skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Traditionally, the main difference was a full-featured MMU which allows virtual address spaces.

But these days, you have advanced 600MHz microcontrollers with simple GPUs, and full-featured CPUs which get used as an embedded platform. You can even build a Linux kernel for no-MMU platforms.

It's a fuzzy line.
We just have a sensible executive that makes lives easier.
No mystery. Behavior converges to incentives:

* You do get academic points for chairing a conference, and as a chair, you do need to find reviewers.

* A colleague is running a conference, and asks you to do a favor. You want to help your colleague. Reviewing papers wins you points with them, and declining to review burns bridges. When you're running a conference, you'd like them to reciprocate. Plus, they might be on a grant / hiring / etc. board / committee / etc. later on. Burning bridges in academia is very bad.

On the other hand, there is no incentive to invest more than 30-600 seconds per review. Neither you nor your friend really have any reason to care about the quality of the conference.

As this process repeats, people put in less and less time each time around, since it doesn't matter. The process converges to random noise.
For public companies with monthly vesting without a cliff (FB, Goog), TC is actually a good model for what the company deposits in your bank account at the end of the month.

For private startups, it's obviously a less good measure both because you don't get the incremental liquidity over the course of the year and also because even when you get that big chunk of shares at the end of the year, it isn't liquid.

An interesting middle case is public companies that have a 1 year cliff. I've heard Amazon has this. Anyone care to chime in about how TC is calculated there?
I love how I understand these scores solely because I used to play WoW as a teenager
Ethics aside, it would probably be good to conquer the population size problem. Then people can stop fighting about birth rates and immigration.
Let's not forget that a big part of these technological advancements was due to the invention of innovative ways of optimizing those devices and process, mainly by formulating and solving mathematical problems by using calculus, which coincidentally, was formulated during these times in Britain and Germany.
How to mobilise the UK for wind power
Over the next five? Probably not.

But over ten or fifteen years? Very possibly. And if not porting apps directly to RISC-V, then porting them to WASM and letting browser vendors optimize WASM performance on RISC-V.
Fusional means that, in the morphological system of a language, a single wordform encodes multiple parts of the meaning in a way that is opaque and can't be predicted from the parts.

That's very abstract but an example makes it clear. Consider some Latin words with their English translations:

mensa -- table (singular, nominative)

mensae -- tables (plural, nominative)

mensae -- to the table (singular, dative)

mensis -- to the tables (plural, dative)

There are two parts of meaning (whether it's singular vs. plural, and whether it's nominative vs. dative) which are expressed in these forms, but the way this is done is opaque. You can't look at "mensis" and break it into a part that corresponds to plurality, and a part that corresponds to dative: the suffix -is conveys both of those features simultaneously. That's a fusional language.

Compare with the Hungarian equivalents: (Finnish is similar, but I know Hungarian and not Finnish)

asztal -- table (singular, nominative)

asztalok -- tables (plural, nominative)

asztalnak -- to the table (singular, dative)

asztaloknak -- to the tables (plural, dative)

Here you can identify that the suffux -ok corresponds to plural and the suffix -nak corresponds to dative. So the Hungarian paradigm here is agglutinative, not fusional. The upshot is that the Hungarian paradigm will be easier to learn and to extend to a very large number of cases compared to the Latin paradigm.
> you're just a concern troll

More personal attacks. A typical tool of last resort when people who do not relish the idea of being wrong simply cannot face being challenged.

Someone making supernatural claims has the burden of proof. Reducing atmospheric CO2 faster than about 100 ppm per 100K years (or 1 ppm per thousand years) is a supernatural claim. This is an indisputable matter of evidence borne from nearly a million years of atmospheric ice core sample data. This data is as accurate and reliable as can be. And it says something brutally simple: The natural rate of change is about 1 ppm per thousand years.

Any proposal claiming the ability to affect change at a faster rate is, by definition, supernatural. And, as such, carries the burden of proof.

We have people claiming to be able to drop 100 ppm in 30 years, fully 3000 times faster than the natural rate. If there's anything that is preposterous, that is it.

I am still waiting for you, or anyone else, to publish a link to a peer-reviewed/verified proposal that includes a full accounting of energy, resources and the myriad components that should be accounted for if one were to honestly want to evaluate proposals. And, of course, at a planetary scale, not a laboratory table or simulator.

If such a thing existed it would be published, known and promoted all over the world. We would be talking about that instead of me trying to help you understand how it is the emperor has no clothes and you can't see it.

Still waiting. I can ignore the insults. They mean nothing to me and say volumes about your position. In fact, they say your position has no support at all in reality, otherwise you would present reality instead. It's much easier. If it exists.

The best way to shut me up and put me in my place is to post the kind of information that would do precisely that. The problem is, you can't, because it does not exist. And it does not exist because an honest evaluation of the many so-called solutions would fail the most fundamental of physics tests.

I am truly sorry your only outlet is to post insults. Having facts on your side would be far a more powerful and effective way to show them them they are wrong. It's sad. Really.

Like I said. Still waiting. Anyone?

Good day.
Ah yeah thanks. My Finnish is super rusty but I still like to geek out on its grammar every once in a while.

That said, but this sort of contextual stuff happens with languages with prepositions too (eg “on the table” vs “on the job”). It’s not special about Finnish.
Hard to argue with these:

ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com;
dkim=pass header.i=@mailscarp.com header.s=api header.b=DnugwplP;
spf=pass (google.com: domain of hackernews.newsletter@mailscarp.com designates 104.243.65.3 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=hackernews.newsletter@mailscarp.com;
dmarc=pass (p=QUARANTINE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=mailscarp.com
Return-Path: <hackernews.newsletter@mailscarp.com>
I have a tendency to put sriracha in everything
Some CTO guy who I work with does this with the password for internal docs. He thinks he is 1337.

How long will it take, until someone gains access? I consider this an intentional security leak.
The weirdest thing to me is that the Chinese had sky lanterns 2,300 years ago but they never scaled them up to hot air balloons. It took 2,000 years before Joseph-Michel Montgolfier saw some laundry billow as it dried above a fire, inspiring him to build a flying machine.
Is Google’s New AI as Smart as a Human?
This one I am really torn on. On one hand I really like that RISC-V is open. However, on the other hand I do not like the idea of it being used to avoid sanctions. The problem is an ISA that can be sanctioned is not truly open.

The two desires are definitely at odds with each other. Like the RISC-V foundation moved to Switzerland to avoid the possibility in 2019. So the foundation is definitely trying to keep things more open.

At the end of the day it's just ISA and not a micro-architecture design or set of cell libraries and fab processes. So it's not a complete bypass of all possible sanctions. ARM for instance does provide designs and not just an ISA.

The main problem is that a chip made in a sanctioned country with RISC-V can still would have value outside the sanctioned entity unlike some organically developed or a chip made without legally licensing some-other ISA. So sanctioned entity could easily make the chips and then make them look like they are made elsewhere or by someone else and still have something to sell the wider world.
For anyone interested in programming logic games, take a look into Zachtronics[1].

My favorites are Opus Magnum and 20th Century Food Court from Last Call BBS. The later one even has a similar modular synth-like mechanic of connecting modules with signal wires.

[1]: https://www.zachtronics.com/
IIRC, many simply fled capital punishment during the trials by renouncing citizenship and choosing exile over certain death.
Why do you call them "spy" chips? Have they been found to generally have backdoors?

In an embedded context, a lot of that doesn't matter either way - your dumb coffee maker doesn't have a lot of opportunity to spy on you anyway. Smart devices are a very different story. However, Chinese embedded chips are often very cheap for the capabilities.
It's always lodged in my mind, that one. It sounds plausible, but if it were actually possible presumably someone would have patented it.

Oh - except, Daedalus is prior art!

Could you do that? Could you get two lasers to interfere at a frequency that excites Oxygen, so that if you intersect the beams it emits visible light?

I imagine Oxygen emission light would be bluish, right? So you could get a bluish 3d display in principle, with scanned 3d UV lasers. I suppose you could get a richer gamut, but you might have to inject some more interesting elements into the display gas.

Also, this 3d display wouldn't be suitable for close-up viewing; I'm not sure I'd want to risk getting too close to a battery of scanned UV lasers.
0 terminated strings make sense for extremely tight memory cases, like 64Kb computers, and CPUs that don't cache memory. But they're a clear loser for 32 bit machines.
Janus (time-reversible computing programming language)
I have been a long time user of Espanso. It is an absolute godsend.

I used to work in social media management, I used to have bunch of `insert_generic_response` for birthdays to weddings to inquiries. I would have a random response generated with an Espanso hotkey for each purpose.

Now, I store my token, curl commands, documentation, code snippets well.... being a DevRel I still use `insert_generic_response` but with more technical content!
When people say English doesn't have a future tense, they mean it doesn't have an inflectional future tense like other languages. It uses modal auxiliaries instead, as in your examples.

Compare "I walked" (inflection) with the simple future "I will walk" ("will" as a modal auxiliary).
Likely vaporware at this point, but no discussion of chip startups is complete without mentioning Mill Computing:

https://millcomputing.com/

It would represent a true architectural revolution if it ever actually came to fruition. Lots of past discussion on HackerNews over the decade(!) it’s been under development.
Glassblowing was invented in the first century BC in Syria.
I've learned to address those ones diplomatically with "the topic you mention is now included in section X". Technically true, and lower friction.
First of all, I already agreed in the initial post that it would require some experience with helicopters. Second, in this case, "giving it a new input" could be as simple as "changing the standing rotor speed -- 5500 RPM instead of 6500 RPM". They're so finicky, you don't need to specify a complex time history to hit a dangerous resonant mode-- though it certainly helps!

Third, the fact that it's a gift is not at all required for an analogy. Of course you don't have to keep that part, and would have to reframe it so that the details of how the helicopter is provided a new input are different. You're not even trying to be charitable at this point, but make it sound as stupid as you possibly can. Please work on your curiosity.
Right but you shouldn't be tested on things that can just be "looked up". You should be tested on your ability to apply what you know, and teachers should be taking the time to write globally unique problems for every single test (gasp)
Use TouchID to Authenticate Sudo on macOS
That's a great word. You might enjoy the Czech word for "fart" - it also has no consonants and it's almost onomatopoeia: "prd"

prrrrrrrrrd
None of this shit comes out of a magic hat, we're all ostensibly observing the same phenomena - that is to say there's hardly any reason whatsoever to attribute the gleaning of some fact derivative of the shared reality to a people. And I think this can be duly evidenced by the fact many people come to nearly simultaneous independent conclusions.

This can be reduced to something like Newton didn't discover gravity, Newton formally described it in mathematics, and anyone dedicated enough to pursue the formal description could have done much the same. Much in the same way, the Eurocentric view is wrong to attribute things and with the way cultural interaction spheres tend to work it's even more difficult to attribute developments to a given culture or individual. E.g. not only are we "standing on the shoulders of giants" but the scientific domain is pruning viable explanatory paths with each passing moment, narrowing the scope of positive knowledge and increasing the sharpness of the borders of negative knowledge. For instance China had what was effectively fiat currency well before it became widespread in European nations; they also managed to invent moveable type which was ineffectual and thus discarded - but Gutenberg gets the attribution?
A lot of them are from out of state or country, and presumably NYC can't pursue as many people now that they've cut down the size and efficacy of the police force
I thought only Aussies (and Kiwis) called them that... though apparently the term is used in India and Singapore too.
(Yes I know it's the correct botanical term for the plant, but we use it for the food too).
I think college/uni should be about personal growth and education first, career opportunities second. Can it help you get a job? Great. But that shouldn't be why you do it; you should do it because you want to learn about the world.

That said, since university is privatized, it's expensive, which sucks for society. So it's definitely going to be a consideration of whether it's affordable to learn or not.
The Node.js best practices list (August 2022)
>Reviewing papers wins you points with them, and declining to review burns bridges. When you're running a conference, you'd like them to reciprocate.

Surely they'd get upset if you rejected all of the good papers, thereby ensuring that they would have a bad conference.
Tons of hobbyists buy PINE hardware. All of their SoCs are Chinese (Rockchip, Allwinner). Hardkernel/Odroid stuff is a mix of Amlogic, Intel, and Rockchip.

Outside the hobbyist space people do seem to be shunning Chinese SoCs AFAICT. Maybe no name TV boxes have rockchips, but other than that not much.
These days Amazon emulates the Xen hypercall interface on top of KVM. It's pretty much their sole substantial contribution to upstream KVM (by David Woodhouse that's mentioned elsewhere in the comments in fact).

The implementation is split between KVM and their proprietary equivalent of QEMU.
Twitter analysis on information density of languages
Reminds me of one of my favorite posts from back in 2013: You advocate a ____ approach to calendar reform: https://qntm.org/calendar

Specifically (omitting a lot for brevity) :

You advocate a

( ) solar ( ) lunar (x) lunisolar

approach to calendar reform. Your idea will not work. Here is why:

(x) solar years are real and the calendar year needs to sync with them
(x) solar days are real and the calendar day needs to sync with them
(x) the solar year cannot be evenly divided into solar days
(x) having one or two days per year which are part of no month is stupid
(x) your name for the thirteenth month is questionable
(x) the solar year cannot be evenly divided into seven-day weeks

Specifically, your plan fails to account for:

(x) rational hatred for arbitrary change
(x) unpopularity of weird new month and day names

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

(x) good luck trying to move the Fourth of July
(x) the history of calendar reform is insanely complicated and no amount of further calendar reform can make it simpler

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

(x) sorry, but I don't think it would work
Like how to use google
This is not correct.

You have to account for reversing all of the profligate methane producing swampland, turning it back into swampland, to fully account for this as part of the calculation.

We've done planetscale engineering already by how much methane we've reduced by converting swamp to farm/urban land.
Fun name, and they do what everyone do constantly: "exploring the future of technology and software beyond.." :)
DC generators work essentially the same as an AC alternator (motor in reverse). You can get AC-DC conversion by hooking these up to one another, just connect the rotors together.
What kinds of acquisitions? Like what product categories from your knowledge?
Ah, yes, all the expenses my clients pay for me.
Sure, but HN is a great place to get a filtered list based on expert opinion. I love seeing these threads.

A lot of things you see here could've been 'Googled', but what's the fun in that?
Doesn't seem to be the case, apple.com does not have an AAAA record. :(

Also shame on Microsoft for no full IPv6 support in WSL2.

(The CV posted above is outdated, this is what the traceroute shows today)

8 37 ms 36 ms 36 ms hello [2001:bc8:3eff:c0::1]
9 32 ms 32 ms 31 ms My.name.is.Louis.Poinsignon [2001:bc8:3eff:c0::2]
10 33 ms 32 ms 31 ms I.am.a.network.and.systems.engineer [2001:bc8:3eff:c0::3]
11 35 ms 36 ms 35 ms This.is.my.resume.over.traceroute [2001:bc8:3eff:c0::4]
12 37 ms 35 ms 36 ms o---Experience---o [2001:bc8:3eff:c0:ee::]
13 36 ms 35 ms 35 ms 2021.Apple.Engineer.SF.USA [2001:bc8:3eff:c0:ee::714]
14 33 ms 34 ms 31 ms 2018.Cloudflare.Engineer.SF.USA [2001:bc8:3eff:c0:ee::cf3]
15 32 ms 34 ms 33 ms 2017.Cloudflare.Engineer.London.UK [2001:bc8:3eff:c0:ee::cf2]
16 38 ms 36 ms 35 ms 2016.Cloudflare.Engineer.Intern.SF.USA [2001:bc8:3eff:c0:ee::cf1]
17 36 ms 35 ms 34 ms o---Education---o [2001:bc8:3eff:c0:ed::]
18 36 ms 35 ms 34 ms 2015-2016.DrexelUni.Exchange.CE.Philadelphia.USA [2001:bc8:3eff:c0:ed::1]
19 37 ms 32 ms 32 ms 2011-2016.UTT.Master.CE.France [2001:bc8:3eff:c0:ed::2]
20 37 ms 34 ms 35 ms o---Skills---o [2001:bc8:3eff:c0:51::]
21 36 ms 36 ms 34 ms Golang.C.Python [2001:bc8:3eff:c0:51::1]
22 36 ms 34 ms 36 ms Networks.Linux.Automation.Kafka.Clickhouse.Kubernetes [2001:bc8:3eff:c0:51::2]
23 33 ms 33 ms 33 ms Statistics.Maths [2001:bc8:3eff:c0:51::3]
24 31 ms 32 ms 31 ms o---Various---o [2001:bc8:3eff:c0:7a::]
25 34 ms 35 ms 35 ms Swimming.Karate.Piano [2001:bc8:3eff:c0:7a::1]
26 36 ms 34 ms 35 ms o---Contact---o [2001:bc8:3eff:c0:c0::]
27 32 ms 34 ms 31 ms mail.jobs.at.poinsignon.org [2001:bc8:3eff:c0:c0::1]
28 33 ms 35 ms 30 ms cv6.poinsignon.org [2001:bc8:3eff:c0::ff]
Resources:
- ~10 programmers
– ~20 artists
– ~24 month development cycle
– ~$10M budget

$166,666 per person a year? Does that include office space, computers, tools, software? Seems very low.
The problem I've found in this space is the data.

I and my colleagues have done consulting work for several insurance companies. I'd love to develop some sick claim processing/auditing software or data management solution for insurance, but it's next to impossible to get visibility into the data they're processing and where the improvement opportunities lie without working there or having an in.
I'm not the developer, but by the looks of it (and how the physics is in the trailer), I'm 99% sure that's made with Unity.
Well if you mean doing small sprints where a lot is accomplished in a narrow window of time, then yeah, I've been successful. But the project didn't grow from there, since it required high energy input, and was complete, without being iterated on, which is what small-steps over a long duration of time (months, years) would accomplish for those bigger more demanding projects.
Novak Djokovic Will Miss U.S. Open Due to Federal Vaccination Policy
I could see a CEO getting in the way of a pretty clear board mandate and getting fired for it, maybe there needs to be a sacrificial someone to make that happen. I haven't really seen good evidence in my short tenure to believe that one man should be making all judgement calls for a business, although that is how I guess everything is structured for some reason. Thanks for the insights.
So..

To the first point, I don't see exactly where we disagree. "Rome" is effectively used by the author as a placeholder for "ancient world." He also notes that there is/was an ongoing discussion about being on the cusp of an industrial revolution.

I just pointed out that (a) Rome is not particularly unique. That's an anglocentric notion. Lots of civilization^ existed. Even Rome's empire (eg damasus) consisted of mostly ancient civilisations. Most territories across its borders (eg parthia) were also civilisations. Beyond that, more civilization (eg china). They're all candidates, even if we assume that kind of empire is necessary... though I don't see why we should.

>> The author's point is that an Industrial Revolution requires a very precise set of conditions to occur.

This is the point I am pushing back against. I mean, how do you distinguish between a conditional requirement and a post fact anecdote? Just because it happened a certain way, doesn't mean that it had to happen that way.

For example, the flying shuttle doesn't really require steam engines. It's just an automated loom. You could probably power one with a foot pedal. Meanwhile, textile (like steel) is an obviously valuable trade good. You could have probably gotten rich in the neolithic with a battery of flying shuttle equipped loom.

Trade goods, unlike steam power, have vast markets. You can sell as much as you can make.

I'm curious about why the flying shuttle was invented so soon after the modern steam engine. The availability of engines as a power source doesn't explain it, IMO, given how little power a loom requires. I suspect that steam engines' important contribution to weaving was not the engines. It was the engineers. It was engineering. It was a mindset.

Once the mindset exists, the machine is not that hard to invent. It's clever and amazing, but achievable. Motivate good engineers to automate the loom, and they will do it. The mentality to really try, hard, to invent an automated weaving machine... that's the secret sauce, IMO.
I feel like I just got put on an FBI watchlist for clicking that.
This is true. Canceling student debt is basically like printing money, and is likely to lead to inflation.

Student loans themselves were like the government handing out money to banks (guaranteed interest on large amounts of secured debt) and universities (empowered/incentivized to raise tuition and fees drastically for decades with impunity.)
> You can take whole classes just to learn how to pronounce the English /r/ in a way that sounds right. Which makes it especially unfortunate as a world language.

While true that is "solved" by having very distinct accents. Somebody from Oxford, Melbourne, Delhi and Houston ( all pronounce the /r/ and other sounds quite different, but will still understand each other (given a little will on both sides)
Twitter declined to remove sex video exploiting minors
Jobs exepted for pretty clear reasons. And yes Gmail has been dominant for quite a bit of time - especially since the period where it was possible to have your email be your digital identity.