skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Just to add a bit, the better ones will know the layoffs or downturn is happening and jump ship well before it happens.
After a layoff, a lot of the best people among the remaining staff end up leaving as well

Agreed. But I was always the one that stayed. I remember in 1999 when our company got acquired by another company and started doing layoffs - I had a very good friend that chose to leave the company at that point because things were going to be very difficult for a while.

The company they went to turned out to be so much worse though while I made out very well by staying. This pattern has repeated several times in my career.
Slightly related and maybe useful to someone: I built a "declarative" (sourdough) calculator which simplifies these calculations, or at least reverses the question so you just fill in what properties of the loaf you want. Link: https://breadfriend.com.
There's no "walking back" here. From Rust 1.0 the language was "guaranteed memory safety" https://web.archive.org/web/20150516132407/https://www.rust-...
Truly impressive, though it gives me some great fear for all the people whose career is art.
This will likely take the pareto to a new height instead of 20/80 maybe even 1/99
TIL there's a book on this, which I didn't know - thanks for the heads up!
Generally schizophrenia and schizophrenia spectrum disorders are an instant no-go for hallucinogenic drugs like LSD. It’s been known to trigger psychotic episodes and mental health crisis. Schizophrenia and manic episodes aren’t necessarily the same or behave similarly, and where they overlap is via schizoaffective disorder.
Proof assistants, which I expect to eventually merge with programming languages, can be used to restrict the set of programs you write to those where you can statically prove all properties you expect the program to hold. It’s not much different from what diligent programmers have always done in their head (with, of course, much more room for error).

The fact that arbitrary programs are undecidable is a red herring here.
Do you want to use a FaaS or just toy with making your own? If you just want to use something check out OpenFaaS, it's very easy to get started and is well documented: https://www.openfaas.com/

If you want to build your own FaaS, I'd still explore OpenFaaS as its creator has documented a lot of its creation and you will soon discover the critical things you'll need to figure out for building your own similar service (i.e. stuff like sandboxed execution environment, API gateway, scaling up and down functions, etc.).
> What is this list?! No Picasso, Renoir or Vrubel present

Comments like this are why people think HN is nothing but a place to receive a shallow dismissal of your efforts.

It's a list. Make your own.
I think Linus's response would be that those failable tasks are called "processes", and the low-level supervisor that starts + monitors them is the kernel. If you have code that might fail and restart, it belongs in userspace.

If you want to run an Erlang-style distributed system in the kernel then that's an interesting research project, but it isn't where Linux is today. You'd be better off starting with SeL4 or Fuchsia.
The policy of ‘oopsing’ and limping on is, in my opinion, literally one of Linux’s worst features. It has bitten me in various cases:

- Remember when Linux had that caused the kernel to partially crash and eat 100% CPU due to some bug in the leap second application code? That caused a >1MW spike in power usage at Hetzner at the time. That must have been >1GW globally. Many people didn’t notice it immediately, so it must have taken weeks before everyone rebooted.

- I’ve personally run into issues where not crashing caused Linux to go on and eat my file system.

On any Linux server I maintain, I always toggle those sysctls that cause the kernel to panic on oops, and reboot on panic.
"Philosophy" more in the literal "love of wisdom" for the topic sense than the ontology/epistemology sense.
Department of Education: One-Time Student Loan Debt Relief
I've wondered the same thing at times. I eventually came to the conclusion that there are intangible things that society values and must create (concoct) laws to protect the ones that are much too easily subvert or bypassed in ways that effectively remove the valued thing from society.

I'm not sure it's the best analogy, but I considered the protections given to real estate agents as something similar. Why can't people just go negotiate directly with the sellers? I won't go into all the obvious details but there's real work back there, just as with art, and the end result isn't protected very well on its own, hence the need for laws, even silly sounding laws.
> ... the general Rust practice of panicking upon unexpected conditions

What makes you say this? From the sample I've seen, Rust programs are far more diligent about handling errors (not panicking: either returning error or handling it explicitly) than C or Go programs due to the nature of wrapped types like Option<T> and Result<T, E>. You can't escape handling the error, and panicking potential is very easy to see and lint against with clippy in the code.
Linux is the one component that you do not need to forgo to divorce yourself from GNU.

https://chimera-linux.org/
If that's what Linus is saying, then he needs to work on his communication skills, because that is not what he said. What he actually said is that dynamic errors should not be detected, they should be ignored. That's so antiquated and ignorant that I hope that he meant what you said, but it's definitely not what he wrote.

As I posted up in this thread, the right way to handle this is to make dynamic errors either throw exceptions or kill the whole task, and split the critical work into tasks that can be as-a-whole failed or completed, almost like transactions. The idea that the kernel should just go on limping in a f'd up state is bonkers.
> As a result, observers were deprived of a chance to hear opposing speakers' arguments.

In 1963, was there anyone in America left unaware of George Wallace's project to preserve white supremacy?

Why is a private institution obligated to signal boost a national leader who openly defies the law?
https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/the-next-big-battle-between...
> But to the vast majority of humanity this is basically irrelevant!

Oh, it's very, very relevant. For example, I can't think of a person who wouldn't ask a programmer friend, or hire a freelancer, to remove ads from their devices, if they had the option to do so.

People want to control their software, even if they're not programmers, because people like being in control of their lives - it's natural. I don't see how could anyone argue against human desire to control their own machines.
> Aborting an operation is much better than incorrect results.

Depends. Is a kernel panic better than something acting wrongly? I prefer my kernel not to panic, at the expense of some error somewhere that may or may not crash my system.

If you look at the output of `dmesg` on any Linux system you often will see errors even in a perfectly working system. This is because programs of that size are by definition not perfect, there are bugs, the hardware itself has bugs, thus you want the system to keep running even if something is not working 100% right. Most of the time you will not even notice it.

> First of all, making a problem both obvious and easier to solve is better.

It's the same with assertions: useful for debugging, but we all disable them in production, when the program is not in the hands of a developer but of the customer, since for a customer a system that crashes completely is worse than a system that has some bugs somewhere.
> At least they don't go around slandering programming language communities.

Not so sure about this. I see a good amount of acrimony toward C, C++, Go, Zig, etc. from the Rust side.
> Children seem to handle quiz questions like "rank these animals from smallest to largest" just fine.

Do they, though? Does "largest" mean "tallest" or "heaviest"? Is a tiger bigger than a lion? Do you mean the male of the species or the female?

Sorry if that's strawmanning your argument, but I think that the parent post had a valid point. Ranked choice voting requires that either the voter has a fully formed opinion on all the candidates running, or that they leave some candidates unranked (which makes some people's votes less expressive/powerful than other people's).

Maybe in every election you've taken part in, you've studied the manifestos and voting records of all the candidates, in which case well done and thank you for your civic diligence, but RCV would (hopefully) make it common for a dozen different parties to compete, most of which a given voter would have varying degrees of support for.

Do you really think that the average US voter could memorize an ordering for a list of 12 names?

Perhaps 90% of voters could, and perhaps the remaining 10% of voters don't "deserve" to have their votes fully count, or maybe RCV is such an improvement that this level of disenfranchisement is worth it, but that's not self-evidently true and I don't think the parent post's criticism can be so easily dismissed.
That's too close. I hope they can have another debate and vote about just these two options.
Professional artists add both skill in the mechanics of art production and analysis that takes a broad view of art and culture. Can we manage without professionals? Sure, but --excepting some edge cases-- we'll miss out on a lot of cultural reflection and on a wealth of artwork.

To my personal view, copyright is a good idea at the 7 year/14 year terms originally envisaged. Beyond that it becomes more of a harm to creativity and artistic cultural progression.

However, you do need to protect individuals from corporations. If I submit a book to a publisher, they say "no", then they hold it for 14 years and decide to publish it ... I'd still want to be protected. Visual artists, painters say, often become popular later in their career; should commercial interests be able to exploit that lag to sell the person's earlier work without the person getting reward?
Nobody "has to" have a job either. It's interesting how words can have different standards of necessity depending on how you contextualize them. Is a basketball player tall? If you asked his friend in the NBA after a game, he might say no because he's relatively short for an NBA player. Amongst everyone else, you'd say he is definitely tall.

So no, in the strict sense, you don't "have to" put up with linus, that's obviously not what I meant. Nobody "has to" put up with anyone, ever. If you want to work on the linux kernel though, you do. Otherwise, you have to do what you just said - you have to provide a better alternative which is a huge ask.
I'd rather get your takes on episodes as a paid service over the idea of the parent :p
I remember when netnews meant usenet.
Yes because if he were at any company, he’d have been fired. Decades ago.

Just because it’s not an official “work environment” per your definition does not mean it isn’t hostile or intolerable were it actually one.

But actually countering that point is a lot harder, isn’t it?
And they did, but RMS refused to allow any code which did that to be added to either Emacs or GCC.
Option 6 was to make a separate image that doesn't contain any non-free firmware available. Option 5, the winning option, also intents to allow the user to choose whether non-free firmware should be used from inside the installer:

> The included firmware binaries will normally be enabled by default where the system determines that they are required, but where possible we will include ways for users to disable this at boot (boot menu option, kernel command line etc.).
Layoffs aren't what are "rattling" folks in this industry, at least not the tech folks outside of FAANG. If you've worked in startup land, you've experienced layoffs. Probably multiple rounds. You anticipate them, and they aren't scary because the market for your skills is so competitive.

Our "Job Security" comes from the overall state of the hiring market, not finding a job at the most stable company and putting in 30 before retiring.

If folks are rattled, its because of the state of the job market, something I'm actually curious about. Reporting on this would have actual value, as I'm still getting recruiter emails from many of the recent companies that have publicly said they are freezing/slowing down hiring and from many, many startups.

This article just reads like schadenfreude for the majority of tech workers who have never experienced the job security of being at a giant engine growth that never stalled once for 10-15 years.
The economic value isn't measured in revenue but the stock price, which you get paid your bigger bucks in.
Their stock dropped 86% over the last year, so market value per engineer is not the same. Compensation was made with that in mind. I doubt existing salary compensation will go down -- the best will leave, or even ask for stock refreshers in stock side to stay -- so now it is dog eat dog.

You are right wrt revenue focus though. Recent Series A/B unicorns will have 100+ employees, but at 20-100X valuation multiple on not that much revenue, so valuation coming down to levels of 5 years ago (which were still frothy!) hurts more bc little revenue to fall back on should a down/bridge round not work out. We are still a year out from many of these being forced, but many smart people at these shops are already (secretly) on the job market.
How, then, do you account for Elon Musk's incredible success? Something has to cause it.
Dark matter is probably a grouping of several phenomena like this. Should not discount MACHOs just because it doesn't explain all the dark matter observations. I think I remember reading in Carroll's Astrophysics Intro that MACHO's can explain about 10-20% of dark matter. Dark matter could be potentially be explained fully by multiple dark matter explanations, each adding to the overall phenomena.
The current generation has been comprehensively screwed by the baby boomer generation, to perverse degrees. There should be rabid riots in the street over it, there sure as hell are ones in other parts of the world.

But I don't shed tears for silicon valley workers that didn't ferret away money in the boom. These are not the people that got screwed by the modern American wealth distribution. You're allegedly the smartest people in the world, and you can't read the history of your industry going back even 20 years to the dot Bomb?
not at all. "Reddit is down" is just not in any way on-topic for HN.
Anyone who has to interact with him pretty much.
lol, someone gets it.
Zooming is a bit hit-and-miss (works great in Firefox, not at all in Edge). But I just tried it with a screen reader and that experience is great: every image has alt tags, the link to the transcript is about the fourth element, and the transcript is beautiful semantic HTML that the screen reader can easily makes sense of.
Reasonable people also build things.

Unreasonable people also build things alone where everyone else doesn’t have to deal with them.

The world is hardly as black and white as you make it seem.
I’m no electronics expert, but that seems iffy...

Personally I would love to use USB-C PD for longer strings of 12V APA RGB LEDs as interior lights. In that case: not only is voltage a concern but also total wattage, heat, and long-term reliability. Is 60 or even 100W through a boost converter actually safe and easy?
If you were to define a subset of Rust's standard library (core + alloc + std) that does not contain the `panic!` macro, and excluded all functionality that needed to panic, then safe Rust could be proven to never panic (because it can't).

That's different than solving the halting problem. You're not trying to prove it halts, you're just trying to prove it doesn't halt in a specific way, which is trivial to prove if you first make it impossible.
it would be nice if the standardization could come from using the substances that we already have, even if just as a sensible start. I can understand mushrooms being iffy because they comlpex and vary (even between mushrooms of the same species), but LSD is a single molecule already!

I would love to see a future where I can get a government-standardized tab of acid. Of course this will never happen. The reason they are investigating how to get the 'good' effects without the 'bad/uncontrollable' effects is because of who is deciding what 'good' and 'bad' are. 'Good' = Allows people to continue functioning at a high level with the current power structures in place. Put in other words, it is only worthwhile to cure someone's depression if you can do it without the cure involving that person realizing that their current government isn't working for them.
40 years of microkernels, of which I know Linus is aware of, beg to differ. Maybe Linus's extreme opposition to microkernels, ostensibly because they have historically a little lower performance--I dunno--but my comment should not be read as "yes, you must have a microkernel". There are cheaper fault isolation mechanisms than full-blown separate processes. Just having basic stack unwinding and failing a task would be a start.
Such a strong statement, the patients dying due to charting errors, crys for a source. As does the fact that the NHS is not among the better systems, because any statistic, spending, outcome, average life span of people, shows the various single payer systems (in order to group all state sponsored systems together even if their are differences) out perform the US one.

Let's entertain so that charting errors cause patient deaths. In order to judge how the NHS performs relative to other systems would require statistics on that fact alone. Not sure those even exist.
I am just working from my anecdotal experience hiring engineers into high end infosec consulting and what we were told about other offers. Even now, with companies pushing for in office again and the stock component of BigN salaries crashing down to earth it has changed things in our recruiting pipeline noticeably.
Threats? Slander? Do you feel that you're "speaking for a community" here?
Some People Get to Stay Home. Get over It
Well the latter isn't a bad thing so the former, I guess?
> Not all ideological disputes are about rational argumentation, many are based in a fundamental misalignment of values.

On one hand, you are acknowledging that some values are not based on rationality, and on the other hand you think they should be imposed upon those who don't share them by censorship?
Exactly. Very naive thinking.
Linux Kernel ASLR Implementation
If you are fine with saying that stuff like this code may panic (and many people are fine with just that), then it's perfectly doable

if false {
panic!()
}

Basically you'd prohibit any call to panic whether they may actually end up running or not.
Hmmm, the linked email is not providing a lot of context, so surely I'm missing something, but there's something I definitely don't understand: is there not a third option between stopping the whole kernel on an error or allowing an incorrect result?

Maybe my misunderstanding comes from my ignorance of the kernel's architecture, but surely there's a way to segregate operations in logical fallible tasks, so that a failure inside of a task aborts the task but doesn't put down the entire thing, and in particular not a sensitive part like kernel error reporting? Or are we talking about panics in this sensitive part?

Bubbling up errors in fallible tasks can be implemented using panic by unwrapping up to the fallible task's boundary.

To my understanding this is exactly what any modern OS does with user space processes?

I always have the hardest of time in discussions with people advocating for or against that "you should stop computations on an incorrect result". Which computations should you stop? Surely, we're not advocating for bursting the entire computer into flames. There has to be a boundary. So, my take is to start defining the boundaries, and yes, to stop computations up to these boundaries.
I guess I have to be that guy: Emacs have a mode/Browser addon combo for that :P
So true, I just ruined a rye loaf by under-hydrating it at 65%, but I live in the desert. Lesson learned!

I find it also depends on your flour, even batch to batch (we buy 50 lb bags). Some have higher moisture content and one needs to adjust by a few % even in the same external conditions.
It can also be useful for other reasons, the one that I think of is the interview question involving the knight jumping on the telephone keypad. Using the matrix instead of the graph, you can leverage matrix maths. Multiply the matrix by itself and miraculously you can see where the knight can go in two jumps. Use the power of 7 and sum the rows and you can count how many valid phone numbers are possible from any starting position!
I’m referring to the fact that ubiquitous functions like unwrap() panic if the programmer has made an error. Guarding against such panics is outside of the scope of Rust-the-language, and has to be handled through external means. There are linters for C as well.
Surely, they just used proton, right? Source code is here:

https://github.com/ValveSoftware/Proton/
Let's discuss it then, then. Velocity at outliers has little explanatory value.
Surprised to see cuda called out here, that one has been relatively painless over the years for me on Ubuntu.
> winner will be the mutually least hated candidate.

That is not necessarily desirable though. We already have that a lot of the time (not always), and it seems to systemically produce a race to the bottom.
Not true. Someone on reddit made a compilation of BD videos, with the first dating about 30 years.

I'm on mobile, try searching "30 years Boston Dynamics" on reddit.
> it's definitely not what he wrote.

I feel like we must have read two different articles. You sound crazy. Didn't read it your way at all.

> Think of that "debugging tools give a huge warning" as being the
equivalent of std::panic in standard rust. Yes, the kernel will
continue (unless you have panic-on-warn set), because the kernel
MUST continue in order for that "report to upstream" to have a
chance of happening.

"If the kernel shuts down the world, we don't get the bug report", seems like a pretty good argument. There are two options when you hit a panic in rust code:

* Panic and shut it all down. This prevents any reporting mechanism like a core dump. You cannot attach a normal debugger to the kernel.

* Ignore the panic and proceed with the information it failed, reporting this failure later.

The kernel is a single program, so it's not like you could just fork it before every Rust call and fail if they fail.
That's different. You can't perfectly detect all infinite loops in a language that allows arbitrary loops. This also means you can't perfectly detect unreachable code.

But determining that a function (such as panic) is never called because there are no calls to it is pretty easy.
The city of Stockholm has recently started an ebike service where you can have unlimited rides for the eqivalent price of a pizza per _year_! Probably to compete with all the e-scooter companies. It is the best deal ever and I really hope it can reduce the high amounts of car dependency here. I've even stopped buying a bus card since this ends up being about 100x times cheaper per year
It's not stupid to show the stars over head right now, but the utility of showing stars as they appear next time you'll be able to see them seems clearly greater.
This isn't a "bad day" or one angry rant. The conversation around emacs completions appears to have spanned multiple years and multiple days at a time.