skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
In practice, due to the way network / system failures tend to work at scale, failure of a first retry is generally strongly correlated with failure of a second retry. Thus a second retry can be more problematic than a first (especially if each retry causes load). From that you can infer that a single retry at the highest level is the right approach (most of the time as always YMMV). It's worth measuring this for your own services in production with real workloads by including a metric that captures how often a first and a second retry succeed.

When you don't choose zero / one as your multiplier, there's a strong risk of implementing a retry strategy that is multiplicative. E.g. given 3 layers with a try and then 3 retries at each layer you cause a potential 64x (4x4x4) amplification of any failure at the lowest level. Retries are an easy way to overload a service that would otherwise recover from a problematic situation.

Adaptive retry using a token bucket / circuit breaker approach are reasonable second alternative to zero/one.

In practice, for resilient systems, you can actually go even further than zero retries when you have shared knowledge of an outage to the downstream service (due to concurrent calls from the same source). You can choose not make the call altogether, and look at only making a small amount of calls to the service to let it recover sanely. Obviously this is only useful for calls that are optional parts of a call chain. An example implementation skip a percentage of calls based on the percentage of failing calls (e.g. if 50% of the calls are failing due to an overloaded downstream service, backing off to only make around 50% of the call volume is directionally appropriate).

Better logging is always appreciated regardless of situation ;)
A dead program is one that can't be changed after it's running.

In the talk he discusses what are called "live programming" environments, as exemplified by Smalltalk and some implementations of Lisp. Instead of restricting programmers to writing code and then compiling/running it, live programming environments let you modify the program after it has started running.

If you want to make a change, you just modify the relevant bits of code and the program will immediately start using them. There is no need for a build step and no need to restart the program (which would involve losing any state that's in memory).
I agree that a web browser is an abstraction over some parts of what an OS offers. But a web browser is clearly not an operating system.
For the nothing it's worth, PME is the dominant earthing arrangement here, so rods are required. It might be geographic but I'm sure you get all sorts all over the world.

Understanding your earthing arrangement is another thing you shouldn't assume. It's not a failure to engage professionals about safety equipment.

Some chargers have built in neutral fault detection.
While the exact phrase "dead program" isn't used outside the title, looking at his use of "live" and "dead" in the talk I think point to what he means:

At about 22 minutes:

> I want to talk about interactive programming, which is I think the only kind of programming we should really be doing. Some people call it live coding, mainly in the art community, and
this is when you code with what Dan Ingalls refers to as liveness. It is the opposite of batch processing. Instead, there is a programming environment, and the environment and the program are combined during development. So what does this do for us? Well, there's no compile and run cycle. You're compiling inside your running program, so you no longer have that feedback loop. It doesn't start with a blank slate and run to termination. Instead, all of your program state is still there while you're working on it. This means that you can debug. You can add things to it. You can find out what's going on, all while your program is running.

And a few minutes later:

> So, for example, in a dead coding language, I will have to run a separate debugger, load in the program, and run it, set a break point, and get it here. Now, if I've had a fault in production, this is not actually so helpful to me. Maybe I have a core dump, and the core dump has some information that I could use, but it doesn't show me the state of things while it's running.
One weird content tagging system I recall was Amazon's "Amapedia" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amapedia). It was a product wiki, a way for people to curate information of all sorts about Amazon products. It allowed each product to be arbitrarily tagged. It was short-lived, failed, and abandoned, for all of the reasons you'd immediately expect.

What was neat about it was that it must have involved someone a little too interested in set theory. A product was an article, and a product could have tags, but tags were themselves articles, and so tags could also have tags, and those tags could also belong to tags, etc.

The whole system was focused on these tags. If you wanted to compare two products, you'd compare the pages, and the comparison would focus on the differences in the tags of the two pages. Tags could have values, too, so products could have a "RAM" tag, and each RAM tag would have an associated value for that page, but the RAM page itself would have general information about RAM as a concept (which would probably have tags itself...). Searching worked the same way. You could search for pages with certain tags or tags whose values were greater/less/equal to whatever values.

Anyway, it was a fun and interesting way to do content tagging that did not work out.
> Expensive private tutoring companies were a hot startup sector until the government crackdown.

This is almost entirely due to the Gaokao. Also, there's a difference between prizing education as a means to make money, and prizing education as a means to make a well-rounded person. The concept of a 'liberal arts' education in China barely exists, from the standpoint that education isn't about vocational skills to enrich yourself monetarily, but to enrich oneself as a person.

Fundamentally, I don't think an authoritarian state that constricts intellectual, academic, and political freedom, combined with an educational system that acts largely as a vocational gatekeeper, is conducive to the free questioning that is at the heart of innovation.

Western education tends to teach rebellion. Rebellion against your parents, against the government, against the status quo. The way you get a Steve Jobs or an Elon Musk is to have someone, who is told no over and over again, "you can't do this", to say "f*ck it, I'm doing it anyway, no matter how stupid or impossible you say it is."

It's this rebellion that's at the heart of innovation. And I don't think Confucian or CCP values rebellion very much.
I see your point. Cross domain setups may struggle with remote work, as indeed devs needs to sometimes sit next to domain experts to better understand what they are aiming to achieve. Wondering if some of that can be mitigated by better story writing and specing or hybrid work, but either way i dont have a solution that makes sense as i have never been in your position. You did however show me a new perspective, as i assumed a tech company or the crud types that dont need that level of interdisciplinary communication, and i thank you for that.
Going to post this here as a rebuttal, a video made by Tesla fans that shows some severe shortcomings in the current version of FSD.

https://insideevs.com/news/616509/tesla-full-self-driving-be...

TLDR: a Tesla can't identify a box in the road. IO can finally identify people, but it still doesn't do a good job of avoiding them.

Tesla Vision has no issues detecting white semis crossing your path. Vehicles with radar, on the other hand, struggle with discerning those from overhead bridges, so if one appears close to a bridge, you're SOL due to whitelisting.

Both of these statements are false. Tesla Vision still has trouble detecting white semis as of October 2022. There are no self-driving vehicles that use radar for navigation(you appear to be mixing up radar with LIDAR, which has range-sensing built in, and all of Tesla's competitors are able to tell trucks apart from bridges; truck identification failure is unique to Tesla), though many regular modern cars do use it for autobraking systems. As these systems are only intended for use at extremely short ranges directly in front of the vehicle, it's irrelevant whether the object detected is a bridge or a semi.

Tesla Vision in FSD is a much, much more developed version which has been excellent about detecting its environment, especially now with the new occupancy network. Its decision making needs work but you will notice, when watching all those videos, that detection of vehicles - even occluded ones - is not a problem at all.

This does not match reality. At all. Teslas still regularly swerve themselves across lanes of traffic and into oncoming traffic. In a brand new Tesla acquired by a co-worker several weeks ago, Tesla FSD could not identify cyclists on the road, failed to identify a number of pedestrians crossing at a crosswalk, did not successfully distinguish between semi trucks and the open sky, and only successfully identified about 1/2 of the other cars on the road with it. Maybe the super-duper secret version of Tesla Vision performs well, but the one actually available on Tesla vehicles right now performs worse than a drunk teenager.

Both Tesla and Karpathy himself have shown on multiple presentations that they focus on training unique/difficult situations because more data from perfect conditions is not useful to them anymore. They have shown exactly how they do it, and even showed the great infrastructure they've built for autolabeling.

This is demonstrably false; admission into the FSD program requires a safety score which cannot be achieved in areas with rough or steep roads, and is almost impossible to achieve in urban traffic, ergo, they are by definition not focusing on training unique/difficult situations. Moreover, as they still can't identify semi trucks, other cars, cyclists, or pedestrians with any reliability, the "great infrastructure" for "autolabeling" is basically just fraud.
If you need to create reports, go with a SQL database. Trying to create reports on a NOSQL database is an exercise in futility.
ActivityPub's PublicInbox is used to route all messages. This works for "small-world networking" where you're in a tight-knit community exchanging messages with known or friend-of-friend actors, but doesn't work well for "big-world networking" with folks you don't know and don't necessarily want to share all or even most of your messages with (a pretty big pain point right now in the Fediverse.)

ATProtocol claims to differentiate between these cases by introducing the concept of indexers which can apply different algorithms to order feeds, but it's unclear to me how exactly that will work.
Have you browsed through this list?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Point-and-click_adven...
These two things don’t necessarily have to be conflated.

I rarely touch my vim config but at the same time during development, I write mini-programs (using macros, reflexes and buffer operations) in vim on the fly, that can write code for me or perform refactor stuff in ways that IDEs can’t typically do. I spend little to no time updating my vim tooling.
It's not a job, it's a role, one that senior developers take on all the time.

It gets turned into a job and the result is business people constantly bitching about why everything is slow and what DOES get done is never what they wanted.

The phone game is real.
I bet switching to paper money took some time and effort. It'll be a while yet before Bitcoin and the masses are ready for each other.
Collaborative editing mostly works in very specific ways. I do not work with editors in a real-time manner for the most part.
It's mostly a social phenomenon and highly dependent on where you are... and most interestingly people and educators adapt to either method as soon as they move to a different place where the habits are different, and that's within the US.
The Ingress Controller spreadsheet[1] was what originally tuned me in to APISIX. Huge huge matrix of capabilities that they do an incredible job on. Kubedex[2] has another similar-but-different sheet[2].

[1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/191WWNpjJ2za6-nbG4ZoU... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24858363 (103 points, 2 years ago, 72 comments)

[2] https://kubedex.com/ingress/
I think there are already some Git SDKs out there. For example https://github.com/go-git/go-git
> was more discovered than invented

I chuckled at this one because one of the first things I was taught early in science class was that the root of "to invent" is latin "invenire", which translates to "to find", "to discover".

Kind of a humbling moment to realise we're not creating anything, merely too blind to see, groping in the dark for truths that lay out there for us to trip upon.
Your tone comes across to me as “snarky” https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Your comment completely ignores my point! My point is that I want conversations on this site to be worthwhile, and divisive thinking tends to destroy that. Your example “black man” is unnecessary and creates a divisive context. I think you make the same category of error in your implied definitions of “engineer” and “intelligence”. If you might spend some time to read through the comment tree below your GP comment, and try and understand why various people are reacting, I think that would help you and the HN community. Aside: Yes, I did understand “the point” which was written about in the article. Disclaimer: I have no HN superpowers.

Edit: What outcome do you want for yourself by commenting here? For me, I want to read insightful comments, and I want to practice my thinking by challenging myself to think about topics that others know more about.
> You were victim of the fear propaganda of the 80's,

The threat was real. It is like saying that after someone put a knife at your throat, that it was nothing, because you are still alive.

> but people today are victim of the energy crisis in Germany, which is partly caused by the choice to discontinue nuclear.

It depends how you tell the story. It was the choice to discontinue nuclear, but pospone renewables. The companies in the coal and gas energy sector were mostly identical to those in the nuclear energy sector (3 out of 4 large companies). They did not have much of a problem getting out of nuclear energy if they could stay in the coal and gas business or even expand it and pass on the financial risk of their nuclear waste disposal obligations to the taxpayer[1] -- as long as they had not to fear too much competition from renewables.

It were the very same people in industry and politics that supported nuclear whenever possible, that supported coal and gas as a replacement and constantly downplayed the impact of climate change. The people from the environmental movement who warned about all this were not politically strong enough to push through a better agenda. That is what has brought us to the current situation. Guess who I trust the most to find the best way out of this situation ...

[1] They threatend bankruptcy if not, and got away with a one-time payment of only 24,1 billion Euro.
Hundreds of doctors demand Julian Assange’s release–including ‘Dr. Boner 69’
> It can be verbatim and not a copyright violation if it can be shown that the expression in question is strictly utilitarian!

So if it's identical it might or might not be a copyright violation and even if is totally different it still might or might not be a copyright violation... and only after spending insane amounts of time and money in the court system can you ever be sure if what you (or your AI) created has made you a criminal. This is increasingly sounding like a very very broken system.
Nah thanks, I'll stick with ActivityPub.

The fact they even felt the need to create another protocol instead of using, improving and contributing to ActivityPub makes me think they want to bake a busines modell for themselves into the technology and they can't do that if they don't have full control over the spec.

ActivityPub is organically grown from a community to serve that community.
Bluesky is created to combine making the profits of a commercial centralized social network + profiting from the investment from crypto bros.

ActivityPub is not perfect and nobody is pretending like it is (there is a big blog post from the co-author about what retrospectively they should have done differently, sadly I couldn't find the link), but a specification is not static !
If you have a suggestion to improve it you can propose changes and a lot of things are left to the implementation, so you can just do things differently than other ActivityPub application currently do.

In fact there are people building the future of the ActivityPub ecosystem right now: https://spritely.institute/

There is no need to create yet another specification.
The only feature this claims to have, that all ActivityPub implementations currently don't have is identity portability and that can actually be implemented without changes to the ActivityPub spec, just no ActivityPub Application has implemented it yet.
Read a bit behind mainstream, we are not fully overloaded yet but hospitals are getting critically full, it is doctors ringing the alarm, our health care workers are still understaffed, the situation here at least is quite precarious, even if noone wants to talk about it loud.
(We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33245988)
I think it depends on the product. If it's something that's fairly common and easy to grasp for the typical engineer then I agree. If it's something very domain specific (accounting, legal etc), then I think having a PM that has knowledge / expertise in that area makes a lot of sense. You don't want the engineers spending months / years learning about accounting principles or legal nuances.
"Science fiction point and click" is very vague. You don't remember any further detail? You might be surprised at how good people on the Internet are at tracking down obscure information like this given just a few hints.
“Gaming journalism” is not journalism.

It’s just barely blogging.
So "365" refers to the number of days a year you need to pay for it, right?
Nasty stuff, thanks for sharing it in the open.

Were they able to run each experiment with the same botnet? Or is a fresh one required every time?
I’m pretty sure the general tone here at the time could be summarized as “what they fuck are they thinking.”
> It just makes you wonder what they would even be spying on if they were adversaries, because you could just go to san onofre beach with a set of binoculars if you wanted to observe these formations coming out of camp pendleton in an even more discrete manner than some newfangled drone that the military might very well detect, because you can never be sure of the adversaries capabilities

Reports of such sightings took place within restricted airspace, sometimes at sea and sometimes during training missions at sea. I imagine a close-up look at things from better vantage points could be valuable, especially if they're doing signals intelligence.

I also see it as power projection and tickling the dragon's tail. Russia and China both have histories of doing similar things with jets and warships. Russia has a history of doing this with jets[1], they recently had their jets come "within 5 feet" of US Navy planes[2], as well as doing the same with their navy[3][4]. China, too[5][6][7].

> Dick waving ruins the element of surprise and also invites an arms race, that you'd be a fool to play against the US military industrial complex.

Adversaries have a history of dick-waving, as does the US, and I don't think there's much of surprise in the fact that they're interested in espionage/psyops. IMO, that arms race started a long time ago, and our military puts out PR pieces about how they're using and developing drones for all types of applications. I don't think there's much risk with exposing advanced tech, either. I think Mick West did a good job at explaining the videos that are purported to show UAPs doing incredible things[8], and I don't believe those are actually highly advanced drones capable of bending the laws of physics.

The point of drones is that they are cheap, disposable and easy to mass produce, so I don't think any groundbreaking advances in tech are being deployed here. Also, using drones sends the message that for every 1 drone the US detects now, they could've easily sent thousands, or more, if they wanted to.

Ultimately, I think it's a mix of intelligence collecting and sending the message that they can get this close, they're watching and there's not much the US can do about it.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/04/14...

[2] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/russian-aircraft-buzz-us-nav...

[3] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russian-warship-aggressiv...

[4] https://www.npr.org/2019/06/07/730593184/u-s-navy-russian-wa...

[5] https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/14/chinese-jet-us-mili...

[6] https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/chinese-j-15-fighters-...

[7] https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/02/politics/us-china-destroyers-...

[8] https://www.youtube.com/c/mickwest
I agree with the legs example, but neural networks are basically a mathematical construct, and they solve problems that any other intelligent species in our universe would also have to face. I think if a better mathematical construct for solving those problems were possible, the process of natural selection probably would've found it by now.

We know that evolution has limitations in how it explores the state space; sometimes certain new developments depend upon past developments. But it seems to me that the development of a brain would hit relatively few of these barriers.
Yes you can. It's called Target Disk Mode on the Mac.
This is not comparable.

Photoshop lets a conscious hand change the medium. Now we have tools that generate the message out of thin air. We're about to outsource human expression to machines.

And why? To automate things we don't want to write about, and automate reading them. I picture a future of machines talking to each other in increasingly clever human language while humans on each end just get the straight talk: "Did you put the cover on the TPS reports?" "Yes, I did. I got the memo."

This also ushers in a terrifying era of communication. "I'm so sorry for your loss", says a machine on behalf of someone, using all the right words but not feeling any of them. "Thank you" replies another, on behalf of someone else.
Keen on copying the USB chaos are we?
Yup, exactly! Nothing to see ger, go ahead, we want to be all surprised again.
Office space tax deductions are pretty strict. Most people's living situation would likely not legally qualify.
As I said, the rich people don't want it to happen... so it won't.

Additionally, people literally buy houses for the school district - if you start to disrupt that system you'll potentially cause a shift in housing values and then you're up against both the rich and property owners and America can't win that fight with its current political system - money carries too loud of a vote.
> There are many media outlets that specialize in selling the reality that a large enough population wishes to be true.

Which ones don't do that? It's hard to find journalists who are not activists, or at the very least do not toe the line.
Why America’s oldest bank launched a crypto custody service
I don't really like kids. I didn't really like kids when I was a kid. And that largely gets worse the older they get, up until they start pushing 30 or so.
There's an absolutely massive difference between the power structure that takes hold in a revolution and the rest of the system that comes afterwards, and that's the entire problem with so many of them.

And that other part of the system is the whole thing that needs to be explained.