skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Actually in this case IBM really has the right to brag about it, because there is no doubt that IBM 801 included the first RISC CPU, even if the name RISC was invented only several years later.

Before IBM 801, there have been many simple CPUs, which, if they would be launched today, they would be called RISC CPUs, due to their simplicity.

However for those old CPUs the simplicity was not intentional, but it was determined by the limitations of their manufacturing technology.

On the other hand, the IBM 801 project, which has started in 1975, significant documentation about its principles of operation has been published during 1976 and a working prototype existed in 1978, was a project whose target was to intentionally reverse the trend towards more and more complex CPUs and investigate the ways by which greater simplicity may be in fact a method for reaching a higher performance.

All the principles for obtaining high performance with a simpler CPU were discussed in the IBM 801 documentation 4 to 5 years before the RISC project at Berkeley (1980 to 1984) and the MIPS project at Stanford (1981 to 1984).

Moreover, in March 1982 there has been a very important symposium where all the teams working at that time on RISC CPUs have presented their work, including the Berkeley RISC, Stanford MIPS and IBM 801 projects.

The presentations from that symposium have determined the designers of the future ARM CPU to change their architecture from some kind of 6502 extension to a RISC architecture. They have been particularly impressed by the IBM 801 presentation, so instead of using weak addressing modes, like in the RISC and MIPS projects, they have included in ARM the much more powerful IBM 801 addressing modes (i.e. including modes with base register auto update).

While John Cocke has not invented the word RISC when designing IBM 801, either he or another member of his team (which worked at the project that eventually became IBM POWER) has invented the word "superscalar", a few years later, in 1987, when the design target for CPUs had moved from being able to execute one instruction in a single clock cycle, like in the early RISC CPUs, to being able to execute multiple instructions per clock cycle.
The Dissolution of the ZA/UM Cultural Association
Also a maneuver that takes so much energy and trades it for heat/turbulence better also be getting a kill out of that trade immediately, and that kill had better the be the last guy left trying to kill you. There are vanishingly few situations where a cobra won't leave you reeeally wishing you still had the energy you just spent.
The Volt was an instant classic and you're very lucky to have one. IMO the best EVs right now are coming out of Korea but things are moving very fast and I'm expecting good things from the big 3.
I think both are worth fighting against, and I would ally with either camp for that purpose
"And after your opponent overshoots--you just lost a ton of energy--and energy is everything in aerial combat. "

The idea is, to be able to make the kill, after you are now behind. Then it does not matter, if you are too slow.

But wikipedia indeed says, this manoever has never been confirmed in real air combat, so yes, its usefullness is quite limited.
I'm assuming the worst here. I've seen people rocking decade-old Netgear routers that struggle to work with their media center, much less an entire household of devices.

That's a pretty catastrophically high estimate though, you're right.
Do you have a source for this? I would expect that any education system that teaches sign also teaches reading.

So it would be good to share the stats you use to understand how dead people have elevated rates of illiteracy.
Rust makes choices which drastically simplify the analysis problem.

The most obvious is mutable references. In Rust there can be either one mutable reference to an object or there may be any number of immutable references. So if we're thinking about this value here, V, and we're got an immutable reference &V so that we can examine V well... it's not changing, there are no mutable references to it by definition. The Rust language won't let us have &mut V the mutable reference at the same time &V exists and so it needn't ever account for that possibility†.

In C and C++ they break this rule all the time. It's really convenient, and it's not forbidden in C or C++ so why not. Well, now the analysis you wanted to do is incredibly difficult, so good luck with that.

† This also has drastic implications for an optimiser. Rust's optimiser can often trivially conclude that a= f(b); can't change b where a C or C++ optimiser is obliged to admit that actually it's not sure, we need to emit slower code in case b is just an alias for a.
I don't think it's a regulation bug to require a study to approve a drug for a certain use.

The bug is that we don't incentivize funding expensive studies to discover unpatentable (i.e. cheap) treatments.

The minimum "patch" would be that the governments of the major drug markets decide that effort and discovery of applications count as a basis for patents. Then a drug maker could fund their studies based on which drug candidate is the most promising, not which is the most promising but also novel and thus patentable.

Much better, would be to have the governments presiding over the major drug markets get together and create a proportional fund to cover studies for the public's benefit. The economics of that would be similar to private companies, but at least the profits would go towards further research.
Well, robots have been better than humans at playing chess for decades now, and we still have chess players.
I'd think it would be a priority to educate immigrants to a level where they're able to be self-sufficient as well.
The earliest Wayback Machine archive of that link is from August 2000: https://web.archive.org/web/20000824013718/http://research.m...

Looks like in December 2008 (between https://web.archive.org/web/20081204015038/http://research.m... which works, and the next snapshot on Dec 30) it started redirecting to a new URL (https://web.archive.org/web/20090224224249/http://research.m...) which was still working as of 2012-03 (https://web.archive.org/web/20120307142916/http://research.m...). Meanwhile, https://proebsting.cs.arizona.edu/ says that Todd Proebsting joined the University of Arizona in August 2012 after leaving Microsoft, so presumably that's when the link stopped working. He still has it up at his new site: https://proebsting.cs.arizona.edu/law.html
Ok.. it's on it's way... perhaps in time for our Anniversary.. thanks!
I think people do go to prison for destroying heritage like this.
Most of these studies were carried out in Finland, where saunas might as well grow on trees. They have more saunas than households, and there are public saunas accessible to anyone for free. Financial resources aren't an issue there with regards to saunas - everyone has access.

I don't know about adjusting for free time, but the key studies in this review accounted for socio-economic status.
This sounds like something Top G would say. But I agree exercise does help.
What are the main use cases for these? Like local development?
According to the archived response headers, it was modified in April 2002:

$ curl -s -I 'https://web.archive.org/web/20020603071812/https://norvig.com/norvigs-law.html' | grep -E '^x-archive-orig-.* [0-9]{4} '
x-archive-orig-date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 07:18:15 GMT
x-archive-orig-last-modified: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 07:27:36 GMT
It was in 80's kids vocabulary when discussing fighter jets and which one is better - 'yeah, but can it do Cobra?!'
It's probably the full cost of getting an approved drug, including a lot more than the approval itself.

So that number was probably 10x off. That doesn't change the conclusion though.

I learned all this from Scott Alexander. All details here: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/03/11/ketamine-now-by-prescr...
> Super stall plagued the early years of Saab 35 service, causing several deaths, which led the Swedish air staff to implement extra training on how to counteract and recover from them. The result was the cobra maneuver.

Necessity, the mother of invention.
Thanks! I think there's more of us than people realise.
> If my WiFi driver crashes, there's nothing helpful or safer about immediately bringing down the whole system when it's possible to keep running with everything but networking still functioning.

There have been various examples of WiFi driver bugs leading to security issues. Didn’t some Broadcom WiFi driver once have a bug in how it processed non-ASCII SSID names, allowing you to trigger remote code execution?
> Go use cl21[0] if you care for this sort of thing.

Right, it demonstrates what I'm saying about the relative ease for CL to move forward. You'll still need to bring the implementations onboard though to be really successful. See the note in the generic-cl link about a potential performance hit (and then how to work around it) because of increased use of generic functions. Implementations can improve their performance around generic functions and method dispatch, but users (like those developing cl21 and generic-cl) aren't going to do so on their own as easily or portably. Having an actual collective standards body working on a real cl2x standard would be critical to getting all implementations moving on this.

> You do[2]; this is one of the notable deficiencies in the cl standard that really bites, today. It is being worked on.

Are all implementations moving towards some common better approach today? Or are we still stuck with bordeaux-threads (and anything built on that) as pretty much the only portable way to do concurrency in CL?

What I mean by blessing a particular model, though:

Do you use a shared-nothing BEAM style? Mailboxes per process (what is a process?)? Channels that can be passed around? Coroutines? Asyncio style? Structured concurrency? None of the above? All of the above?

CL has always been a toolbox language, many of the things programmers use actually map down to more primitive elements (even defun is a macro and you can provide your own, see SERIES and SCREAMER for examples). So instead of presenting a high-level Go-styled concurrency model or insisting on structured concurrency it would be more in keeping with CL's history to provide the baseline features that enable better concurrency (and uniform across implementations) and then let people build on that. Higher level libraries can come along later (see how CLOS came out of earlier developments like Flavors and CommonLoops), and maybe one of those can be blessed by becoming part of the standard. But the primitives will remain so variations will remain possible for those who want them.
No one will take your house for that reason by itself. But they might take it when you can no longer afford to pay the mortgage because you were convicted of a drug felony where you were given a harsher sentence than someone of a different race, after being arrested under suspicion that others wouldn’t be. As a result you can’t find a job after release from prison.
A white dwarf is a dead star. The only light it emits is residual thermal energy. It may take a very long time to cool entirely, but in only millions of years it will effectively be so faint that it is invisible. Though a white dwarf was once a star, it is no longer when it reaches the white dwarf stage, because a star is defined as any massive self-luminous celestial body of gas that shines by radiation derived from its internal energy sources. A white dwarf has no energy source. Any remaining energy that it has is only remanent heat. White dwarfs do not shine; they glow.

A red dwarf, on the other hand, will produce and emit light via hydrogen fusion for 10 trillion years or longer before burning out and becoming a dead star... or white dwarf, only faintly glowing for millions of years due to residual thermal energy.

The last stars in the Universe will be red dwarfs, and even red dwarfs from the early Universe will continue to shine far, far longer, trillions of years longer, after all other stars have died.
Link to Proebsting’s law

https://web.archive.org/web/20000824013718/http://www.resear...
> Either way, it seems like the best way for the site to accommodate visitors is to use accessibility features so their written content can be used by screen readers for the sight impaired but also sign language displayers for people who prefer sign language and text to speech for people who can’t read but can hear.

While the implementation could definitely be improved, I can't fault them for trying. Perhaps stuff like this will be streamlined in the next decade.

> I don’t think accessibility should be binary for one or the other but dedicating resources to visual sign language seems like a luxury that most sites can’t afford.

You could make the same argument about making sites compatible with screen readers — and many do. At the end of the day, I think it's reasonable for government services to be held to a higher standard of accessibility.
And all the YAML-oriented programming it entails. When frequently the only way to test is to constantly re-deploy two-line changes via CI/CD just to see what breaks in a few minutes.
It is perhaps worth mentioning that this is actually only a means for potentially learning what is going on, and that it can also lead one into a state of confident confusion/misunderstanding.

Study results may only suggest something, which can often have the appearance of showing it.
I would still be very curious how this openess becomes a negative feedback cycle.

I have big sleeping issues, have/had depression and a neurological issue with my nerves.

But while I'm very aware of those issues, I'm not reflecting on them in public nur do I center my daily life around them.

I do talk about it sometimes but only in short amounts. Enough that people might tell me they have the same issue (family -> genetics) or they have a better understanding why I might just have concentration issues at the moment.

The author made it very obvious if not front and center that she/it doesn't feel part of a biological gender role and redefined that.

I'm wondering why my life still doesn't rotate around things I can't really change while for others it's a fundamental part of their life/how they express themselves.

There is also a blog from someone similar where that person draws quite bad images of some character. The question would also be why others evaluate their own doing in a way that they wouldn't present medicare drawing skills on the internet vs. expressing yourself anyhow.

What if the self reflection is broken?

What if not giving any feedback to stuff like this holds their own development?

I have to say I find it easier to focus on the technical things but I do get triggered by those things as well.

It's hard to determine if that person is okay or not.

There was also someone at a save space who got crazy aggressive and said that if person x is doing y again they will hit her in the face.

Is that really the definition of save space were you give a person which such crazy aggression issues space or would you expect that person to get professional help?

Being open to whom? To the internet? Why?

And now shouldn't the internet also be a save space for everyone else?
You can by searching the training image set and their text tags essentially.

https://laion-aesthetic.datasette.io/laion-aesthetic-6pls/im...
Show HN: With BOFA at 0.01%, I made levels.fyi for high yield savings accounts
I was with BOFA and Chase Private Client for years before I realized that they were making tons of interest off my money and just keeping it for themselves.

The funny thing is that since I had a lot of money with them they raised my rate as a thank you to wait for it 0.02% instead of 0.01% lol.

Got upset because of this and made this site. It scrapes all the banks every 30 minutes so it is the most real time source of APY data on the internet. Rates are now over 3% at the high end so it makes sense to park your money in these places rather than the big three banks.
"Notes on Structured Concurrency, or: Go Statement Considered Harmful" [1] by Nathaniel J. Smith.

I believe that structured concurrency will (slowly) cause a massive paradigm shift with regards to concurrency in the same way that structured programming [2] did, and just like "Go To Considered Harmful" kicked off structured programming, "Go Statement Considered Harmful" will be looked to as the work that kicked structured concurrency off. (It's also fun that they have similar titles!)

In fact, I think that someday, someone will prove a "Structured Concurrency Theorem" that is to concurrency what the Structured Program Theorem [3] is to programming in general; I believe the Structured Concurrency Theorem will say something like:

> Any concurrent program can be rewritten to an equivalent program that uses structured concurrency.

I could be wrong, but I would bet heavily on this. In fact, I am betting heavily on it by making a language based on structured concurrency that would compete with Rust. I'm so confident in it that I would bet that Rust either adopts structured concurrency or will be replaced by languages that do. This is despite Rust's current popularity.

Also, I've been exploring ways to prove the Structured Concurrency Theorem. I'd love to be the one to prove it.

[1]: https://vorpus.org/blog/notes-on-structured-concurrency-or-g...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structured_programming

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structured_program_theorem
I’m curious how you come to that conclusion without some serious cherry-picking. It is a mistake confuse number of available models with units sold.

The Nissan Leaf had by far the greatest market share among non-Teslas in North America prior to the Model 3 launch. Moreover, most of the Leaf’s competition, either “compliance” EVs or PHEVs, were sold without any DCFC connector. After the Model 3 launch, Tesla has dominated market share in the US.
>64 packets transmitted, 64 received, 0% packet loss, time 156ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 2.293/6.699/63.116/7.364 ms

A 63ms delay on some packets can totally ruin the user experience even if the average is relatively low... and this is the best a near-optimal (in the real world) setup can do.

If you left your test running longer than 64 packets, I'm sure you would see at least a 100ms max. GP wasn't far-off with their assertion that running on WiFi can easily add 30-50ms of latency. Their wording was a bit loose though.
And back then we had flamewars on comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c++, hence the .moderated versions of them.

I always been on the C++ side, when arguing on C vs C++ since 1993, already considered C a primitive option, coming from Turbo Pascal 6.0, and finding such a simplistic pseudo-macro assembler.

So yeah, in a sense the Rust community is similarly hyped as we were adopting Turbo Vision, CSet++, OWL, MFC, PowerPlant, Tools.h++, POET, and thinking C would slowly fade away, and we could just keep on using a language that while compatible with C, offered the necessary type system improvements for safer code.

But then the FOSS movement doubled down on C as means to write the GNU ecosystem, on the first editions of the GNU manifesto, and here we are.
Good info. Thx.

But it would help to know exactly what this study did. None the less, even if saunas are ubiquitous and free, you still need free time. Being poor is more than a financial condition.
> Hoever, some Rust users are toxic when talking to people outside the community or to people who disagree.

I'm not even sure if this is the case. I have seen enough toxic Rust users, but at least in my experience they rarely overlap with who are active in the community. This suggests that they are experiencing typical newcomer syndrome, comparable to Haskell newcomers' urge to write a monad tutorial, and also explains that why a disproportional number of non-Rust users observe toxic Rust users---if you are a Rust user but don't preach about Rust everywhere, how can others tell if you are indeed a Rust user? :-)
Yes, it definitely can. It'd just be laughed out of the building and no one but assholes would present there. AKA freedom works perfectly
Nobody questions if these metals exist or not. But developing a mine in North America takes 5-10 years and often longer.

If you want to have a real mine that might actual produce lithium in North America look at Thacker Pass. The Salton Sea is mostly marketing, its totally unproven technology not anywhere remotely close to production. There have been countless junior minors who have made great promises about lithium production in the last 10 years and virtually all of them have failed.

It will take much, much longer then most of these companies say to produce anything close to battery grade lithium. Lithium is really tricky to get to the right quality, and each mine needs to go threw a multi year very process to go threw valuation at every car and battery maker. So even if you have a mine partially operating, it takes years and years after that until your lithium might actually show up in a car.

Sodium and LFP batteries do help. But LFP still needs lithium and the massive production facilities already built for NMC and NCA can not just be changed.

This is a bigger problem then people realize, specially lithium. After all these years there is still only a handful (less then 5) of companies that produce it at the required grade. And of those many are not expanding fast.
You need to consider the affect on the original as well though. Without copyright would Lynn Goldsmith have ever taken the original photo? They have a degree in Psychology, in a world without copyright protections why would she pursue photography and filmography rather than becoming a professional psychologist?

Sure she'd probably still own a camera as a hobby, but would she have taken weeks to follow touring bands?
Today they sell more Model Y than Model 3 and the gap will increase further in next 2 years.

In Shanghai factory they make 2 Model Y for each Model 3.

In Fremont they do both Model 3 and Model Y, don't know the breakdown. Possibly more Model 3 because that was the first car they made there and they still have more production lines for Model 3.

Austin and Berlin are only Model Y. They don't contribute much today (maybe 3k/week) but they'll ramp to 500k cars each within 2 years, hence the production (and sales) of Model Y will grow significantly while production of Model 3 not so much.
Hey, I've just downloaded PADUA (http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2633685), and skimming through it, I can't find a single mention of the phrase "race condition".

Is this the paper you're referring to? If not, could you please provide a reference to which PADUA you're referring to? I'd really like to read more on the subject, especially if the source is, as you claim, an industry reference.
When I talked to prospective users, the big two that people wanted were:

1. Replacement for Vagrant / docker desktop - you'd hibernate your VM, check out someone else's branch, and start a new environment to avoid breaking your own

2. Run acceptance tests in a reproducible way, RUN docker-compose up // RUN ocker-compose run --rm acceptance-tests for example
If you don't think the Rust "community" receives the same sort of spam arguments from anti-Rust folks, then you're kidding yourself. And, yes, I completely understand that such arguments are super annoying. But the wrong response in my view is to answer with another stupid argument ("The Rust community is the problem.")

Was Wedson acting in an untoward way here that in some way exemplifies something significant about the Rust community? No, not really. So, yeah, I think your comment above is a pointless low blow, cheap shot, an excuse to act nasty about some super annoying Rust comment you probably read months ago. And it just sounds like whining to me.
https://doc.rust-lang.org/nomicon/what-unsafe-does.html
Interesting link thanks! Of that list of 9 I guess you could label alcohol as hormesis. Not without controversy of course. And some argue plant intake is a form of hormesis.