skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> If the new code caused the old code to produce different outputs for the new result, it would show somewhere. At least it did when I was doing computational astrophysics in academia.

For libraries others use, sure.

For mere code bases that stay in one professor's team and have been there for 20+ years - not really. As an example, I know one computational group where it often took several hours (possibly days) to generate a single data point in the curve they were trying to produce. None of that team's grad students was willing to waste computational resources to see if their code changes would break prior data points.
Bump allocators are incredibly fast, and are super efficient in generational GCs where compaction is super cheap, however almost all (maybe all) modern languages don't usually cross kernel boundaries when allocating memory, including C++ malloc.
Its sad, but it sounds like you have had bad managers.

I myself am a mid-level manager. I have 1x1s with my employees. I also have 1x1 with my manager (the CTO).

I personally look forward to my 1x1 with my manager, the CTO, each week. I find them very useful. Without them we always meet in the context of other projects and often around other people. Having dedicated time to talk one-on-one is very nice.

I know that my employees enjoy one-on-ones with me, because by default I generally only schedule them biweekly (every-other-week). But many of my employees go over on time each meeting and many of them request meeting weekly.

We discuss goals, difficulties, challenges, successes, and often even personal things (only when provoked by the employee, I never ask personal questions or personal topics myself). The 1 on 1 meetings are the best true barometer for how an employee is doing. Some employees might be overwhelmed, but don't show it in other meetings. 1 on 1 meetings give me an idea for how they are truly feeling. I might even invite them for time off (we have unlimited PTO) when hearing things in 1x1s.

A bad manager might make 1x1s worthless. If that's the case you should look at other teams or companies. Life is too short to work under bad managers.
Performance and GC is a tricky topic, partly because there's not so many GCd languages explicitly designed for performance above usability (maybe D would count? maybe Go?). GC is normally chosen for usability reasons, and then the language has other usability features that reduce performance and it gets difficult to disentangle them. Immutability is a common problem. GC makes allocating lots of objects easy, so people make immutable types (e.g. Java's String type) and that forces you to allocate lots of objects, which causes lots of cache misses as the young gen pointer constantly moves forwards, and that slows everything down whereas a C++ dev might shorten a string by just inserting a NULL byte into the middle of it. Functional programming patterns are a common culprit because of their emphasis on immutability. You bleed performance in ways that don't show up on profiles because they're smeared out all over the program.

Another complication is that people talk about the performance of languages, when often it's about the performance of an implementation. The most stunning example of this is TruffleRuby in which the GraalVM EE Ruby runtime often runs 50x faster or more than standard Ruby. Language design matters a lot, but how smart your runtime is matters a lot too.

A final problem is that many people associate GC with scripting languages like Python, JavaScript, Ruby, PHP etc and they often have poor or non-existent support for multi-threading. So then it's hard to get good performance on modern hardware of course and that gets generalized to all GC languages.
> But if there's a GC, you don't have to think about it. And the GC can choose a "good time" to do it's bookkeeping in bulk, rather than making all of your concurrent accesses pay a price. So, if done properly, it's an overall performance win.

In many environments, you can explicitly force a GC collection from application code. I've got a few situations where explicitly running GC helps reduce latency/jitter, since I can decide precisely where and how often it occurs.

In my environment, calling GC.Collect more frequently than the underlying runtime typically will result in the runtime-induced collections taking less time (and occurring less frequently). But, there is a tradeoff in that you are stopping the overall world more frequently (i.e. every frame or simulation tick) and theoretical max throughput drops off as a result.

Batching is the best way to do GC, but it is sometimes catastrophic for the UX.
you say corruption, we say accent
Is gangs shooting each other, (usually family) homicides and school shootings not big enough problems? Because we have plenty of countries with similar social problems, yet they have much much lower deaths per capita, so it is safe to conclude that guns are a problem. (Nonetheless, I won’t pretend to know a solution, the car is out of the bag and the US is not easily fixable. But stricter gun control is definitely a good way ahead)
I've worked in small molecule drug discovery for about 25 years and have only used one Fortran program directly, DGEOM95. And that was in the late 1990s.

Otherwise, it's mostly C, C++, and Python, with a smattering of other languages, at least in the areas I work in.

Back in the mid-1990s, we decided to use C++ for NAMD because none of us knew FORTRAN that well, it was a greenfield project, and the previous in-house MD codes were in C.
Yeah. I don't play therapist. I just offer to give advice from time to time. I know where to point people. Knowing where to start or what the options are is invaluable.

If someone really needs help, the most I'll do is spend 15 minutes showing them how to find a suitable professional.
> In the US, mass shooters have killed a dozen or more victims in a minute or two. Very hard to achieve with anything else short of explosives.

That is absolutely not true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack

86 dead, 458 injured.
That's really good, thanks. Better than my blog, actually - the author has a much deeper understanding and I learned a lot by reading it. I was coming at it from the perspective of someone very confused by Arrow, and wrote the blog to help myself understand it!
FWIW I love the name Pirate Weather. Thanks for the work!
On a number of occasions that I was asked this question, I replied with a question of my own: "where _can_ I be in X years in this company?" Unfortunately, I never received a reply even remotely close to a satisfactory. Satisfactory answers would include opportunities and directions, with big bonus points for an attempt to find overlaps with my general desires, motivation, and strengths.
A better comparison might be:

I am not going to build a chainsaw, regardless of whether someone else could commit a stabbing.
> Photographs of paintings have copyrights that belong to the photographer.

This is highly dependent of the country that you are in. In the case of the US, the courts have ruled that a faithful reproduction (eg photograph) is not original enough to merit a separate copyright (see my like to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corporation above).

Additionally, the post is not saying that you are required to use the exact photo found in the out of copyright book, but rather that you are required to find a photo (any photo) of the same painting in an out of copyright book.
Ah yes, nobody uses Julia in production... except these companies https://juliahub.com/case-studies/ and many more—it's impossible to keep up. It's 2023, Julia was #21 on the TIOBE index at some point last year. Claiming that nobody uses Julia in production at this point is getting to be rather silly.
But with enough cars, theoretically it’s possible that you’d never reach your destination, run out of fuel, stop suddenly and get hit from behind…
The PSP screen was 480x272 pixel, the Xbox 360 was a 720p/1080p machine, assets alone would have been significantly bigger than the PSP's, which is more burden on the NAND and on the CPU for decompression
Tangentially related to melanoma.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/moderna-says-pers...

> Moderna says personalized mRNA cancer vaccine is effective for advanced melanoma

> The company said that in a phase 2 clinical trial, the vaccine, when combined with immunotherapy drug Keytruda, reduced the risk of recurrence by 44%.
> Please provide some actual data proving these cars are safer than average. Tesla certainly hasn't been able to.

But... they have. That's exactly the link we're discussing. You don't want that to be true, so you're digging around trying to pretend via a flood of bad evidence that they're somehow "lying" in that data.

But... what if they aren't? Again, three million cars are an awfully big signal to try to spin. Isn't the Occam's Razor interpretation (also jives with my personal experience with the product, FWIW) that... they're safe?
Very interesting. Like many other forum readers here, I wonder if the game would have seen more success if it was programmed using a commercially available engine, or even manually using C / C++. Despite outcries of the opposite opinion, the technology absolutely influences the effectiveness of the product. (See: Rollercoaster Tycoon and its immense legacy)
For as well-funded startup as Neeva with long term Google Search execs at helm, they seem to have their heads turned at every passing fad. Not long ago were they raising money for their spin-off web3 search engine n.xyz and now this (admittedly, AI is much closer to their core biz). Wouldn't you be surprised if they entered the RISC V market, too?
Congrats Zoom! You are now a platform. Take a close look at the EU DMA legislation. :)
It makes it clear that the main fault lies with managers. ;)
A lot (most?) classic toaster ovens don't have a circulating fan built in. The fan makes a big difference in cook time and crispyness.
DCI-P3 (barely) covers amber (P3), but not the green one (P1). It does cover P2, which is also green and is a more gentle green. I think it was used more for oscilloscopes than monochrome monitors.
That happened to me with Amazon and Microsoft. I asked Amazon to never email me again, and then I get a "got it, removing you from our list", and then the same recruiter emailed me saying I was a perfect fit.
I'd throw Fidelity into that category but I don't know the assets under mgmgt., Just they are huge, private, and more and more offer retail like online banking with some physical locations that are more investment-advisor oriented.
I agree that you should choose family, but I disagree that it’s nonsense. It’s a simple tradeoff of money/success versus what actually matters. Assuming there isn’t some win-win compromise being overlooked.

Usually there’s no free lunch. But focus on the important stuff in life, you’ll be happier and have fewer regrets.
Well, there's still truth to it in other cases, I think. One terrible thing GCs can do is make your performance unpredictable. In some performance-sensitive situations (eg: video games), your worst-case perf is more important than your average case. Adding a GC can mess with that worst-case behavior, and in unpredictable ways.

That being said, modern GCs are much better (less "stop the world" stuff), and more configurable. But it's still a real concern.
Hi. Tim here.

I find the "it's just Japanese culture" explanations to be weak sauce. Examining the market and political forces at play will usually get you closer to the truth.

The fact is, Japanese companies have taken big, creative, successful risks in many industries. If you look at the developers who work in console gaming, they find ways to push those machines far beyond what they were designed to do. If you've been in Japan for a while, I'm sure you've seen the amazing levels of creativity that exist here in both engineering and the arts.

It's not that Japanese are more risk-averse than Americans. It's that the risk-reward equation is different in Japan. On average, people are behaving rationally in both places.

If you want to change the "culture", change the risk-reward balance. That's why I find it more productive to look at market forces and game theory than attribute things to "Japanese culture:".
RetroPie running as a Docker container on x86_64
Blind man says he can't see something... and we are supposed to think it's not there? You don't realize this isn't an obvious parallel to your argument? So much for perception
Fun to see schafmeister lab is still on CLASP.

Thanks for the review, I stopped scanning the CL world but often at work I miss this crowd.
I don’t mean this in a flamey way, but I’ve always wondered what the importance of clipboard isolation is, given how bad of a user experience it results in.

I’m a security engineer, and I can’t think of many threat models in which an attacker can snoop clipboard contents but can’t do much worse things, which I assume is why neither macOS nor Windows has ever bothered with clipboard isolation.

(It’s entirely possible I’m under-thinking it!)
Whether it could, in theory, be done better locally, then at the very least you'd need to plan for that. You can't just turn off the Social Security Administration, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Homeland Security etc and assume that the states will pick up those jobs tomorrow.

We could have a decent argument about which jobs are better handled by a federal government and which aren't. The notion that the federal government isn't actually doing anything and could just vanish tomorrow is absurd and not worth discussing.
It's good to know how different areas of the company, but that's taking it to the extreme!
That's not good for Google though. They have an incentive to not allow fingerprinting, both because it's illegal so they don't do it, and also because most people are logged into Chrome so they don't need to do it.
Microsoft ends Windows 7 extended security updates today, January 10
That's an interesting idea, but a lot of people in the profession would reject a move like that, as it would put downward pressure on their earnings (amongst other things):

> BMA meeting: Doctors vote to limit number of medical students (Andrew Cole)

> Delegates at the annual BMA conference voted by a narrow majority to restrict the number of places at medical schools to avoid “overproduction of doctors with limited career
opportunities.” They also agreed on a complete ban on opening new medical schools.

> David Sochart, from Manchester and Salford, warned that in the current job climate allowing too many new doctors into the market would risk devaluing the profession and make newly
qualified doctors prey to “unscrupulous profiteers.” A glut of doctors would undermine competition and would therefore lower standards and ensure mediocrity, he claimed.
He said, “Patients and health care should not be treated as mere commodities, and neither should medical students. We must not allow another lost tribe of doctors to be consigned to the wilderness.”

> Grant Ingrams, representing GPs, said that doctors should not be trained if there was no job at the end. He warned that this could spark another “brain drain,” adding: “It is wrong and immoral and a waste of taxpayers’ and students’ money.”

> But Paul Flynn from the consultants committee said that the root problem was a lack of effective workforce planning and warned members against a kneejerk response. “This is what
blighted workforce planning. It would be hypocritical if we were to do it ourselves.”

> The BMA’s chairman, Hamish Meldrum, said he sympathised with the sentiments of the motion but asked members to vote on evidence rather than “gut reactions.”
“We want to see an expansion of [the numbers of] GPs and consultants,” he said, “and for that we need more students.” But the motion was passed by a small majority (58% versus 42%).

> Members also agreed to a motion accepting that some specialties might need to raise the total number of years spent in training to accommodate the demands of the European Working Time Directive.

> Stephen Austin, from the consultants committee, said that the time needed to acquire the necessary competences was likely to increase—especially in procedure based specialties—and that the only sensible solution was to increase the total amount of time in training.

> Members also voted to press for an agreed minimum national level of funding for study leave to overcome the widespread national variation in the amounts that are currently available.

https://www.proquest.com/openview/b0c6c69bed2854a96acfd2889d...

From 2008, but I haven't been able to find any publicly-available discussion from within the medical profession that's more recent.
Perhaps it's just a vocal minority, but I see a lot of backlash against anything that smells like large-scale, top-down, enterprise design. People see a concept implemented badly, so they get it in their heads that the original concept was worthless. This is one major underlying force for things like the NoSQL movement and other cyclic fads.

What HN discussions have I been reading? Let's look back:

"Abstraction is Expensive" [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33895178]

> I wish it was a meme [to hate abstraction]. The things people complained about decades ago are still happening today, and the practitioners are all too eager to turn a 100 line program into a 1000 line one, while taking weeks to test if it does what it should. The average loud dev is a GoF fanatic in love with inaccessible reflection.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33897735

> I’ve found this “come correct” mindset is used to justify unnecessarily flexible solutions to allow for easier changes in the future … changes that 90% of the time, never actually materialize.

> [a response:] In other words, when the basic assumptions of that fancy abstraction are just not workable with the future requirements, you're hosed. Worse, now you might need to refactor a lot of code building on this abstraction.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33686475

> This view follows quite naturally from another aspect of modern programming thinking (and education), which claims many problems are gross and complex, and thus we need abstraction to make them appear simpler.

From an article that hit the front-page of HN, although this is a little unfair, because this guy is a raging asshole.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33379079

> The Gang of Four on the other hand was an unfortunate turn for the industry. As you say we took it too seriously. In practice very few projects can benefit from the "Factory pattern"

Someone claiming passing a function that takes 0 arguments and returns 1 is too enterprisey and "very few projects" can benefit from it. Passing functions around is an absolutely essential feature for a programming language, and I can't imagine how you could develop good abstractions (or good code at all) without it. And yes, I've worked in a lot of languages that don't support first-class functions; that's how I came to the conclusion that it's absolutely essential.

This also illustrates my point about how something can be done badly (factory pattern) and it poisons the well for the concept (passing a function).

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33406880

> ignoring the architectural realities of the hardware is ignoring one of your responsibilities as an engineer to deliver performant software. Now, it's possible to argue that writing performant software is not important ...

The argument in question here is whether every programmer should always know which processor cache every variable they use lives in at all times. I think it's pretty clear this is completely incompatible with even the barest form of abstraction.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33154568
Or poison. Or vehicles. Or hacking safety devices (e.g. traffic lights). Or on and on.
Here's the real reason: they are all copying code from each other. Tons of tons of code. Literally all climate global circulation models share a lot of code.

If the author had actually seen how crap the climate models look, maybe he'll realize the argument is actually backwards and climate models are bad.

I've tried code reviewing some of these models just to get an idea of how reliable they are. My mind was blown by the extremely poor quality of the code combined with literally no redundancy between different models in some parts. If some code written in 1990 just made a slight mistake, nearly all climate models would have the same bias.

And I did find some distributing surface level inaccuracies, such as constants being taken from very old inaccurate measurements in the 1980s physics books (at least according to the comment), some constants being very low precision compared to the accuracy required (some constants with only 2 decimals of precision), and some things that aren't constant at all and should depend on temperature/pressure/CO2 levels/height.

And these are important in a system that actually spends huge efforts to model factors with much weaker impact.
> the new content

Ah, yes, the advertisements, masked with the veneer of pointless avatars and a nearly-useless Facebook app. My first time having ads funneled natively through a device I had purchased.

Now advertisements in the dashboard are the status quo for Xbox and Sony, so I guess they were ahead of the curve there.
I cannot load the apis page right now. Is this just current weather data or do you offer historical weather data too?
It’s also a proxy to let Conservative voters, who have kept this government in power for a decade, off the hook. This didn’t happen by accident.

IMO voters should be able to hold each other for their choices.
This is interesting because I recently bought an Apple TV and noticed that the Spotify app on Apple TV does NOT support on-screen lyrics (which the Spotify app on FireTV does support)

Wonder if it's related? Could Apple have blocked Spotify from adding on-screen lyrics?
Here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia

I'd refer you to their web site, but they don't appear to have one.
God forbid anyone wants to have a local network IoT dashboard or something eh?
"What's the half-life of a proton?"

NeevaAI:

>The half life of a proton is at least 1.67x1034 years. Recent developments of grand unification models have suggested that it might decay with a half-life of about 1032 years.

Note that the lack of exponents are reproduced from the original. Neeva says 1032 years, not 10^32 years. The linked source for 1032 displays the 32 as a proper exponent, but Neeva seems to strip this critical formatting.
I know literally nothing about weather data standardization, but if the format was — for the sake of argument — unique to the US for example and another more popular format was used either internationally or de-facto by third parties, I’d say it qualifies as a “custom” format.
> Most tools allow you to jump down to low level stuff

Eeehhh, kinda. Sure, a compiler will let you just write some assembly by hand, but it won't let you write a optimization step, or even directly configure it. You have to tweak your code or the compiler flag to give the right hints so the compiler generates the binary code you want. Doesn't look much different than a query planner.
> But how do you use that to cause actual harm?

It is very easy to use it to harm OpenAI, and that is enough for OpenAI to wish to constrain it. You cause it to write something objectionable and then publish it to reap all the attention and ad-revenue which goes with people being outraged. Best if you manage to provoke into outrage inducing output without your prompt itself being outrageous, but not strictly necessary. During this OpenAI’s reputation would be harmed.

This is not even hypothetical. There was that microsoft chatbot which “turned nazi”.[1] They then had to turn it off.

Did it do many other interesting things? Probably. Yet the few problematic outputs is what we remember it by.

1: https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/24/11297050/tay-microsoft-ch...