skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Your C API here takes a `T*` but I think that the intended use for these new functions is with C APIs that take `T**`. Those are somewhat inconvenient to make interoperate with smart pointers. For example, in C you might have something like this:

void c_api_that_returns_via_an_out_parameter(T** ret) {
*ret = new T();
}

T* p;
c_api_that_returns_via_an_out_parameter(&p);

Then you might try to change this to use a smart pointer as:

std::unique_ptr<T> p;
c_api_that_returns_via_an_out_parameter(&p);

But this won't compile because you can't take the address of a `std::unique_ptr<T>` and then pass it where a `T**` is expected. So instead you need to do something like this:

T* tmp = 0;
c_api_that_returns_via_an_out_parameter(&tmp);
std::unique_ptr<T> p(tmp);

That can be a bit of a pain. These new functions serve as adapters to make this easier. They take in a `std::unique_ptr<T>` and provide a `T*` that you can pass to the C API:

std::unique_ptr<T> p;
c_api_that_returns_via_an_out_parameter(std::out_ptr(p));

No temporary needed.

If your C API only ever passes and returns `T*` and never uses `T**` then I think that you don't need these new functions and you can continue to do things the current way. For instance, if you have a C API that allocates a new object and then returns a pointer to it then you can take this return value and immediately store it into your smart pointer:

std::unique_ptr<T> p(c_api_that_returns_a_pointer());

And if you have a C API that takes a `T**` and then deallocates it:

c_api_that_deallocates(p.release());

Although really your smart pointer should be doing this for you so you'd never need to do it explicitly. If you're ever manually calling `.release()` then that indicates a place where the smart pointer abstraction has broken down. You want to minimize or eliminate that. Note that in the examples using the new functions there are no explicit calls to `.release()` anywhere and this is a good thing.

I can't recall ever seeing a C API that conditionally deallocates the pointer passed in. Do you have an example? Most C APIs that I'm familiar with have one function that allocates a new object and a separate function that unconditionally deallocates it, acting analogously to `malloc` and `free`.
This reminds me of the general idea behind Tripwire[1] for macOS. I last looked into it back in 2005 (we went with other approaches), so it may have changed since then, but it monitors for changes, and allow you to revert them or deploy them to other computer (as in a lab, etc).

[1] https://github.com/Tripwire/tripwire-open-source
Nothing personal against the author, I'm sure hes a great guy and all, but I got a chuckle out of someone working at a company deploying the largest world-wide spying apparatus complaining about Microsoft's practices.
I have only encountered one problem that was best solved with a graph style query and I did that in sqlite.

So what would likely be nice is a better query language that can compile to sql.
9,000 Euros/month would let you avoid what percentage of taxes you would owe?
TSMC Revenue Rises 50% in November Despite Covid Challenges
Nobody can downvote submissions, but 500 karma lets you flag them. You have that.
To expand on this, the "subtle differences" are things like optimizations introduced/tweaks in the new compiler that can only be taken advantage of by creating stage2. (since stage1 was compiled with the old compiler)
Okay. I guess I'm saying that I think it's dumb when you don't tell the user that their account is in this state.
Have to actually experienced this? What you want is for people to be familiar and nice, what you actually get is the banker telling everybody your account balance, the whole town talking about that time you showed up to church hungover, and the viciousness of national politics (or mean high school girls) applied to every aspect of your life.

Don’t wish for universal non anonymity unless you really know what it’s like, especially if you’re not willing to join the local moral majority.
Shadowbanning only works because it is news to people. That's the whole point. People aware of shadowbanning can easily check their posts from a private browser window or similar to see if they exist.

If it wasn't news to people, then no companies would use it, because it would be ineffective!
Seeing the mangled remains of artist signatures in these images is poignant in the same way that seeing a ripped-up abandoned teddy bear is. Get some nice picture frames, print them out, and this thread could go in a museum.
This is phenomenal. A famous poem to the best-selling game I've never played and never will, is now owned and reproduced in any forrn by everyone in the universe, against all contracts. Maybe it will be the End Poem of the universe, the last decipherable thing before it all flickers out.
I have written a bit about potential benefits in the initial announcement of Nx [0] and then on its first release [1].

In a nutshell, there has been trends in Python (such as JAX and Thinc.ai) that argue functional programming can provide better abstractions and more composable building blocks for deep learning libraries. And I believe Elixir, as a functional language with Lisp-style macros, is in an excellent position to exploit that - as seen in "numerical definitions" which compile a subset of Elixir to the CPU/GPU.

I also think the Erlang VM, with its distribution and network capabilities, can provide exciting developments in the realm of federated and distributed learning. We aren't exploring those aspects yet but we are getting closer to having the foundation to do so.

Regarding ML ops, I believe one main advantage is explained in this video announcement. When deploying a ML model with Nx, you can embed the model within your applications: you don't need a 3rd-party service because we batch and route requests from multiple cores and multiple nodes withing Erlang/Elixir. This can be specially beneficial for projects like Nerves [5] and we will see how it evolves in the long term (as we _just_ announced it).

Finally, one of the benefits on starting from scratch after Python has paved the way is that we can learn from its ecosystem and provide a unified experience. You can think of Nx as Numpy+JAX+TFServing all in one place and we hope that doing so streamlines the developer experience. This also means libraries like Scholar [2] (which aims to serve a similar role as SciPy) and Meow [3] (for Genetic Algorithms) get to use the same abstractions and compile to the CPU/GPU. The latter can show an order of magnitude improvement over other currently used frameworks [4].

[0]: https://dashbit.co/blog/nx-numerical-elixir-is-now-publicly-...
[1]: https://dashbit.co/blog/elixir-and-machine-learning-nx-v0.1
[2]: https://github.com/elixir-nx/scholar/
[3]: https://github.com/jonatanklosko/meow
[4]: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3512290.3528753
[5]: https://www.nerves-project.org/
I would rather my tyrants be smaller, not larger.

Any society can leave you under the boot of some person (or impersonal system).
One would hope that we as a society would've used technology to help us better keep up with everything as opposed to trying to market over each other.
NumPy, PyTorch, TensorFlow and many other widely known third-party libraries are actually native code that interact with CPython directly.
Go is an amazing language. It’s simple. Fast. Opinionated. It’s got tons of libraries. Works really well in K8s. I’d 100% support this.
It's sort of funny the paragraph about a custom title bar, that is always the first feature I disable whenever I deal with a new install of Chrom(ium|e). Don't really know why it tries to do it, but a right click and "Use system window title bar" and back to normalcy.
> Yes, the secrecy does matter.

Okay, good start.

> We should censor for how things are said, instead of what is said.

What? No. Platforms can censor whatever they want. The point is that users should be told when their content is actioned. Mod actions shouldn't be kept secret from the authors of content.

Therefore, we should be concerned with how platforms are censoring, and not what they are censoring. That is, a platform who tells you when they censor is more desirable than one who keeps their censorship secret from you.
>Letting a user know defeats the point of doing it

Why? Isn't this a signal to the broader population that certain behaviors result in this kind of downranking?

>Moderators are a finite resource, and spending all their resources chasing down someone who won't take the hint is exactly what a hellban is for.

Again, it's it useful to signal that accounts that violate the rules (or are right up at the edge of violating them) are in this state?
>Didnt they say that they would always be separate teams?

Google says many things. Always believing them is a huge mistake.
And he is very carefully setting the tone with carefully constructed statements that this ISN'T what he did and it makes me sick. He knows the more he says things like:

"A mistake that I feel pretty embarrassed to have made [is that] I substantially underestimated what the scale of a market crash could look like,”

Or

"I had embarrassingly little knowledge about what was going on,”

The more he can claim the innocent 'i was just to naive and dumb' to have done this on purpose and 'I've learned my lesson' BS that all will be hard to indict without solid evidence. I don't believe for one second what that loser says right now. Cuff him!

He is a sociopath and should be in jail for long time for all the immense harm he caused in running a known Ponzi of literally billions. He is no different than Madoff or Holmes. Acting like a messiah and a fake genius for all these years while full well knowing he and his cohorts were fraudulently offering unrealistic investment returns. Living rich off people's deposits they will never get back.

Where is his ex girlfriend? The one who actually RAN Alameda. Why are we not hearing about her at all? She should probably be first in cuffs
Passwords have had a good run but on the modern internet they are a failure. 99% of the population uses the same bad passwords everywhere. We've tried to get people to behave securely with passwords but it just doesn't work. Its not their fault! Humans did not evolve to remember long distinct random strings. It is unfair to expect humans to never be tricked into typing their password into the wrong website.

Its time for something new. I think WebAuthn and passkeys have a real shot to let us finally move onto a better form of authentication than passwords. They have real security benefits and hopefully usability benefits.

I know that there's a lot of distrust of Apple and Google here when it comes to passkeys. But seriously this is not a giant ploy to trick you into buying an iPhone/Android. You can use a yubikey on sites that support passkeys. You can use an opensource solokey. You can use a software based fido key. You can use a an opensource tpm-fido authenticator. There will be opensource passkey implementations that support roaming. The standards are all open and there's nothing blocking interoperability. This is not a locked-in ecosystem.

We've given passwords a good long try. They served their purpose but now are showing a lot of downsides. We need to be serious about looking for better alternatives that serve our end users. Passkeys is a good attempt at that. Lets give it a shot.
> What is your actual point here?

that e2e encryption by a third party does not give you privacy from the US government if that third party can remotely control or update your device and is subject to US laws. it is a direct reply to the assertion made in the GP: "The adversary is someone attacking the service provider, like a hacker or a government with a warrant, and getting access to Apple's storage of your data."
The cesium 137 that "hit" the west coast was less than a trillionth higher than the pre-release concentration. 100x of an incredibly small number is still an incredibly small number. We test waters and measure their level of radioactive material. We do the same with fish. They're not even remotely close to hazardous levels. In fact they're not even consistently above baseline: https://doh.wa.gov/community-and-environment/radiation/fukus...

You're assuming that every reprocessing plant will release the same amount of radiation as Sellafield, which was a particularly badly run plant that saw over a dozen contamination incidents. And even then, it was still less than half the figures you initially claimed La Hague was releasing. No such releases have been measured. Greenpeace's claims of widespread contamination we're not replicated. The tests around the oceans in la Hague all indicate levels of cesium isotopes orders of magnitudes lower than unsafe levels. Fish are not showing radiation contamination.

Greenpeace makes fake radiation readings all the time. They tried to claim the Olympic torch path was contaminated, nobody else was able to replicate their findings: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/04/radiation-hots...

If one activist group published tests supposedly disproving anthropic climate change, would you just ignore all scientific concensus and believe this one group? Why is that valid reasoning when it comes to believing a fringe group's claims about radiation exposure? It's just a coincidence that no healthcare authority, no food and drug agency, no oceanography department, no group besides activists seem to be able to detect this contamination?

Again, just think about how absurd this idea is: France is poisoning the English channel and the UK, Belgium, and Netherlands are totally okay with it? Somehow they're able to keep radiation levels under wraps when anybody can walk out to shore and collect a sample? Fish are being contaminated but nobody seems to be able to find radioactive
You don't understand art, you probably didn't finish reading what Julian wrote, you'll likely never understand what he did, and that poem probably has less meaning for you than most who would read it having never played the game.
> Notebooks on the other hand are a god damned abomination.

I completely disagree. Notebooks are an excellent way of doing literate programming, because they go beyond plain text, and integrate richly formatted text, tables, figures, videos with code. This is excellent where the human is following a line of reasoning, and offloading the computation to the computer. The reasoning is explained via the non-code, made concrete via the code cells, and its effects shown via the code cells.

Of course, people can abuse the conveniences of the medium to write really bad code, and follow some really bad practices. But that doesn't mean the medium is bad. In fact, I think if you forced people to stop using notebooks, their productivity would drop by quite a bit. Notebooks are tool for thought [1].

The solution is to teach them better practices, and provide better tools within the notebook interface that will help people write better code.

[1] https://numinous.productions/ttft/
Good luck.

For others, let this serve as another lesson to never sign in somewhere with any account if you can help it.

This week there's also this other person that says there are soft locked into Google because they signed in with Google to many places.

Go to the trouble of creating a regular account. It's less trouble in the end. (here it was not possible, but of course, it looks like it was a scam, so maybe it's a red flag anyway)
Slightly off topic, but I get a lot of frustration from Google Maps. Waze works well for me, while GMaps don't. So seeing those two merge more is bad news for me.

Google Maps is one of the services which actually does some minor damage to me. Delivery drivers usually blame me for not finding my street, while GMaps data is what is the problem. I've had one delivery person stuck in snow and require technical assistance in another street, because Google Maps shows my street there.

I cannot get Google to change my street name to correct legal one.I've tried 'suggesting an edit' it at least 10 times. There is no support to contact to or anything. I've looked. They say I don't have any proof that my suggested street name is correct - but I even add a link to Google Street view which has a literal street sign with correct name and coordinates. I tried official street registry links. Still rejected. It is insane.

I personally can use openstreetmap.org, but delivery drivers and etc. - they don't use it. So I am stuck in this non-sense.
See "reversible debugging".
I'm more hyped about this than gpt3 tbh. I cannot wait to get a tromphone quartet going at the office holiday party
I miss the days when Bill Roper was there.

The fact that they repolished D2 into a game absolutely worth playing today on modern hardware, gorgeously really shows how good he was. And tbf, how good the graphics team is. D2R is a wonderful game, and the fact that the same old (but great) engine is actually still running is kinda incredible.

I wish OW2 was a gem like that. A friend and I have over 1k hours each into OW1.
So since their concerned have been proven justified, they don't get to talk about them because of their tone when they first raised the concern? They weren't crying wolf. They were right the whole time, which honestly justifies the howling to me.
I agree, but everything's price can be (and is) gamed that way though.

So to what degree is trade volume indicative of anything in other things?
It seems like GitHub gave them the boot as well: https://github.com/NopeCHA/NopeCHA

Is it possible you got caught by some automated system that tries to prevent sockpuppet accounts from inflating stars?
Not GP, but I used it the other day to start a simple web app:

Please write a javascript for testing pronunciation. The app should have the following features:
1. Store a static list of Chinese characters.
2. When the user clicks start, show the user a single character from the list, and wait for them to pronounce it out loud. Use the web speech API to recognize the character, and compare it with the character displayed.
3. If the characters match, repeat step 2. If not, give the user one more chance, before continuing.
4. Keep an internal record of which characters the user got right and wrong, and how many times.

var characterList = ["汉", "字", "编", "程", "语", "言"];
var correctCharacters = [];
var incorrectCharacters = [];
var numAttempts = 0;
function startTest() {
var character = characterList[Math.floor(Math.random() * characterList.length)];
document.getElementById("displayCharacter").innerHTML = character;
var recognition = new webkitSpeechRecognition();
recognition.onresult = function(event) {
var pronunciation = event.results[0][0].transcript;
if (pronunciation === character) {
correctCharacters.push(character);
startTest();
} else {
numAttempts++;
if (numAttempts < 2) {
document.getElementById("prompt").innerHTML = "Incorrect. Please try again.";
} else {
incorrectCharacters.push(character);
numAttempts = 0;
startTest();
}
}
}
recognition.start();
}
document.getElementById("startButton").addEventListener("click", startTest);

Give me the corresponding HTML

<div id="displayCharacter"></div>
<div id="prompt"></div>
<button id="startButton">Start Test</button>
Fair point haha
It only seems balanced to those that agree with its bias.

Which is kinda proven given that I currently can't reply to you because HN is rate limiting me...

FYI: this comment took 3 hours to make
C++ Super-FAQ
Rich people love to distinguish between old and new rich. Am I supposed to somehow be impressed by this? Old rich just use their money for pleasure and status like new rich do, they just have different more obtuse ways to do it.
I wish SSO providers allowed users to individually decline requested scopes when logging in.

It would be a PITA for developers, but if it was the norm, you wouldn't think about it twice.

The minimum scope should be a random identifier that's unique to the service provider you are logging in to.
You need the 32 bit libraries, but it all runs under a 64-bit kernel alongside 64-bit processes on the same system, right?

EDIT: More details at https://www.codeweavers.com/support/wiki/Diag/BrokenLDT16 . I suppose if you run 16-bit programs inside 32-bit WINE on 64-bit Linux, you wouldn't be able to get real interop (eg drag-and-drop) with a 64-bit windows program separately running under 64-bit WINE?
more like the entirety of the company (Amazon + AWS) following the guidance of an unnamed "nobody" is, in fact, a standard of excellence :)

I challenge you to find PHP deployed in production in any Amazon service
Well for example say it's a SublimeText plugin that you use for code editing, browsing repos, etc. And one of the options that you have from the control panel thing (ctrl+shift+P) is "star current repo." That would be a perfectly legitimate use of the API to apply stars, because you're deliberately taking this action yourself, it's not an app doing it maliciously.

However, say that developer took advantage of the fact that the permission seemed reasonable to automatically make you star their app for that Sublime extension upon install. That would be malicious and unethical.

So there's a difference, but the permission isn't inherently sinister.
Sigh. First nice strawman. Guess you are also helping up your <favorite language/niche> toxicity numbers. Har, har.

Second it's not Rust zealotry - maybe memory safety zealotry, but my reasons are well corroborated at this point (see Android safety issues with native code).

Use any memory safe language (C#, Java, Ada...) that fits your needs. Just stop pretending memory unsafe languages have no issues, and that it's all programmer's fault, i.e. just code better/ don't make mistakes/ don't hold it wrong.
So, you are looking for investors for whom gods plays a role?
So they praise safety of this place. I'm not sure what will prevent petty criminals to commute from Nice, raid for some expensive watches and then get away? It's not like there's a big fence or anything.
Add your address (or edit your street location) in Google maps. They've picked up most of my edits relatively quick.
> If this[0] is accurate, then 99.7% of political contributions made by Twitter employees went to Democrats in 2022.

You're jumping a step here because you're making a sampling error. Like I said before, we know nothing about the distribution.

Let's put this in an extreme example. Suppose there are 100 people. 99 of them have the favorite color green. 1 of them has the favorite color red. Does that mean the logo will be red? What assumptions are implicit here to say yes? (this is where the logic fails) If a singular person controls the color of the logo and that person is not chosen at random then it really doesn't matter how many people have a favorite color green. The logo will be the favorite color of the person that makes the choice. Everyone else is noise.

Coming back to Twitter it would be naive to assume that the choices are being made democratically or uniformly at random. So what does the median employee's opinion matter? We know that higher incomes tend to lean more conservative but this is hard to say here because those studies generally aggregate out all salaries >$100k/yr, which might as well be a random sample. If the trend continues (reasonable assumption, but naive to take as fact) then it is reasonable to assume that managers (who we are assuming make more money than the median employee) are more conservative. But again, we just don't know.

The data you are linking to is actually irrelevant to the conversation at hand (it also has a huge yearly variance, making it even more noisy).
The Four Stages:

1. It's not happening.

2. It's happening, but it's equally applied.

3. It's not equally applied and that's a good thing.

4. We already knew about it. Why is this news?

^---- You are here.