skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don't know about high-level billiards, but low level billiards is basically synonymous with hustling and cheating (aka sharking.) Pool sharking is so widespread and infamous, I think it casts the entire sport in a sleazy light.

With baseball, a lot of high level players have gotten caught or admitted it, and have said that it's widespread. Jose Canseco admitted to cheating and claimed as much as 80% of players use steroids. He specifically accused Alex Rodriquez, which was later proven true. Allegations like these from admitted/caught cheats might be attempts to justify themselves, but personally I think cheating is and has been rampant in baseball for a very long time. It's still fun to watch though.
I think I have on 3-4 occasions played a game where, after evaluating on chess.com, got a 100% accuracy (which is engine correlation). A couple times were all theory and then blundering a mate in 1, but...

I did have one game where I didn't know the theory except a very vague recollection in the beginning. I actually thought I had blundered in that game and was trying to figure out what I'd do if my opponent made a certain move — they didn't find it, I ended up winning material in a tactic and they resigned — I was in complete shock when it came back 100% accuracy (and I definitely did not see the engine response to the move I was worried about, which was the best move).

I'm only around 1600-1700 on chess.com.

Not taking a position either way on Hans, but I have no doubt he knows far more theory than I do (and I do know some lines 20+ moves deep), and correlating with an engine is not impossible even outside of book.
Niemann during an interview admitted to having cheated in the past
This is rising to the top of HN because "Y Combinator" and "paranoid" are in the same title, and people are curious. Those 9 points this post got in the 41 minutes it's been posted can't possibly be from people listening to the 50 minute episode.

Podcast episodes are not a great medium for sharing stuff on HN. The description doesn't mention "paranoid" at all and I would have to listen to an entire podcast before I can comment. No thanks.
at least you aren't obliged to accept the check box :)
Any opponent could cheat at anytime. Cheating in chess is a fact of life, and can't be stopped. Other professional sports have mostly come to terms with this, and chess needs to as well.

When you have proof of cheating the sport's authorities take action (not individual players). When you don't you let the games go on knowing some folks are getting away with it sometimes.
I could fit an entire droneCI/fly deployment setup in a single HN comment, no idea what you've been scarred by.
I think davidro80's comment was too black or white and an attempt to shut down discussion. Those type of comments usually get downvoted on HN. I can admire Ginsberg's "Howl" without approving of his personal life, but I understand some can't get past it.
VUniverse: 16K VU1 demo by Mike Day (2003):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwD7-bs9hss
The article's a pretty simple design, and how most people used to do it pre-cloud platforms. The article's pretty much saying "you don't have to go AWS/Azure". Although back in the day we didn't really have managed DB instances, you'd often just run the DB on the same server as the app.

The parent, however, is paying a lot more for a t2.large.

For that kind of money you could almost get a dedicated machine which would be 10x more powerful than a T2.large, but with the hassle of maintenance (though it's not a lot of hassle in reality).

The advantage of AWS is not price. AWS is quite a bit more expensive if you want the same performance. It's either that you can scale up and down on demand, or the built-in maintenance or deployment pipelines.

So you can save money if you have bursty traffic, or save dev time because it's super easy to deploy (well, once you learn how).

Cloud platforms can also have weird limits and gotchas you can accidently hit, like your DB can suddenly start going slowly because you've got a temporary heavy CPU query running, as they don't actually give you very much CPU with the cheaper stuff.
This is not disputed, he has admitted to it himself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU6UJz_X8DU
> I use an ancient library to perform some math.

Anyone can cherry-pick examples to try to disprove a security principle. A pure, functional math library isn't representative of the vast, vast majority of libraries that are imported every day.

The most-used libraries across languages are for things like database access, logging, package management, HTTP, and (de)serialization. All of those things need to be kept updated for security.

> Can someone explain why is it insecure and what updates are needed to complex algos to make them so? When looking at the code it is pure computation.

You didn't specify the language or library.

Most libraries that people import are going to be JS, just because of the number of JS users and the minimal standard library in that language. Many are also going to operate on user input, which means they can have vulnerabilities.

The mathjs package in NPM, for example, has had tons of vulnerabilities[1].

1. https://security.snyk.io/package/npm/mathjs
I think your estimation is about 10 years too young.
I'd like to see what makes your app different from all of the other ones + maybe a demo / example area before I sign up.
That "100%" analysis is very deeply flawed. The author of the video even issued a retraction (https://twitter.com/IglesiasYosha/status/1574308784566067201...).

It's cherry-picked games and it doesn't compare to the "engine correlation" of other high ranked players against similar opponents. I would not rely on it as evidence that Hans is "clearly cheating."
Yeah. He cheated online. By his own admission. I wouldn't say that is impactful events.
From your links:

> When it comes to greenhouse gasses alone, the contribution of rocket launches is rather negligible, accounting for only 1% of aviation's carbon footprint — which in itself only amounts to 2.4% of annual global carbon emissions, according to the Environmental and Energy Study Institute

Apart from the fact they overinflated the impact to 1% (there is no way it is close to 1%) there is a reason they chose the adjective "negligible" to describe the impact.

> Eventually, the circulation of the atmosphere dissipates those greenhouse gases and brings the concentrations back to "standard" levels. It is, however, unknown how long the concentrations remain elevated and what their impact on the temperature of the mesosphere could be.

Reality is that these scientists did a simulation, got some results that can be made to sound alarming, but just don't know if these is any inpact. I'm all for studying this more to see if there is a real issue. My gut says it's not going to be a problem until we have at least a couplr of orders of magnitude increase in launches, but it's worth looking at it further.

And I'm not sure why you included the graph of objects in orbit? This looks exciting, but it really is just that companies are now launching clusters of smaller satellites. The good news is that these tend to deorbit in under ten years. Unlike practices of old, this new style of satellite will not result in long lasting space junk.

Finally, what is the point of including a graph of airline flights over time? What bearing does it have on rocket launches?
If I can give an advice quite different from the other comments: don't sweat it. You're not becoming responsible for the success of your team or your company, you're just taking a different role. Things would probably work fine without you. Hell, companies can run for months and years without CEOs (one of my previous company did).

What you can do is two fold: be technically involved (this is the topic of this thread) and be a good leader. The latter means a lot of things, but IMO it also means transparency. I'm really sad to see other comments saying that your role is to not be transparent, I totally disagree.
Their main product is breaking end-to-end encryption.

You could certainly argue that that's no different than relying on azure, aws, or gcp to issue your cert and technically having the ability to decrypt traffic to your server for whatever reason they want to. And that all of this is just a matter of who to trust. It's just very very centralized for something so crucial.

Cloudflare so far hasn't been successful with its other product offerings, but they could go in a direction where they can blackmail you into being their customer: IF, for example, cloudflare were to succeed in making their 1.1.1.1 service (https://1.1.1.1) as popular as they have been able to with the DOS/DNS service, there is nothing that would stop them from either not serving a page to you as an end-user UNLESS you use (and pay for) 1.1.1.1, or stop them from serving your website as an operator UNLESS you use DOS/DNS service offered by them. As other commenters have pointed out their blanket rules on TOR traffic is both understandable practically, and a preview of this if it were to be used maliciously.

I am in no way insinuating that cloudflare builds their products with this motivation, or that their current team has any of these (In fact I do tend to agree with you that the people who work there mostly just want to build great products.) The issue is that I'd rather not have a company around that can be in a place to do any of that once the good people leave.

It'd just be a lot nicer if some of the fundamental things of the internet could follow some of the more original philosophies of building great concepts, and allowing anyone to implement them. I don't want to get to a place where there's a "cloudflare internet."

None of this is to say that cloudflare is the only or even most concerning actor to whom this criticism applies. But that is who you asked about.
Until we've fully explored it, we actually can't know that.
UML was an attempt at this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Modeling_Language
I can say definitively that the last photo is of 2 women. They're both female. To mee it's plainly obvious, just look closely at them, they're women. That should help narrow it down quite a bit, after reading the article about that photo they said they can't figure that out.
Ha! Good catch (did you have a computer help you!!!) but I daresay Carlsen's lawyer and perhaps Chess.com's have reviewed the statement.
People need to understand the advertising is mostly aspirational. Just like most GoPro buyers film their trip down the intermediate downhill ski slope, not over a waterfall in a kayak or base jumping.

The extra battery life of the Ultra will be nice as will the new apps. Garmin still makes more serious "adventure" watches but for really hard-core mountaineering, I'm not sure to what degree people actually depend on watches that still need periodic charging.
Once-Hot Fake Meat Sees Sales Slide on Price and Being Too ‘Woke’
He admitted to having previously cheated. The admission happened during the Sinquefeld cup, on stream, during the event.

Having cheated in prior history is not a question, but the extent and recency of the behavior is.
Our object graph is for a DAW, one of the most complex applications floating around. Multiple threads, some with RT constraints, multiple UIs acting as both view and controller. No GC acceptable here.
This to me is boring and simple technology. Well done.
Correct: they are not doing something that is possible to do. What benefits to their users result from that choice?

(I’m aware of what drawbacks result from it, but that’s been explained to death in a thousand replies in a hundred posts about this already, so no need to derail into them here.)
Correct. They will not come up with a list of GMs saying Hans cheated. Many GMs have said that it doesn't seem like he did (at least during the game with Magnus).
I have a really hard time working for someone who isn't technical, regardless of their role. I also have a hard time buying into the narrative that someone can be just a good manager.

As an engineer and a manager I took my time to understand the basics of management, design, marketing, business development etc. to have educated conversations while building a product so I don't see why someone in those roles shouldn't do the same.

I would also feel the need to catch up with whoever the best engineer seems to be on my team because I'd just assume they wouldn't respect me if they perceived me to be vastly less competent (a degree of technical incompetence can be offset by good soft skills of course).

Either there's a misconception about how complex "technical" stuff is, that prevents those (smart) people from touching it with a 10 foot pole, or (conventionally) technical stuff is indeed more complex than (conventionally) non technical stuff.

I lean more towards the latter (after all market demand and compensation are a good indicator of that) but I'd be very happy to be shown that's not the case. I know plenty of engineers that are successful "solopreneurs", I don't know anyone who isn't technical and managed to do the same without a technical cofounder.

Not claiming "engineering is easier than marketing", just that, on average, technical people can do 80% of what's required to build and launch a product, non technical people can do around 20% (although the ratio might change once these no code tools become more popular / powerful).
Show HN: Monomorph – pack any shellcode into a binary with a fixed MD5 hash
> The impact of the App Store Improvement policy is nonexistent for VC-funded companies.

Not true. More often than not, our iOS releases get delayed hours if not days, while our long-suffering iOS lead patiently walks yet another green reviewer through the policies and our previous interactions with reviewers to convince them that our app is in compliance. Among other things, our app repeatedly gets flagged for failing to comply with rules that don't apply to it. This is usually resolved with a simple message to the reviewer, but depending on the turnaround, that can effectively add a day to the time it takes to get a bug fix out.

Dealing with these bogus issues probably accounts for 5% of the productive time of our iOS lead. And this is despite keeping our release cadence slow (every two weeks except for the most critical bugs) and after we've made many reasonable low-to-medium effort changes in our app to stop triggering false positives in their tools.

God help us if Apple ever went the Google route. Apple reviewers might be inexperienced and undertrained, but at least they're human and capable of talking through issues.
I don't think it has been a single EBS volume for a while, but in any case, 256k is more than 18k. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/UserGuide/CHAP_...
Hot take, but chess is a zombie sport.

Software running in a smartphone can play deep games against each other.

Chess engines aren't like car engines are to sprinting. They are more akin to text-to-image AIs but as though every single picture they produce is better than what any artist ever could produce.

Part of that is because Chess is easily defined (the win conditions are comparatively simple).

I'm rambling now and I think that's enough wall of text for a hot take.
This summer, I went to see my extended family in Europe. This year was an extremely hot and dry summer, and the temperature reached close to 40°C every day for almost 2 months. I lived in an old house made of "pisé", a form of rammed earth.

At no point during the whole summer the temperature ever reached above 25, and humidity was way more bearable there than in other houses I went to, I suspect because the walls absorbed some of the ambiant humidity due to the temperature difference.

It actually convinced me that any active climate systems like heat pumps should only be built as a supplement to well built passive systems, first as a means of resilience(no part to repair and no external dependency), second for our own well being (a house with no motor running is eerily silent and great to live in.)
Bizarrely, I was turned on to Arthur Russell's music via random Pandora dice-rolling (I think via the completely unrelated Penguin Cafe Orchestra). His music is definitely both personal and idiosyncratic.
I will agree Rust has a higher "cognitive load", but not if you write it every day. I think Rust might be tough to leave and come back say a year later, but Go admittedly would be easy. That said, having written 50K+ code in both languages, I never want to write Go again. Rust on the other hand is all I want to write now. I do wonder how many people who understand Go's limitations (and work around them as you point out above) have truly given Rust a try (takes a few months - can't be done faster). I can't imagine anyone would want to go back tbh, but maybe I'm wrong.

EDIT: In fairness, there is one thing and exactly one thing I miss about Go: compile times. Rust is simply no competition here, but in trade, it is doing a ton of extra work. Trade offs.
Signing the letter with "Magnus Carlson - World Chess Champion" had bad optics IMO.
>I think the asymmetry of App Review is still lost on Apple. For indie developers our hopes and dreams (and sometimes our finances) hang in the balance, for the App Review team it’s just another app rejection among tens of thousands. I know they think they get it, they just don’t.

I really don't think it's lost on Apple or the app review team. They simply have no incentive to change and a captive audience in both developers & app users/buyers. Better customer service (to devs) on the app review process when there are issues, and continuing support for older SDK's, cost time and money and Apple does not see the value in that investment.

Absent competition there's also no pressure to change this. There's effectively a duopoly in mobile software between Apple & Google. They don't even need to explicitly communicate with each other to act as a cartel, they just need to silently follow each other's lead.

Android is at least marginally better for allowing-- through a few scare-tactics hoops to jump through-- sideloading of apps, but I don't consider that sufficient competition to overcome the duopoly label. Neither is Android's allowance of alternative app stores, no more than MS allowing users to install alternate browsers was sufficient to overcome their uncompetitive practices when it came to IE. The primacy of the Play store on initial setup & its extremely deep integration in the OS is difficult to overcome.

Alternatively, I am slightly conflicted on this due to the security aspects of app installation. Mobile certainly isn't perfect, but the prevalence of malware seems significantly reduced from what is seen in PC's. (well, windows. MacOS is not as bad as Windows, but I've always considered that to be a produce of it's lower market share & therefore lower cost/benefit ratio for attackers.)
import C is not perfect. There are pieces of C that don't map directly to D. Such as #define constants and macros.

That being said, it will make writing bindings a LOT easier, even though D already has direct binding to C functions.
If you frame it like that is doesn't sound like you're particularly willing to meet the people halfway when discussing things with them, and the No True Scotsman at the end feels like an unnecessary jab at the fact that I'm not a native speaker (I don't see how that is relevant here anyway).

Anyway, how you communicate with people close to you is up to you, and I'm still not sure why it upsets you so much how I claim to have healthy discussions with mine.

But for the record: my partner and I essentially saved our relationship during the pandemic despite being on complete opposite "sides" of the topics of covid, vaccines and lockdowns, by communicating this way.

Because truthfully, neither she nor I actually have enough expertise to really assert that the vaccine is safe or not in the long-term, whether or not lockdowns work, and so on. We just have to trust the people we consider authoritative on these matters. And for perfectly understandable personal reasons we trust different sources here and prioritize different issues.

So instead of trying to convince each other of a viewpoint we could not in good faith defend as something we knew with certainty, we decided to ask ourselves why we feel so strongly about these issues. Why these beliefs that we do not have strong evidence for were so important, and to be honest with each other about those beliefs.

And being willing to trust each other, open up like that and do that kind of self-reflection together works. Neither of us has changed our minds regarding covid, nor tried to change the other's mind, but we're more grateful to each other for taking the time to understand and respect each others views than that the differences upset us, because it shows we believe the other person is worth that effort. Which is more than most people who disagree as strongly about this topic as she and I do can say.

If you still believe this is being disrespectful, that's fine. Outside of this meta-discussion about discussions we're having right now I have no interest in "claiming your time" and I'll still have a healthy and loving relationship with my partner regardless of what you think.
>Amazon’s real innovation isn’t a cloud service company or a logistics business. The innovation is on how to squeeze every once of labor and value out of a human being, and how to do this legally, without damaging customers’ or public opinion of the company, at massive scale.

I think this is bang on. Their hiring process for engineers every single time I've been contacted by them is an immediate (before you could possibly have a clue if you want the job or not) is a tech challenge.

It's industrialized hiring that puts 100% of the burden immediately on the candidate at virtually no cost to amazon.

This is a huge red flag and I halt the process with any employer that uses it.
Simply rebuilding and resubmitting the app with a new version of Xcode will yield a significantly different binary artifact today than a few years ago.

It isn't necessarily about API level, it could be (from time to time) about going from arm32 to arm64, to adding better-optimized builds for new microarchitectures, getting bitcode that's recompiled by Apple to support app thinning. Apple may deprecate or remove APIs from time to time that should also be addressed.

That there wasn't necessarily, specifically, a change this time doesn't mean that this program isn't about supporting that over time. It's much easier to make such changes if developers are in the habit of periodically making updates vs. being told to make a breaking update out of the blue.
You're not talking about shuffle, you're talking about broadcast. Shuffle instructions is where you take one or two vectors, and output a third with elements from any index of the input. So for example `out = [in[2], in[1]]` is a shuffle of a vector of length 2.

It's useful for example if you have say RGB color data stored contiguously in memory as say RGBRGBRGBRGB..., and you want to vectorize operations on R, B and G separately. You can load a few registers like [RGBR][GBRG][BRGB], and then shuffle them to [RRRR][BBBB][GGGG]. In fact it's not entirely trivial how to shuffle optimally, it takes a few shuffles to get there.

More generally, if you have an array of structs, you often need to go to struct of arrays to do vectorized operations on the array, before returning to an array of struct again.

Another example is fast matrix transpose (in fact you can think of the RGB example a 3 by N matrix transpose to N by 3, where N is the vector width -- AoS -> SoA is a transpose too, in a sense). Suppose you have a matrix of size N by N where N is the vector width, you need N lg N shuffles to transpose the matrix.
No use-after-deletion is precisely what is required. And yes, we use weak_ptr too, for some things.

The alternative is "no language-level references, any time you want object "Foo", go look it up in some table". We opted not to do that.