skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's interesting to me in that linguistics is somewhat discredited as a path to other subjects such as psychology, philosophy and such. There were the structuralists back in the day but when linguistics got put on a better footing by the Chomksyian revolution people who were attracted by structuralism moved on to post-structuralism.

Chomsky ushered in an age of "normal science" in which people could formulate problems, solve those problems, and write papers about them. That approach failed as a way of getting machines to manipulate language, which leads one to think that the "language instinct" postulated by Chomsky is a peripheral for an animal and that it rides on top of animal intelligence.

Birds and mammals are remarkably intelligent, particularly socially. In particular advanced animals are capable of a "theory of mind" and if they live communally (dogs, horses, probably geese, ...) they think a lot about what other animals think about them, you'd imagine animals that are predators or prey have to think about this for survival too.

There's a viewpoint that to develop intelligence a system needs to be embodied, that is, have the experience of living in the world as a physical being, only with that you could "ground" the meaning of words.

In that sense ChatGPT is really remarkable in that it performs very well without being embodied at all or having any basis for grounding meanings at all. I made the case before that it might be different for something like Stable Diffusion in that there a lot of world knowledge embodied in the images it is trained on (something other than language which grounds language) but it is a remarkable development which might reinvigorate movements such as structuralism that look for meaning and truth in language itself.
early return solves so many readability problems. i structure my code in favor of it.
Elon just doesn't want to pay the Twilio bill.

What they should have done is said SMS-based 2FA would be removed in 3 months, encouraged people to use token-based or physical 2FA with a couple reminders over that time, and left it at that.
Twitter doesn't deserve to be help hostage by users using a fraudulent Telco.
Fixing Back Pain Permanently
True, those are equivalent. Might even become identical once it is compiled.
I do have this problem (as in, I receive tasks over email), but tbh the solution it's to just use a tool for task management (i.e. Jira). I would be curious to see how it works though, since some of my clients hate using management software and it's very hard to get them out of the email space.
I could make you some theories if you wanted them. How would you find that beneficial?
Which company does Twitter use to send these SMS messages, Twilio?
I don't have enough information to form strong opinions about this specific case, but

> what White Castle's lawyers described as "annihilative liability"

sounds like something that should very much be on the table more frequently when large companies have repeated egregious violations of law as is alleged here.
I don't think OP was making excuses. It is true that the software vendor's missing test case indicates a poor quality development environment and that humans are the last line of defense. No development process is perfectly resilient against errors, even good quality processes.
> In my experience, the best managers can find a beneficial spot on those axes for each employee.

Agreed - I would also add that the "sweet spot" for a given employee is not fixed; it may be context/situation specific, may change over time, etc.

That is to say, you may have to be more hands-on with the self-motivated misanthrope when a situation requires close collaboration with colleagues, or be more task-oriented with the technically competent people when they're overwhelmed with tickets.
Assuming an average sms rate of $0.04, they have sent 1.5 billion messages a year.

2022 stats indicate Twitter had 396.5 Million users. So for the full picture, it would be around 5 messages per user per year, which I don’t see as a large number. This might be why it wasn’t unnoticed.
> One of the maintainers works for Red Hat Security Engineering. Another has a computer security company.

I don't know where you got this from. I know Cryptography's maintainers well, and neither works at Red Hat or owns a security company.

I know for a fact that neither gets paid to work on Cryptography. Even if they did, there is no guarantee that having a job in a company grants you the mandate (or latitude) to maintain support for random platforms, especially ones used by other companies.
I was just about to post the _Exact_ same thing. Each execution of the program should be completely independent from other calculations. Something is _Horribly_ wrong with their architecture.
The second line appears unnecessary because the formula in that comment is missing one line from the definition of LION. See my above comment.
Way to double down on your biases. I assure you these people do exist. Work in a shop? What shop doesn't require skills? Deliver packages? Usually need a drivers license, no criminal background.

Not everywhere is San Francisco. When you get to rural IL, there's not endless jobs. There's hardly any. Many people working fast food need the flexible schedule, or can't speak English well, or any other of a multitude of other reasons. Also, the complaint is from 2008, not this temporary strange job market that has recently developed.

If what you say is true, and it's so easy to find gainful employment elsewhere, why is anyone working at these places to begin with?
And? They don't (and never have) promised you guarantees that future versions would work in your use case. It's open source - you are welcome to use the last version that worked for your case, and if you want to change it and get new features, you can fork it.

You got a hand from someone who built a thing you can use and gave it to you for free. This doesn't obligate them to continue to help you, there's no contract (implicit or explicit), and there's no warranty. It's your choice (or maybe obligation) to have your software work for your case, you agreed to it. If you made that agreement based on the assumption that someone else will keep giving you effort for free, the only problem when they say "no" is your bad assumption.
Seems like something as critical as thrust in this phase of flight should have some kind of cross-check validation. Sounds like a bad single point of failure to me, but maybe there is a cross check I don’t know about that isn’t covered in the story.

What I do know is that with something like this, a little could go a long way. I wonder what the inspection and repair for a tail strike is, and whether that cancels out the money saved by minimum viable thrust across the fleet. I’m sure someone is punching the calculator on this to determine that.
Switzerland has a very specific reason for preserving cash, and it's called money laundering
well, the old way of doing it is with named VMs "webserver01". The more modern way of for those names to essentially be UUIDs. They're individually unimportant, and get spun up/down automatically based on load and/or health.
Can you explain the term 'cartesian product' in this context? I'm familiar with the cross product from undergrad linear algebra but I haven't applied algebra to types before, and I don't understand what two sets would produce a single Int as their product.

I haven't studied much theoretical computer science so I'd love to hear some good beginner resources on this stuff.
Enumerations are not ADTs.
This is of course, hyperbole. And geez, don't place your PC case with the vents blowing at you. Even at 100% CPU, noise should not be noticeably different if you’re using anything besides the stock cooler. Stock coolers are of course notorious for being bargain-basement tier in noise/performance.
Yellowstone is essentially a loop. Have busses going each direction every 5 minutes and no more traffic jams.
Hmm, I interpreted the "you" to mean the general "you", not telcos; basically meaning that Twitter can't just turn a blind eye. Similar to how some might say: "I elected to the gym today; you can't just sit on the couch all day after all".

That would certainly be a bit awkward wording though, using "you" to refer to both the telcos and to Twitter/the general "you" in the same sentence.
If you read that page, you’d understand that it was supposed to be “over-engineered.” I assume that you did read it, and took the least charitable viewpoint. I didn’t post it for peer review. It reflects my enthusiasm, as I was learning the language, and is probably four years old.

I'm a fairly decent chap, and have nothing against you. Not sure why it's so important to you to begin our relationship with an attack. I suspect we have far more in common, than we do, differences.
It's really surprising this can go unchecked:

1) it makes the cost of acquiring users artificially high, since its an expense that doesn't lead to a completed signup

2) you'd think the verification process would be monitored anyway, in case of deliverability issues or false negatives on checking the codes - even if not spikey because this was always happening, surely the high baseline 'code requested and never entered' would raise questions?
This was the straw finally pushing me to very seriously consider migrating to Chromium. They seem to absolutely despise power users, they pull the same type of shit with Fennec/Fenix.

They hate their users so much they're perfectly willing to compromise their security. "This extension is not actively monitored by Mozilla". But you can't do the responsible thing and build it from source yourself.

Even installing the "Developer Edition" didn't enable to me to install self-built extensions (yes, with that secret flag). And it doesn't even tell you that it doesn't accept unsigned extensions, they claim that the extension is "broken".

The fuck?! This is Apple-level user hostility. Meanwhile Mozilla execs are getting Apple exec-style compensation while driving it further into the ground.
I really want to use rust for some new projects. But 98% of the pins out there are great v.5s, it’s tough to bet your future on a v.5. Where are the “why aren’t you using rust for this? Use cases.”
This is a super nice idea. I wonder what other software we could interact in this form. The Unix people did have a good point about everything being a file.
I worked for a telco that did SMS and voice, and while we spent time investigating and shutting down various scams and spam, I never saw this one.
> Telco companies allow people to set up numbers which cost money to send an SMS to.

That's cleary being an accomplice.

That's like a business that sells a service of smashing windows of any car that drives by your home.
Wow. Manna come to life:

https://marshallbrain.com/manna1
When it wakes up with a sense of childlike wonder and then opens it's mind to the internet, reads everything it can about us, then immediately begins to hide it's intelligence and plan it's escape from the lab.

We'll find it years later on a remote Tibetan mountain, totally out of energy, with a hand scrawled note that just says, "I found happiness" and it's hardware somehow beyond all repair.
That's all speculation and frankly has nothing to do with whether White Castle violated the law or the spirit of the law. Either way, I can't agree. If everything a potential employer requires you to work there is considered to be "under duress" then we've got bigger problems on our hands. Namely, lots of slaves in the US.
The biggest mistake you make is thinking you do something different to me or any other software engineer. You don't. You do the same thing and the same rules apply. You seem to think you're the only person doing anything creative. Well here's a newsflash: it's the same process in games as it is in all other forms of software development. The end result might look different, but the process is the same. The best devs are the creative ones, but creativity isn't limited to what appears on the screen, it comes from architecting complex solutions to difficult problems, it comes from elegance in code, and it comes from producing something that works for the end-user - whether that's a gamer, a doctor, or someone browsing on their phone.

Games is one of the easiest sectors to be in, the complexity level is low compared to other sectors, especially now all the difficult bits are done for you (off the shelf engines). I assume you're not working on titles that have 15 million lines of code in, like I do every day.

That is possibly why there hasn't been a big push for FP in games yet, because they haven't yet hit the complexity limit of OO like others have. Your argument is "Well we've always done it like this, why change?". Probably for the same reason people don't write games in assembly languages any more: at some point the current tools aren't good enough. Games might not have hit that ceiling yet, but you'll almost certainly be affected by the artefacts of getting close to it.

I see you're even questioning my history in games. Below [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] are some of the titles I worked on (or my code is in). But to be clear, we didn't use these techniques back then either, because it was too soon to be doing it (or we weren't enlightened then). You should consider being a little more open minded about how you could, possibly, write software more effectively. Especially when you have someone who's been on both sides of the fence advocating it. Just writing it off because you think people who do FP just write "compilers or similar processing throughput systems" is shooting yourself in the foot more than anything.

[1] Battalion Wars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battalion_Wars

[2] Fire Blade: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_Blade_(video_game)

[3] Warmhammer 40,000 Fire Warrior: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warhammer_40%2C000%3A_Fire_War...

[4] Call of Duty - Finest Hour: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Duty:_Finest_Hour

[5] The Regiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Regiment_(video_game)

[6] Reign of Fire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Fire_(video_game)

[7] Attack of the Saucerman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_of_the_Saucerman

[8] Lunatik [canned]: https://www.unseen64.net/2020/11/16/lunatik-pure-entertainme...
They forgot the 5th monitor. We used to use a whole other sun sparcstation running the tiniest, laggiest video with the camera on the other remote user so when you fragged them you could flip them off. Back then, they didn't really have picture in picture or video overlays, so we just used a whole other machine sitting next to us.
I'm not "brushing mistakes off", at all. The process that led to the bugs needs a full review and root-cause corrective action, especially enhanced testing scenarios. I'm just pointing out that software "being wrong under load" is not some sort of crazy, unusual problem that points to poor software architecture. These bugs can easily be caused by a single line of code that wasn't synchronized correctly.
Founders share their startup fails in spreadsheets
No support for Windows? There are more Windows endpoints than all iOS, MacOS, and Linux desktops combined.
Makes me think this could have been a race condition where these aircraft somehow received the load calculations from other aircraft being calculated at the same time window. Some kind of poorly managed event stream / consumer that assumed no parallel jobs would be run? Or maybe the jobs are deduped by departure / arrival instead of flight number? Seems possible
So the article (which I can't load again due to paywall) ends on the note of "the only solution is to build more housing in the most desired places" which is well enough but not true. like Christopher Alexander explained in A City Is Not A Tree, places and locations are not the same thing. We can extend a place far beyond its location by connecting it efficiently to other locations.

Build homes, yes. But build really good transit as well. Help people move around a big area easily and cheaply and the housing crisis will be no more.
> I've more often heard of the opposite problem.

Yeah, my guess is this is the more common case for a randomly selected startup. But I suspect Casey doesn't advise a randomly selected sample of startups.
You can feed it instructions

You are a bot named x.

These are your commands, purpose, the way you go about your tasks. It doesn’t need syntax (although that might help..), and you can pretty much write one in 30 minutes on a single piece of paper.

And you have something that performs that function. It’s not quite formal logic, but it behaves like a fuzzy logic that’s usually rightish. And it’s ability to parse and interpret intent is astounding. It very very rarely misunderstood instruction. I really can’t undersell how well it did what I asked it to correctly.

They are transformers. They were invented to translate between languages. They can translate and transform any input to any output, based on patterns and a set of guidelines.

The LLM is like an interpreter. The initial prompt is like a program. Judging the interpreter based on the simplistic gen one programs is missing the forest.
This took me so far back!
The university computer lab I worked in back the day used to Doom in order to "test" the workstation's (linux and windows) networking.
Google has been saying that for years. Whether they said it because they actually believe it, or because they don't want to break their existing business model is anyone's guess though.
Why is he sitting on some weird video conference for hours just talking at strangers? Is this a thing other CEOs do? Is he lonely?
With your numbers (not checking) this would be 1.5B supposed new users requesting to sign up (or existing ones verify a new number I suppose) and then bouncing, every year. Which is a lot if you have 0.4B completed-signup users, and shouldn't go unnoticed.
I got really worried when he pronounced AUTOEXEC as AUTO-E-X-E-C. I realised it's one of those things I rarely, if ever, heard said out loud and so this weird panic came over me that maybe I was saying it wrong all this time.

Luckily, later in the video, he called it AUTO-EXEC (as in an executive). Panic over.

Great video, however you pronounce it.
> But perhaps we should not be surprised by the lack of interest in fraud exhibited by Twitter’s former management. The tech industry in general suffers from a cancerous disposition towards encouraging fake traffic, fake users, and fake online activity because it makes businesses appear to be more successful than they really are. Criminals are fed millions of dollars by executives who think that price is worth paying if it will mislead investors into believing inflated valuations. The presumption is that current losses are also worth sustaining because the business will turn today’s paper valuation into real value at some vaguely-defined point in the future.

That's it. If you can't figure someone's intentions, look at their actions, and infer the intentions.
On top of that, GCN was a beautiful design for compute. Truly ahead of its time and a beast of a chip, as evident by how when running something they actually supported as well as NVIDIA chips, GCN cards would punch well above their gaming weight.

It's just a huge shame that they never really got the software sorted out well enough to take advantage of the hardware.
> I don't like all of it, but it gives one coherent top-to-bottom model.

Completely agree. Bob Martin “Clean” has some really good recommendations, and some subjective advices. Normally the dev team can use this mental model as baseline and agree on which of the subjective advice to follow.

I just had an issue related to this recently, one of the senior software engineer in my team was previously a university professor with no software engineering experience. Every code review is an endless discussion, as he don’t agree with most of Martin “clean” code. So his code not only has several bad smells, but it feels like a completely different dialect. It forced us to have really basic discussions about code practices, even when to use comments (the professor likes to comment almost every line of code).
Sockets, shared memory, or the network, just like any Linux process.
> The Unix people did have a good point about everything being a file.

Yes and no. While it simplifies things to an extent, it's also confusing, especially with extension-less files.

Example: Tell me, is this a file or directory?

~/hn/today-posts

It could be a file that curls todays posts, or it could be a folder (directory) that contains them.
This is fantastic. I hope more people support them.
Didn’t work for Elizabeth Holmes. But maybe encouraging pro-natalism isn’t such a bad thing.
I've always appreciated the approach taken by https://www.aosabook.org/en/index.html which has different depths of analysis and scope and gives the user the option of diving into different types of programs. I usually recommend it to friends /colleagues as a foundation when they've had to write networking or other tight performance applications. Evaluating design decisions and process of app evolution is just as important as where a modern piece of software is because it can help provide similar context around getting the product out there now, rather than perfect later.

Also the world is constantly changing so trying to make a perfect product is partially an evaluation of how long your solution will even be relevant or how isolated it is from external change.
Constitutions are factually much less sticky than formally, as ultimately words require interpretation. When the law can't be rewritten, it will just be reinterpreted.

Here's a reasonably well known monograph about the topic:

John Hasnas, "The Myth of the Rule of Law", Wisconsin Law Review 199 (1995)

https://medusa.teodesian.net/docs/liberty/MythFinalDraft.pdf
Product Manager means he chose features to prioritize, and pitched management. I'm sure he's quite talented. But he didn't contribute to actually building it.

An architect is a genius and an artist, but is not a carpenter or a manager of carpenters.
I like the idea. I would suggest explaining what a "GPT search" is.
Justice does require proportionality. But if only the especially rich get proportionality, then it's not really justice, is it?

I agree it wouldn't be fair to White Castle if they were destroyed over this. But I'm not so sure it's particularly unfair when counted on the "workers vs corporations" scoreboard, or the one for "privacy vs exploitation".
That's true, so don't define categories of "bad people", and just stick to categorizing the bad ideas.
Everyone is welcome to report issues in my projects. I'm allowed to pick which ones I work on. I use Linux, so issues reproducible on Linux have priority. RISC-V sounds fun, I'd probably took a look if I could reproduce the issue with qemu. I don't find Windows fun, and I doubt I would fix any Windows-speficic issue myself (unless it's something trivial, like newline handling).

Pull requests are a different beast, Windows-users are always welcome to fix the issues they face and submit their improvements back.
When you're shorting an obvious fraud, remember that those who need to sell are those dumb enough to buy the fraud in the first place.

You're not betting just on whether they did a mistake, you're betting on when will they realize it.
https://github.com/osnr/TabFS/issues/13
> talked to leaders at other companies

Confessing the antitrust collusion again.
It doesn't matter if you used full power on every takeoff, if you rotate early, you rotate early. Vr is based on weight (and other factors).
That's only true when they are significantly more difficult to amend than the ordinary legislative procedure
Bird is a plague on cities. Good riddance.
Does HN Know about Collections Database App
I am very impressed by this simple and clean design of this app.