the most part learn P(someone on internet said A | internet specific context B) given ginormous amounts data. There’s no other type of A, B with that much training data at hand.
And for many of us the software we use can run on ARM but it's extra work to make it run and that has to be factored in.
I agree that RETRO is cool. I think you might be stretching it a bit with the applicability, but I take your point.
Which is unfortunate. In an ideal world, carriers should have zero control over client devices.
Elixir is pretty good for building graphql servers. The predictable latency under load is nice.
You keep claiming this, without providing evidence. Home equity loans and lines of credit can be and are used for investment purposes.

It’s considered one of the worst ways to use home equity, but it’s absolutely legal for all parties involved
Interesting - it wouldn’t be too hard to make tfenv build from source if necessary for anything post Terraform 0.5 (the very early days are likely not fully reproducible without some serious effort!)
It's a limited revival, enjoy it while stocks lasts. Or, perhaps, build inventory. But do they have the Max sugar free version in Crystal?
This is purely compiler side and usually those esoteric hosts are not running the compiler, being cross compiled but cross compiled, aren't they?
I really wish these kinds of things would be properly framed as "subsidized", rather than "free". There are plenty of arguments for (and against) many kinds of government-provided goods/services, but the mentality that this elicits is one where the public seems to think that the government has a magical wishing well out of which anything can be summoned at no cost.

For what it's worth: I think subsidized public transportation is a great use of tax dollars, and it's cool that Spain is extending this to train travel.
Is it really expected to be able to learn even the syntax and runtime in "a few days".

I've been using Javascript for 20 years and I'm still learning new things (though it helps that the language keeps changing)
‘Unregretted attrition’! What absurdity.

It’s distinctly 1984 newspeak.

Amazonspeak is wild.

I couldn’t imagine a worse company to work for in any capacity. I don’t even want to shop there when I read this shit.
I don't think there's any robust evidence for glycemic index/load mattering at all, unless you're diabetic of course.
And it's only possible because the reactor produces a series of small explosions of alpha particles.
> Unlike religion, all philosophers can say is "it would be advantageous to generally valued goals X,Y,Z that we take these axioms for granted".

Ah, here is the disconnect, and where you would be wrong. What you are describing is called moral anti-realism.

And yes, if all a philosopher is doing, is saying "given a set of unjustified axioms, that we are assuming, this is what follows" then I have no problem with this line of thinking.

The problem that I have, is that the majority of philosophical thought these days, is for moral realism.

They don't just have axioms. Instead, they think the universe itself proves their axioms to be true, and if you disagree with their axiom, you are just as much of a science denier as if you questioned a different expert in a different field.

If only philosophers just admitted that they just had axioms like everyone else.

> It turns out that enough people share these axioms for this philosophical work to be useful for navigating difficult questions

Sure. As I stated in part of one of my posts, if we just want to say that philosophy is a useful way of thinking, then that's fine. Just don't say it is the same as the universe proving your axioms true.

> Can you cite a philosopher arguing that the universe itself mandates that veganism is correct?

It's called moral realism. Most philosophers are moral realists these days. They literally believe that their moral axioms are true, in a epistemological sense. (Veganism is just an example of one such moral statement that many make)

You can pick any famous moral realist, and that will be mostly the case for them.
That site is cancer
> That's what I meant that we don't have to worry about in C since you can't even have two different functions with the same name

But you can have a macro foo which expands to a generic selection: <https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/c-language/generic-sele...>
Are they writing code on a system without a filesystem, preprocessor feature
All you're saying here is, "people object to it." Or is there something more substantive?

> in a manner that is satisfying to the residents of the state where it is being disposed

No, that is basically NIMBY. Of course some residents won't like nuclear waste buried underground, 100 miles from them in a place they'll never go and where no one lives. I don't know how to not sound callous about that.
Assuming this listing is for a property in the United States, even mentioning any protected class, whether for existing tenants or new tenants, will likely run you afoul of HUD regulations. I'd imagine no listing website wants to assume liability for discriminating against prospective tenants.
In the spirit of people paying the true cost for things, in the USA airline tickets to rural airports are heavily subsidized, they would lose money at current rates or could charge the market rate (which I think they should), it's now about 300 million per year, measured per passenger this is higher than Amtrak's subsidies AFAIK. Also the security at airports should be fully funded by airline passengers, instead of only partially being paid by passengers.
MW power transmission is about 85% efficient at the receiving end. Solar is much lower than that.
This certainly looks scary, but it's a bit difficult to understand right now even with their explanations, hopefully this bill will have more attention.
Does this seem focused on people with a nutritionally adequate diet excelling in sports over nearby people malnourished, essentially?
TL;DR, IIUIC: Hardlink creation code in tar checks if a hardlink created or not by going over a list of previously created hardlink placeholders, and does that every time it needs to create a hardlink.
Well and studiously not talking to the few about their actual needs.
Not for highways. Those are paid for by gas taxes, and before you bring it up, the only reason the highway trust fund is insolvent is due to diversions to fund transit. Local roads are also funded with property tax money as well as gas tax/car registration money, but good luck having a functional city even if every person uses transit without roads, so its hard to argue that drivers are subsidized because of that. Buses, taxis, bikes, and delivery vehicles need roads too and heavy vehicles damage roads significantly more than cars do.

The fact is that parking taxes, gas taxes, tolls, registration fees, etc. are often diverted to fund transit, but transit fees are not diverted to fund auto infrastructure. Transit is subsidized at a much higher percentage basis than roads are; I'm more than happy to pay the true cost of roads (excluding arbitrary """externalities"""), but I doubt you would be willing to pay unsubsidized transit fares. As an example, only 24.44% of the MTA's operating expenses are paid for by fares [1], and NYC has a higher farebox recovery ratio than most cities. If you lived in New York, would you really be willing to pay $11.25 each way (so $22.50 round trip), instead of $2.75 ($5.50 round trip), for a subway ride? That's the equivalent of driving 19.2 miles one-way (38.5 mile round trip), including the cost of the car, gas, insurance, and taxes paid to fund the roads (using the IRS rate of 58.5 cents a mile, which in my experience is an over estimate on actual costs incurred). In the city I live in, which dense but not Manhattan level dense, the unsubsidized cost of a rail ticket is around $30 a trip, or $60 round-trip, which almost no one would be willing to pay (those numbers came directly from the agency's budget). None of the transit numbers include capital costs, so the real unsubsidized cost is even higher. Roads are not subsidized to the tune of 75+% of total cost.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio#North_A...
This is pretty reasonable for 2004, but the problems have changed. Everything on that page is totally doable for a serious engineering team, and has been done many times. The real hard part is what they briefly touch on with:

Don’t do page rank initially. Actually don’t do it at all. For this observation I risk being inundated with hate mail, but nonetheless don’t do page rank. If you four guys in your garage can’t get something decent-looking up without page rank, you’re not going to get anything decent up with page rank. Use the source, Luke—the HTML source, that is. Page rank is lengthy analysis of a global nature and will cause you to buy more machines and get bogged down on this one complicated step—this one factor in ranking. Start by exploiting everything else you can think of: Is the word in the title? Is it in bold? etc. Spend your time thinking about anything you can exploit and try it out.

The web is full of sites that want to rank, since traffic makes money and appearing high in search results gets you traffic. Simple handling of HTML source is incredibly gameable, and while it might have worked okay on the web of 2004 it definitely is not enough now. It's you and your team verse an enormous number of SEO people.
Lots of military members go to college well into their 20s on the GI bill
Worth noting that this approach would have been impossible to execute on GNOME Shell, which integrates its shell, compositor and window manager in a single component.
I wasn't saying tar is better than zip (though if you want to read about issues with the zip file format, have a look at this post: https://games.greggman.com/game/zip-rant/ -- HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27925393). I'm just saying there's nothing about the tar file format itself that makes you loathe it, you just loathe that Windows doesn't support it. That's not a problem with tar.

I don't even know if it's true that tar is less common than zip. I know zip is incredibly common, but truly, so is tar. In the UNIX world, _everything_ happens through tar. And as someone who almost exclusively operates in the UNIX world, I interact with zip files very rarely, while I work with tarballs all the time.

Just don't blame the format for a deficiency in your operating system, that's all I'm saying.
Yes you do. If you have the money to pay off your house, you are likely better off getting a very low interest rate mortgage (which you will be able to do as you can provide 100% security for the loan) and put your vast pile of money into a higher rate CD or similar. Or even some of it in low-medium risk index fund.

If you were a company, it would likely be seen as financial mismanagement not to do that. That's why companies that have more money than is possibly reasonable still have loans.

But anyway that's beside the point.

These people are not claiming to be victims due to crypto crashing, in fact many have their entire balance with Voyager in US dollars/USDC (which I just checked, is still 1:1 with USD). They are complaining that they went to withdraw the money that was in their account, and Voyager wouldn't let them, and then declared bankruptcy. Even at this point it would be more annoying than anything else, as Voyager had stated that they were FDIC insured so everyone's deposits were insured in the case that Voyager failed/declared bankruptcy.

Only then was it disclosed that Voyager had been lying about that, and in fact there was no deposit insurance, and they had stolen the content of everyone's accounts.

What you are saying is no different from, say, BofA declaring bankruptcy and that it wasn't actually FDIC insured so everyone has lost the money in their bank accounts; then I turn around and say that it's those people's fault as they didn't understand BofA's financials, and that the people who lost money didn't verify the FDIC insurance themselves. I sure as hell don't understand Wells Fargo's financials, and rely on them not lying about being FDIC insured.
How long will the fuel last? Sabine Hossenfelder references studies in which we have enough Uranium for 50 years max.

6:08 here:
https://youtu.be/0kahih8RT1k
"Out of all sources of energy only atomic energy is something that we can practically scale at the moment to cover almost all our needs"

... what?

Criticism 1: you'd need, what, like 100 nuclear plants planned and approved? If you started now, maybe in three years you'd get like ... 10 approved. five years maybe 20-30.

Criticism 2: nuclear is not price competitive with current wind/solar installations, and CERTAINLY won't be competitive even with efficiency improvements with wind/solar in 10-20 years when any plant actually leaves the boondoggle funding phase and goes online.

Criticism 3: what design of plant? LWR/PWR/huge dome/solid fuel rod/oh shit it melts down in a natural disaster? Yeah uh, no thanks. If nuclear had gotten its act together about ... let's say 30-40 years ago and designed a reactor that:

1) meltdown proof

2) consumes almost all its fuel

3) scalable / easily replaced

Then we might be able to do it. Problem is, the entire nuclear industry was invested in solid fuel rod designs, the military loved it for the weapons isotopes, the politicos blocked funding for LFTR and other designs, the solid fuel rod reprocessors were making bank, there was probably other shadow industries like waste handlers/transporters on the dole.

So... nuclear is a no go. Solar/wind for now, use natural gas and existing nuclear for levelling until storage and solar/wind+storage drop to levels unattainable by nuclear/fusion/naturalgas/geothermal/hydro. Synthfuels for aviation. Long haul shipping can probably be done with swappable batteries and/or synthfuels. ... maybe... hydrogen if it's not the current trojan horse for hydrogen-from-methane being pushed by the oil companies.

Maybe nuclear can be competitive when solar/wind even out, and battery/storage finishes its incredible scaling and tech development. Maybe.

But the path forward is wind/solar, and maybe synthfuels and green hydrogen if the green isn't "green" like clean coal was "clean" coal.

Our children should already curse us. The science was there, and my and ESPECIALLY the boomers picked SUVs, big houses, moving to florida, and lots of cheap crap shipped 5000 miles from overseas labor over dealing with problems.
I'm in Spain but this thing is only for a couple of months. It's not something that's a game changer in any kind of way.

It's nice but it won't change anything
No, you just need to click on the ‘n time ago’ bit which opens that comment which then enables you to reply directly no matter how nested or save/favorite.

I.e. your comment I replied to said ‘2 hours ago’ I clicked there and replied.
Pre crime?
> but if it can't run my Docker containers for work

I don't understand; Docker Desktop for Apple Silicon runs x86 containers out of the box
I just go cold turkey every few months when my caffeine tolerance gets out of hand.
There’s a difference between consumption tied to metabolic rate and satiation. Carbs make you consume more calories, proteins and fats are better at moderating your caloric consumption closer to your metabolic rate.

A can of Coke doesn’t satiate your, but it’s almost 300 calories with almost no nutritional value, so you’re going to consume more calories than you otherwise would.
Indoor humidity, especially in winter, can still be low. Even when dealing with saturated outdoor air, by the time you heat it up indoors it can be borderline to a bit too dry for comfort.

Of course, anything outside your heat envelope/moisture barrier is pretty damp.
Well, the lack of index for one
I’m really amazed at how divisive this one is, and the number of comments here questioning what seems to me a really useful and well-thought-out feature, something I’d have loved to have used many many times over the years.

I guess the heated arguments here help me understand how it could have taken so long to get this standardised, though, so that’s something!

Congratulations and thank you to the OP for doing this, and thanks also for this really interesting (if depressing) view of the process.
>After decades of cooling, France, like most other nuclear power generating countries, has no long-term solution in place for high and intermediate spent fuel waste disposal.

https://www.power-technology.com/analysis/managing-nuclear-w...

Yes, short term they manage it.

When we are discussing the future, our concern is long term.
Gary Taubes (the author of those books) is about as far from a serious scientist, or even science communicator, as one can get without being an obvious charlatan.

Saying 'the science got it all wrong!' while citing pop-sci books from Amazon is a bit ironic.
Uranium and thorium fuel on earth can make 100% of today's primary energy for about 4 billion years, using breeder reactors, which were proven in 1952 near Arco Idaho at the Experimental Breeder Reactor 1.

Writeup explaining this with lots of actual scientific references at the bottom here:

https://whatisnuclear.com/blog/2020-10-28-nuclear-energy-is-...

People who say uranium will last 50 years either aren't aware of breeder reactors, which have been the long-term plan for nuclear fission since the 1940s, or they're misleading you. We found a lot more uranium than expected in the interim so they have been put off for a while. But we know they work and have built many.
The Twitter thread you linked to is irrelevant - it's talking about completely different thing than what GP mentioned.
A lot of casinos offer lines of credit so this isn't true.
You’ve stated this point better than I did.

Otherwise brilliant and rational people just go all mystical when we start talking about meaningless words like “intelligence” or “consciousness”.

An animal or a human or a big matrix perform X well on Y task. That’s quantitative and objective.

All this “is it smart” bullshit is thinly-veiled “how does the world still rotate around my subjective experience given this thing writes better Tolkien fan fiction than I do”.

Performance on tasks. Everyone else shuffle over to the Philosophy department.
Yes I am basically saying people object to it. And in a democracy that’s a fairly important detail that you can’t just write off as a “non issue”.
I am not at all a mathematician, but I just can’t wrap my head around how 1/0 isn’t infinity. 1/1=1, 1/0.5=2, 1/0.25=4, etc. The closer we get to 0, the larger the number. I just can’t accept that if we actually get to 0 in our progression, it is anything besides infinity. Perhaps it becomes its own class of number, like what happened with imaginary numbers. That is, infinity times zero is 1n (where n is a bookkeeping marker like i in the square root of negative numbers), or like with limits, where you have a “+ C” in there.
You could also try to read the book, or its cover, for a start. David Buss is a renowned and serious scholar. If you think that "evolutionary psychology" is a "red flag," I suggest you email another renowned biologist, Richard Dawkins, and warn him of if[1].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxhzmIlgBLY
> Poor people in America have cars generally speaking.

And are you saying poor people in America wouldn't want a cheaper mode of transportation as an option?
I'm sure reviewers' "advertising partners" are none too happy to have another machine outperform their x86 machines so badly as to tacitly imply that no one should buy them. The reviewers need to pay their bills. It's no surprise they are going to take the Macbooks out of the comparison sheets even though, for all intents and purposes, they so the same thing as Windows laptops. There are way more of them than there are ARM laptops.

And yeah, I get it that in this crowd, there are many people that that need x86. But for the vast majority of consumers, all they need is a machine that can surf the web and open up spreadsheets.
Agreed cookie banners are annoying. But, nothing about GDPR nor CCPA mandates cookie banners. Both do require that users can opt out of tracking cookies, and some site operators seem to have decided that cookie banners are an easy way to minimally comply with the law. But, the EU has determined that cookie banners that just force users to accept to continue are not compliant, and have started fining companies (like Google) who use these banners. I would have much preferred an opt-in required for any form of tracking and data collection.

Cookie banners are a good signal, however, that the site you're visiting does not respect their users. There is no need (per either GDPR nor CCPA) to notify and get user consent if you are not engaged in creepy tracking in the first place. E.g., cookies for session management are and always have been allowed without consent under the GDPR and CCPA.

The part of the CCPA that is most valuable, to me, if it actually works (not convinced after my first experience trying to exercise CCPA rights), is being able to control data that has already been collected by creepy stalker companies and data brokers. Of course, it would be better to not allow the data collection in the first place, but the CCPA controls on your data, after-the-fact (if it actually works) is much better than what we had available prior to the CCPA.