skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
And Gulf War II was steamrolled with a ton of astroturfing "journalism".

I will never forget the cheerleader role the New York Times played in the Iraq Invasion, from the straight-up swallowing of Colin Powell's false "evidence", egregious saber rattling "articles", it was depressing. "The paper of record" officially killed the fourth estate during that time period, and journalism has never recovered.

I was a dumb 20something, and even I could see the vast conflicts of interests, the military industrial complex frothing at the mouth, the Cheney-fronted petroleum bigwigs cackling, and the callous political calculus of starting a war just to have a more important administration. Or the worst of all: trillions of dollars and a million dead iraqis just so Bush Jr could "show up" Bush Sr.
With JS I meant it was something to run in a browser, nothing serious (initially). So from the historic perspective it was correct as for the reason why it existed. It was not meant to write multithreaded system services where most bad/average devs struggle (and it's not multithreaded to this day outside webworkers).
Tank you for explaining how stupid I am <3
I'll pick reduced battery size, thanks.
Oh I was thinking from a native python object perspective.

You could have a rule that the refcount must be 1 when sending an object between subinterpreters.

In other words, you cannot use an object that was .send() to another subinterpreter.

Then you invalidate the reference in that subinterpreter when it calls send to the other subinterpreter which is transferred by assignment.

Can transfer any amount of data with zero copies.
They could make the argument the transaction took place in the US due to validator density even if there were no validators?

Regardless, that’s not the argument.
Put the same microphone surveillance in private jets and yachts, then I'll be okay with this
>Overhear conversations about someone going to do a clandestine deal, then rob that person and the person they are trading with for way more money than a typical NPC and a neat item.

The plot to Way of the Gun
Your reasoning is faulty. There is no Android platform fee for app developers. In fact, alternative Android stores pay no fees at all. The Play Store has fees, and there's a dispute about them, but that doesn't make it analogous to the situation on iOS, which really has an iOS platform fee because it's impossible to install native code on the device you ostensibly own without Apple's ongoing permission.
> Since it was essentially a read model, it wasn’t the source of truth for any specific information

I agree. And luckily that was the case for them.
They're not trying to burn the frog but boil it slowly.

This is just another one of a series of small steps.
Guy shouting fuck you pig while surrounded by 50 SWAT guys sounds like a mental health emergency. Can't do much about that. Ain't called first respondersfor nothing.
You’re still thinking of the relationship in transitional terms and looking down on her (re-read above). That said, good for you for branching out! Men often tend to think of relationships as transactional - attaching to someone with higher status to raise your own, or receiving something of value in return. Women may also appreciate some transactional relationships but more importantly tend to build supportive networks (where a value is just being heard when you need to vent or struggle with a problem, and when you proactively help others, regardless of stature, so you and others don’t fall through the cracks, especially the kids.) Men often rely on their spouse or other women for that kind of a relationship (being able to vent and feel vulnerable).
I'm not sure what you are arguing :(... is your premise that it is sufficient for only "accredited" (is that even a thing? I didn't know that was a thing) security research firms that are, I guess, hired by the company that is selling the product for the world to be safe? As that definitely doesn't seem to be true in practice, and puts a LOT of power in some extremely biased hands :(. It also doesn't, from my understanding, match the intention of the laws either... the weakest part of the Green case (which is what was referenced and which is almost annoyingly-narrowly about security research being published in book form, and so sidesteps any confusion we might be having here with respect to my personal agendas that involve "jailbreaking")--as far as I can tell, as a non-lawyer who spends way too much time talking to the lawyers--is that the DOJ actually came out during the hearing to say they don't see anything wrong with the activity in the first place ;P. I'm thereby really confused that you seem to think this is somehow, I guess, illegal currently? Cause like, AFAIK, it isn't: the issue at hand is whether there is a chilling effect being caused by Section 1201's anti-trafficking provisions on someone's first amendment right to explain not only that something is insecure but in exactly what way it is insecure (as I, for example, often do in my post-mortems: see my articles on Optimism or Master Key, etc.) when those exploits happen to affect an "effective" (lol: I hate that wording) technological measure protecting someone's copyright, as, in the US, we tend to be pretty adamant about reserving the right to publish information.
This benchmark reminds me of "ffwd: delegation is (much) faster than you think" https://www.seltzer.com/margo/teaching/CS508-generic/papers-....

This paper describes a mechanism for client threads pinned to a distinct cores to delegate a function call to distinguished server thread pinned to its own core all on the same socket.

This has a multitude of applications the most obvious one making a shared data structure MT safe through delegation rather than saddling it with mutexes or other synchronization points especially beneficial with small critical sections.

The paper's abstract concludes claiming "100% [improvement] over the next best solution tested (RCL), and multiple micro-benchmarks show improvements in the 5–10× range."

The code does delegation without CAS, locks, or atomics.

The efficacy of such a scheme rests on two facets, which the paper explains:

* Modern CPUs can move GBs/second between core L2/LLC caches

* The synchronization between requesting clients and responding servers depends on each side spinning on shared memory address looking for bit toggles. Briefly, servers only read client request memory which the client only writes. (Clients each have their own slot). And on the response side client's read the servers shared response memory, which only the server writes. This one-side read, one-side write is supposed to minimize the number of cache invalidations and MESI syncs.

I spent some time testing the author's code and went so far as writing my own version. I was never able to make it work with anywhere near the throughput claimed in the paper. There's also some funny "nop" assembler instructions within the code that I gather is a cheap form of thread yielding.

In fact this relatively simple SPCP MT ring buffer which has but a fraction of the code:

https://rigtorp.se/ringbuffer/

did far, far better.

In my experiments then CPU spun too quickly so that core-to-core bandwidth was quickly squandered before the server could signal response or the client could signal request. I wonder if adding select atomic reads as with the SPSC ring might help.
Yeah, you kind of need to make an appointment through their app. When you do that, you walk in, they find you a person, then it takes about the same hour.

I'm honestly surprised they even accepted you as a walk-in
Making the business case for solid disaster recovery and continuity of business (along with resources for regularly testing it) can be quite a challenge. In an immature or unhealthy culture this is something that can always be pushed to next quarter and if disaster strikes more effort will be put into political spin versus engineers doing preventative work.

At some point a company needs to adopt practices like Netflix's chaos monkey or Google's DiRT (disaster readiness testing) to purposefully excerise continuation of business plans as well as recognize the effort that is required to keep things running. Otherwise other incentives will drown out any intrinsic motivations individuals may have to improve reliability.
> what was expected were humans replacements and what we got is human augmenters

The advantages of AI even without full human replacement are: volume, consistency, testability, cost, scalability and upgrade story. You can process more data, processing is more consistent as enforced by the model, you can test the model extensively, costs less, can handle sudden scaling and is easier to control the upgrade process when you want to update the system.

But even if the AI ability to remove the human in the loop is low today - that's not necessarily a bad thing. We need some time to adapt and transition as a society. If the transition is too fast, much more social displacement will happen. If we can match the automation rate to the natural job attrition rate then we can have a much smoother transition.
The question is a little different in my mind.

The question is would Serge's record company continue to release albums when placed under pressure. Would French TV continue to allow him to perform there? Would French radio continue to play his albums? Would he appear in French magazines and newspapers.

In those days when Serge was the enfant terrible the answer was clearly yes, they all would and they did. Today, I still strongly suspect they all would, at least in France. But what do I know of it?

How about the "next Serge" if such a phrase can have meaning. The person trying to get noticed with their work using youtube, soundcloud, myspace, their own domain etc. How would it play out if they released something as unsettling as "Lemon Incest" in duet with their under-aged daughter? [1].

Accusation is also a hell of a powerful thing. The prevailing zeitgeist of "believe the accuser" is understandable given historical context but seems to be equally capable of damage to the innocent. It seems someone would accuse something to supercharge the outrage machine and that accusation could even be true. And it sticks impacting that persons' access to something as basic as the financial system even when it seems pretty unlikely that it is true, eg Julian Assange. I guess some people still believe he's a rapist but the accusation has massively impacted his life and work even if it came from someone who literally wrote about the need to take revenge on former lovers. [2] Among a series of other pieces of information that seemed to strongly undermine her accusations. Being "likable" like Matt Lauer and Katie Couric seems to be more important in such things - which whatever one thinks of their relative merits as humans or even as "the accused" it just doesn't quite seem like justice according to law. [3]

So, I think we can only speculate about what would happen in France. As we can if the "next Serge" were born and raised in the USA.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_Incest

[2] https://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/13/rundle-assange-accuser-...

[3] https://nypost.com/2021/10/01/katie-couric-reveals-herself-a...

Full disclosure: I think I'd cross the road to avoid all of Gainsbourg, Assange, Lauer and Couric. I can't imagine liking any of them at all. The cancelling business bothers me. Law reform seems to me to be the correct place to address shortcomings in the rule of law. The endrun around it will be abused by the powerful against the less so. The importance of the rule of law is that the strongest might not always get their way. As corruption rages, the agents of the strongest aren't your friends the way they claim to be by standing against those who are the objects of the current edition of "the hate" be it 2 minutes or more.

Assange the person can make my skin crawl while I still acknowledge the ideas - he really was more right about the Afghanistan war than what I was reading in the NYT, WJS, WaPo, ToL, Guardian etc. And it really did greatly annoy a lot of people with power and/or money fueled vested interest in a quite different view of that war than the one he was publicizing - and we now know how it all turned out.
How is this different from multiprocessing? The examples looks like a complete nightmare...

interp = interpreters.create()
interp.run(tw.dedent("""
import some_lib
import an_expensive_module
some_lib.set_up()
"""))
wait_for_request()
interp.run(tw.dedent("""
some_lib.handle_request()
"""))

I'm actually shocked this is even being contemplated. We've regressed to evaling?
I (should better maintain) my little compendium of shell 'one liners' that do all sorts of incredibly useful things, that getting right first time, were hard won.

Having that handy you can seem like a god at times to your colleagues when they are trying to solve something. "Oh, did you know you can do this? I'll message it to you."

I think my working memory isn't very good, but there is something in there that is very good surely, because how else would I have been able to computers for this long?
Random question, doesn't this then defeat the whole purpose of using rust? Memory errors, that is, pointer issues are the primary source of errors that ownership in rust claims to fix. If the only way you can make nontrivial data structures is use "a ton of unsafe blocks," then you'll still likely get the memory errors, only now it's in an unsafe block...so, now everyone can just blame the unsafe block?

This reminds me of those static provers which prove everything correct up until user input, you know, the place where an attacker will inject their payload.
Par for the course. Hey did you actually scan from top to bottom, left to right? Might have seen something interesting.

Dude in particular the cockroach comment on http://fgemm.com came out so...so very fine, I'm so happy with it. Ended up pulling the stunt, not pictures of me but pictures of a deleted memory from my metamorphosis, I hadn't seen that magic card or remembered its name in 22 years. And then it was lobotomized, and then I flashed on it in the moment. Quite pleased with that.
Sure, but don't forget the inherent trade-off - Rust allows you to write safer code at the cost of getting in the way. It simplifies some things and makes other things very complex. It empowers average devs that can suddenly write certain types of system services easily and be reasonably sure they work as intended, but it gets in the way of advanced devs writing core systems.
And then in Asia, countries are eliminating subsidies and raising prices on staples that poor people depend on to appease the IMF, e.g., rich Western bankers opportunistically exploiting liquidity and credit crunches in the wake of largely Western-made climate disasters and knock-on effects of other tilted policies.

As part of the "K"-shaped recovery, I would say the past 3 years have been the worst for average Indians, Pakistanis, Africans, and others throughout E(-eastern)MEA.
On iOS it exists as a part of Data Saver feature. On Desktop it is a separate , stand-alone feature and can be configured per site.
It's not just that. Commit messages have a property that they get overwritten. When I refactor some code for performance reasons, I don't want to remove documentation - which is exactly what happens if I make a commit. True, older commit messages are available in the history, but... not conveniently available.
I hate to admit this, but it took me a long time to do, mostly because I was not experienced when I started writing code, and the code has been rewritten several times over to get it right.

First off is the code in [1]. It's technically under several licenses, but I can give it to you under the public domain because bounds checking in C is important enough that I'll give it away.

The `y_ARRAY_TYPE()` macro generates a struct that is an array with bounds. Use it like this:

typedef y_ARRAY_TYPE(uint32_t) uint32_t_arr;

`uint32_t_arr` is a bounded array of `uint32_t`'s.

You can then pass that array to functions and do bounds checks with the `y_i()` macro (for when the struct value is not a pointer) and the `y_ip()` macro (for when the struct value is a pointer).

To implement RAII, the code to do that is in the same repo, but it's...much more complicated: a full stack allocator. I just add the destructor as a parameter when allocating memory, and when the allocation is freed, the destructor is called when it's non-NULL. Then there are functions to allocate and free, but it is always done in a stack, to emulate the real stack.

By the way, the type of destructor is

void (*y_Destructor)(void*)

and it takes a pointer to the item to be destroyed.

Structured concurrency takes the idea of a thread-local stack and sort of generalizes it across threads. The idea is that each thread has a parent, and that parent is not joined until all of its child threads are joined. All threads form a tree, almost exactly like process trees in Linux.

This means that if you want to have another thread borrow an item, you just have to make sure that thread is a descendant of the thread it is borrowing the item from, and you have a guarantee that the item will never go out of scope before the borrowing thread does.

Sometimes you need to change your code to do that. You can "push" things "down the stack" by passing function pointer callbacks to callees who then create the item to borrow and call the callbacks. Inside the callbacks, the borrowed item will always exist.

There's more to it than that (you can turn a thread tree into a DAG [2], allowing you to turn threads that are not descendants of a thread into descendants), but that's probably good enough to start you off.

[1]: https://git.yzena.com/Yzena/Yc/src/commit/cf4c96b3560d/inclu...

[2]: https://lobste.rs/s/8msejg/notes_on_structured_concurrency_g...
DNA in Viking feces sheds new light on relationship between gut companions
I had been looking for such an application, but than I decided to build one myself that suffice my needs, here is the repo https://github.com/4silvertooth/QwikTape
I still disagree that it's awful.
People who use permissive licenses usually don't care about the license-inclusion clause, so most people just don't bother with it until someone comes asking. At the end of the day, fixing that problem is just a matter of including a new text file in the next release. It's nowhere near as big of a deal as when someone complains that you're not complying with the GPL.

By the way, whether you're linking statically or dynamically doesn't affect whether you ought to include the licenses of your dependencies. At least not for BSD, I'm less certain for MIT.
They added "Provision" to make the acronym TRAP, obviously. It was a good decision.
Education and job training are not the same thing. Education in a field is general knowledge needed to perform in the field regardless of employer. Job training is learning the specific knowledge needed to perform a specific position for a specific employer, including their SOPs, policies, etc.
Long ago, I remember a fellow engineer who bitterly complained his employer had placed him in bondage. I asked him, why don't you quit and get a better job? He replied, you don't understand. I have bills to pay. I have no savings. My finances would collapse if I missed even one paycheck.

I pointed out that he was wearing expensive clothes, he and his wife drove new cars, they owned a McMansion with expensive furniture in it. I tactlessly concluded he had placed himself in bondage, the company had nothing to do with it, and was likely completely unaware of his debt situation.

He became very angry with me. Oh well, tactless Walter strikes again.
Do you really think these things can be solved by surveillance? I doubt people like you are describing are deterred by that and I don’t think DHS will start hunting possible homeless beggars because they have recordings.

What actually increases safety and one of the reason public transport was / felt safer in the past is more personal. If there are train guards on the ride or platform managers at the station, they can actually intervene. No surveillance necessary. But that obviously requires way more public transport funding.
This is similar to what bodyshops used to do 15+ years ago to the developers they brought in on H1Bs. To prevent them from jumping ship once they are in the country. Curiously, the penalty was also about $15K and typical compensation about $65K. Is it happening to the citizens now too?
How is it cover-your-ass?

We had the recording but didn’t listen to it sounds worse than we can’t determine if that conversation actual took place on our vehicle.
Wouldn't it be more sensible to send the conservation specialists across the world rather than the irreplaceable one-of-a-kind artifact?
Antipatterns

SICP

Sedgewick Algorithms
It's not chip shortage related, the TV models being discussed are from 2015-16.
Hopefully the Sketchup Make 2017 offline version will inspire open-source competitors.
I wouldn't have been able to attend so it was futile to install whatsapp and join the discussion.

There is no ideological reason behind it.
Reminds me of a two stack push down automata. Stack programming languages. Forth lang.
Stuff like Slotmap should be part of the standard library instead of some github project with open issues that isn't updated for over a year.
No Rust Evangelist is out there thinking, "Hm, how do I put C/C++ developers out of business today"
I don’t guess you’ll see this but on the off chance you do, you got me started watching the Rohmer films again and I just watched A Summer’s Tale. What a delight of a film.
But like Windows having IE/Edge installed by default (& being sued for it), Google Play is the default store for Android, & 95% of public doesn't know otherwise.
Do you recommend removing the copyright notice from a 0BSD licensed work before passing it onto someone else?

Or else, what exactly is the use case?
I know someone who got several offers like this. And often, it sounded like you had to pay them back even if they are unsatisfied with your work and fire you. There were also a couple offers where they wouldn't pay him for the first few months as they "trained" him, and if they liked him, they would keep him on for a low salary "with lots of opportunities to move up".
Oh you don’t even need to charge anything for H1Bs to work as indentured servitude.

The visa says who you’re allowed to work for. Leave the company (or get fired or laid off) and you have 10 days to leave the country or find another job that will sponsor your visa. As you can imagine few people choose to leave the company under these conditions.

Best part is that companies can also appeal to the employee’s sense of fairness: “We paid $10,000 for your visa. You value that favor from us don’t you? Imagine if you had to pay that yourself”
Of Dharma and Doom: A translation revives the ending of the Mahabharata
The Value of Science –- Paper Summary
Small companies tend to have stronger empathetic bonds between people. Larger companies are much more prone to treating people like cogs to be replaced when worn out. More than that, larger companies might be able to shuffle problematic employees around rather than having to outright fire them.

It's a double edged blade to be sure- I've heard horror stories of bad small businesses as well- but my experience at both leaves me with a very strong preference for working for small companies.
Deadlines are pointless – what to do instead
> you can be put on a blacklist and become unhirable

Are these legal?

Does anyone have experiences with blacklists from the hiring side? I have never seen such a thing. How are they shared? How does one know if someone is on the list for a good reason? How does it scale?
The fact that Rust has a whole other ecosystem is the main thing that gives me pause. For all their faults, C and C++ targets the ecosystem you have: gems, pip, Conan, Nix, ...doesn't matter. They don't expect you to port to a new ecosystem. They can contort to meet your needs.

Herb Sutter's latest proposal and, to a slightly lesser degree, Carbon are more interesting in that respect.