skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The EU+UK e-privacy "cookie" rule applies to apps in the same way as anything else that's sending/receiving data over a public network (e.g. the Internet): all storage of information to, or reading of information from, the end-user device requires their free, informed and specific consent, unless it's a technical necessity for the service they requested, or certain limited (technical) purposes like load balancing. How strictly this is enforced by regulators has waxed and waned over time and from one country to another. Civil litigants, however, have had pretty good results in the courts (or just threatening litigation) - e.g. the Lloyd and Vidal-Hall cases against Google in the UK
yes, sorry: i absolutely meant double bowline there. Sloppy.
This seems crazy to me, but I don't work in FAANG. A basketball game (I'm assuming recurring) during work hours? Quality of life from inside work? Are you all at campus for most of your day (ie, longer than 8h?)

To me, quality of life is working hard and smart during the 8h, and keeping the rest of the day for you and your family. Quality of life comes from outside work, and the company respects and encourages that boundary. Of course we still do team building activities, but these are occastional off sites. Or optional after work things (drinks, workouts, indoor football etc)
Beautiful. Life is better with humor.
1992 Cirrus Logic GD5402/AVGA2 (ISA Bus) allowed you to enable special 128KB linear window directly mapping A0000-Bffff to VGA memory. Only ISA VGA chip fully supporting linear framebuffer access was ATI Mach64. Since ISA bus is limited to 16MB address space you had a choice of either no more than 12MB of ram, or finding a motherboard supporting "Memory Hole At 15M-16M" Bios option. VLB and PCI graphic cards mostly didnt have this problem (some mapped itself at 64MB assuming nobody would be crazy enough to cram that much ram into a computer in 1993). It popped once again at the end of AGP life/start of PCIE when we ran out of 32bit memory, this is why fitting 4GB of ram often resulted in 3.5GB usable at most.

Of course this problem is with us even today. PCIE Resizable BAR is a brand spanking new feature, first proposed in 2008, enabling expanding directly mapped buffer from previous limit of 256MB to full capacity of VRAM. AMD tried to repackage it under different name (Smart Access Memory) and upsell as exclusive to only highend brand new parts, Intel new lol GPUs require it to work reasonably fast, but lock out support on non Intel platforms.
I wondered if you could reclaim some land near the city but off to one side and put some low office buildings and modern apartments or something, and get some natural traffic in the area there for the food and atmosphere.

This is a city that was living and constantly renewed to the state of the art that is now halted and frozen in time. That's an expensive proposition to maintain, plus the environmental situation there is worsening[1] which will be very difficult to rectify.

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/venice-floods-pictures-touri...
I thought the point of iterating early is that sometimes writing code is the best way to gain understanding of the problem (depending on the kind of problem). You're supposed to throw that stuff away... it's iteration...
Yes. One is a statement that describes the world, the other is an ontological claim about what "exists" (whatever that means).

What is added by saying the laws of physics "exist"? Note that we already know they are true.
GP a was referring to a specific “web view” implementation that offers an almost-complete browser implementation and security on iOS. Facebook does not use this but a regular WebView
My generator holds 2.5 gallons and runs a bit over 24 hours, so that's about right, but I generally have a 15 gallon tank in the shed. That generator can power the A/C, fridge, everything, without having to open it and let cold air out and transfer items.

Power outages typically aren't more than one day, and dry ice is not going to help you for those outages.

I don't have any dry ice suppliers nearby (no the Walmart doesn't stock it), it's not a low-tech solution.

The low tech solution would be a bigger gas canister. 2 gallons a day is not bad at all.

In an apartment building or something I can certain see the use case for dry ice though.
I think it's kind of silly to expect that a satisfactory answer to that question exists. Given that there is an infinite number of possible ways the universe could have been ("nothing" being just one of these possibilities), pretty much all of these possibilities are vanishingly improbable, including whichever one them eventually obtains. So I think that "it is what it is", or "it is arbitrary" is a perfectly reasonable answer to why our universe exists. To put it a different way, I don't see why existence couldn't be necessarily arbitrary, or what is repugnant about that notion.

I only skimmed the article, but from what I can see they advocate the mathematical universe theory. To me, that's just a metaphysical choice that does not really add any useful information: it is arbitrarily solving the issue by making every consistent universe exist with probability 1, which strikes me as little more than a parlor trick. If there are 100 balls in a box, I draw one, and it has the number 23 on it, I don't think "there are 100 parallel universes, one where I draw ball one, one where I draw ball two, and so on" is a more compelling explanation than "there is one universe and I happened to draw ball 23". I would still want to know why I am in universe 23. Maybe (probably) there is no answer, except that it is what it is.
You just read one ;-)
There is something about this that at least partially satisfies the question, in that it simplifies as you go one level up.

With the "God did it" explanation, something vastly more complex and inscrutable is required (i.e. God) to make the explanation work. With this explanation, there is but a simple wave that splits on its possible oscillations. Our existence is on one of these.

No explanation will ever find the "bottom turtle." There will always be space for another "why?" question. The interesting part is probably more to do with the "asker" this question rather than the answer to it. That we have this capacity to think abstractly about this is, to me, more mind-blowing than the nature of existence itself.
As far as I know, it depends on what you mean by trebuchet. Counterpoise trebuchets (using heavy weights) are definitely medieval.
Google Fiber completely shit the bed in Louisville (KY). The initial announcements did seem to spur more build-out and price cuts among the two incumbents, but even with One Touch Make Ready, Google eschewed the utility poles they were supposed to use, attempted "micro-trenching" which made zero sense in the city's climate and screwed everything up so badly (including creating a massive mess of potholes for the city to clean up) that they just shut the network back down and skipped town.

Unsurprisingly the incumbents are back to their usual complacency and their prices have steadily been on the rise in the couple years since Google Fiber did such a terrible job. It's one thing to shut down Messenger App 2 of 6, it's another thing to just entirely cut and run from an infrastructure project leaving bills behind to the City's taxpayers to pay.
My problem with this attitude is what even are you talking about? Suppose we "abandon our rational mind" for a moment and sojourn into the irrational. How the heck are we supposed to take anything back from that experience and into the world of discourse? Presumably there is much more bullshit in the endless tracks of irrationality than truth and whatever mechanism by which we choose to carry ideas back clearly can't distinguish the two as it has abandoned anything like epistemology. So what is the point of even talking about it?
The money they offer is far from free.
External sources yes, preventing an app to inject inline HTML and JavaScript is tricky.
The only thing problematic about “appeals to the divine” or other explanations that “push the question up a level” is if part of the explanation is the prohibition of “where did that thing come from?” or “why is it this way and not some other way?”

But pushing things up a level is actually the only option we have for good explanations. For any explanation about anything whatsoever, you should always be able to ask “why is it this way rather than some other way?” It’s not some paradox or contradiction that there will never be an end to this series of explanations and questions, and any claim that there is an end is the bad kind of “appeal to the divine”!!
You might find them interesting, but I guarantee you many people do not. Many find them... well, something like programming trivia.

Some people love going to trivia night! Get some friends, get quizzed on some stuff, feel smart.

Lots of people are not interested.
> Do you think they actually went through the process of getting permission to…

Based on my experience working with and for a few startups, it's likely that many of them did not. I've been asked by CEOs to not remove Company X logo even though there was no relationship beyond a customer account which used a Company X email address.

However, as several folks in this thread have noted, the process of working with customers' marketing departments is an opportunity to build relationships. Some won't let you, and that's fine. Companies like Apple often don't even let vendors who are core to their business use their name.
The PyTorch M1 GPU backend is a WIP, see the ops coverage list at https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/issues/77764
I check the front page. I find the top banner interesting for quick news. The bottom stories are usually a waste so I skip them.

Last I heard the site is still a big money maker. There must be many people that use it.
forgive my ignorance but these front end based, non server rendering frameworks, how are they getting indexed by Google?
I definitely empathize.

I worked for a while at another company also known for being hyper-aggressive and a brutally difficult work environment -- probably the poster-child for that sort of thing, back then. I burned out hard after a couple years and ended up prioritizing "work-life balance" in my next job searches.

I landed at a 40-hour/week place where I usually work less than that. There's a strong appeal to working so little for a solidly decent salary. I have to remind myself often how good I have it, especially when others don't have jobs at all -- or they have to do back-breaking labor for table scraps.

But I agree it's also undeniably boring. I constantly find myself fantasizing about being back in the adrenaline-fueled environment of my last job. A large part of why I burned out was my own poor stress-management skills, and I like to imagine that I could probably perform well -- and excel -- in that sort of boiler-room environment now. (Especially if the comp could be what it was, too!)

On the other hand, I think all companies that have tried that aggressive approach have not made it sustainable. People burn out, or the whole company burns out, or both. It's tough to keep it going without lots of support and motivation (financial and otherwise).

The idealistic part of me likes to imagine it's theoretically possible to sustain such a thing, though -- a healthy, psychologically-safe place where people could work on ridiculously impactful things at a velocity and scale not available anywhere else. But it doesn't seem like anyone's cracked the code -- not my former employer, who faded away in a blaze of toxicity, and certainly not Amazon.
If you like the question of "Why does anything exist?" then an obvious next question is: "What's stopping things from not existing?"

In philosophy, there is a distinction between things that must be (they're called necessary) and things that may or may not be (they're called contingent). For instance, if we use the standard definition of a square, then every square you will ever encounter will necessarily have four sides. In contrast, not every square you encounter will be blue or tiny. Those are contingent properties of a square. A square may be blue, or it may not be. A square may be tiny, or it may not be.

Now, would you say that our universe's existence is necessary or contingent? If its existence is necessary, it would mean that there is no possible way for our universe not to exist. If its existence is contingent, then our universe either could exist, or it could not.

I happen to think it's contingent. But if our universe is contingent, then it must be contingent upon something that is necessary. Regardless of whether you view that necessary thing as God or something else, if you agree that the universe is contingent, then the contingency doesn't stop at its creation; its continued existence is also contingent.

So, beyond needing a "first cause" to explain its existence (as with a picture on a painted canvas), our universe requires a "sustaining cause" (as with a picture on a TV set).
I take the point - in group signaling can be enormously valuable at connecting to an audience.

However, I'd suggest that "wrong answers only" is so hilariously mainstream at this point that it is no longer selective. It's funny maybe the first dozen times you see it, and after that it is simply a cheap call for attention. It doesn't feel like this would be a positive branding aspect.

To each their own, however. Perhaps this is the look Supabase is going for!
Every time that comment is bought up, I can't help but feel that people are deliberately fishing for the comparison.
It's not an "alternative", it's still Android, just a fork of a fork.
I see what you mean. But with biology, every organism has a different biology. I can take a plant or an animal and study its biology as an external and impartial observer.

With respect to the question of the existence of everything, I can't take the Universe or a Universe and study its properties as an external and impartial observer.

If I was the only organism in the Universe, I could still try to study my body and reach limited conclusions, like we do with physics, but I couldn't go further without dissecting myself or injecting myself with potentially hazardous substances, which would kill me. And I certainly would never be able to answer the question of where I came from if I didn't know about the concept of gender, sex, and reproduction, which I couldn't know about if I was the only organism to have ever existed from my point of view.

So I am dismissing the original question.
The CS interview problems that are asked are a very specific view of CS that not everybody finds interesting or works on. There is a lot more variety to CS and software engineering than string and graph algorithms, which is all I've ever been asked at Google (where is numerical optimization, statistics beyond basic counting, all of graphics, etc). I also never get asked anything with regards to actually engineering software by them, whereas I have been asked that at Apple for example.
Their FAQ Page[0] and How it works page[1] provide a lot of information and answers to the question raised in few of the comments.

0; https://www.stringbike.com/stringbike_support_questionsandan...
1: https://www.stringbike.com/stringbike_asthemagicworks.html
Cool to see someone articulate this specific point. My dad has some grad schooling in astrophysics so we used to chat about this kind of stuff when I was young (still now but less so).
I’d always ask “if the universe is expanding what is it expanding _in to_” and he’d kind of always change the subject to black holes or something.
Thinking back on that it’s amazing how easy it is to “question” or “push/poke” the boundaries of known (or even knowable) knowledge. But alas guess it just furthers the point of how all people ponder these things.
N DNA, scientists find solution to engineering transformative electronics
I am a mechanical engineer, and I'm 50/50 on it. The rear hub contraptions aren't too different from the freewheel that's already in a regular bike hub, it just has an extra spring to wind it back up.

The super funky gearbox contraption though? That's a different story altogether. You have a continuously varying normal force on the lever arm throughout the rotation, and I have no idea how long it would last compared to a traditional derailleur setup.

Here's the patent, for those interested: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2010084363A1/en
How Starburst Data launched a new UBP model
"inject an entitymanager"?? I don't even have any entities, just a db I want to query with raw sql.
Anything exists because of survivor bias? That's backwards logic / you've missed/evaded the question.

It's not like asking P(A|A), it's not even asking why P(A) > P(N). It's asking why P(A) > 0, which it evidently is.

Statistically, one could make the argument that there are infinite possibilities of A(nything) and just one of N(othing), so the odds are stacked infinitely high against nothingness.
Here's the patent, for those interested: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2010084363A1/en
> What would "taking personal responsibility" look like for management?

The lowest bar would be not putting the blame on other, unnamed people.
I have used /e/ as my main phone for 1 year - and I am a heavy user. It’s a bliss! I also got a phone with /e/ installed on it for my 73 years old mother. She loved it. It’s really surprising to see how the bigtech monopoly has nothing to do with the quality of their services, but everything with their unfair practices - Microsoft yesterday, Google today.
For someone only tangentially familiar with this space, how is this different than e.g. https://github.com/nerdyrodent/VQGAN-CLIP which you can also run at home? Is it the quality of the generated images?
It just seems like setting a frame for upcoming layoffs nothing more or less than that.
So many familiar faces in this thread. :)

With Ruby::Concurrent, I found similar weird-isms until I wrapped in `Rails.application.executor`. Rails has its quirks and purists can be put off by all the "extra work" that needs to happen for things to play nicely together.

To that I say: Rails gives me superpowers and I need to abuse them appropriately.
I’d much rather seen a system-wide “container” implementation a-la-Firefox instead. Safari is pretty good at this but not as good as Firefox. I really want my real-life accounts be segregated from the rest of the internet. Reddit should never be able to know what other sites I use.
Good point, if we reached superabundance I think media would stick with the world is ending narrative.
My understanding is that iCloud backups are encrypted[1].

[1]: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303
I'm not sure how you expect the process to go? As the CEO of a big company you aren't personally involved in hiring or managing line engineers. Your input is to tell underlings to tell their underlings to hire more or work more or whatnot. Feedback is just as slow moving up the chain.

Basically, "memo to employees" is the process.
Yep, so a table for each thing with their own schemas. A user table, a company table, etc. Then a single relationship that defines all the relationships between all the objects in a giant many-to-many relationship.

So to query a full relationship, you'd do a join from A -> relationship -> B, probably an inner join. But most of the time, it was usually just a singular join (to get a list of things to show the user, for example) since you'd already be querying in the context of some part of the relationship.
There’s a OpenGL-ish gpu graphics library (who’s name I can’t currently remember) that’s in mesa, but not built by default in most distros, and IIRC is also supported on raspberrypi.

I played with it a bit, wrote a python wrapper for it, borked a fedora install trying to get real gpu support, fun times all around. Seems nobody cares about an accelerated vector graphics library.
Is is it practical to ignore / approximate / offload the complex edge cases?
I look forward to the future where North Korean hackers exploit a bug in a smart contract to steal everybody's Fortnite costumes
You post strikes a chord with me. I have found over time that I personally require some mental challenge and some physical challenge to remain mentally healthy. Some days, work provides the mental challenge, the feeling you get by solving difficult problems. If we get too far into the weeds and end up in a constant state of talking about work instead of doing it, things begin to turn depressing until I need to supplement on the side by learning something new or whatever. Same goes physically for me, I keep pretty regular on working out but if I take a week or two off I start feeling sort of sad. Best of luck to you wherever you land!
Turing Machine Equivalence is the norm, not the exception.
> Because distributed, interoperable, well defined data is literally the most central problem for the current and near future human economy.

I'm having a really hard time seeing this at least in the terms of the web and the majority of web content.
Understood, thank you.

Yes, that's not solvable with just OWL (though it might help a little) or any other popular reasoners I know. There're papers, proposals and experimental implementations for generating probability-based inferences, but nothing one can just take and use, but there're tons of interesting ideas on how to represent that kind of data in RDF or reason about.

I think the correct solution in SW context would be to add a custom reasoner to the stack.
"Nobody wants to spend their life being dead weight."

I disagree. There are plenty of people who would love to be dead weight just to float around in a company. The larger the team/company, the more chances of those people being around. They pretend to be always busy and doing something but don't actually get anything done. Seen it all for 18+ years.

Having said that, there are plenty of people as well who would LOVE to do something meaningful but are stuck with red tape. I was one of those and quit my high paying Investment Bank Tech Job to start my own thing. I was getting paid big as a consultant and once my main project finished, they just wanted me around because traders loved me. I literally had to find things to do every day otherwise it was soooo boring unless something broke.
I've meant to write a blog post about this, but here goes: In-app browsers allow users to view inappropriate content, often against the wishes of sensitive individuals. People especially at risk for this include addicts and children.

Nearly every app, even "safe apps" including children-rated apps, allow access to an in app browser. Even when iOs has locked down all access to Safari, a parent has removed access to all the "apparent" unsafe sites, there are still ways to access the unfiltered internet inside of these safe apps.

How? Usually buried in App Settings. Almost all apps use some instance of an in-app browser to (lazily) reference thier privacy policies, EULAs, or TOCs. A buried link leads to a homepage, leads to an instagram link, leads to an unfiltered internet. Yes they are long, inefficient paths to reach the internet, but curious (or motivated) individuals or children will use almost any app to reach the internet. Even boring apps like MS Teams or adding a Gmail account to iOS mail uses a secret in-app browser.

This obviously presents a problem: should developers restrict any and all app access to in-app browsers, or leave policing to individuals/parents? An easy approach is to disable the in-app browser functionality in iOs, but obviously with grave cost to developers. At the same time, at what cost is in-app browser functionality being implemented.