skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Zuck's Metaverse (tm) is very forward looking in some ways, and very backward looking in others.

Although his particular vision is very weird and ugly, Zuck is on the right track: in the future, people will spend real time (not async time, a-la tiktok/instagram) with each other in virtual spaces. Facebook is already a text-based version of the metaverse, and it minted a pretty penny.

The metaverse, as Zuck imagines it, is already here though: video games. People who are hardcore about video games wake up, go to work, get home, and then plug in. Their friends and social circle exists on the internet, in the game. This is the metaverse. Video-game communities; Fortnight [1] , WoW, League, CS-Go, etc; these are the most complete so far existing metaverse(s). One exists for every major flavor of gameplay we can think of. Look on steam for people who have 10,000 hours in a game. These people live as Zuck wants us all to: in the metaverse.

Zuck's vision is to expand these virtual communities beyond the hardcore gamer group. You go to work (in a metaverse) then you come home and spend time with your friends (in a different metaverse), then you play a game (in yet another metaverse), then you sleep and do it all again the next day. It's actually a very forward-looking vision, and one that probably will come to pass over the next few decades. A metric for this is "time spent in front of a screen." It inexorably climbs year after year, generation after generation.

But the key thing is that the experience has to be good. The metaverse of Fortnight or CS-GO is worth spending time in because those games are fun and engaging in their own right; for some, more fun and engaging than reality itself. These games print money, because a small group of people legitimately spend every leisure moment in them. Zuck's vision is to expand this beyond the market for hardcore gamers and into work, socialization -- life itself.

I suspect that the market doesn't quite fully understand this part of Zuck's metaverse dreams. In part because of Meta's spectacular failure at making the metaverse look fun and compelling.

Personally, my money's on Epic to actually bring the Metaverse to fruition. They already own a Metaverse, Fortnight, and they also own Unreal, which will probably be the software foundation upon which the normie metaverse gets built.

[1] https://medium.com/@ow/the-metaverse-is-already-here-its-cal...
> If someone kills a person at 16. Should the killer be in prison for life?

If you murder somebody at 16, you shouldn't be a free man at 19. Three years is not enough time for somebody to mature and mellow.
Great question, and perhaps at the point where decisions were being made, it'd be hard to argue a different path internally (hindsight being 20/20).

However, it seems clear that the business built both insane prices and the crypto lockup of devices (whether explicitly, or implicitly) into their forecasts for the business. They didn't have a good pulse on the actual demand/usage of their product, and when that usage pattern would shift.

The path they're taking right now, specifically regarding pricing towards & serving higher-end enthusiasts with newer products, makes sense while the used inventory gets cycled around the lower end of the market.

From a product perspective, I don't have any useful opinions to share because I'm not in hardware, and I don't have the information set they're operating from internally. But, they should have hoovered up as much cheap capital as they could while their stock price was high and the going was good to make the next period of heavy investments (to be fair, shares outstanding did grow, just not by a ton, %-wise, and they have a fair bit of cash on the balance sheet)

https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/NVDA/financials/quart... is painful to see, and I don't foresee it getting better in the next year.
they should play a game inside one of these: https://www.ets-lindgren.com/products/shielding/rf-shielded-...
They often have that. But if you have an accomplice placed with the spectators that person could just discreetly signal stuff. Like scratching the nose or so. At least for the WC matches they also often sat behind one-way glass.
If it's reasonable for a 12yo to be able to play in a for-money tourney, then I don't think it's unreasonable to think they should know the difference between right and wrong.
I'm still staggered how potent a post effort pause can get. I can spend hours and days trying to improve something and not being able to see the easiest spots. I come back 4 days later and everything just jumps out as obvious as day. No confusion, no fatigue, lots of ideas, enthusiasm, creativity..
C# is great, if you ignore the lack of algebraic data types and the generally weak type system. Value types in C# are awesome and really make it easy to write super high performance code that doesn't allocate!

F# is awesome if you ignore the fact that it's so easy to shoot yourself in the foot from a performance standpoint with all the lazy constructs. It sure is awesome though to have such a strict type system, though I do sometimes miss features that Typescript has, such as structural typing and mapped types.

In general I do thing the dotnet ecosystem offers a really good set of compromises.
But you gain the ability to use tools that understand the language or the underlying AST, they look at the structure rather than a context free view of text.

You add the tools to the IDE.

As for database corruption - that is a well known issue databases have good resilience to crashes and power losses
Tailscale Sponsors Let's Encrypt
You’re in an oversubscribed area, it’s that simple. Several people in Wyoming I know got instant fills on sign-up a month ago.
Before you even get to the CNI, I think AWS VM to internet is at least 3 NAT layers.

So we have 3 layers from container to pod. The virtual host kernel is tracking those layers. Once connection to one container is 3 tracked connections. Then you have whatever else you put on top to go in and out of the internet.

The funny think to me is HaProxy recommended getting rid of connection tracking for performance while everyone is doubling down on that alone and calling it performant.
A car can go faster than Usain Bolt yet I'm still going to watch him. If you were familiar with chess culture, you would already be aware of the appeal of human chess champions. If anything, the sport has grown enormously in the last few years. What ismprobably going to decline is the relative focus on OTB Classical.

Chess is far from solved, either. AlphaZero's play has actually led to the emergence of additional theory.
My rule is: SSH to a machine and running manual commands for any non-toy systems is an antipattern. Every time you SSH to do something, it means you are missing automation and/or observability.

In small teams it's bad because it's a waste of time. In large teams it's bad because it creates communication overhead (it's also a waste of time but that can be often absorbed if things don't get too crazy). For a single person team it is bad because now they have to depend on their memory and shell history.
DART's Impact with Asteroid Dimorphos (Official NASA Broadcast)
Look at all the people who had their careers absolutely destroyed by the US Postal/Discovery Channel/Lance Armstrong/Trek business (including Greg LeMond!) in the era where they were accusing Armstrong of the world's largest ever coordinated doping program, in the era before Armstrong and team were stripped of all their titles.

Ultimately in the fullness of time they were all proven to be correct.
With regards to his recent rating increase, Hans' rating increase is not completely unprecedented but it's still very rare. The issue isn't that he's a mid-2600s player, or even that he's increased by 200 points in two years, it's the shape of the ratings graph and the unusual staircase progress he's made at the GM level.

It took Hans about five years to go from 2300 to 2500 rating, and most of that was pre-pandemic. Increasing your rating gets exponentially more difficult as your rating increases, which is why there are so few players who ever make it to the 2700 level or even the 2600 level. Most players at this level who spend multiple years in a rating lull never significantly increase their playing ability (there are countless examples, but look at someone like MVL for a typical example). There are only a small number of cases of people who reach Hans' level who have staircase looking ratings progress graphs at the 2500+ level.

Hans' recent rating increase is far from proof that he's cheating, but it is definitely extremely unusual.
This is not obvious to me. I had access to comp data at two different companies and Levels data was pretty accurate across the board.
I wonder if this is just caused by something more mundane, like the developer couldn't pay Apple to renew their developer account due to sanctions.
>the fact that Carlsen is making this statement now and not weeks earlier is embarrassing

Why?
20-year-old Linux workaround is still slowing down AMD systems
You are certainly right, it is not constantly and actively maintained.

After the Constitutional Convention in 1787, it's said that when Ben Franklin was walking out of Independence Hall, someone yelled: “Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?”

To which Franklin responded: “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Wise Words.

And, as Plato said: "The penalty for good men not participating in politics is to be ruled by evil men.".
just checked and we use hubspot. you actively have to click the chat icon to get the message to pop up
> until all your old application code is no longer running.

Or until it's been disabled by feature flags.
For what it is worth, I am handling about 130k views and registering ~1k paying users per day with a t2.large instance server running node, redis and nginx behind a free tier Cloudflare proxy, a db.t2.small running postgres 14, plus CloudFront and S3 for hosting static assets.

Everything is recorded in the database and a few pgcron jobs aggregate the data for analytics and reporting purposes every few minutes.
This is only an issue if there is some centralized platform (ie Meta) that hosts AR and has a monopoly over the space. It's actually likely that that will happen (the average user won't be using the niche platforms) and that everyone will have a "space" with some sort of control over whose you can see (very similar to social media like twitter)
Japan is like that - making someone look bad by publicizing their provably-true behavior is considered defamation
You realize you're putting your trust in the word of someone admitting they cheated. It only goes downhill from there.
As does OCaml since 1996, no need for sugar substitute instead of using the real deal.

Compiles to native code, has a repl, version 5 is multicore for those not happy with Lwt or multiprocessing in the UNIX classical style of each tool does one thing, and a GC only second to GHC in handling immutable types.
Why is it depressing? What struck me about the article is it banging on about postmodernism like it was the be all and end all, where the philosophically trained and inclined have seen for a while now that we're past postmodernism and into something else, which of course needs a label of some kind, that many think should be posthumanism, even though I think post-Capitalism is probably more aligned with where we are, as humans.
> Investors don't like to see it because they somehow couldn't comprehend that the growth they saw was completely artificial (how is beyond me)

This was absolutely fascinating to watch over the past 18 months.

Anyone looking for GPUs starting from February 2021 new exactly what was going on. Cards were being gobbled up by miners. They never made it to any shelf for a consumer to buy; webshops were botted, very few humans had a chance to buy.

Regular consumers only got them on eBay or similar. And it was blindingly obvious that consumers weren't paying four figures markup for certain cards. When ETH skyrocketed to almost $5000, a friend of mine was reselling 3060 Tis he bought for €419 from Nvidia's webshop, using a bot he wrote, and resold them for €1250. His regular buyer took all cards he could get his hands on (dozens per month), and resold them to central European countries (popular among miners) for even more markup.

Again, this was blindingly obvious. Availability of cards followed the ETH price; when ETH dipped in summer 2021, cards became available again. When ETH went up towards the end of the year, my friend was selling used 3080s for €1800 again. Then ETH started to crash again, and suddenly Nvidia was facing a massive oversupply.

The fact that Nvidia to this day refuse to acknowledge the role that miners played in artificially inflating growth is weasily, to say the least.
What does the T in CTO stand for?
Controversial opinion, but I think any substantive critique of postmodernism has to acknowledge the fact that the postmodernists have a point. That supposedly neutral institutions or concepts do contain biases that favor certain interests. My objection to postmodernism is that instead of arguing for a better rationality, a more self-aware rationality, it jettisons rationality, and leaves us with no cogent foundation for morality, justice, etc.
Contractors in Tech are generally not given time and a half in my experience. You don't qualify.
I'm with Aristotle - "all men desire happiness". Nothing else is desired for its own sake, but always for the sake of "happiness".

That said, I don't think that knowing that happiness is what we desire tells us very much. We need to go deeper or wider and learn more about the world and ourselves in order to answer the question "in what does our happiness consist". In other words, we need to examine what we have received (since the world and even our selves are experienced as a gift).

Which, coincidentally, is one of the ways that we can intuit that someone gave us what we have - because the principle of sufficient reason says that "an effect must have a cause sufficient to explain it" and we are an effect. "If I am a gift receiver, there must be a gift giver, and as their gift is great they must be greater still to be able to give so much away".
Ah that seems to be the issue some CockroachDB guy complained about. I don't think its high priority for Go team.
Dropbox also completely lost the market they invented to Box, largely because of nontechnical considerations.
> On the other hand I have seen WP and CodeIgniter setups that even with 5 copies running on the largest AWS instances available, "optimized" to the hilt, caching everywhere possible, etc. absolute crumble under the load of 3k req per min. (not sec ... min).

This sounds like some other architectural problems - running nowhere near the largest instances available that was single node performance on EC2 in the 2000s.

There are concerns switching from local to SAN storage, of course, but that’s also shifting the problem if you care about durability.
Also no ads using Lockdown (localhost VPN) on iOS. Seems like quite a decent site without ads.
For few of the small API-mostly apps I am particular to just embedding the statics into binary and have one blob to run and deploy, go:embed making it particularly easy.

Container with it is just a few files in etc and binary blob itself. Same with container-less deployment.
Can you not? I understand sometimes you absolutely need to change a signature or deprecate a feature, but that should absolutely be the exception and not the norm.

Going back to the original post, I find it ridiculous that Apple regularly ships breaking changes (to their APIs) and developers just put up with it. In my minds, it's like being in an abusive relationship where you think if you try a little harder and stay up to date with the latest API version maybe Apple will treat you better (they won't). Apple can get away with it because they own the whole iOS/macOS tower top-to-bottom, but if you want to build trust with your users breaking changes should be the absolute last choice.
As an OSS developer, I will also avoid GPLed code unless I am only using it as something to be consumed (such as emacs when I get the decade itch to remind myself why I don’t use it). I write the libraries that I write to be given away and for my joy.
There’s an awkward gotcha/incompatibility between “Required status checks” and workflows that get skipped [1], eg due to setting a “paths” property of a push/pull_request workflow trigger [2].

The checks associated with the workflow don’t run and stay in a pending state, preventing the PR from being merged.

The only workaround I’m aware of is to use an action such as paths-filter [3] instead at the job level.

A further, related frustration/limitation - you can _only_ set the “paths” property [2] at the workflow level (i.e. not per-job), so those rules apply to all jobs in the workflow. Given that you can only build a DAG of jobs (ie “needs”) within a single workflow, it makes it quite difficult to do anything non trivial in a monorepo.

[1]: https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/configuring-branches...

[2]: https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/workflow-...

[3]: https://github.com/dorny/paths-filter
I'm not a new customer, it's not a new account. With a verified phone number. I used to add my personal credit cards in the beginning (then gave that up). I don't see any good reason to mark my account as fraudulent. Even if the automation does it, a manual check should see that everything is fine
> I am disappointed with Magnus. He is misusing the weight of his reputation even if cheating is a big deal in chess.

I think the unspoken truth but also the thing both chess.com and Magnus are hinting at is that Niemann has cheated a lot more than he lets on, perhaps his entire stream was built on cheating, who knows. But chess.com can't just start sharing information like that, and they are walking a fine line just with their public statement where they affirmatively assert that Niemann is underplaying the reality of his cheating. Magnus probably has insider information from chess.com but is bound by NDA and this is also why he's now challenging Niemann to give him permission to speak on the matter.
That argument doesn’t make sense to me. If someone has acknowledged that they will cheat when there are NO stakes, why does that make it less likely they will cheat if something is on the line?

If anything someone who is already known to cheat “just because” is even more likely to cheat when there is something to gain.
CTOs should absolutely be technical, be able to solve problems, be able to code, and participate as necessary. In addition, CTOs need to do "C suite stuff", which is nearly all non-technical skills: planning, budgeting, communicating, continuous re-estimating, conducting personal meetings to develop relationships, reviews, resolving conflict between employees, selling the mission of the company, selling the mission of the department, and a whole host of other leadership skills.
It's my understanding what people are trying to limit here is the spreading of extremism. The theory is that people can be drawn in with what people call "dog whistles" that evade filters and once trust is established, proceed to deliver more extremist messages.

These aren't just theories, these are how extremist ideologies get spread around the world, from ISIS to anti-government militias in the US.

I think most people are quite agreeable to filters (personal blocks and mutes, etc.) to deal with speech we find unpleasant. What we don't want is for those filters to provide cover for extremist recruiters.
You are off by a couple of orders of magnitude

I have run 500+ req/sec on a raspberry pi using 4 TB dataset with 2 GB of RAM, with under 100ms for the 99.99 percentile

A few hundreds req a second is basically nothing.
That has never been my problem. Dealing with people, stores, passport verification, scams, etc has been.
If he were a computer, that would work. Being a human, the added stress of “this game will be used to decide whether I will be considered a cheater” may be enough to make him perform worse than he did before.
If you have that much chaos that you’re insulating your team from, it sounds like you need to try to set some barriers. I’m not sure how anyone could be expected to function in the environment you’re describing.

*I have never worked in games.
The pricing of their cards are probably fine once you consider how stupid expensive fab costs are going to be, but their PR both communicating that and their weirdass 4080 naming nonsense is still hot garbage.

I do agree though that their long-term fundamentals are fine. They're still reactive enough to be competitive with AMD (another company with strong fundamentals), avoided amateur mistakes like going full cryptobro, and they just generally positioned themselves well in the global market.
I've been successfully running Postgres in Kubernetes with the Operator from Crunchy Data. It makes HA setup really easy with a tool called Patroni, which basically takes care of all the hard stuff. Running 1 primary and 2 replicas is really no harder than running single-node Postgres.
Many other good writers are restricted from producing a lot more because of it too.

For all we know Steven King could have authored the best Harry Potter novel of all time, but we'll never know that because even if he wanted to, laws would have prevented him from writing one. King actually might have enough money to make that happen anyway, but billions of other humans, each of which might also write the best Harry Potter novel would never be able to afford to under current laws.

It's easy to look at the good works that get created despite our copyright system and think that it's working out pretty well without giving consideration to what we're being denied because of it.
Every single person has different opinions about how technical a non-IC should be (manager, director, CTO, VPE, etc). There's really nothing to argue here - it's not one way or the other. It all depends on the maturity level and size of the company and also an individual's personal interests. Moreover, in our industry where job roles/responsibilities are not uniform or standard, it's not surprising to come up with your own versions of each role. It's no surprise why a Principal Engineer from one company may or may not stand a chance to make a lateral move to another. These kinds of articles come up every day and I strongly feel that they are an utter waste of time. Stop generalizing. Talk about what the CTO is expected to do at "your company" only.
See Cory Doctorow's article about the feudalism of digital platforms (an expansion of Bruce Schneier's idea). The gist is that digital security and compatibility is difficult enough to keep up with that most people conclude serfdom to a platform warlord is worth it.

https://locusmag.com/2021/01/cory-doctorow-neofeudalism-and-...
Right but if you can predict stock prices that accurately you should be running a hedge fund not working as a SWE.
Neither have many other people apparently getting conscription notices. Fortunately Snowden has little chance of being in a protest rally where he'd be served one.
> Should they be able to jump into the code, start grabbing JIRA tickets on a moment's notice, or throw together a new feature when a deadline is looming? Absolutely not.

The point was that a CTO should be able to do this in theory. Of course they won't ever actually do this unless there's no other way.

If your CTO can actually relate to the problems of their staff, they'll be able to make better decisions which also see more acceptance.
Magnus isn't trying to be judge, jury and executioner by refusing to play Hans. He has stated before that merely having suspicions (e.g. based on past cheating as in Niemann's case) about your opponent possibly cheating completely ruins one's mentality during a game.

He simply wants to avoid going through that, which imo is understandable.
Real World OCaml: Functional Programming for the Masses