skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Exactly. But also he inadvertently actually touches on this in the post. Talking about people using hash tables and so on. I think if people had the right guidance from language and libraries and from education, they would choose array-based patterns more often. They're often in fact simpler to write.

But many languages and common practices push people in a highly incremental piece by piece approach. I'd argue we're basically taught to think in terms of loops, from our earliest days of programming. We could just as easily be taught to think of things in terms of bulk arrays. The win in programming this way is extremely high.

I was very disappointed to find the SIMD story in Rust so underdeveloped.

Yes, people are not running weather forecasting on their home computers. But they're playing video, synthesizing audio, doing speech recognition, etc. all the time. And more of this ever day.

And if there's any chance of rescuing the uses of ML from a hellish privacy violating landscape worth of a Butlerian Jihad... it would by making sure most of this type of computation was done locally on-device.

Guess APL has the last laugh.
I mean, if you change the name to "BufferPool::get_record" and you use an implicit this pointer instead of your "pool" argument, you have a method. It seems like you're fighting the paradigm more than you need to.
>>Looking online, batteries for EVs are selling for 5-15k (depending on the capacity, mostly) in the scrap market, which means that an old car can be restored to full range for that price. If the car is in good shape, that's cheaper than buying a new car...

Can it though? Tesla only recently started allowing rebuilt cars on their network, and there are tons of stories of software limited features and functionality because people replaced components outside the dealer network

Cars today with the ability to Software enable and disable parts or the entire car are a whole new trend and how many manufacturers are going to allow 3rd party battery replacements? Even if they do today when BEV's are a small fraction of their sales the recent actions of many manufacturers tell you they want nothing more then to lock you down to their network, their parts, their techs, and their subscription models (Looking at Benz with their Subscription for acceleration) .

So the idea "well just replace it with a scrap battery" sounds good, i doubt that will be the reality

>Manufacturing of electric and non-electric vehicles makes up a tiny portion of total CO2 emissions

I want to address this, why do we believe the only environmental impact of concern is CO2 emissions, have we go so far over the bend that no other environmental impacts are of concern now except CO2, even with that said I am not sure I buy the numbers or the research methodology that goes into to creating that statement. Seems to be alot of cherry picking of data to fit a narrative to me
The EU can claim whatever they want - ownership of the moon, taxes from Chinese villagers, or that US companies in the US have to follow their little rules. Doesn't mean they have the right, jurisdiction, or authority.
Put aside petty our differences, vote 'goblin mode' over 'metaverse'
As the original article notes it does appear to have a psychoactive effect beyond the sensation of burning pain (though if a sensation of pleasure is a psychoactive effect why wouldn't a sensation of pain be?).

I found additional sources going into the likely pharmacology of this effect:

> Namely, capsaicin and vanillin (and anandamide itself) are all agonists of the TRPV1 receptor, which stimulates production and release of endogenous anandamide. When mixed with N-linoleoylethanolamide and N-oleoylethanolamide from cacao, which inhibit anandamide breakdown, the levels of endogenous anandamide are augmented further. When breakdown of anandamide is inhibited pharmacologically or genetically, anandamide is able to produce a state of intoxication similar to tetrahydrocannabinol in rodents and nonhuman primates

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6706955/
I'm not a language designer and don't want to be one - I'm open to the idea that these new keywords are actually the simplest, most composable way to address these use cases - but good grief! The burden of complexity weighs so heavily on this language that understanding how/when to use its features to solve your problem can easily be as or more difficult than the problem itself.
Even if the fields are stored in the same offsets, there are modern optimisations that rely on "strict aliasing" and that would cause issues (unless the workaround you described is used).
Nothing was destroyed. Money was just transferred to smarter guys.
I hate the type of ‘instructional videos’ that have (likely programmatically) edited all and any short pause in the audio making the video appear as a 30+min continuous speak.

I mostly interpret this as ‘see me see me - I’m good!’ in stead of ‘let me try to educate you about this subject’.

All the natural pauses between sentences gives a much better and natural flow.

This also includes ‘oups I made a mistake .. and fixed it like this…’

Just like the line breaks in this comment serves a purpose;-)

One great example of a really good tutorial is Eivind Fonn’s Spacemacs ABC videos:
https://youtu.be/2y9NLIbNf_I

Here’s my worst example of how not to teach:
https://youtu.be/qtIqKaDlqXo

This series is also bad as there is way too much zoom in and out (which distract all but the presenter!)

https://youtu.be/qtIqKaDlqXo
The size of the Suburban is considerably larger than the Land Cruiser. A comparably sized Chevy does in fact get considerably better gas mileage.
> if at all costs, you include hundreds of millions of corpses, no, absolutely not

Nobody is saying we should nuke China if they invade Taiwan. Just that our risk tolerance to Beijing escalating conventional engagement to all-out nuclear war cannot be zero.

We must be ready to sink Chinese ships and potentially hit port and missile facilities with conventional arms. Refusing to do so is the sort of appeasement that virtually guarantees a future, far deadlier conflict. That engagement risks nuclear escalation is an important consideration, but not a decisive one.

> puts the lie to the sole reason for why civilization-ending nuclear arsenals should be allowed to exist

We agree. This has been a lie for some time. Nukes are terrible. Between rationale regimes, they seem to reduce large-scale conflict. With dictators, the calculus shifts.

Were getting rid of them an option, I’d take it. Presently, the world is going in the opposite direction, with the normalisation of tactical nukes a likelihood in our lifetimes.

> you can't take a red sharpie to the entire map of the world

Nobody has done that. Taiwan has de facto American security guarantees. If China invades Mongnolia the world will be angry, but nobody will go to war.
I don't know about hiking up to see the lava on Mauna Loa (I read the area has been closed off for awhile due to a likely eruption), but when I was on the Big Island during a Kilauea eruption I took a helicopter flight over the lava flows. It was a great experience. I took one marketed as "Feel the heat" that had the doors removed. We did not fly over the main caldera but over some lava flows further down the mountain in the Puna district. I quite enjoyed it and I sure did "Feel the heat" when flying over the faster moving sections of the flows that were glowing red.
I know, like can the UI/UX people please please PLEASE pay more attention to this stuff!
Year 1 in my university, they started with electron, I was impressed. All to way to diode and how logic gate was made. And then digital circuit design, and you got your one|two's complement from here.
Realistically, not being so young anymore, I think it's a matter of picking my battles. I'm plenty vocal at work, and have resigned jobs in the past for serious human rights transgressions (such as one startup trying to sell their filtering technology to China to censor dissidents).

An annoying popup message would warrant a direct complaint from me. A pattern of bad UX might cause me to jump the ladder and try to get somebody to pay attention and change things. But quitting in protest isn't something I can always afford to do, and it isn't always the best strategy for change anyway. If you come across as unreasonable or explosively reactive, they'll just replace you with someone they deem more level-headed or compliant and do the thing they were going to do anyway. But if you have an opportunity to use persuasion/diplomacy instead of force, sometimes that can work.

Anecdotally: I don't typically work in "pure" tech, instead getting jobs in nonprofits and/or the energy sector. In these industries, concepts like UX aren't always familiar to management or marketing (it's not even 100% prevalent in tech proper either). Bad UX is just as often a result of ignorance, not malice, and a chance to discuss things and educate other stakeholders without hostility.

An example of the newsletter popup situation... we held a short meeting to discuss the pros and cons. It was important to the business to get these leads, but they also listened to the UX side of it. We arrived at a compromise: Instead of showing the popup front and center at page load, we would wait for some time (30 sec?) plus some scroll percentage (at least half the page length), then slide it up in a corner, make the close button highly visible (big and black instead of tiny and light gray), and set a cookie to not re-show the popup if they dismissed it once. Is it as good as not having a popup altogether? No, but it started a discussion and (hopefully) met both user and business needs halfway.

FWIW I was also the one who pushed for clearer organization-wide unsubscriptions (so you don't have to manually unsubscribe from every single dept's newsletter using a separate link), did a privacy audit (unfortunately to little effect), etc.

There is definitely a time to quit in protest, but there are still small changes one can effect from within an organization -- if they're open to listening and acting in good faith, which is thankfully the usual case in my fields. If you have an evil cult-of-personality CEO, on the other hand...
In the US dental implants, bridges, and root canals are not cheap, and hardly affordable for anyone who is not well off (enough). I.e., me.

For example, a central incisor bridge I can't stand cost me $2300 a couple of months ago.
Those same large agri companies are working behind the scenes to stir up the farmer protests, hiding behind likable small family farmers. See some recent TV commercials to positively frame farmers' image. But many of those farmers are not a small family business anymore, they are very profitable businesses and the owners want to continue making those profits, increasing emissions which are already too high for our very small country.
Ask HN: What is the point of IBM mainframes?
From another HN post I learned that quite a few companies use IBM mainframes. And they are very expensive.

What can you accomplish with an IBM mainframe that you could not do on x86 Linux servers? How is the premium in price justified?
https://imgur.com/a/a9Ssvrx

It's still some pretty early software though, consider this more of an alpha I think.
Illegal hashes are the freedom of the past; Nowadays it is illegal to hold even a blank paper:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/police-arrest-blank-paper...

Not talking about China.

Welcome to the era of thoughtcrime.
If I understand correctly, this discussion is specifically about auto-vectorization, which is when the compiler automatically re-writes your code to use highly parallel (and performant) vectorized assembly instructions.

Linus acknowledges that vectorized instructions are valuable, so his rant seems to be specifically about auto-vectorization:

> Yes, yes, yes, you can use it in random places. It's not only some JSON parsing library, you'll find it in other libraries too. I suspect the most use it gets in many situations is - drum roll - implementing memmove/strchr/strcmp style things. And in absolutely zero of those cases will it have been done by the compiler auto-vectorizing it.

In other words.. the people writing foundational parsing libraries (json / strchr / strcmp) are writing their vectorized instructions by hand.
If I’m remembering correctly it is usually done by appending data to a format that can tolerate it?
Interviews are a two way street. What you've said is the equivalent of an interviewee saying "If a company has to ask me how to implement a zero-allocation sorting algorithm in an interview, they are clearly incompetent and I wouldn't work for them". In both cases, the person doing the asking knows the right answer(s) more or less - they are checking if the person across the table does too.
I find that even worse than cc.
short answer not.
banks in fractional reserves make money for the commission of lending,if your account get more interest this year this means they also lend to more interest.
yes isn't 100 but chase bank and citi bank is here for 200 YEARS.
short answer no it isn't, i don't like the banking system but that doesn't mean is pyramid scheme.

does crypto is inescapable pyramid scheme, no. even when the landscape is full of scam it doesn't mean that stripe or bitwage or usdt who pay you in crypto to easy international transfer process, they make small cut in the transaction like any other transfers company, for the contrast the number of companies whose only proposition ins the pump and dump the value of their virtual games from shinucrypto to literal ponzi scheme like bitconect.
i wish you understand what i say, i will clarify what i say if you need, English inst my first langues
AVX-512 is in Alder Lake P-cores but not E-coree. AVX-512 is disabled in Alder Lake CPUs because the world is not ready for heterogenous ISA extensions. AVX-512 could be enabled by disabling E-cores.

It was supposedly maybe actually taken out of Raptor Lake, but the latest info I can find on that is from July: long before it was released. I have a Raptor Lake CPU but haven't found the time to experiment with disabling E-cores (far too busy overclocking memory and making sensible rainmeter skins).
Looks like the earliest investors were these folks, so I can’t say I’m particularly surprised. Definitely amused though. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/three-arrows-capital...
It's actually an offence in the UK to do that. Not that it stops anyone.
Instead of arguing the different definitions of the word "semantic" with me, why not just listen when I say that I'm not talking about marketing. Please.
I was curious about that as well. If it is just an extension of 37-40, then that makes sense - since UB may or may not effect different runs of the same executable, then certainly the same is true of different runs on different builds of the same executable. But that is a confusing way to put it - it sounds like it is saying that reproducible builds are not possible, which I am skeptical of.
Google now has a jobs answer box. First hit is mainframe app dev, apparently contract for $520/week in San Jose. They can actually hire people at that rate?
The older I got, the more I realized you seem to be heavily disadvantaged by not having some rudimentary understanding of assembly when using C.

When you do have such an understanding, some small details, like declaring stack variables at the top of functions in ANSI C, become obvious.
Auvelity, a drug that combines dextromethorphan and bupropion (included to keep the dextromethorphan in the system longer) was just made available this quarter.
Edited to include some more context.

These are great points.

Places where it can be assumed people are comfortable with an approach:

- A public place/destination (bar is okay, bus isn't)

- They are not in the middle of speaking (lulls in conversations are fine)

- They are not blocking sensory inputs (don't approach if you see headphones)

This also isn't magic. My success isn't 100%. It's about 30%

Which means that 7/10 people don't want to talk to me (which is fine).

But it also means that I can pretty reliably make a friend/day if I were so inclined

A bit about me, I'm a short man (5'3") with pretty solid facial symmetry and good grooming but I'm NOT particularly attractive.

I'm putting that context because it is important:

- Because of maleness I'm automatically safer in most situations (as in, I can approach someone, go off solo w/them and be confident I won't be assaulted)

- I'm short, so I'm not REALLY a physical threat to people
- Hygiene implies social consideration/health

- Facial symmetry automatically encourages trust

- Being TOO attractive (and I'm nowhere close) can be intimidating to some people
Unix Shared Resources, if I recall correctly.
> Indeed. UB in C doesn't mean "and then the program goes off the rails", it means that the entire program execution was meaningless, and no part of the toolchain is obligated to give any guarantees whatsoever if the program is ever executed, from the very first instruction.

This is the greatest sin modern compiler folks committed to abuse C. C as the language never says the compiler can change the code arbitrarily due to an UB statement. It is undefined. Most UB code in C, while not fully defined, has an obvious part of semantics that every one understands. For example, an integer overflow, while not defined on what should be the final value, it is understood that it is an operation of updating a value. It is definitely not, e.g., an assertion on the operand because UB can't happen.

Think about our natural language, which is full of undefined sentences. For example, "I'll lasso the moon for you". A compiler, which is a listener's brain, may not fully understand the sentence and it is perfectly fine to ignore the sentence. But if we interpret an undefined sentence as a license to misinterpret the entire conversation, then no one would dare to speak.

As computing goes beyond arithmetic and the program grows in complexity, I personally believe some amount of fuzziness is the key. This current narrow view from the compiler folks (and somehow gets accepted at large) is really, IMO, a setback in the computing evolution.
There's a reason no normal human being outside of a small nerd-circle uses PGP for encrypting mails or rsync instead of Dropbox.

Why would any non-techie ever want to deal with safely storing keys to a wallet. Or without having access to a trusted third party to help when issues arise.

This is such a non-starter and one of the many reasons why there will NEVER EVER be mass adoption of Bitcoin outside of speculation.

Just because an unholy alliance of utopian nerds and fraudsters wish this to be true doesn't make it happen.
Scientists identify biomarkers that could help diagnose Lyme disease
There have been more than a few compiler bugs that have introduced UB and then that was subsequently optimized, leading to very incorrect program behavior.
Talk to Uber drivers that own Tesla's. I have.
Like an old thinkpad
Yes exactly, it's for tagging dives. Times and locations only, nothing about what happens underwater.

Edit: actually my computer does that too, well, the app does sort of: the app I have for capturing data from it takes the GPS location when you trigger a sync. Since I don't sync on the boat (why play with a phone?!) it's not very useful. You can easily edit though, drag a pin around and plop the rough location. MacDive, it's a decent bit of software.
Any optimization that causes undefined behavior is bugged – please report them to your compiler's developers.
A sudden drop in the price of certain coins or a lot of depositors causing a bank run.
In the late 1990s, when I joined a bank that used IBM mainframes, there was a group of 30ish new CS graduates who would spend many months being trained internally and by IBM to learn to program and operate those. As I understand it, that's still the case today.

The people who operate these mainframes have tremendous access to internal IBM resources. I remember having to stifle my laughter as, during a meeting about a major outage, a seasoned programmer explained that he "took a dump and sent it to IBM" and was expecting to hear back any time.

The channels that exist for this knowledge are expansive and just aren't on the internet, though they do occasionally spill over there.
10 Minutes is 1% of Your Day
This is PR, not news.
That's a terrible CPU design. You might as well ship arm cores if you are going to have a mismatch of instruction set support on efficiency vs power cores.

Especially since apps using AVX-512 will likely sniff for it at runtime. So now, you have a thread that if rescheduled onto an efficiency core it will break on you. So now what, does the app dev need to start sending "capabilities requests" when it makes new threads to ensure the OS knows not to put it's stuff on an efficiency core?

What a dumb design decision.
From the article:

> ESM with type checking. I don't want to rewrite in TypeScript, because I believe the core of ESLint should be vanilla JS, but I do think rewriting from scratch allows us to write in ESM and also use tsc with JSDoc comments to type check the project. This includes publishing type definitions in the packages.

This is such a heated debate, and so many posts here are just simply wrong about the capabilities of using TypeScript as a type checkers.

A statically typed code base is a primary goal of the author, they simply pick to do it using JavaScript and annotating the types in JSDoc comments, using TypeScript only as the static type checker, which is an available—and well supported—option in TypeScript.

> Choosing to use JS without TS at this point has become a dogmatic statement of purism that, while beautiful in a sense, is so unpragmatic as to appear a little foolish.

You’re parent is simply just wrong here, and it is quite frustrating how many posts here simply take up this talking point and repeat it.
Fixed: https://sega.fandom.com/wiki/Bleemcast%21
Mercedes “eccentric clean sweep” system
Sadly with all of these, it was needed. Constexpr was an monstrosity. Whoever on the comittee board made it "CAN BE" has caused untold horrors on some projects i've worked on. consteval is nice, it's just constexpr, but forced on the compiler, which is how it should've been. There should never be "CAN BE", it's my least favorite thing about C/C++. The compiler shouldn't override me, and consteval is a step in the right direction and has made me target all my projects to c++20(Which is luckily easy since I don't use STL functions).
Moderation is a part of curation. What is your objection to the term in this case?
Everything about the Ultra model is like this. It's pure aspiration porn made physical.

It worked really well for Apple in the '00s. Their computer hardware was expensive enough that most people wouldn't think to buy it over a similar PC. Today, Apple's phones, watches and tablets are much more commodity items (cue someone telling me the sales figures tell a different story). The economics are still largely the same now, but the perception of Apple hardware has changed. They use the XDR screen, the Mac Pro (the big boxy one) and now the Ultra series watch to create the sense of mystique.
> Xi is a dictator

I agree but I don’t think that is grounded in rational thought. Lol. Xi still has to go through a bunch of hurdles to get what he wants. He is not a real dictator.

Your idea of limited war is interesting. First attack on just a few objects in a limited scope. Then branch off onto other targets. Then full out war! There is no real limit in war.
More Good projects to learn from:

- Busybox (https://github.com/mirror/busybox)
- uClibc (https://git.uclibc.org/uClibc/tree/)
- musl (https://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/tree/)
- misc GNU tools (https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/grep.git/tree/, https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/findutils.git/tree/, etc)

The first two are oriented towards embedded development, which I find leads to the simplest, most portable code. Those devs are absolute wizards.