skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I followed some guides I found online and ended up with the following:

~ cat /etc/auto_master
#
# Automounter master map
#
+auto_master # Use directory service
#/net -hosts -nobrowse,hidefromfinder,nosuid
/home auto_home -nobrowse,hidefromfinder
/Network/Servers -fstab
/- -static
/- auto_nfs -nobrowse,nosuid

~ cat /etc/auto_nfs
/System/Volumes/Data/Users/ahepp/nfs/public -fstype=nfs,vers=4,resvport,rw nfs://10.128.1.2:/zpa/nfs/public

I haven't done a lot of performance testing, but I have no problem playing 10MB/s blurays off the NFS share (and that's via wifi)

On the FreeBSD server in the closet:

root@tlon:~ # cat /etc/exports
V4: /
/zpa/nfs/public -mapall=nobody
Vitamin D supplements don't prevent bone fractures in healthy adults
Late update: I feel extremely stupid. I'm using an app called "App Tamer"[0] and had it configured to run Firefox on the efficiency cores only, even when it's in the foreground. Maybe I thought originally that the e-cores would be more than fast enough to handle a browser, but I guess that's not the case. This also explains why I might not have noticed this issue before: I only use Firefox for work-related tasks and I rarely work while on battery.

[0]: https://www.stclairsoft.com/AppTamer/
Pointing out fallacies in conversation, both online or IRL, is, and always will be, pointless. That is not because people don't care about being logical. Dropping fallacies is just lazy and makes you sound like a dick. It's lazy because you're trying to solve the problem without doing the work. It's a shortcut. The knowledge of fallacies is useful to identify common flaws in arguments and is particularly useful for you to construct a better, more persuasive counter-argument. No one should expect the "opposing side" to do that for them. You can't just shout "strawman!" and drop the mike. That's not how a conversation works.
Dean Takahashi isn't really a game journalist, he's just there to give softball interviews to CEOs. Yet the only thing people know about him is he can't play Cuphead and not the actual problem here.
I think you're taking this too much at face value. Facebook is no longer cool, sure. But Meta platforms have basically peaked, they aren't adding significant numbers of users, and they're going to struggle to monetize those users due to a number of headwinds - decreased ad spend due to the economic environment, the changes made on iOS, a change app-mix to less monetizable apps (it's harder to monetize Whatsapp vs Instagram), and the fact that they're flat to down in the markets that actually have money (US, Canada, Europe).

Meanwhile, their costs are through the roof, they're spending billions on a market segment that may not exist and the executive leadership at the company isn't focused on the core business.

Meta just running their social media business would be a good dividend stock. They probably are transitioning away from growth to a mature company and can take a lot of profits off the table. But "Meta we're going to chase another home run" is both not a growth but also a bad mature stock...
Read the article. Retitled article should read “Not all nudges work”.

The interesting bit from the source article is that changes to the mean do not always reflect the value of the nudge. So, when judging a nudge, data should be spun various ways to determine impact on different segments of the population.
Sure — it’s looking at the unit cost.

There are 2M semi-trucks in the US, so if half are automated (1M), you can spend $1B per year for $1k per truck per year. Which doesn’t substantially change my calculations. That’s my point: the unit costs are so ridiculously good that pulling $10k/yr in tech overhead, or $10B/yr total, you’d still come out ahead in 5 years.

Phrased another way: we can spend $100B across a decade to develop automated trucking, and the consequence would be our automated trucks break even in three to five years instead of two to three years, after amortizing the R+D.

I didn’t assess the operations because I couldn’t find a good metric on how much that costs now - and hand waved fleet maintenance, testing, regulation, etc as approximately the cost of the current burdens for those things.
And then they went bust.[1] Because their slow-growth business model and the VC model didn't fit.

[1] https://medium.com/starsky-robotics-blog/the-end-of-starsky-...
So what's their real accuracy? How much of a difference is there in the real and the pretend stories?
Well.. no archaeologist took the bait. The scots Roman ironfoundry mystery continues
Curiously those are all aria-hidden.
Mind you, physically based renderers also use a bunch of clever hacks upon hacks to be able to run in realtime. Nobody is simulating photons bouncing in the nanostructure of a material. We just have formulas thay say "for this roughness and metallicness, your material will look like that and it'll be good enough". We still abuse the hell out of UV maps to fake things, still include ambient occlusion (as a stylistic choice most of these days).

It's a different workflow that gives you consistency once you know what you're doing, as opposed to the days of Phong shading.
Pure CSS Francine (2018)
This isn’t very friendly.
Agreed, but now I’m wondering what exactly the author had in mind instead. Dialectic?
Complex non digital signals. My neighbor is a train conductor and he had an accident because he missed a signal. He almost died and had to be cut out of the cabin. Some passengers were also hurt. Imagine the outcry when a ai train would do that.

Other than that isn't there in London a autonomous train? I remember riding that in 2005 or so
It does, it's just that it... doesn't work well in practice. It's another case of "this works well for Google but doesn't translate well outside of Google". Plus, seems like Bazel is a very neutered version of Blaze anyway.
StockBot: Using LSTMs to Predict Stock Prices
Is it that valuable to you because you work in related domains ? Or will they be as valuable to any software dev?
https://thelondonpress.uk/2022/07/28/west-london-faces-new-h...
I really dislike the Python convention of plonking source code effectively in the root directory. It means literally any random thing in there can get picked up if you put your package in the PYTHONPATH. Is there a reason the Python world did not standardise on putting source code in a "src" directory like every other language?
There are self-driving trains:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_train_system...
Well first,:

>there is no reason to trust any media or NGO to be truthful in that regard.

So if there are facts, you cannot believe them and OP doesn't.

And Second:

For arguments stake, let's assume that is correct and there are zero facts. So what can you conclude?

Nothing! It's possible there was a lab leak, it's possible there wasn't, we just do not know. That would be a fine conclusion.

So why has Op decided one possible conclusions is "much higher (probability) than" the others?

We don't know if there is a god or not. So concluding one particular religion is correct is dumb. The same applies to people claiming one theory or another is right re Covid Origins.

That is where the disregard for (lack of) facts comes in. If you don't know, you don't know; you don't get to decide with certainty what reality is because looking is too hard.
> Whether that's originalism at the Supreme Court, or States rights. You do have to ask the question "If I prove this argument to be wrong, will it actually change the outcome that the opponent is advocating, or will they just move to another argument".

You make it seem like originalism is not a deeply held and staunchly argued principle, as if judges capriciously move into it and out of it depending on the wind or current political thinking. Is that the impression you got from Scalia[1]? If you did I'd say that's weird, he seemed pretty steadfast on it for a good long time.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia
Can vouch for receiving the same emails in the last couple of days.
Actually, there are plenty of autonomous trains: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_train_system...

The problem is automatizing the existing infrastructure, 'cause it requires great effort (so, money and inconveniences).

I don't think however that the lessons there are applicable to cars as well, and while I think we could and should invest a lot on train systems, the final goal for cars should be reducing them, not replacing them with autonomous systems.
Confession: I use it constantly. The thought of having to look up how to do absolutely everything makes me wince.

I am -genuinely- open to suggestions on how to get over that I just can’t currently justify making everything harder “for a short while” when that short while feels like it could be weeks or months to catch up to fluency.
The DLR is semi-autonomous. It has the ability to act autonomously, but it must be started with a button and has an attendant on-board that also fulfills other duties and can be there in the case of an incident.
I'm not a big fan of how actually portable executable doubles down on x86-64. I think anyone really wanting to make run-anywhere executables that don't bind us to specific CPU architectures should consider something WASM based, like WASI on Wasmtime.
I'm fan of point-free combinators [0] [1] which compose in intuitive way.

[0] https://github.com/appliedblockchain/assert-combinators

[1] https://github.com/preludejs/refute/
Really? You’ve never seen an over-engineered microservices design that could be a much simpler express app?
I still manage mine as 'pets'. I have no intention of becoming a farmer :)

But I don't do anything with cloud at work.
I don’t know what it is these days, but I can remember waiting 12 hours to compile Chromium from scratch while the entire x-windows + KDE and friends taking only 4-5 hours to compile from scratch. This was back in 2014 on a little two core laptop.
> I am always surprised how good and not-well-known google’s tooling is.

The problem is that Google is well-known for unceremoniously dumping stuff.

So my first question about any Google tool is: "Does it have enough non-Google people supporting it?" because, if it doesn't, it will die as soon as it becomes a political football.

My second question about any Google tool is: "Are there small projects using it and singing its praises?" Can I use the tool to do what I need to a handful of files after reading a couple of web pages for 15 minutes and have it work. I don't need to scale to 4 gazillion foobars--I do need to get stuff done without an IT staff of 100 people. From a cursory look, Bazel fails that question.

My final question about any tool is more personal: "Does it use C++?" because, if it does, then integrating with anything other than C++ is going to be a gigantic PITA. At this point there are plenty of fine alternatives to C++ that don't suck. If you don't have a clean, pleasant way of talking to things that only understand C library conventions, you fail and I'm moving on.
But you only need a couple of artists to create a style and replace the army of artists copying the style to all game assets with AI.
The problem of automating trains is easier, but train labor requirements are already very low compared to truck requirements, so there isn't much of a win there. A typical freight train has a 2-person crew carrying 200+ TEU containers.
The climate VC who gave up on politics
The DLR (Docklands Light Railway) is autonomous, but it's a pretty slow light rail system.

I think that automation is possible because it was built de novo and doesn't interface with the rest of the rail network.
It's been done for trains. But they're already down to one person for a huge train, so the payoff isn't huge.
Did you do your math right? Because we did. And if you didn't, we'll take you to jail. But we're not going to tell you if you did it right, or what the number is.
Depends on the refusal.

Most bad faith argumentation is a pretty straightforward combination of misdirection, cherry picking, outright lying, "proof" by repeated assertion, and a huge dose of personal insults and ridicule.

There's no need to stick to facts or logic if your opponent has made it clear it's not a good faith exchange.

The challenge is knowing how to calibrate responses for maximum effect on the audience - who are usually the real target - balanced between keeping credibility and staying relatable instead of dislikable.

The problem with pointing out logical fallacies is that it erodes both of those.

So you can end up being 100% right while appearing 100% wrong.
In a similar case TypeScript even knows the signature of the event handler for addEventListener, and what type of Element document.createElement('div') returns. Someone even built typings for querySelector that parse the selector and returns the correct element type.

In general, however, I still think APIs written in TypeScript first are a lot cleaner type-wise than typings retrofitted onto a JS API. And having TypeScript as an afterthought these days doesn't seem like a good path to go anymore.
This is an interesting one. Obviously the fundamental theory of MtG is that cards have value roughly proportional to their mana cost, and the player that deploys more value overall will usually win. It’s a valid strategy to attack your opponent’s ability to deploy value (hand/land disruption, cheap permission/removal etc) but it’s often missed that aggro decks are in a sense using temporal denial. If you don’t get your fifth turn, all the card draw and mana in the world doesn’t matter, in the same way a 10 year bond isn’t useful to you if you have no money to eat today. So MtG offers valid strategies that match all sorts of different second and third order curves. Aggro cares about immediate liquid assets above all. Control cares about compound interest. Mid range balances the two.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi
That haven’t tested the vaccines. That’s why there’s emergency use laws.
I have a feeling writing something in Rust takes whole day, while writing same code in Python is less than 1 hour.
My Criteria for Picking Startup Ideas
After having failed with more than seven startups and finally achieved some success with my latest one Proxies API, here are a bunch of criteria I follow when picking a startup idea to bootstrap from the website

1. I am a bootstrapper, so I am interested in making recurring revenue and build an asset. So it has to be a SAAS idea. No consumer internet.

2. It has to have a competition. Again, I want to make money, not be a pioneer.

3. It need not be a multi-million dollar potential startup. I prefer it if it’s possible never exceeds a million dollars at its peak. It is because I don’t want to offer a platform, but a small subset of features that people find useful and the big guys find too small a market niche to address.

4. I prefer it if it does not need any design skills. With Proxies API, it is all about technology and how it works. I am in my element when I can run with just code and not have to pause for ‘prettifying stuff.’

5. I want a self-serve model. It is because I want to acquire customers by marketing rather than by sales. I have nothing against sales. I prefer this as I like to code, and I am a bit shy and introverted. I can write, in any case.

6. I want a field where I can write a lot about it. Just by looking at the area, I should be able to imagine what my first ten blog posts will be. If I can’t write, I can’t market. So I would slightly not touch it as I am not good at the rest of them.

7. The product should not be commoditized. It’s happening in almost any market after about five years. Social media tools are an example. They were selling at $100 pm a few years back now people are offering it free.

8. The technology should provide a moat against every amateur trying to start a company. That’s why there are a million to-do list apps. That’s practically the first thing they teach in any course.

9. I want to identify the primary keyword that drives traffic and search for that keyword on Google Trends. Google Trends should show the keyword gaining in popularity ideally, or at least it should be a flat line for the last five years. I will stay away from anything that is on its way out.
10. I want the users to get the AHA moment in one line or one image and not in multiple steps or after they “add 18 friends and two monkeys” rubbish. Just one look and the value prop is right there. With Proxies API, it was always this image and line. In essence, it immediately drove home this visceral power of using a single API call to solve an entire gamut of problem-related to scaling web crawling.
The author is the founder of Proxies API the rotating proxies service.
This article originally appeared here: https://www.proxiesapi.com/blog/My-Criteria-For-Picking-Startup-Ideas.php
> devastate
Not having AWS/Azure/GCS is not devastating. It's just a little bit different. Those platforms quite simply don't add many interesting features and the reason people use them in the EU is largely based on cargo-culting.
I made a similar thing back in time, unfortunately not a public code though. The idea itself is simple, it was approximately something like this:

const kind = Symbol();
type Spec = "unknown" | "string" | "number" | ... |
{ [kind]: "optional"; spec: Spec } |
{ [kind]: "array"; element: Spec } |
{ [P in string | number | symbol]: Spec } | ...;

function optional<S extends Spec>(spec: S): { [kind]: "optional"; spec: S } { ... }
function arrayOf<E extends Spec>(element: E): { [kind]: "array"; element: E } { ... }
// and so on, you get the idea. these helper functions exist so that
// you can write `optional(...)` or `arrayOf(...)` instead of the full specification

type Validated<S> =
S extends "unknown" ? unknown :
...
S extends { [kind]: "array"; element: infer E } ? Array<Validated<E>> :
S extends { [P in string | number | symbol]: Spec } ? { [P in keyof S]: Validated<S[P]> } :
...;

function validate<S extends Spec>(value: unknown, spec: S): asserts value is Validated<S> {
if (typeof spec === "string") {
switch (spec) { ... }
} else {
switch (spec[kind]) { ... }
}
}

The actual implementation of course had to take care of implicit nulls and other caveats of the TypeScript type system.
It's impressive that this involves 3 human-readable configuration languages and 2 markup languages
If we are talking about internet discussions we should not forget that the act of finding truth does not only concern the person you are discussing with, but the silent bystanders and those who stumble upon the scene way after.

I cannot imagine many situations where shouting ad hominem! would give you better chances at convincing the audience you were right, than for example explaining why you think the other person is misrepresenting your argument unfairly. If you play this the right way you might be even able to get the person opposite towards some realization.

Humour is a good way, but another good way is pretending not to know things, have them explain things to you — all while naively asking the painful questions. This can be as simple as asking Why? till they come to the point where they suddenly have to talk about the base of their believes:

A: I hate foreigners
B: Why?
A: Because they are stealing our jobs!
B: Why are they doing that?
A: Because they cannot get jobs in their home country.
B: Why do you think that is?
A: I think $Nationality is just lazier than us.

At this point you can go on, or you could ask why he is afraid of them stealing his job when they are lazy.
But the point is: this provides more insight to the emotion based thinking of the other side than any discussion where you were going against the guy from the start could have done.

Of course it is not always the right move to start a discussion with someone just because they are saying something that is wrong. Just start a discussion if you are willing to follow through.
And also tysm @jart for derasterize https://github.com/csdvrx/derasterize, which was a great basis to work on, and helped me make sixel-tmux https://github.com/csdvrx/sixel-tmux

We achieved textmode supremacy, and jart achieved binary-portability supremacy.

There seems to be a pattern here :)
I’m using Bazel to build my rust project (Using the rules_rust rules) and it’a become quite a pain to use in concert with docker.

This is not a complaint about Bazel specifically, its fantastic, and easily my favourite build system bar none.

However it cannot cross compile Rust. This means if I’m developing on my MacBook, and I want to compile a Rust binary and put it in an Ubuntu docker container, I can’t do it on my host machine. I need to copy the source into the container and build it there, using multistage builds.

But this is -extremely slow- because it cannot take advantage of Rusts build caching. I’m talking 10-15 minutes for my small Rust project.

Has anyone run into this? How do you work around it?

I’ve considered running a Bazel remote execution server on a local Ubuntu VM, but this feels like so much extra complexity just to use Rust, Bazel and containers.
Yeah I was wondering whether it was that same chiark. I didn't have time to get to the end of the article.

A bit worrying to hear that important security software was hosted on a 30 year old OS.
It's a more accurate description of the Socratic Method than is asking leading questions until the student comes to the correct conclusion.

In the Socratic Dialogues, Socrates repeats constantly that he does not know the answer, but that he and his interlocutor are together discovering the truth. That isn't trickery nor sophistry, so to speak. It's really the approach.
nmap in movies:

https://nmap.org/movies/

Some times you can’t make out the text in films, but that is what Enhance is for.
Indeed, it has a grade of automation of 3 (out of 4), so it is driverless, but not unattended (as that is level 4)
It truly saddens me that we're going this route. This pseudo fight for 'privacy' is frustrating and will only bring us closer to a splinternet situation.

> the data of European Internet users is therefore illegally transferred through this tool.

This isn't a devilish situation to me. We're talking about a tracking pixel, not healthcare records or trade secrets.

All that is because we aren't capable of fighting US big tech with innovation. Only with regulation. Appalling. Hopefully, Google finds a legal way around it.
I believe a way to view it is as such

1) coffee is always under constant acceleration (g).

2) constant acceleration (say in the X direction instead of Y) would just mean a constant "tilt" within the cup. compare this to an airplane that is not "accelerating" and just at a constant X velocity, coffee would look "still/flat" in your cup.

3) its only the jerk that changes the "tilt" within the cup (and hence causes the spill)
It's not super nice of you to automatically assume that cheap(er) devs in cheaper locations like Colombia or Philippines are bad, or at least inferior to more expensive ones.

Of course they aren't, you'll have good and bad devs in expensive and cheap locales alike. There might be language or cultural barriers that make collaboration across country lines, but that's pretty much it.
They exist, many new lines or expansions are highly automated. Retrofits are hard for two sets of reasons:

Political: union strikes (meaning if you want to automate a line you may have to accept it being closed for the duration) and public outcry over a reduction in jobs.

Cost: You often only get the benefit of the simpler domain if you can implement the whole system from scratch, if you have to deal with the existing signalling, engines, (and human-driven trains) that's a complex problem, with massive capital outlay.
kefken plaı
ARM isn't just a single architecture either, there's ARMv6, ARMv7, ARMv8/ARM64, etc. Most of the platforms folks are using are ARM64 but not all of them!
I hit the partial paywall too, it seems like it kicks in at random. Here's full article if anyone else hits it: https://archive.ph/6aOXf