skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I’ve got to disagree a little.
Revealing my bias: I’m a former TS full stack who now works full time in a company that uses Rust on the backend (not my choice). I’ve done so for over a year now.

I find it’s a bit like C# in some ways, especially it’s ability to scale the codebase. Code navigation is incredibly clear and the libraries have been great. The experience of using async-graphql and sqlx is unbelievably intuitive.

For the bad: the compilation times can still be a little slow (especially in CI). This sometimes makes dev a just slightly awkward.
I’ve had to contribute to a couple of libraries we depend on because they are still quite young, and we’ve had to move web framework once. Hiring might also be a slight challenge.

I’m not sure if I’d necessarily pick it again if I was to choose for a small business again - but frankly using it has still been a pleasure and the ecosystem is only feeling better.
That's how to make a single screw as a one-off, using basic machine tools. That's not a production process.

Screw making was automated by 1871. Here's an early automatic screw machine.[1] The video says 60,000 screws a day, but that must have been the whole shop, not one machine. You can see that the cycle time is about 10 seconds per screw. Who needs computers? We program with cams! Complex cam-programmed industrial machines were what made manufactured parts cheap.

Here's synchronized thread rolling using a CNC lathe.[2] That's a more modern one-off approach. Thread rolling squeezes the threads into the screw, rather than cutting out metal. Rolled small screws are stronger than cut screws. Needs a specialized tool.

That's not the full speed modern production process. This is.[3] A relatively simple machine turns out small screws at about one every 250ms. Over 100,000 screws per shift. This screw rolling machine can go down to 0.6mm, so it can do the job in the original video.

Here's a larger, slower, bolt rolling machine, so you can see the process.[4] It's very simple. A round piece of metal is rolled between two file-grooved die plates, and the threads are pushed into the metal.

This is why screws are cheap.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCmnUP5gx78

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eWghSLN3ng

[3] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/HWmu4gxmois

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mlfq_Pbh6PQ
HN's guidelines specifically ask people to "Please submit the original source*. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

It's true that the provenance of an article sometimes leads to complaints, but I don't think we should let that be the high-order bit or train for it (in the way that repeated moderation decisions slowly train the community). This is one of those cases where knowing what you're optimizing for shows which side of a tradeoff to opt for (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...).

(* when it's publicly available - that's an implicit bit)
Hah! I did a similar thing for a fun friday afternoon security challenge with AES256 encryption on static website using the answer to challenges as the key here if anyone wanna play with it... :)

https://challenge.surge.sh/

It should take you no less than 10 minutes ;)
The levels were just wild too. Huge open areas that trick you into thinking you know how they work, and then oops you forgot what's above and below you as people swoop down and blast you mercilessly.
Thread on Twitter:[0]

[0] https://twitter.com/TimothyDSnyder/status/162702878353757388...
Sentience and intelligence are vastly different things.

As it stands, these systems have yet to make a compelling case for intelligence.
> Anyone who wants to support IE and Outlook astonish me.

Welcome to large companies (who may still get more people browsing from IE than populations of entire countries) and government agencies (good government agencies cannot afford not to support a wide array of old, weird, and unsupported browsers)
Operation Tango is another example of a free install for player 2.
for Firefox I use this

lz4jsoncat ~/.mozilla/firefox/YOUR_PROFILE.default/sessionstore-backups/recovery.jsonlz4 | jq '.windows[].tabs[] | .index as $a | .entries[$a-1] | .title,.url'
This is absurdly illogical.

If I can convince 10 people to pay me $1 million each, I will earn far more than someone being watched by 10 million people paid nothing by each.

If this statement doesn’t make sense to you, perhaps you shouldn’t make business and investment decisions.
You can catch someone on camera committing a crime and the first thing their lawyer will tell them is to deny it.
We would ask everyone to have the game installed and updated before they arrive, however inevitably the events would turn into "install parties". I still miss those days, though; if nothing else because I had more time and patience.
Conveniences like closures depend on gc
i think you'd have a hard time determining the direction from just one sample
Nope. Not debatable. Not supposedly. Effective startups move faster … or they are not effective startups and they die. The fact that not all startups die literally shows that not all are creating more problems than they are solving.

Large orgs can be pretty nimble too if they are properly set up and have the right people btw
Of these types, I find hands-off and task-oriented to be the most bothersome. I am definitely familiar with do nothing scrum masters, and "project managers" whose idea of management involves setting an arbitrary deadline, then wondering why it isn't met. The others I can work with.
80% of CEOs are indistinguishable from Sydney Bing, change my mind.
Thank you for the thoughtful comment!

I thought I was missing something in the way the story read, I'm glad to know I was.
> The actual difference is how frequent such libraries are in the respective ecosystem.

That’s a difference without a distinction: people will use the defaults unless they can’t.

So in C++ libraries will avoid GCs unless their work basically requires it, whereas in D they’ll require it unless the author is constrained to a nogc requirement.
Philosophically you keep arguing more terrible points... if this is a lifeform (which I'm not saying it is) we're playing genocide with it by murdering it a few billion times a day.
"People pull hundreds of dependencies" only because Babel decided to split their package which used to be only one into hundreds of dependencies.

A vanilla installation of create-react-app pulls 133 babel-owned packages, last I counted. If you pull all the available packages from @babel, it's 153. They all live in the same Github repo, since who would want to manage that many packages. The second biggest offender in the ecosystem has a whole order of magnitude less packages than that.

Babel is the #1 cause for the JS ecosystem being the "royal shitshow" you and other people claim it to be.
> This is not simple republishing. The editing occurring is censorship because modern sensibilities are different today.

Good grief. That's simply not what censorship means. "Editting" happens all the time. Are journalists being "censored" when the published article doesn't match their words? In fact with translations, "editting" happens every time, by definition. How many times has the Bible been censored by now?

If you want hyperbole about interpreting The Decline of Western Civilization into internet argumentation: how about how no one cares about words anymore and wants to call everything a maximalist insult. "Censorship" doesn't mean anything anymore, it just means "someone did something I don't like".

Seriously, go to the library and see if anyone is trying to censor Matilda.
Kurzweil was the guy that turned me into a techno-maximalist, for better or worse I'm leaning toward worse at this point, and even though he might be off with the precision, his trajectory is really good for AI specifically.

I think for bio stuff he doesn't really live up to his hype - I remember being hype about respirocytes after he spoke about them at an event way back in 2005 or so.
In most industries that are not IT, testing the IT systems very well is needed, but rarely achieved. In my area (FDA regulated) performance testing is almost never done correctly and (for sure) never completely, but as long as it works and the auditors never look at these details nobody from management is willing to know about it, because fixing it costs money. For many years the people signing off for all the software were intentionally not business people with zero IT knowledge, so they could not be accused of knowingly signing off low quality code. That saved tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in the past 20 years alone.
C++ has had closures without a GC for over a decade now.
It is sort of infamously footgunny.
Long ago I had setup lancache for this purpose, which is strictly inferior. Not only can chunks be evicted from cache, but it seemed like there were a lot of cache misses even when testing re-downloading the same game.

Though lancache does still have one plus over this method: when I boot from Linux to Windows there's still a chance I might not have to re-download chunks.
It's a statistical play - if on average, subscribers send less than 500 messages per month, it's profitable.
> Remember that decade where Firefox shed market share to Chrome for being too "slow" and "bloated"?

Except it wasn't. I used Firefox a lot on Windows and Linux and didn't have the slightest problems.

The only reason I see why Chrome took over was a rather insane push, about the same level of intensity as IE6, from Google, using everything:

- artificially reducing performance of Firefox on key Google properties (Google Calendar, YouTube)

- bundling Chrome with Adobe

- ad campaigns on the front of Google where no one else has been allowed to serve ads (this alone must have been worth billions)

- lies ("switch to a better browser" they wrote even when I was using Firefox)

Google needs to be punished - big time - for this abuse.
The proposal has a section comparing the frequencies for "pregnant-man" and "pregnant-person" with "elephant". It was a criteria back then.

https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2020/20190r-swollen-belly-emoji....

Most (if not all) gender neutral emojis were proposed by the same person.
Assuming Troy weight, this is worth $30m today.
It's still considered safe to call AES-GCM with a single key and a randomly generated nonce 2^32 times [1], most practical systems don't come anywhere near this limit. And there's AES-GCM-SIV that solves nonce reuse (mostly), though it's not available in the Web Cryptography API at the moment.

1: https://csrc.nist.gov/csrc/media/Projects/crypto-publication...
It’s still earlyish days and it’s fascinating.

As a rule, in MRI you have three things, pick 2. Resolution, signal and time to acquire.

The nature of the Deep Resolve training dataset means that matching the training input parameters makes images look good. Counterintuitively, accelerating the scan more sometimes improves images (better matching the training dataset). The differences are not subtle. This sort of breaks the res/signal/time things.

Yes, it can produce artefact on images that are low signal. It’s a grain type effect in the phase direction.

Every new acceleration technique has its artefacts and issues (fast spin echo, single shot, parallel imaging, simultaneous multi slice, etc). The beauty of Deep Resolve is that you can reconstruct the image again without DR applied and compare the result.

One minor proviso though, DR loves signal, so a scan that is to be run with DR needs more signal than a non deep resolve sequence. This is more than made up for by the resolution doubling after DR is applied.

Other accelerations have their own quirks to be handled (eg, parallel imaging needs a lot of over sampling, simultaneous multi slice needs a lot of extra elements turned on.

I’d say it’s your option b, but with the caveat that every single MR sequences (DR or not) needs someone to check the image is real and not showing stuff that isn’t there.
Artefacts handled on a normal day will include machine faults, technician introduced artefact, patient issues (movement!), sequences issues, vendor specific problems and some weird as things that never get explained. These things keep me employed.

It looked like we were entering a Teslas arms race - more being better. The likes of DR are doing the opposite, with great images at lower field strength. Lower field strength magnets have better t1 contrast, are easier to make, are easier to install, they use less (or zero) helium, they are easier to maintain, they are safer, they are more readily available, they are lighter, they are cheaper etc etc.
It is not that I think 50% is a lot but it is the same 50% when amazon is selling fakes. If amazon would be able to sell items that are original and the money would go to the right person maybe 50% is ok. This is not the case by a long shot.
f-stab... not f-ess-tab?
Happy to see a clone after this much years. Definitely it was impossible for me to hold till 40 seconds :)
If anything, they should be calling out the companies that only allow SMS based 2FA and don't offer any app based MFA solutions. (And there are still plenty of these companies)
(fact checks appreciated. This is back of the napkin math that I've only spent an hour researching and putting together, and some of the terminology I may have wrong, like production VS capacity etc, leading to wrong conclusions.)

Neat. A pretty balanced and factual article. A few extra facts: hydro and biomass are stagnant, wind has doubled overall production from 2014-2021, and solar about 6x. [2] wind from 180 to 380TWH's, solar from 28TWH to 163TWH.

The issue then becomes realistic expectations. The world uses the equivalent of 180,000TWH [1] of electric energy per year, which is 20.5TW per hour. Overall, if vehicles and gas powered equipment were electrified, my understanding is the world would need about 3x as much electricity, or about 65TW's per hour constant production. I can't find the source for this number ATM.

I'm going to go ahead and use the number 500,000TWH of electricity to electrify the world.

Solar seems to be the key, and in the US in Oct 2021 there were 130 GWH of capacity[2]. There were 115TWH of electricity produced[3]. For which I have calculated an average efficiency of 11.5% (130gwh x 365 x 24 = potential for 1007TWH of production. 115/1007 = 11.5%)

If the world could average 11.5% efficiency putting panels close to usage and had adequate storage capacity, the world would require 565 terawatts per hour of capacity for decarbonization.

Bringing it all back together, this article shows a rough investment correlation of about $1 Billion per GW of renewable capacity. (110gw capacity added in 2031 for 115 billion usd. The earlier the timeframe, the more expensive per GW)

I understand this is back of the napkin, but the idea that the world requires 565,000gw of capacity at a Billion dollars per unit is terrifying.

That's 565 Trillion to decarbonize, and that doesn't include increasing total world energy usage year over year.

US electrical usage seems to be stagnant for about 15 years now, probably because of the increases in costs associated with the decarbonization of the grid.

The future is not bright. The future is broke and short energy.

[1]https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption

[2]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_Unit...

[3] https://www.statista.com/statistics/183447/us-energy-generat...
I interpreted "slower" as "later," ie wait longer before rotating.
Maybe this post just shows that the market system is inefficient, is full of painful friction.

Maybe we should have an economy that does pay people purely to make popular & impactful works.

Personally, given how awful everyone else has been at supprting the maintenance & development of our base digital infrastructure, I start to feel like we should/must resort to governments funding open source. The social benefit created is immense, powers so much enterprise & creation. We should look after & care for these interests. Perhaps we need a socialistic social system that can do what capitalism seemingly cant- and actually, it sure seems like we could potentially make a lot more money by expanding & growing the base library of really good things we fund/support.

The tough love no-one-deserves-to-get paid view looks like it causes enormous self harm to industry & the world. Good things, good infrastructure to start from, to work atop, seems obviously to the public benefit. It shouldnt be such a hellish toil to try to keep these projects afloat, the very minimum possible bar. Society should be driven to expand the free things we people can do, expand the scope of human possibility. Expanding liberty seems like such an obvious goal, but it seems so bizarrely reviled, so bitterly naysayed, alas!
Our best guess at current instantaneous inflation (i.e., month over month, annualized) is just over 6% inflation. Which is above target, but is not severe. It’s 0.5% for the last month for which we have data, which (if it were precise and held constant, which it isn’t and won’t) annualizes to 6.17%.

Obviously the US is not accustomed to this rate, but there’s not a lot that breaks in the US economy with the rate where it currently stands. The money illusion makes people irritated, which has an impact on animal spirits, and Fed tightening has a more tangible effect on investment decisions.

Personally when my friends asked me “what does it mean that the US is doing all this deficit spending on pandemic subsidies?” circa 2020, I said, “it means rich people like me and my fellow software developers are likely to have our wealth diminished through inflation, but it will have positive distributive impact on the poorer folks in the economy”.

I think that’s been born out. It would be nice if we could dial inflation back instantaneously, but it does appear that we’re moving out of wage-price spiral territory, so I don’t think we have to fear years of stagflation or anything severe like that.
We need lossless content first and foremost, after that we can worry about yet another image compression pipeline.
Agreed. But bearded women will likely only be used to bully.
Explain xkcd: Category:Artificial Intelligence
I don't know if I would characterize them as having monopoly control of the market because nearly 100% of all of my purchases are made online and 0.0% of my purchases have been made using amazon.com (or walmart.com).

Generally speaking I prefer to buy a product directly, or from a specialized retailer.

Last week I purchased a stethoscope from an online stethoscope retailer. A benefit of doing this is that they offer laser engraving-- something that Amazon, with its warehouses of robots and robot-like employees, cannot easily do.

The specialty retailer also carries a wider array of color and finish combinations, because that's their product niche.

Using a specialist retailer has allowed me to flex on my fellow volunteer EMTs with a personalized Technicolor stethoscope, which is dumb but nice.
We’ll that’s user-initiated de-escalation. Chatbots should also be able to offer de-escalation on their own.
Why is everybody forcing me to upload to the web the very files I want to keep private to myself? If any code in the universe should run locally, it's this kind of code.

I don't get it.

Great UI, though. But I still don't get it.
> In a world where people agonize over Netflix going from $9 to $14

Why is this acceptable/normalized as it is?
Glad to see someone cogently write what I've been thinking after reading some of the writeups and comments on BingGPT.

The Turing test is ours to fail.

Reading the transcript of Roose's interaction felt like reading a convo with a souped up version of ELIZA with a wider text bank from which to draw.
Well, we had a lot of folks here at HN being mad at us for the shape of the cursor on our corporate site but we are still not out of business :)

Anyway, no, the report did not lead to a scramble. As a matter of fact, it was not even treated as critical because it was not “business down” and no event different than business down is worth introducing (even potentially) more problems that it is solving.
Librem 5 was a crowdfunded project that started shipping backorders in 2020, which was also the year of great supply chain disruptions and in the end it's still going through the shipping queue. It has just reached mid-2019 orders, but things got better now and you should get yours in a matter of months: https://puri.sm/posts/where-is-my-librem-5-part-2/
I spell it out every time. "The C-L-I flag does foo"
A review which found that Trudeau was justified does not change anything I said. I personally haven’t read the entire report so I wont comment on whether or not I believe the actions were justified.

The reality is that it is legal for the Canadian state to extrajudicially suppress protests, hence why it is important to have cash around because of these laws.

Also what if the use of the Emergency Act is found to NOT be justified in a report a year later? How are you going to make those who had their bank accounts frozen whole again? A report in one years time in the future is not going to help you buy food or pay for shelter today.
I think there are two different kinds of consistency, and it's important to not conflate them.

There's consistency that's internal to a system. Do all of the foreign keys line up correctly? Have I lost any data that was provided to me? Here, we can aspire to be 100% correct. I don't think the examples in this article conflict with that.

Then there's consistency that's external to a system. This can be between this system and other systems, or between this system and reality. Did the operator enter the correct data for this item? Did the external system change and fail to tell me? Here there is no way to be 100% correct using only the tools that are inside the system. You need external audits, reality checks, periodic reconciliation.

Critically, all of the author's examples are about external consistency (accounting matching reality; inter-system communication), but their conclusion seems to be that because external consistency can't be fully achieved, we should be OK to abandon internal consistency within single systems. I think that's too strong a conclusion.
The capacity in Portland isn't there regardless of quality: 615 shelter units available for adults at 98.7% daily utilization, up from 84.8% in August and 90.1% in October.[1]

1: https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/johs/viz/ShelterUtili...
Small system aren't always simple or easy to understand. Famous code examples are Duff's Device [1] or the "wtf" fast inverse square root function [2]. Both functions are just a few lines long but usually leave people scratching their heads until they learn about the trick.

Especially with Demoscene code, it's common to exploit all kinds of specific hardware effects or re-parse the assembly code to a different instruction sequence [3]. This kind of stuff may be a lot more complex than a larger system, it just hides its complexity in a compressed representation.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duff%27s_device

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_inverse_square_root#Overv...

[3] https://reverseengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/20587...
> That's part of the reason biological research was so much more productive per $ input last century.

Isn't part of it also just that the long hanging fruit has already been picked?
Last I heard WebAuthn didn't have access to hmac-secret or prf outside of a Chrome canary. Has this changed recently?