skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm not a huge fan of this post - I feel like it adds to the confusion where it tries to enlighten.

First, a pedantic point - a proper pure functional language will not have "side effects", it will have "effects" (either through algebraic effects or through monads or something) - nothing "side" about them. Side effects are effects that happen in addition to the main value of doing something (this medicine has side effects). Effects are just things that you want to happen in the world, and many functional languages reason about them as first class objects instead of implicit behaviors. That is, a function has an IO effect or returns a value in the IO monad instead of being a C function that can arbitrarily write to the file system.

Second, the main point of the post seems to be that functional programming will not make concurrency happening outside of the language (say, when talking to databases) safe, but that's a pretty simple point that's not stated as clearly as it could be.

Hopefully I'm not being too harsh - I might have misunderstood something, and the core point that functional programming doesn't magically fix everything is true - but it's that very confusion that I think makes this post unhelpful.
You can get it to ask more questions…
Looks like the official discord community (now formerly official I guess) is pushing airframes.io
Interesting , article is about blog post, About how AI can be used to write Polymorphic malware. (writen also by AI).

What are they trying to prove?
Humans and wild apes share common language
> Why are you saying these are the wrong incentives? If these corporations are failing and making bad decisions that result in more competition

These execs who make these decisions know the consequences. But they are forced to do those due to shareholder pressure to keep the stock prices !rising!. Not even stable - the current economic culture wants the stocks rising, and rising fast. Its a 'growth at all costs' culture.

> which eventually brings them down, isn’t that “creative destruction”

That is not the good thing that people think it to be. The optimal route would be to have these corporations keep their core activity and excel at it so that other parts of the economy could build other things on those foundations. Instead the current economic system betrays itself by destroying what is already successful for profit, causing a period of instability in the market and in that given sector, creating problems for the users and hampering the progress of technology. Its 'great' for shareholders, its bad for society.

Actually its bad for the shareholders too. They hoard a lot of wealth, but that wealth comes at the expense of the technological progress that could have happened without that destructive profit maximization - like reversing aging, medical advances, flying cars and so on...

> that should be managed

It should be managed. Destroying entire large organizations that render a fundamental service to the market and the society is not a good thing. Those organizations should also be regulated since they became the frameworks for a lot of things in the society. Technological development and progress should not be 3 steps forward, then 2 steps back. It should be a step forward at every given moment.
Probably like a lot of other hunter gatherer groups, worked with 10 numbers at most- what they could count on their fingers.
You can still use React or whatever on those pages. And for the rest (settings pages, signup pages and all the CRUD pages) you can use standard Rails with Hotwire.
> This may be true of the code-to-db type of mapping (where your table definitions are in code and then used to forward-generate the actual database tables) but there is also the possibility of generating an ORM from your database and its relations. I think the real benefit of an ORM is that it's reducing the amount of boilerplate code needed to be manually written in a project.

I agree with this, but when people think of an ORM they aren't thinking of sqlc, which I quite like.

The most-used ORMs perform square-peg-round-hole hammering to save the developer doing anything in SQL, they aren't simply saving the effort of writing the boilerplate (like sqlc).
Streisand...
> You interact with APIs. You don't have to install a database or another daemon to your local computer.

How about the people writing the APIs?, or the ones writing the servers?, or the os, or database, etc?

> This has never happened

In your case, use a bit of imagination.

> All the dev stacks has something like package.json

That is a very broad statement and in my experience, no.
Taobao is a direct influence whereas Amazon is an indirect influence through the sellers importing things from China to sell on Amazon.
I've always felt weird about combining the two. Eventually found Raivo and have been pretty happy with that over something like Authy.
I have a suspicion you’re right about what ChatGPT could write about this scenario, but I wager we’re still a long way from an AI that could actually operationalize whatever suggestions it might come up with.

It’s goalpost shifting to be sure, but I’d say LLMs call into question whether the Turing Test is actually a good test for artificial intelligence. I’m just not convinced that even a language model capable of chain-of-thought reasoning could straightforwardly be generalized to an agent that could act “intelligently” in the real world.

None of which is to say LLMs aren’t useful now (they clearly are, and I think more and more real world use cases will shake out in the next year or so), but that they appear like a bit of a trick, rather than any fundamental progress towards a true reasoning intelligence.

Who knows though, perhaps that appearance will persist right up until the day an AGI takes over the world.
I don't think Amazon has an impact in China, they already have many online marketplaces, and it predates Amazon doing business in China
The definition of premium shifts with the market. Subaru is premium auto in Colombia and they sell the XV instead of the Crosstrek, for example.
The premise of the article, about being the "oncall" having to answer all kind of queries sounds sooo boring.

But instead of using gpt, isn't something like Looker or similar tools the solution? Make some common views over tables, allow people to filter and make the reports they want.
Ask HN: How to handle financial calculations precisely?
I am talking of a Java world, but this extends to any language I think.

Basically the problem is the following: given a set of (positive) floating point numbers, which sum up to x, how do I rescale them in the range [0, 1] so that this new set, when multiplied with x, gives the original set, up to the second decimal place? The max x I expect to encounter is probably in the order of 10000000000, just to be sure.

I've run a quick property based test, and the results are precise only if I use BigDecimal with a MathContext with precision of 8, rounding half up.

Is there some mathematical proof of how much precision I need for this problem?

Edit: sorry the precision was 14, 8 was for a later test with smaller amounts
Piranesi by Susanna Clarke is excellent
That's about $100k salary. You can hire a rock solid data analyst at that price probably anywhere in the US. I know a couple talented analysts making ~$110k in NYC.
Not that I know of. Which is to say, I have in the past considered writing a tool to periodically (nightly?) grab my browser history, scrape as much of it as possible, and dump all the html into a directory somewhere where I could invoke ripgrep on it. >_>
I did a roundtrip to the password security rabbithole since the LastPass incident and my conclusion is there's virtually no way to have something truly safe - you can have a lot of layers to protect your accounts, but there's always a weak spot somewhere. Plus the more layers you add, the harder it is for you to use...

Sure you can have a yubikey for your 2FA, but then you need a backup in case you loose it or break it, and you need to store that backup somewhere (physically or virtually), and you need to trust / secure that location, or encrypt the data, but then you need another secret to decrypt it, and you need a backup of that too, and so on.

I don't see any way to break that Russian Doll effect. Any suggestions?
Perhaps they like the job.
It's not idiomatic. No one actually says that.
NYSE Forgot to Open Yesterday
To me, "clothing" fits better when it's abstract, bulk, or industrial, "clothes" when it's personal and specific, with grey areas where either's about as good—"I washed my clothes", "I washed my clothing", though even here I think "clothes" works a little better. Meanwhile, "clothing factory" or "clothing retailer" are perfectly natural, even if "clothes" would also be OK there.

"I put on my clothing" reads a bit like when business-jargon sneaks into everyday language, like when someone says they "utilized" something (where the situation doesn't technically call for that word, in its traditional sense). It gets the point across but seems a bit off.

... oh shit, I think I just figured out the general guideline: "clothing" feels more correct when it's a supporting part of a noun phrase, not the primary part of a subject or object. "Clothing factory" works well because "clothing" is just the kind of factory. "I put on my nicest clothes" reads better than "I put on my nicest clothing" because clothes/clothing itself is the object.
>Picking a box isn't so hard

Though, frankly, Amazon often seems to do a terrible job of optimizing packing--both over and under. I'm guessing that within some range of the right size and some range of not having too much breakage, it's cheaper for them to half-ass it to some degree.
No. There is no distraction premise going on. It's simple authoritarianism (but people would rather believe it's something else, because of what that implies).
Seems we're approaching limits of what is possible w/AI alone. Personally, I find a hybrid approach - interfacing human intelligence w/AI (e.g. like the Borg in ST:TNG?) to provide the military an edge in ways that adversaries cannot easily/quickly reproduce or defeat. There's a reason we still put humans in cockpits even though commercial airliners can pretty much fly themselves....

Hardware and software (AI or anything else) are tools, IMHO, rather than replacements for human beings....
From a VC’s point of view startup VPs are disposable peasants too. And to a pension fund, VCs are disposable peasants. As someone choosing which pension fund to invest in, I’m going to chase the best return, so they’re disposable peasants to me and we’ve gone full circle. Of course there’s a name for this: a market. When the pie is growing, it’s not so bad :)
> "Sometimes the feedback involves making a minor tweak on every Worksheet."

Could be a good task for PowerShell and the ImportExcel module[1].

(PowerShell also being a .NET language and written in C#; it has convenient access to COM control of Excel if you can't import the spreadsheet and export an updated version; through $xl = New-Object -ComObject Excel.Application )

[1] https://github.com/dfinke/ImportExcel
... and yet in this article, the author beats by 10x a C compiled code with hand tuned assembly. (By using SIMD and unrolling, which the compiler did not. Granted linear compiler code is faster than hand made linear assembly)
conflating FP with immutable data structures or with referential transparency and then bashing FP seems pointless.

No one says FP is panacea. Why are you refuting words you put into imaginary novices mouths. Engage with good ideas instead of shooting down bad ideas no one holds.

> what I call FPF ... emanates from people who’ve recently discovered FP ... and have yet to realize that — like all programming innovations since the 1940s — it doesn’t actually solve all the problems for us.
Well, yeah, you can do this in pretty much any language that has delineated scopes like that.

Of course, blocks-are-expressions is necessary if you want to return the result of your computations from the block and store it in a variable outside the block. (You can of course declare the storage variable outside the block and assign to it inside, but that's less nice.)

GNU C even has an extension called "statement expressions" where blocks can return values; the syntax looks like this:

int foo = ({
int bar = 4 * 3;
bar;
});

Clang implements it in addition to GCC, as do a few other compilers. (Notably, IIRC, MSVC does not.)
>Regular contibutions to personal GitHub for a year,

But what you quoted is not what she wrote. What she wrote was

Some signals of persistence that I’ve seen:
* Daily contribution to GitHub for one whole year.
* Being good at anything that requires consistent effort,
e.g. a Kaggle master, a chess master, a professional athlete, etc.
* Having previously joined another early startup before and stuck around.

I get that the idea here is to look for positive signal but for someone
talking about daily github contributions her own https://github.com/chiphuyen?tab=repositories
falls a bit short. Not a good look.
The entirety of all the podcasts on iTunes/Apple Podcasts RSS feeds downloaded is around 200-250GB across the 2.5M+ pods. Hosting the RSS feed should be an easy task. Add in caching via ETag and server-side (host the feed as a static file, only re-render when user updates something), and your server load goes down drastically.

It gets a bit complex if your hosting company supports dynamic audio/ad insertion depending on how you accomplish that, but as far as retrieving the RSS XML feed, that has no impact.
The Forty Days of Musa Dagh (1933) is one of those. Supposedly was passed around Jewish ghettos during WW2.
This is a whole can of worms, and my response will be biased and untrustworthy, but here's my take:

In the early-to-mid 1990s, serious security research was intensely cliquish. There wasn't a norm of published vulnerability research; in fact, there was the opposite norm: CERT, the well-known public resource, diligently stripped details about vulnerabilities (beyond where to find the patches) out of announcements, and discussions about how vulnerabilities actually worked was relegated to "secret" lists like Core, which were of course ultimately leaked to became BBS tfiles.

Ranum came to prominence in that era. In the mid-to-late 1990s, after Bugtraq took over, there remained a sort of informal best friends club of, like, Ranum and Dan Farmer and Wietse Venema and like one or two young vulnerability researchers --- Elias "Aleph One" Levy, for instance. There was a sort of acceptance of the idea that Elias and Mudge were doing vulnerability research that was well-intentioned and OK... but that everyone else was just trading exploits on #hack.

There was a sort of focused beam of hatred on eEye, a security vendor that came to prominence in the early 2000s, and most especially during the "Summer of Worms", some of which worms were based on vulnerabilities that eEye's team --- at the time truly one of the most influential teams in all of vulnerability research --- had published. I worked at the industry's first commercial vulnerability research team and had a soft spot for eEye, which was doing the work we did but like several levels better than us, and it has always pissed me off how Ranum and Schneier tried to make hay by dunking on eEye and casting them as "hackers".

(Of course, if you tried to make that argument now you'd sound like a clown, so you won't see people like Ranum and Schneier saying that kind of stuff. But the fact is, the arguments were clownish and inappropriate back then, too.)

So, if you ask me, the argument Ranum is advancing is literally that public vulnerability research is bad, and that details of vulnerabilities should be kept between vendors and a few anointed 3rd party researchers. Because otherwise, you were just helping people break into computers.

The Ranum of 2005 is I think especially characteristic of what I'd call "moralizing" information security; that security is actually a fight between good and evil, that what's important about machines getting owned up is that somebody's livelihood depends on that machine running, and the hacking is a crime, and the details of how the hack worked are about as relevant as the details of how a burglar breaks into the window of a house they're burgling without setting off the alarms or whatever. I get it, but I'm from the opposing school of information security, which is that security is just a super interesting computer science problem.
Why would there be any expectation that a podcast distribution service should also serve as a private file archive? And why would podcast hosts even need to retrieve their own material?

If there are podcast hosts who don't hold onto their original audio files they had before uploading them, then what are they thinking? That's like sending a project to a client and then deleting your own copy of it.

I understand that the author tries to provide an "import from Apple Podcasts" service for convenience, but that's merely a convenience. It really shouldn't be too hard for a podcaster to just re-upload their original audio files and descriptions to a new service. Nobody's "locked in" to anything here as far as I can tell.
There is a third option: Redeploying existing talent to the new strategic objectives.

Especially in software, skills are pretty fungible, and most of the support organization's on-going requirements are likely to be highly agnostic of what, specifically, is being engineered.
I looked into it, and found that you can add these "OTHER_SWIFT_FLAGS" to your project:

OTHER_SWIFT_FLAGS = -Xfrontend -debug-time-expression-type-checking -Xfrontend -debug-time-function-bodies

There's also this great WWDC session on build parallelization:

https://developer.apple.com/wwdc22/110364
This seems to be a special case of a computational fabric.[1] If you reduce computation to the barest minimum, you get down to a cartesian grid of 4 input 4 output Look Up Tables (LUTs). If you clock them in alternating phases, like colors on a checkerboard, you avoid all race conditions, and get deterministic general purpose computing which can run this type of algorithm.

I was reading George Gilder back in the 1980s when that idea hit me, and its been in the back of my brain ever since.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabric_computing
I should have said that the token file is several kb in size, about 1/20 of my vault size, and of course random noise.

I am aware that future hardware or algorithms could bring down the cost of brute forcing it, thats why ive choose several kb size.
if SQL analyst is a product name, it is ok.
if SQL analyst is a person doing his/her work, it isn't ok.

You can't replace a barber with an electric shaver.
I don't think they'd necessarily have a base-20 system built into the language if they didn't work with numbers larger than 10.
I recently moved to the US. I hate tipping. At the same time I don't want to not tip when expected because I don't wanna become a pariah.

So, my approach is I don't go to places that expect tipping. If I go somewhere for the first time and I'm asked for a tip, I tip. And then I never go back there ever. Simple.

And I tell you what. If everyone did the same this is a problem that would solve itself.
Almost all the examples are women?
You can get improve the low hanging fruit through brute force ... but there is a lot of low hanging fruit.

Model architecture cleverness will eventually outpace more GPU time, but for now the roi on GPU time is higher than clever design.
More sun in the eyes helps
Monthly Energy Review
No instructions on how to connect to a BBS. If I type atdt into the app, I hear a dial tone! But if i type atdt 916-965-1701, it says ERROR. So what is the command to connect? 916-965-1701 is the phone number for bbs.fozztexx.com

EDIT: instructions are here https://muffinterm.app/manual/connecting
> There's a metric crap ton of money going into the research of new antibiotics

It's getting more attention, but its been faltering for a long time.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/antibi...

> Venture capitalists are investing far less funds to develop new antibiotics than they are for oncology drugs, according to a new report that highlights the need for more financial incentives to fight off the growing threat of drug-resistant bacteria.

> The report, published Monday by the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, found that investors are increasingly shying away from antibiotic research due in part to large companies exiting the space. That’s left small companies, that typically rely on investment capital, struggling to carry out new clinical trials.

> Newer antibiotics are more important than ever as the Covid-19 pandemic has forced people into hospitals for longer periods of time, increasing the chances for the spread of antibiotic-resistant germs, the biotech trade group said.

> But in the past 10 years, venture capital funding for U.S. antibiotic development amounted to $1.6 billion, compared to $26.5 billion for oncology, according to Monday’s report. The group noted that there are currently 64 new antibacterial therapeutics in the clinical trial pipeline, 80% of which originated from small companies.

The report mentioned is The State of Innovation in Antibacterial Therapeutics - https://www.bio.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/BIO-Antibact...
Very funny! I don't think the issue is that simple though, of course. The very quirks that cause these massive layoffs are the same quirks that caused the massive hiring in the first place. Namely, executives playing a macro-level game with their company.

You can have stability where companies don't have the crazy layoffs and insane pay discrepancies, but it might come at the cost of less hiring in the first place, more modest salaries all around, and probably less risk taking and therefore less productivity in general. If you don't think productivity matters ask yourself what products or technologies really do make the world a better place right now, and if you'd be okay with never having those developed in the first place.

Maybe there's a way to make things better without sacrificing productivity. But let's not kid ourselves and pretend that simply expecting executives to "stop being greedy" is a realistic expectation.
I can understand the community upset, but honestly? I wouldn’t be able to say no to that amount of money. I could retire tomorrow on that much.
Nobody has time for anything they don't make time for, and making time for 2 hours of exercise related activities is far more difficult to muster (in terms of willpower) than making time for 10-20 minutes of the same.

I'm glad that you have unlimited reserves of willpower and have no trouble with procrastination and as a result can just do any task on demand no matter how seemingly unpleasant it sounds, but unfortunately almost nobody on this planet is like that.

This research is very positive and useful to get people who are currently doing 0 minutes of exercise a week to do 30 minutes of exercise a week, it flies in the face of a lot of "if you don't exercise for at least x minutes a week, you might as well not be exercising" bullshit.

30 minutes of exercise per week (it doesn't really matter if it's high-intensity or not) is really much much better than 0.
Looking back, our retirement saving really started in the mid-late 30’s. No kids, two incomes and finally above entry level salaries. Continued through our 50’s. Only out of school mid 20’s and married a few years after than. No chance to really accumulate then.
I frequently find the same items on Alibaba and Taobao as I do on Amazon. I find myself ordering items next day on Amazon and returning them as soon as I receive the exact item for 1/10 to 1/100 the price elsewhere.

Returning an item because you have found a better price elsewhere is a pre-filled option for a return, so it is expressly allowed.