skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> It's a single-product company

> They need to be broken up and repurposed to multiple, actually value-creating companies.

These obviously can't both be true. You need to take your pick of what you critizice.
I think you could argue for the clarity (code is read more than written) and consistency (why do I need this here and not in other places?)
Smartphones.

No, seriously. Most peoples' computing needs and desires are satisfied with a phone, they don't actually need a laptop let alone a desktop.

It's not that x86 is losing market share, it's that Personal Computers are changing from the desktop/laptop form factor to the smartphone form factor. It's mere coincidence ARM and not x86 powers all those smartphones.
> that this is one of the fundamental systems the game is built upon.

No it isn't. Traffic played basically zero part in the game and certainly didn't influence "success" or "failure." Traffic was 99% for visual effect. When I played Sim City 2000 I never put any work into optimizing for traffic and my cities were effectively "perfect" in terms of crime, life expectancy, citizen happiness etc.
Ask HN: Jain diet, any one have knowledge to share?
tl;dr As a consequence of logic, I arrived at a very similar structure to the 'indexing of being at senses' displayed on the page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain_vegetarianism. I am interested in this as a logical consequence of my contemplation, and I ask ye hackers, have you any knowledge, advice, wisdom, or tips?
You can’t get it in C# or Java. The BEAM virtual machine is build upon the idea of lightweight processes. You might get an imitation in other mainstream places but not the real thing. Take a look at the Actor Model if you haven’t heard of it.
Yea I know, but this was something I overheard like 12 years ago while transferring at pike/pine
The only thing they know for certain is that they're not aliens, though it's curious how they can be so certain of that when they don't know anything else about the objects.
My 2¢:

I’ve been doing this thing for over 20 years. I’m a voracious reader and always trying to stay just beyond the edge of the industry, as far as knowledge goes. As a programmer, I’m probably somewhere smack in the middle of the bell curve. I’m nothing special, except that I can do it FAST. I don’t just mean the programming part, but the figuring out some new problem is some subset or superset of problems I’ve solved before and applying those to the new problem.

I have a couple secrets that I don’t tell people and it has nothing to do with writing code.

1. Learn how to sell crap and take business 101

Seriously, you learn how to sell and what a business needs to survive. Don’t stop learning, this is just the beginning. It gets you in the doors that friends will open for you, it gets people on board for projects you pitch. It gets you paid more.

This will probably work for as long as other engineers aren’t doing this.

2. Train your memory

I don’t have a photographic memory anymore. I hit my head too many times. You can train your memory though, to that point. Especially when you are young. My memory is still sharper than my peers, I still only need to glance at a file path once to remember it. Usually.

Seriously, go learn how to train your memory. Research it like you’re trying to decide on a new framework. Use what works best for you.

3. Don’t work on bad days

When you have a bad day/morning, call in sick. Take time for you because no one else is going to give you that time. If you aren’t working on bad days, people only see you at your best and you’re more likely to get promoted or a raise.

If you have a lot of bad days, get some therapy and work with them to get to the root of the problem.
Tragedy, he perceived, belonged to the ancient time, to a time when there was still privacy, love, and friendship, and when the members of a family stood by one another without needing to know the reason.

If you find yourself taking notes from 1984 and saying "that's a great idea", you should pause. Perhaps take a step back as you may have crossed the wrong line.
Transcribing recorded audio and video to text using Whisper AI on a Mac
That quote always felt way too extreme for me, like it's saying I should prioritize knowing how to repair a small engine I might never own or butcher a hog when I don't even eat meat, over skills I actually expect to need in the near future.

Everyone should probably have more skills than they do now, including some that aren't currently needed for most people, but I don't want to throw away specialization entirely, or nobody will be able to build satellites and cell phones, and people really will need to set bones without medical aid.

Some things are just really far outside of what a person expects to need, and everyone should probably pick a few of those, but I'm perfectly happy not knowing how a parser generator works or how to use a lathe I don't have space for. There's just too many skills to learn them all.

Then again, a rare few seem to be able to make real progress in a specialist field while also knowing a bunch of awesome skills and doing ninjutsu, but most people say "Yeah, that's why I have a job, to pay people to do that" sometimes and are fine with it.

But I go to events and do physical repair work, if I had to sit in an office of just all code all the time, maybe I'd have extreme views too, I've met a few people who were almost sad to watch, because they didn't seem to exist outside of code.

I'm not sure where the balance is, but I do know I'm happy about the fact we have a semi functional society even if I don't like all of it.
Certainly, https://docs.nginx.com/nginx-waf/
None that have made meaningful progress :(
I don’t see how this article can be read as “looking the other way” in any sense.
Wait what? If you are a sex worker you are not allowed a vacation in the US of A?

I would have expected this from Saudi Arabia, not from the country that produces the most amount of porn.
This view of CS seems to exclude two of the most important topics - undecidability and NP hardness.

the main techniques in both of these areas require infinite sets. For undecidability, it’s the infinite set of proposed halting problem TMs, and for NP hardness, it’s the infinite set of solutions to a given problem.

Runtime analysis also requires numbers larger than 2^64 — any algorithm which is not O(n) is practically faced with these numbers. Sorting, matrix multiplication, etc.
From Math Camp to Handcuffs: FTX Downfall Was an Arc of Brotherhood and Betrayal
This letter is criticizing bad journalism. Treatment of sources, omitting of facts etc. It also calls on ignoring established science and calling old treatments "new treatment" to make them sound more scary.

So, it is pretty difficult to figure put what you mean by "this behavior" and where "being in touch with average American" is supposed to be relevant. Being in touch with average American is specifically not relevant at all.
https://archive.ph/46Gfy
At the molecular level, nobody cares about your intuition.
What people seem to forget is that immigration needs to make a decision about visitors to their country in just a few minutes.

And they don't know you, they can only base it on what you tell them. Certain things will raise red flags and nobody in immigration got fired for denying someone entry.

For example Singapore has a problem with young girls from SE Asia entering Singapore to be sex workers (lots more money). So if you're a young, single woman coming to Singapore and don't have a good story as to why, they'll immediately assume you're at risk for overstaying and/or working illegally.
But shutdown/reboot/halt could well check the pre-requisite user id (or other kinds of permissions needed for you to be allowed to reboot/stop the system) before invoking all those subsystems which all run on as if they were going to succeed when they are not.

And would it not be very weird if 2/3 managed to run, sending wall messages to everyone, preventing new logins and so forth but then not rebooting? Or not preventing new logins, not sending the message but still reboot?

All of those "corner cases", including the quoted permission denied messages, could well be prevented but are not.
nitpick: not sure if those employees would be "unwitting", probably closer to "unwilling" or something along those lines
I wonder if there could be a feasible business opportunity here. Basically, launch a service to access "express routes", which are really just normal roads clogged up by people spoofing GPS on Google Maps, enabling faster travel for those subscribed to the service since they get the actual clean data. Obviously this won't work in the long term, but in the mean time you might be able to divert some users off Google Maps to an alternative you're trying to market.
Yes, but is multiple single points of failure better than one?
I know I shouldn’t, but … your in the wrong here.

A bit off topic - picture of co2 history is available here: https://skepticalscience.com/EmmissionsAcceleration.html
How did support handle this situation when you reached out?

I tend to take a picture of the barcode / proof of purchase with my phone and tag it with the item name before I chuck the box. The one issue I had with an anker cable I submitted a ticket with a picture of the defect, picture of the proof of purchase / barcode and the invoice from Amazon. New cable arrived in a couple days. I was impressed. Their stuff seems to hold up.

Any more details on where you sourced the charger / cable? Power supply? US/EU?
It would improve the overall crime picture in the bay area.

Also those who post negative photos of broken cars with comments about law enforcement quality could be found and contacted for additional details. An arguably more cost effective approach towards improving law enforcement image.

The opportunities are limitless actually.
On-Demand Male Contraceptive Shows Promise in Preclinical Study
Zero downtime upgrades, hardware fault, aws decides that specific instance needs to die. It also doesn't let you cheat statelessness very easily, so it's easier to scale horizontally.
Similar in the sense that countries don't like other countries coming into their country and doing whatever they want. If there are criminal issues, then they should be dealt with through normal channels.

Lots of countries get into trouble from their intelligence work overstepping bounds. But of course the country complaining does it themselves, so it's a bit of "don't get caught doing it" approach.
IANAL but it doesn't make sense that she would be banned over something that is legally not prostitution. She should have a lawyer file a court case. That's certainly not a "crime of moral turpitude." And prostitutes are banned for 10 years, and waivers are possible.

Details are here: https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM030203.html
That website is great. Would love to hear from the President himself on this issue that’s dominated the national conversation for over a week. Would be excellent if he’d answer a few questions as well.
> If fingerprints are so easily detected and subscriber/device-level fingerprinting is available from multiple security vendors, that raises the question of why cutting off sources of infringing content isn’t a better option than battling to have streams taken down by uncooperative third parties.

Because its a bluff, If they knew, they would've already cut the stream but they don't.
Translated from a song:

No matter if models or shop assistants / some women will make fun of you / treat them all like princesses / and you will be a king
> The phenomenon of regulatory capture is a problem, but to those who think non-specialist judges are a problem I'm not sure if there could ever be a coherent solution.

Researchers, academics, or even ex-employees in a field are better than lobbyists. They could have picked an economics professor, or senior credit union staff, yet we are to believe the only experts they could find where lobbyists? What sort of process do you think led to such an outcome? Conflating experts with lobbyists is a mistake, as experts specialize in a field, while lobbyists specialize in influence peddling.

That there exist rare examples of reformed, vegan foxes, should not mislead us into thinking they're a good choice for hen house guards.
The primary difference is that they decided (like SAP and a few others) that rather than solving a particular vertical well they would produce a generic thing that could be used to tackle all business types, and then build an ecosystem of consultants and providers that sell and implement the product for them. So you have a thing that was originally for sales people now doing the loan application and credit approval workflow at banks[1] for example.

So the tradeoff is most b2b saas products which are special-purpose tend to be easier to deploy and more directly suitable for their purpose vs salesforce being a "do-everything but maybe not that well" solution.

[1] https://www.ncino.com/ have built an entire business out of getting salesforce to do this
Interesting! The benchmark appears to be using only random data though. Any measurements for partially sorted or reverse sorted data?
> the left doesn’t have problems with others holding differing views, so long as following those views doesn’t result in the harm or impediment of liberty of others

A lot comes down to the definition of “harm”. If harm includes making people feel uncomfortable, unhappy, offended, annoyed, or even just having their world view challenged, then I can see how a problem can emerge.
Why not a quill?
Considering ChatGPT is probablistic, don't you fear it's giving you almost correct answer for critical things like a code check or the latest API specification? Do you double check it against sources? If so, isn't that twice the work?
By the same token, would the course material be available under California's Public Records Act which is essentially a state version of the Freedom of Information Act?

Since the course material was created by public funds, shouldn't a state resident be able to request access to it?
Disrupting Publishing in 700 Words
Chrome dev. The latest stable version is 110
Repasting the quote without addressing the response does not do much to bolster your position - perhaps the opposite!
... but enormously disappointing to see the way so many people have been taken in.

The number and strength of defensive statements on hacker news is appalling. Aren't we supposed to be the smart people who know what's going on ... not the gullible people being taken in. (But, as they say, a salesperson is the easiest person to sell to.)
The book is from 1300 years ago; we don't know when the drawings were done. Even if they were done around the time of the creation of the book, clearly the existence of the book itself demonstrates the existence of paper in that part of the world at that time.
/Dev/Random
Smartphones aren't counted as desktops in these statistics.
I've heard. Jack of All Trades, Master of None, Master of the Universe
It would be much more terrifying if search becomes a single voice with a single perspective that cites zero sources.

Today's search provides multiple results to choose from. They may not all be correct, but at least I can see multiple perspectives and make judgments about sources.

For all its faults, that's freedom.

One voice, one perspective, zero sources, with frequent fabrication and hallucination is the opposite of freedom.
That’s relatively easy to fix, since autocomplete was probably working on just the most frequent queries and/or phrases. You could manually clean up the dataset.
When the number of nested selectors becomes too great it can become very difficult to reason about.

When any complexity becomes too much it makes it harder to reason about. The solution is to avoid complexity; you can do that while using a small number of nested selectors.
> It will be. You can observe the evolution of Google's search system and it has converged to it's current of pushing stuff to sell before everything else. The charter of a public company is maximizing returns to share holders. That is the task of the entire organization

Yeah, probably it will evolve in that direction. I could imagine that happening.

> That's some weird reasoning.

In the AI textbooks I've read, reflex is defined in the context of a reflex agent. You would have sentences like "a reflex agent reacts without thinking" and then an example of that might be "a human who puts their hand on a stove yanks it away without thinking about it" and this is rational because the decision problem doesn't call for correct cognition - it calls for minimization of response time such that the hand isn't burned. To me, when you say reflex decision making is the reason for the danger, it seems to me that this is an inconsistent reason because for other decision making problems, reflex is a help, not a hindrance. I do not consider it wrong to or weird reasoning to use definitions sourced from AI research. I think, given your confusion at my post, you probably weren't intending to argue that being faster means being wrong, but the structure of your reply read that way to me because of the strong association I have for that word and reflex as it relates to optimal decision making by an AI under time constraints. I also think is what you actually said, even if you didn't intend to, but I don't doubt you if you say you meant it another way, because language is imprecise enough that we have to arrive on shared definitions in order to understand each other and it is by no means certain that we start on shared definitions.

I'm also kind of way too literal sometimes. Side-effect of being a programmer, I suppose. And I take this subject way too seriously, because I agree with Paul Graham about surface area of a general idea multiplying impact potential. So I'm trying really really really hard to think well - uh, for example, I've been thinking about this almost continuously whenever I reasonably could ever since my first reply, unable to stop.

It is 1:32 AM for me. I'm taking multiple continuous hours of thinking about this and writing about this and trying to be clear in my thinking about this, because I find it so important. So hopefully that gets across how I am as a person - even if it makes me seem really weird.

> You're fixing of my argument is OK but it's pretty easy to imagine it and others from the initial argument imo.

I'm really trying to drive at the deeper fundamental truths. I feel like logic and analogy are really important and profound and worthy of countless hours of thought about and that the effort will ultimately be rewarded.
Yes a virus that is very deadly, or one that renders the persons infertile, could be one. Or a bacteria that take everything of a critical resource, like oxygen of the atmosphere.

But my argument for safety here is that Bing bot is severely lacking in agency. It has no physical reach. It has limited ability to perform external IO (it can maybe make GET requests). It can, as far as I know, not do arbitrary code execution. It runs in MS data centers, and cannot easily itself replicate elsewhere (certainly not while keeping its communication reach on bing.com). It's main mechanism for harm is the responses that people read, so the main threat is it tricking people. Which is challenging to scale, it would either have to trick some very powerful people, or a large portion of the population to have any chance at civilisations endring things.

If it does become both conscious and "evil", we have very good chances of it not being able to execute much on that, and very good chances of shutting it down.
If a person causes harm, we care a lot. We make the distinction between manslaughter, first and second degree murder, as well as adding hate crimes penalties on top if the victim was chosen for a specific set of recognized reasons. ML models aren't AGI, so it's not clear how we'd apply it, but there's precedent for it mattering.
I guess minification is still a good idea? Or is this now irrelevant with gzip everywhere?
Re-reading my comments, I apologize if I came across as 'whataboutism', that is not what is intended. I just read your first link (CNN) and again, I am still left with the same question.

It first states, "...using bilateral security arrangements struck with countries in Europe and Africa to gain a widespread presence internationally..." which seems to suggest the hosts countries are fully (or at minimum somewhat) aware.

Then, they go on to say "Safeguard Defenders stumbled on the police networks while trying to assess the scale of China’s efforts to persuade some of its people to return to China..."

Fair enough, but what exactly are those people accused of? If they're being accused of fraud or other illegal activities, are those really people we want in our countries.
I don't know if that's actually an ok method or not, but I thought of that and looked around for it with little luck
Toyota had identified the strategic risk of chip supply some years earlier, and made sure they had access to large buffers of them, reducing the impact.

I’m not sure about the impact of shipping though.

See: https://www.autoblog.com/2021/03/09/toyota-how-it-avoided-se...
Building Mindmaps with ChatGPT
This hits to the core of CS, actually. Any definition of explicit to make your proposition work is equivalent to “computable”. any decent formalism of mathematics is computable.

Plug for implicit understanding though. Your very claim is not explicable; you can’t explicate the non existence of explicability. You can’t formally denote areas for which there’s no formal descriptions. This is the escape hatch out of logical realism (and yeah, that’s not an explicable claim, either; how fun!)
It's not a game changer because it will boost opportunistically like every other CPU? What?