skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The article spends an inordinate amount of time to delve into meta arguments about groupthink and elitism and juniors vs. seniors which is interesting enough, but I find the meat of the argument a bit lacking.

Go has some warts, but they're all things that make sense if you know some basic concepts about go (as in you can derive them from knowing how go ticks), versus thousands of random caveats in the core library of other languages. They seem to be most upset about allocation, but it is in fact pretty simple. Types that can be nil are nil upon initialisation, and everything else is a zero value (by virtue of not being a pointer). C isn't actually different here. The only thing I'd expect to surprise a C programmer here is that strings aren't pointers by default, despite being variable length.

And I'm not sure what their point about CGO is. People always say to avoid it because you leave the Go world behind and because performance could be better, but it is still a legitimate way to achieve FFI. The SQLite package uses it and nobody recommends against using that either. It just comes with a "more complexity if you add this" disclaimer.
Can one street solve Silicon Valley’s housing and transportation woes?
Fuck You, Pay Me (2011)
> Others, like Alexis Ohanian and Serena Williams, want to limit their daughter's screen time as she gets older to ensure that she doesn't become overly reliant on or addicted to technology

I had an interesting epiphany when reading this sentence. At first, my reaction was that this was a bit of a different comparison to the others, given that Serena Williams is much more famous than her husband, and she's known not for technology but for being arguably the most dominant athlete of an entire generation (not just in her sport, and not just among women, but like, decades of winning tournaments at the highest level is basically unparalleled). But then I realized that most of these other people mentioned also have another parent alongside them, and the fact that they're not famous doesn't mean that they don't have equally strong opinions about how to raise a child, and ideally most parenting couples will be cooperative and not just "the most famous person's opinions win". I wonder if a lot of these famous executives didn't come up with their parenting strategies on their own, but after discussion and inspiration from their partner as well. Put in that light, it's a lot harder for me to just assume hypocrisy when I know I've grown and changed so much for the better since finding my partner to settle down with for the rest of my life. We don't have any desire for children of our own, but it seems pretty logical that if it were something we wanted, the initial ideas I had when we started discussing parenting would potentially evolve through insights I would gain from my partner, since that's exactly what's happened with all of the discussions we've had about long-term plans that we do have.
One of my friends had this issue for years and he said that it did wonders for his sleep quality and general clarity of mind. The recovery period was apparently terrible -two weeks of not being able to breathe through your nose at all while experiencing significant sinus pressure/headaches- but it must be worth it because he said he would do it again.
So any country without civil forfeiture is just following libertarian talking points? You realize america is the exception, and not allowing the police to randomly seize property isn't libertarian? It's complete partisan brain rot to defend FBI asset seizure just to own the imaginary libertarians, or because the FBI is on "your side" now. Abolishing the institution that is so eagerly participating in civil forfeiture would be a pretty moderate position outside the US.
TreeSheets is over 14 years old: http://web.archive.org/web/20090129151535/http://www.treeshe...
My point is that they're putting a lot of unnecessary effort and attention into being negative about something that they don't have to use anyway.

The author is making a living out of being a full time Rust online personality - https://fasterthanli.me/articles/becoming-fasterthanlime-ful... - maybe these unnecessarily controversial takes help them attract more attention and make a bit more money.
I asked ChatGPT about the Chinese Room and asked for references. The first it came up with was "Minds, Brains, and Programs" by John Searle (1980).

The next two were, "The Chinese Room: Searle and Artificial Intelligence" edited by John Preston and Mark Bishop (2002) (Preston and Bishop did publish Views into the Chinese Room in 2002, but I can't find anything by the given title) and "The Chinese Room Argument" by David Chalmers (2006) (Chalmers has written on the topic, and published three articles in 2006, that's not one of them.

Also:

"Two cities: one, a city of “knights”, and the other of “knaves”. The residents of the two cities like to visit each other. One day, a man enters one of the cities, but doesn’t know which. He decides to ask the first person he meets where he is. The answer he receives is that he is in the “knaves” city."

produced the result:

"The man cannot be sure that the person he met was telling the truth, because the person could be a knight from the city of knights, who always lie, or a knave from the city of knaves, who always tell the truth.

"To determine which city he is in, the man could ask the second person he meets the same question. If the first person was a knight, then the second person would also be a knight, and would lie about being in the city of knights. If the first person was a knave, then the second person would also be a knave, and would tell the truth about being in the city of knaves.

"By asking the same question to multiple people and analyzing their responses, the man can eventually determine which city he is in. This problem, known as the "Knights and Knaves" puzzle, is a classic example of logical reasoning and problem-solving."

It seems to recognize the "knights and knaves" form of puzzle, but doesn't get the knights and knaves right. And it's not getting the reasoning part at all even given varying prompts.
I didn't include a /s.
quick feedback:

- no information besides "rss reader" before signup and requiring email meant i bounced

- why make me choose download vs web app before seeing anything at all?

- why should i trust you with my reading data?

edit: on macos there're no scrollbars and no other affordances on your landing page to know that i must scroll down to learn more
The article, and years of precedence already do this. Every president from Richard Nixon onward has *voluntarily* released his tax returns annually.

The GOP made Jimmy Carter sell his peanut farm. And Trump got to grift, launder, steal from taxpayers by making secret service pay for rooms, and setup all kinds of stupid self-enriching contracts for his weird-shaped broodlings. Normal presidents don't do that shit.

O' How the times have changed, but you know what hasn't? The hypocritical emotion-based-thought and evident lack of research from the right is right here. Oh please wise one, tell us more about your convictions you do no research into.
Yup. Being able to say No to something you’d really like to be a good idea but probably isn’t, even if it has potentially very negative consequences is both really important in real life, and not as common as we all wish it was.
I guess "defund the police" is a libertarian talking point now?
Even when actual human beings give scripted customer service responses, it's already hard enough to come across well. Makes sense that taking the human being out of the loop but leaving in obsequious corporate niceness rubs people the wrong way. The customers were responding positively to a person, not to the script in front of the person (imo).
This perspective is a common one, but it lacks credibility.

https://twitter.com/id_aa_carmack/status/1503844580474687493...
When people write phrases like "Proficient in C, C++, Go and Malbolge" on their resume it's always a pain to figure out if they mean the programming language or the board game.
Honest question: is this actually possible in a non "Michael Crichton science fiction" kind of way?

Even if it were possible to design a virus to target a specific person, wouldn't that virus just mutate eventually, and start infecting other people? Seems like a very risky, crude, and ultimately unwise way to plan an assassination. If you can get close enough to expose someone to the virus-assassin, why not just poison them? It doesn't make any sense to me.
The details of the product don't matter. What matters is that their "fire sale" 50% off price is $8/bag, so their full retail price is $16/bag. So they were looking at a wholesale price that was 3x their retail price and no one noticed that this was odd and bothered to investigate further. I find it hard to believe that anyone could be that stupid.

I also think it's pretty dishonorable to publicly characterize the consequences of their mistake as a "grift" by their distributor. Modest Coffee is not the victim of anything but their own negligence.
That's 100% on Google. If they (a freaking search company) didn't name it "go" (an extremely common english word which makes searching harder) then it could just be searched instead of using things like 'golang' (was/might still be common name for the language in repositories) that are clearly about the programming language. I have the same conceptual gripe with other ones that use fairly common single words like "rust", "swift", and "python", but I don't (yet) use the first two to know how big of an issue it is, and I can usually use "py" instead to exclude any chance of snakes.
If someone suggests a more accurate and neutral title that doesn't say 'grift', we can change it.
This definitely reduces some of the cognitive overhead of designing out a Pheonix service, thats for sure. A really welcome change in my eyes.
I haven't seen these in a decade but I knew what they were talking about instantly. I used to wonder what they were all the time. I sure didn't expect to get an answer randomly on the HN front page.

They did a really good job installing these. They look like they would be bumpy but I never felt them at all.
so is javascript, single threaded language. somehow these two are super popular.

both can do async, both have libs for multithread workloads.

I wonder how critical the language itself is as far as multi-threaded goes.
This.

When you have already troubleshot and gone through the help docs and are actually pointing out a flaw in their system - chatbots are completely useless.
If I'm talking to support, it's because I already have some sort of problem. If I'm shunted into talking to a chatbot, I've now got two problems and I'm not happy about it. Adding a chipper disposition to it is like rubbing salt in the wound and a hollow attempt to paper over the fact that the business is trying to cut support costs as much as possible.
// Copy the Entire Framebuffer to itself,
// to fix the missing pixels.
// Not sure why this works.

That has big lack of proper cache flushing energy. ARM-A device support tends to be where you need to get really intentional about managing your memory hierarchy. Smaller cores tend to have simple enough (or no) caches that they don't tend to get in your way much except for knife edge bugs. Bigger systems like x86 just tend to push the cache coherency out even to IO devices. ARM-A class SoCs are that sweet spot of a ton of caches between the CPU and main memory, but simple enough peripherals and fabric that only the CPU cores are coherent.
50ms doesn't sound especially fast. If you had a million of them to process thats 4 hours, maybe an hour with some parallelism? A 100x speedup from going native then becomes quite welcome. Python has its place, but the fact you even think the tens of ms domain is "fast" or even fast enough on modern CPUs shows the real strength of Python, which is most people dont actually care at all about performance. Thats not to say its performant though. Just that no one cares anymore. Some rando boss is happy to wait 4 hours for your script to chug through a million statements, because no one actually told them it can take 2.5 minutes in a native language. If they did maybe the boss would suddenly speak about their dream to not only process the data but have a near real-time BI panel instead of a batch report so they can react within one business day. The issue with Python is missed value, not the value it can deliver.
I wouldn’t be that sure about the price being good, if we’re talking about specialty coffee, which is a totally different kind of beast than the supermarket coffee.

It’s almost a half a year old coffee (time since roast), a great part of the flavor has been already lost. We also don’t know how it has been stored, temperature will also affect the quality.

here’s a very deeply technical explanation of this, right from the source (SCA):
https://sca.coffee/sca-news/podcast/81/the-science-of-coffee...

just a small part:
“A lot of volatile compounds that escape from coffee after roasting is about 1000 compounds identified in coffee and out of those, 50 compounds are important for the aroma of coffee.

[…]

So, when we look after one month some of the compounds like this one Methanethiol ends up at less than 10% of what we had in the fresh coffee, but also others they behave very differently. This is means that the relative composition of the coffee changes with time. ”

there’s a lot more fun stuff in there for the coffee enthusiasts.
Cloudynights.com would be the place to ask.
I have never participated in Tarot in professional setting so I cannot answer why others do it. I probably would not do it if I had to pay somebody for it.

I have done psychotheraphy though and it was not very useful beyond having somebody listen to you attentively.

In my very limited experience Tarot was more useful and cheaper — hence poor man’s psychotheraphy.
Shellcaster: Terminal-based podcast manager built in Rust
Dereferencing isn't the only way to touch a pointer:

func (o *myObject) isNil() bool {
return o == nil
}
I think if any large player in the market or the entire market acts in any sort of trivially predictable way then you can extract money from it by manipulating it.
I went to check it out and first thing was asked to open an account. No screenshots, no guest login, just straight to open account. No way to check it out first.
I agree that structs should enforce using all fields or have provided some defaults at declaration, a result type would be nice, FFI is much harder than most other PLs I’ve worked with, and if your use case is a bad case for the GC, you’re in trouble.

At the same time, I really like go. No other AOT-compiled language I know of makes concurrency so easy: `go foo()`. It’s wonderfully simple and I love that using the language doesn’t cram my working memory. It feels like all the space is there for my problem. It isn’t the right tool for some jobs, and of course, you’re perfectly entitled to your opinion. But I think it’s a welcome tool in the toolbox.

I recently had to implement Raft in Go, and I don’t know of a better language for that. Feel free to inform me otherwise. The race condition checker, RPC libs, and simple concurrency let me focus on the algorithm implementation. The iteration speeds for me were super fast too since Go keeps compile times snappy.

These are all useful tradeoffs for me to keep in mind when deciding the right tool for the job. I wouldn’t consider these “lies” personally, but maybe I do have the wool pulled over my eyes :)
Shouldn't all studied publish their results, regardless of followup studies? Also, assuming they don't already have funding for the larger study, it seems they would need to publish in order to garner attention from the study to secure the future funding.
You seem to favor human brain cycles over CPU cycles. Conversely, time spent on memory management and pointer arithmetic is time that could’ve been used to add value to the world.
Other reason to move them outside of the function: you might want to prepare them in memory in a way that could speed up the comparison further, which would only need to be done once, not each time the function is called. For example, using AVX_512:

uint64_t protos[8] = {
string_to_uint64("https\0\0\0"),
string_to_uint64("http\0\0\0\0"),
string_to_uint64("file\0\0\0\0"),
string_to_uint64("ftp\0\0\0\0\0"),
string_to_uint64("wss\0\0\0\0\0"),
string_to_uint64("ws\0\0\0\0\0\0"),
0,
0
};

bool maybe_faster_is_special(std::string_view input, uint64_t protos[8]) {
__m512i vprotos = __mm512_load_epi64(&protos[0]);
__m512i vinput = __mm512_broadcastq_epi64(string_to_uint64(input));
__mmask8 comparisons = __mm512_cmpeq_epi64_mask(vinput, vprotos);
return (bool)(!_cvtmask8_u32(comparisons));
}
A little funny to not link to the comment that had the answer — they're dowel bar retrofits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowel_bar_retrofit
To the second point: I think the issue is that you don't want to handle the errors in a function, but just propagate it, you still need to write error handling code, whereas in languages with exceptions you can just not do anything and let the exception propagate. Hence, the extra verbosity. Not checking for error is not an option in go.
Googled the link, posted a little too quickly. Fixed it up.
I was stuck in San Diego from Monday afternoon to early this morning because of these delays. Would you like me to become one more transient?
as far as I'm aware, you wouldn't get more with premium - kagi doesn't return as many search results as competitors

From their FAQ:

> We believe the name of the game in search is quality, not quantity. Search engine's job is to provide the best answer fast and within the reach of one or two pages of results. If the user needs to go to page 17 to find what they were looking for, we would have failed anyway.
Did you read the whole comment you replied to? If you have a way to send someone post-its in an email that they can attach to their screen, please share.
That is an interesting idea. If you made it a writing application and sold it for $10 on the Mac app store instead of a hosted app, then that would be awesome.
I'm C#/Java dev who works with Python and ML devs. I'm amazed how fast they can put things together and solve problems. We've embedded Jupyter to our product recently, and what I can tell, that's the way. Even the integration team started to use it to glue things together. I'm becoming a huge fan, it does the job.
> That's exactly what it is not. The sedatives relieve pain, they shorten the patient's life as a side effect. An easy way to see is, imagine if the painkillers killed the pain, but the patient miraculously didn't die. Would you be happy? Of course. Both of you, generally.

Let's set aside that neither the patient and the doctor would be happy about this at all, since the patient would still be in pain after the painkillers wear off, and the doctor would have failed to achieve the actual purpose of the procedure, which is to kill the patient. Sure, they're both happy about their shared failure because, I don't know, baby Jesus is smiling at them from the heavens or something, whatever.

So you're saying that, by applying terminal sedation, whose only possible outcome both in theory and in practice is the death of the person, the actual objective is to relieve the pain without causing the death of the person? The obvious conclusion of taking this absurd argument seriously is that every single doctor who applies terminal sedation is committing medical malpractice, because apparently they're all too stupid to not kill the person, as this procedure, according to you, does not actually intend to.

Please think about the bullshit you spew for a second before you press send. It's embarrassing.

> So no, I can't promise them that they'll find out why life is worth living. But I can promise them a nonzero chance that they someday will. And if that chance isn't enough to make them stop actively seeking to end it, I honestly think they're not thinking straight.

Wow. So everyone who doesn't agree with your blatantly pro-continued-suffering agenda is "not thinking straight", and therefore you get to force them to continue suffering, actively taking their agency from them, because... maybe magic? Hey, who knows, your suffering might miraculously vanish tomorrow, so suck it up, buttercup. Life is good, baby! Life is good! Except, well, for you it isn't, but why would I let reality get in the way of my pro-forced-misery ideology? And maybe, most likely, almost surely, this miracle will never happen. But what do I care? You're the one suffering, and I'm just grandstanding about borrowing books from fancy doctors on the internet. All's good on my end, anyway.

Truly spoken like an entitled know-it-all who has never suffered for a single second of their life. Embarrassing and shameful. All of those debates with so many doctors over so many years, and you still haven't figured out that the topic requires empathy for other human beings.

> The right to conscientious objection is certainly important, but I really can't entrust it to people who don't understand the difference between "accepting an outcome" and "seeking an outcome as a means to an end". You won't let us keep it for long.

Don't have the fucking nerve to tell me that I won't let you keep your rights for long. You're the one openly advocating against other people's right to end their suffering, their rights over their own minds and bodies, with no real basis except magical thinking and abysmal misunderstandings of law and medicine. Have some fucking respect.
This idea that the price per transistor gets higher after 28nm needs to die. Right now the cheapest node for logic dominated chips is N6 (an optical shrink of N7). And even then, N5 is still cheaper than N10.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/tsmcs-wafer-prices-reveale...
You, above:

>> Basically it’s hard to be fully precise, (...)

> Not really. Just put together a benchmark and let it speak for itself.

You seem a little bit split on this one :) Yes, creating a fair benchmark is hard. Yes, it's hard to get other people to evaluate their things using your benchmark. Yes, it's hard to do an apples-to-apples comparison.
I'm very confused by your numbers here. Are you sure you haven't counted something twice?

Let's say you're moving 10,000 units per month.

You buy the stock for $50,000, get it delivered for $2,000 and store it for $1,000 - so you had to get an investment of $53,000 to set the business up.

You sell the stock for $200,000.

Making those sales, you spend $30,000 on shipping, $20,000 on credit card fees, and $40,000 on sales tax (assuming your "taxes means you net $6" means your country has a 20% sales tax which you included in your $20 selling price)

At the end of the month you owe your investors $53,000 and you've got $110,000 of cash. You've basically doubled the initial investment in a month? That doesn't sound unprofitable to me, that sounds incredibly profitable.
Amen. Mild weather + usually gray > extreme weather + usually sunny. Though I'd never fault someone for making different decisions.

The fire season of the past few years are changing the equation for me though...
That's a cool site. I like the use of iframes.
As someone with ADD I really prefer not to have to bounce through my email client to login. (I prefer passwords to other current options)

Webauthn looks great though, really looking forward to that taking off
Hmm, the binoculars cost $800. For that amount, you could buy a budget APS-C or micro four thirds body with IBIS and pair it with a vintage telephoto prime if you wanted to do some image-stabilized photography. Obviously, this combo would be less portable and less suitable for just looking at stuff.