skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Seems like this man drank the kool-aid - sad! Many such cases.

I hope he and others learn a lesson from this: you are not your job. Don't live to work, work to live. Do not attempt to derive meaning from your job. Do not let your passions be occupied by your job. Do not suffer your job. Suffer your friends. Suffer your family. Suffer your children. Suffer art. Suffer beauty. Suffer truth. Suffer justice. But do not suffer your job. They're all bullshit [1]. Do not suffer bullshit.

[1] https://www.worldcat.org/title/1030241785
Cool -- not to pry, but I'd be interested in looking at that if it's public somewhere! Could update my intuition.
Yeah, I dig it. If they weren't all old people I'd tell 'em to use Krita, but that's even more scary than OPEN SOURCE.
I have no data to back this up, but if I had to bet I’d guess that the large majority of Meta employees - along with shareholders - are also strongly opposed to the company’s new focus.
Has that happened on Android?
The maximum money supply is infinite, and the marginal value of dollars approaching an infinite number is zero, and every levered loan, derivative contract, and rehypothecated asset creates new hot money out of risk.

Banks pre-2008 were loaning out 30x the cash they had on hand. That is what creates the money. The loan creates it. This is not loaning out money they in fact have at all, it's pure risk compensated for by the rate of interest. The rest about fractional reserve is mostly accurate, but that fraction of reserve they keep and lever up 10-50x, and then charge fees, interest and commissions back on - together these make the bank a dynamical system whose failure mode requires exogenous recapitalization. Banks are just government backed hedge funds with airs.

The challenge with the article is that if you stop believing in the integrity and base reality of fiat (layer 1 capital), apprehending the consequences of what else has (or doesn't have) meaning is a bit much to ask of most people who work really hard just to align to their norms and are very personally invested in them. Cryptocurrencies were a forcing function on a critical theory of money, and that's more radical than mere 20th century radicals were willing to go, imo.
Yes, but Enron forgot to grease the right palms in Washington, and crucially also help deliver a Midterm victory to the Party.

The level of regulatory capture and open corruption in the US today vs 2001 is also incomparable. It's functionally two different countries.
I use Gimp and Inkscape a few times per month, not professionally. But for silly graphics, I prefer Paintbrush[1].

I agree that for complex drawings where you should align multiple objects and be able to adjust the width and other properties of the color, it's better to use Inkscape.

But for throwaway screenshots with a big red arrow or a circle around the part I want to highlight, I prefer Paintbrush.

Is it possible to add to Gimp an option to draw simple forms like in Paintbrush? Perhaps as a filter or a tool. Gimp looks very customizable, but I never went into that rabbit hole.

[1] MS changed the name to "Paint" like 20 years ago, but I never got the memo.
It's called DuckDuckGoose - see https://blog.twitter.com/engineering/en_us/a/2015/twitter-ex...
You know a week of an engineer is multiple thousands of dollars right?
The beauty of the GPL is that you can change it to your heart's desire.

There is a fork called Glimpse.

https://glimpse-editor.org/

When Adobe hikes the prices to their SaaSS, you will still be welcome.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s...
Maybe the decision was made based on who was sharing critical opinions internally.
If your instance hasn't yet updated to v.4, that is a major step forward and addresses a number of concerns (and adds a few).

Notably: status edits (you can edit a toot after it's been published) and the ability to open all CW'd toots when viewed as an unauthenticated user (e.g., general public). Latter isn't fully what I'd prefer to see, but it's a big step forward. Following hashtags would be a third.

There's more, I'm still discovering myself and have yet to read the changelog.
> Have we considered ways to make bullies not want to bully?

Why not both?

This is a research paper, not a political document. Here, researchers focus on the psychology of the bullied, and make a suggestion that may improve his condition. There are, I guess, other research papers that focus on the bully, and others that focus on the environment, each with their own conclusions.

The job of policymakers is to take all the suggestions and build a policy based on what researchers consider effective, in addition to other considerations like ethics and cost. It is up to them do decide if it is more important to prevent bullies from bullying or if it is better to teach kids how not to be bullied.

Researchers are just there to give facts, backed by evidence.
It's accounting bias/culture.

Say you have a 100 developers and you reason each should get a second monitor worth 300$, because this increases productivity by 20%.

According to an accountant, you just added 30K in costs to the books, with nothing to show for it. You can't eat productivity nor is it a line item in the books.

Who is to say that this 20% of freed up time is used productively? Or used on things that increase revenue? If so, how much revenue? And when?
Unsafe accesses do not act that way, they compile to exactly the same code as array accesses in C.

The tests aren't bunk. There are a variety of reasons why the assertions generated by array index checks can be useful for LLVM, and there is also a fair amount of noise in any end to end test like this. The main point is that it clearly isn't a primary bottleneck (which should be pretty obvious in a test that takes 30 ms and performs under 2000 bounds checks).
> help our ... fleet scale better."

Heh, I tried that too! I found a lot of setups using old HDD disks that were at 100% of their IOPS limits and CPUs that were idle. When they were built, Azure didn't have Premium SSD, so that's forgivable. I offered to rearrange where the expenditure goes, such that they have newer and faster CPUs, Premium SSD, but fewer cores which means a reduction in licensing costs. Cost neutral while improving their performance and capacity.

That got a very firm "Nope! Nope! Nope!" from most (but not all) teams as well.

> As such middle management has to say "we need to do more with less", but they are promoted based on these numbers going up!

I came to the same conclusion. Many project managers or product owners introduced themselves in the first meeting by proudly proclaiming the huge size of their operation. I.e.: "The system I'm responsible for is a multi-million dollar project with a small army of developers!"

I've also noticed that there's a tendency to exponentially blow out complexity of what ought to be a trivial system for the same reason. Something that could be static HTML on an S3 bucket or Azure Storage Account turns into a microservices monstrosity draped across three clouds and four external SaaS services.

Those resumes don't pad themselves.
Bugout: Browser-to-browser networking built on WebTorrent
Of course, my technical friends very quickly found the edge cases, getting it to contradict itself, etc.

OK, I'm a technical person but I asked the chatbot in the article broad questions that were difficult but not "tricky" ("what's a good race to play for a Druid in DnD", "Compare Kerouac's On The Road to his Desolation Angels" and got a reasonable summary of search plus answers that were straight-up false).

Maybe your "nontechnical" friend weren't able to notice that the thing's output of misinformation but seems like more of a problem, not less.

Also, ChatGPT in particular seems to go to pains to say it's not conscious and that's actually a good thing. These chatBots can be useful search summarizers making their limits clear (like github navigator). They're noxious if they instill a delusion of their consciousness in people and I don't think you should be so happy about fooling your friends. Every new technology has initially had cases where people could be deluded into think it was magic but those instances can't be taken as proof of that magic or as bragging rights.
You are right luck was no doubt involved to a heavy extent. I've seen what normal cancer treatments do to someone and it's awful but, it's the best we have at scale I presume.
> This is just completely wrong - banks only loan out money they have. If you go to a bank and get a loan the bank didn't just edit a database entry - they had that money. Banks loaning out money they don't have is extremely illegal.

I'm afraid to say that this is completely wrong. Commercial banks do in fact create money via lending! The 101 textbook explanation offered here is at best outdated and at worst misleadingly perpetuates a myth that simply must die.

The Bank of England's note on money creation in the modern economy [0] is the place to start - and more or less reflects the explanation in the article.

[0] https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2014/q1/m...
A typical HN comment on a SpaceX post might have once looked like:

> Unfortunately, the "move fast and break things" attitude doesn't work with rockets.

You will likely find this comment verbatim from the last 10 years. Given that is so, I can't see how someone could claim that Elon Musk is new to visible experimentation.
Still impressive how GIMP was so special, it makes you download competition illegally.
> this project existing has harmed creative tools on Linux

If anything, GIMP has brought more people to Linux from the dark side.
I work at a bank in the US, your statement is false for almost all non-federal banks. There’s some complexity to it, but in general banks are required to have roughly 5% of deposits liquid at the close of every businesss day. There’s some wiggle room, but banks are never allowed to go below 0%. If it looks like they’re going to risk going below 0% they can borrow money from other banks with too much cash through the repo market, but this is expensive and regulators don’t like it so banks will strictly avoid this.
This actually explains why different banks will have different loan/share rates from each other. You’d expect in an efficient market they’d all be the same, but banks deliberately make their offerings less competitive if it’ll leave them with too much cash/debt.
In short, banks do not just create money in the US. They are heavily regulated, and any bank that started cooking the books and lending more than they have would be swiftly taken under management by its regulatory body.

One point that might make this clearer - the government serves as the lender of last resort for a bunch of banks. Lending more than you have would be incredibly risky - why would the institution that has to eat the potential loss allow you to do so?
Part of this reminds me of metamine, which featured both iterative and declarative programming at the same time. In effect it had a magical equals that kept the left side updated, and had rules that kept things sane.
These mental blocking mechanisms are symptoms of your brain rejecting something in your present or past. You really have to surrender first, lower your defenses, or the cortisol will always make you feel lacking, in danger, void. But you don't need this, it's just harming you, surrender, be vile, don't overjudge. Listen to Wreckage by Entombed. We already failed when we were born, imperfect from the start.
Agreed, luckily, Affinity exists and they are not only resisting subscriptions but also sell cross platform licenses.
https://mccormick.cx/news/entries/on-self-hosting-and-decent...

Blog post.
GIMP I've used for years and years, never heard of photopea, was the comment a SPAM Ad spot?
Personally I credit GIMP for making me learn imagemagick.
Is Serverless Ready?
I agree that using programming to understand a domain is very useful, as it’s something I’m trying to do a lot of these days. Although sometimes, there needs to be some simplification to do that that maybe skirts around the meat of the matter. But as always, a diverse approach is more powerful than a singular one.
WUFFS is awesome. It won't even let you add two ints without proving they cannot overflow
Absolutely people try to make bullies not want to bully, from psychological counseling to suspending them from school. It sort of works, but any success is limited. Also bullies can attack outside the school premises.

This is why helping other kids withstand bullying, defuse situations, and generally not feel helpless is still important. By the same token, however much you may discourage people from stealing, you should still lock the door.
> There's also a huge difference between "just asking questions" and "just asking questions"

What is that?

Let's pretend I'm a card carrying jackboot wearing nazi. What question could I just ask, in bad faith? How come black people commit more crime? How come more black people are in prison?

Those are actually fantastic questions that, seriously considered, could lead to some significant societal change.

I can't think of an instance where the good/bad faith of the asker has any bearing on the question.
Is “The American Conservative”. A… socialist paper by any chance? The name would seem to indicate otherwise.
> I've used the tool periodically and I can't think of anything that's improved in the last 10 years.

Have you contributed to it any any way?
Love the videos! Would it be possible to have a clickable interactive demo where we can see what each node is doing?
Something like this? It probably doesn't capture the directionality of the sound in the way you describe.

"4 1/2 minutes of working Strowger, step by step ,Western Electric telephone switch"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-pd3GjNMWc
I find I get a lot of value out of monads even if the language doesn't expose them.

For example, it allows me to quickly draw a single arrow in a big architecture diagram because I know I'll be able to take a list of promises and turn it into a promise of a list, and then take a function that takes a list and returns more lists, and flatmap it on top of that. Even if Promise is "not really" a monad, and I will probably have to write the machinery manually.

It's what I mean when I say "you can bulldoze your way through a lot of broken abstractions when programming", but at the conceptual stage and when designing, you can get a lot of mileage out of the theoretical constructs.
Bought an Epson "Ecotank" a few years ago, best printer I've ever had. Only had to refill the ink tanks a couple of times, and the refill ink is super affordable. Paid a much higher up-front cost for the printer but damn... I print out TONS of photos now, and don't have to worry about the ink cartridge depleting at a fast rate.
For proper bounds checking in C you first need to communicate the "bounds" to be "checked" to all the places where it matters, just a pointer isn't enough. Unfortunately many old-school C APIs (including the stdlib) often don't pass pointer-size pairs around, but just pointers (and IMHO the biggest problem in the C world is not so much the language, but outdated APIs like the C stdlib or POSIX which have mostly been designed in the K&R era and which basically "encourage" unsafe usage).

Other then that, I doubt that any reasonably pragmatic and experienced C programmer will ever argue against runtime bounds checking from a performance point of view. Even in hot loops one can usually move the bounds checking to a place outside the loop.
Musks ex wife disputes his rationale for suspending Alex Jones. Basically, calling him a liar. He picks and chooses like every ideologue.
You can cross-compile to ARM using Docker on Windows.

See: https://www.docker.com/blog/multi-arch-images/
GitHub has deprioritized AE due to azure capacity and data consistency issues. Maybe AE lives on in some different format, but the Azure-based platform has taken a backseat to other enterprise features for GitHub

I wouldn’t be surprised if they pivoted back, but they lost a lot of talent on that team
I'm just going by the comments of others but:

"Yes, this file is fine to be deleted while i'm using it"

is fine if all processes play nice, which apparently Windows Defender _does not_. Edit: likely Windows Defender couldn't work if it did? So, in order to consistently delete a file without triggering the file lock, you need to use the work-around.

I'm just guessing here, but wouldn't Windows Defender need to be some privileged process (as it's e.g. an anti-virus) where then this file-locked file deletion process would be impossible to perform? Otherwise, a computer virus could just keep killing the Windows Defender file handler, making it impossible to read its files and keeping Windows Defender from performing its duty.
Cynicism is often a protection reaction against realizing things are not as they are stated. And that can happen for any number of reasons, but usually it's because the words and actions of the company aren't lining up in very noticeable ways.
No, photopea is pretty well known now. Mentionned a few times on HN too
The Rust docs for the 'for' keyword do say for loops are implemented as sugar for iterator loops.
https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/keyword.for.html

Relevant part:
> for-in-loops, or to be more precise, iterator loops, are a simple syntactic sugar over a common practice within Rust, which is to loop over anything that implements IntoIterator until the iterator returned by .into_iter() returns None (or the loop body uses break).

(The other uses of the 'for' keyword it refers to are unrelated to loops)
Can’t I just choose any feature available in Gimp and not in Krita and disprove your point. Sorry if I’m missing obvious hyperbole.
I never said that the Nazis came to power by winning the majority in an election and am well aware that they only came to power as a result of a huge mis-calculation of the conservatives.

What I claimed was that the Nazis were popular after having gained power. In fact Nazi ideology even remained popular after the Nazis were defeated. Tony Judt has survey results [1] in his book 'Postwar', e.g. a majority of Germans were of the opinion that Nazism was a good idea but poorly applied. 37% in the US occupied zone said that the extermination of the Jews was warranted.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification#Surveys
I do think that even if they make no other changes, removing the jargon in favor of plain English will improve the quality of their writing. Maybe not as much as actually learning to reflect on what they're trying to say, but enough to be worth doing.
> But for throwaway screenshots with a big red arrow or a circle around the part I want to highlight

On KDE, the Spectacle screenshot tool comes with an "annotate" button that does exactly this. I agree this kind of stuff is very convenient, bonus points with a touchscreen.
I use it to annotate screenshots also. But I have hand-drawn all my arrows and "circles" with the Brush tool.

If you want precision, you could use the "Paths" tool and then trace using a Brush.
Funnily there is an off-by-one error in your example; if you fix it, the generated assembly is even more efficient.
Funnily enough Apple also gave you a new battery when replacing the bad keyboard. I had it done three times with that 2017 (iirc) MBP.
One thing that I assume reduces this problem even further is the prevalent use of iterators in Rust. I almost never index an array or vector directly, which means it's impossible for me to use an out of bounds index, and I'd be really surprised if rustc and/or LLVM don't somehow take advantage of that fact (maybe just through unchecked indexing in the standard library's iterator functions)
I was ready for "lots" of toner to be left when deemed empty, but 75%!?
So the ability to deceive?
More the study of human behavior under the environmental conditions of markets, or groups within firms. You can study animal behavior in the environment of a zoo, as opposed to say, a savannah or jungle.
the site is down now
Obligatory warning: Strange Loop 2023 will be the last. If you haven’t been, it’s a good excuse to go.
> AR/VR will put your computer everywhere.

Sounds like a nightmare. And I already have frequent nightmares about my phone. The one where I need to do something urgently and the phone just gets slower and slower. It's a modern rehash of the dream where you are trying to run from something but your legs just get heavier and heavier.
European Central Bank: Bitcoin’s last stand
Adjustment layers are on the 3.2 roadmap. https://developer.gimp.org/core/roadmap/#gimp-32

No idea what the timing of that version is.
Yes, inputs/outputs is likely the most interesting problems for our diverse specs of flows.

Because data pipeline is not the primary concerns of Windmill, we took the stance that Inputs and Output of steps were simply JSON in, JSON out. For all the languages, we simply extract the JSON object into the different parameters of the main, and then we wrap the return into the respective language native serializer for the output (e.g JSON.stringify in Typescript). Then each step can use a javascript expression executed by v8 to do some lightweight transformation between the output of any step to the input of that step.

A lot of the simplification we made is actually parsing the main function parameters into the corresponding jsonschema, supporting deeply nested objects when relevant.

That works great for automation that do not have big input/outputs, but not for data. So what we do for data is to use a folder that we symlink to be shared by all steps if a specific flag for that flow is set. It also force us to have the same worker process all the steps inside that flow when otherwise flow steps could have been processed by any workers. It is very fast since it's all local filesystem but not super scalable.

I am not pleased with that solution and believe that if we were to expand on the data problem, we would certainly rely on fast network and HDFS/Amazon EFS/etc to simply share that mounted folder across the network.

Anyway, sorry for the rambling but I do feel like we're all taking different approach to the same underlying problem of building the best abstraction for flows and believe we might learn from each other's choices.

ps: congrats Patterns on the launch, the tool look absolutely amazing.
I feel like I’m trying to explain nuance to a brick:

* An obviously racist and currently in-use racial slur is not ok.

* A Victorian-era word, which was not even used as a slur (although it did have some negative connotation back then and now too) is most likely ok.
Sam Bankman-Fried says he 'didn't ever try to commit fraud'
The author of the tweet is entirely aware she is spreading unproven rumors, just glancing through her articles she's penned it's mostly propaganda pieces meant to support more aggression towards China (note: she does not live in China).

Here's a few choice quotes:

"And then came the laughable claim in Xi’s speech that China does not ‘carry aggressive or hegemonic traits in its genes’"

"The idea that Trump’s ‘China virus’ rhetoric is xenophobic is puzzling. "
Music is not any worse than iTunes was. And the new Settings app being bad is not exactly consensus — IMO the redesign was much-needed and well executed.
Yes, as others have pointed out, Quanta's own embedded video title says they "simulated a wormhole", but references to simulation appear nowhere in the entire article. I'd love to know if this is a surprisingly brazen misrepresentation, or if the difference between "create" and "simulate" is perhaps not as clear-cut in this context (after all, this is the realm of the weird).
It could make sense in the context of twitter. They're a "public square" so to speak, so if everyone experiences the same change, they can discuss it at the same time instead of small subsets experiencing it and being confused (or getting back data from the wrong people)