skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
How hard is it to do apt update && apt upgrade -y every once in a while?
No. The term is perfect and evokes exactly what it should evoke. That there is debt that will need to be paid sooner than later and that you should take it only if the "resources" (faster time to market) from that loan can be invested into "profits"
But you're not really engaging in good faith here. The "whole country" does not agree, in the least. The parts that are unhappy about having "their" president overthrown declare their independence. The new government refuses to acknowledge these declarations, and tries to forcefully recapture these countries. And we have a Civil War, exactly as happened in Ukraine.

And now the US is happy to push this Civil War to the brink of World War over what would have otherwise been a relatively inconsequential border war. And I think Einstein's quote is quite apt, "I do not know what weapons WW3 will be fought with, but I do know that WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones."

It's all about as brilliant as WW1 where a Bosnian Serb assassinates an Austro-Hungarian royal and the next thing you know Brits are killing Germans over it, and tens of millions die. And the icing on the cake is the ethnic issues that drove those initial events still exist, more than 100 years later.
If I were to sleep on the floor to meet deadlines. I better be paid 200% OT for hours I slept...
Should be under account settings somewhere. Loads of walkthroughs online to consult as well. But depending on your circumstances, like if she doesn't care about being in the Microsoft ecosystem, it might be safer to create a fresh local account and delete the MS account from the laptop, just to prevent any crosstalk.
If it's a program you wrote to run on your on hardware, feel free. But in reality most programmers write programs for other people's computers, or just write programs because it's fun or pays well, and then their work gets integrated into a larger whole at a much later date, and then it's run in contexts the original author never imagined, long after they move on. Safety checks catch the base-level logic bugs that would otherwise cause programs to go silently wrong and misbehave in complex and inscrutable ways. Disabling them is not just living dangerously, it's a moral hazard; the programmer doesn't suffer the consequences, users do. It's not your program or computer at risk, but someone else's. I don't know how as a profession we're so cavalier with shipping exposed whirling knives, but we are.
> All content that resides under any "ee/" directory of this repository, if such directories exists, are licensed under the license defined in "ee/LICENSE".

Man I really hate how the term "Open Source" is used nowadays.
No worries; nor am I. I think in English speaking nations "petroleum" or "petroleum derivative" would work as an umbrella term.
In The Hard Thing About Hard Things, Ben Horowitz purposes exactly this definition.
Lol talk about missing "the forest for the trees".
> What am I missing?

Sometimes without bounds checking you get an exploit instead of a crash.
Sometimes technical debt is framed as an accident or a mistake, as if someone spent money on a credit card irresponsibly. And certainly sometimes that is the case.

But any kind of debt can enable leverage when it is done intentionally and with an understanding of the short term vs long term tradeoffs and risks.
Yup, always try to work in the profit centers, not the cost centers. Was reminded of that a job or two ago in a big way.
My "single issue" is not having a far-right coalition use a protect-the-children anti-trans moral panic affecting at most a few thousand people to mobilize a fascist takeover of my country.

In five years it has gone from "we just really care about female youth sports ok?" to "protect the children" and now already we are starting to see the first restrictions on adult trans healthcare and bans on queer public life.

If you were ignorant of that you'd be a fool, but I don't think you are which makes your support of it much more sinister.

And the wild thing is you don't even need to go through all this trouble! You could just say trans people squick you out and you'd prefer they not exist. There would be no consequences, it's now a mainstream position thanks to credulous supporters of these policies.
I think most college campuses have something similar. When I was in college, I did the same thing, and noticed quite a few other folks going around rescuing furniture.
Japanese housing policy has what seems like an inefficient system of knocking down any buildings older than some age when sold, with wood being 22 years, reinforced concrete being 47 years.

But it has three really great side effects

1. Because they always need to be building, they never run into this problem of losing institutional knowledge to keep building.
2. Buildings are periodically refreshed up to code for things like Earthquakes.
3. Because housing is never seen as an investment they don't get the NIMBY problem.
at the end of the day, you're still selling your time and labor for the same or more hours per week.

as they say "time is money", except that while you can certainly earn more money, there's no earning ownership of your time as a wage worker until you're able to eject yourself entirely from it (whether through retirement, death, or taking your turn as the owner for workers).
Most developers cannot know ahead of time if a goven piece of code needs to be entensible.

Often noone does
One use that comes to my mind are trash bags. I'm almost embarrassed to ask this, but what did people use for trash bags before plastic was invented? I've tried Googling this a few times with unsatisfying results. Trash bags by definition need to be disposable.
Currently being tracked here: https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/gcsfuse/issues/961
People seem to be attributing "bad intent" here that may not have occurred. In my experience, situations like this occur quite often for various "good intention" reasons. Usually they are resolved before there's an issue, but sometimes they don't work out.

For example, the sponsorship form might not have been signed by someone with signing authority. Usually, it's a lower-level marketing (or even engineering) person that is working on getting everything squared away. The peon who is "negotiating" was told by their management that they want to do it. The peon assures the person who they are working with at the event that it's going to happen (because they've been told that).

The time comes to print the materials, and the form still hasn't been signed. The event has two options - Forgo the possibility of the $5k sponsorship by telling Couchbase that they haven't signed the commitment, so they can't print their logo. Or hope that things comes through.

Again, 99% of the time, things work out. Printing the materials even though they didn't have the agreement (or money) in hand was the right call for the organization.

But sometimes it doesn't work out ...

Maybe (pure hypotheticals following, because we don't yet know) the person who was working on the sponsorship at the Couchbase end left the company. Maybe their boss, who had given the "okay" even left the company. Now there's no one at Couchbase who knew where this agreement was in the process - They only know that there's no sponsorship commitment that has been made. And they question why there doing it in the first place.

That's just one example.

Maybe the person who signed the sponsorship form wasn't a director and didn't have signing authority, but thought they were authorized to sign something as "simple" as a sponsorship form. Oops! The employee is fired for signing a $5k agreement, the agreement isn't technically valid, and ...

---

Sometimes things are moving along beautifully and someone in management (rightfully) asks to have legal do a "quick review" of it, and there turns out to be something that the attorney has issue with (often an indemnification clause, inserted by an attorney on the other end). They end up not being able to resolve it and get the sponsorship agreement signed at all. Deadline passed, logos printed already ... uh oh.

---

If there was a sponsorship agreement in place, then let's be realistic - It's doubtful that Couchbase would be thinking they could just get away with "pulling out" four days before the conference.

Something else is going on here. I've been through this before myself -- Usually we get the agreement finalized in time, for the good of all parties.

But is T3chFest really "out" this money? Would they have found another sponsor in time? Or did they go ahead and print the materials because they really had no other choice, and no time to line up another sponsor before the deadline since Couchbase hadn't signed the forms yet?
Elon is such a turbo jackass. like a normal jackass but faster.

he is eroding any loyalty the still employed employees may have. if they're smart employees, anyway. if they're not smart, he doesn't want them.

on personal sacrifice for an employer:

the belief that working hard and sacrificing your personal time will bring promotion and reward in the US is severely misplaced in 2023, especially with any publicly traded company, or even a private company beyond a certain size. each employee becomes a resource just like water or electricity or compute or storage, and good behavior is neither noticed nor rewarded. resources are managed as resources, and not as people. certainly not as beings which grow and improve with proper care and feeding.
That's a good point and important. My background is philosophy so I wasn't thinking about books describing historical events.
btw note that you're arguing this point in a the thread of a blog post about a feature that is all about maintaining safety while not paying for it at runtime. There's an entire section dedicated to explaining this point.
If you want to add new stuff to Stable Diffusion - you don't have to retrain the main model from scratch.
You can train it only on a few hundred images at a time and then add the resulting model as an extension or merge it into the main model.
People train their models on a single celebrity or a single artist that way.

Other types of AI could be trained in a similar way.
You can go onto youtube and find dozens if not hundreds of people wanting to share their expertise with the world on every subject you could possibly imagine. "Qualifications" are just the result of a lobbying effort from those already in the industry to restrict supply in order to increase the rates they can charge.
hilariously bad. I wrote a random sentence and it had 80% detected "AI". This isn't doing anything other than some static lookups of tokens or something.
For the subcase where the literals are all members of a same overarching type (like your "MyRange" example), there has been some experimentation in this direction in Rust: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/107606
I don't know if the OP's implementation uses arguments by copied values or not, but I will say that there's a fairly simple transformation that converts purely functional code into continuation-passing style (CPS), where instead of returning, you take a continuation, and pass what you would normally return, into the continuation like this:

(def avg (a b) (/ (+ a b) 2))

...becomes:

(def avg (a b cont) (+ a b (lambda (s) (/ s 2 cont))))

Note that in the converted code + and / also don't return values, instead calling the continuations they're passed on their results.

Pervasive CPS means that everything is a tail call, which means that you can tail call optimize (TCO) everything. The trivial implementation of TCO probably uses copy, but you can notably store values created in the current frame on the stack instead of the heap, and then pass by reference. Any unreferenced values can be removed, and the referenced values can be compacted within the frame to reduce stack space. However, in practice, it's faster to wait until you run out of stack space and then go back and compact everything in one go (this approach was pioneered by Chicken Scheme, I think). If you think through how this stack compaction might work, you'll quickly see that this is equivalent to a mark-sweep-compact garbage collector.

If your language is purely functional (Chicken Scheme isn't) then you have an additional property, which is that objects can only be referenced by objects higher on the stack. This means that if you start from the top of the stack, you can mark and sweep in a single pass, because when you arrive at a node, if it hasn't been marked by any of the objects higher in the stack, it's not referenced and can be swept. If your stack is stored in reverse order in memory (that is, the top of the stack is the earliest in memory) this mark/sweep pass is extremely cache friendly. You can also build up a backreference table during this pass, which means you only need one additional pass to compact. Again, the inverted stack is cache friendly, because even though you're passing over the stack in reverse order, backpatched references are likely to be local to the things they reference, which pulls objects into cache before they are referenced.

That's an absurdly long way to say I don't know the answer the question, but that's all to say that there are good reasons why an implementation of a heapless architecture might pass by reference rather than by copy.
Like the famous image of the guy who's sitting next to a pretty girl, straining to supposedly hold a fart, I can't NOT mention this. I work for a blue chip Fortune 250. We write software for a computer embedded in our products. This software is broken up into 8 pieces, which are reduced to the least-common parts.

Every database, application, and workflow in the company has to deal with possibly 8 different part numbers when referring to a release of software. From the mainframe, to the PDM to the ERP to every single ad-hoc Excel spreadsheet used by every department to help manage the complexity.

Most of the parts are shared across various builds, with 2 or 3 of the "subfiles" being different. So, in a release of hundreds of various custom softwares for a particular hardware product, there are hundreds-times-5-to-8 subfiles released. Each software must be broken apart, checked for commonality, and rebuilt using the common files, and then checked against the base build to make sure that it rebuilt correctly. Each release of software requires LITERALLY DAYS of work to do this, even with Excel macros.

I wrote software to automate all of this. It took a half an hour, with NO manual intervention. It was strangled in the crib.

WHY do we do this? Before WAN's became de rigueur, we took our software to the computer on the production lines that programs the embedded computers on floppy disks, and the software had to be broken up into 8 parts so that it would... fit on a floppy. We operate with a built-in technical debt that hasn't been needed for 30 years which would literally break the company to address. It's virtually unseen at this point.

If there's a worse example of "technical debt," I'd love to hear it.
I think it stems from people not really clued in into financials and assume debt is bad and not just a tool to make more money. Which is essentially is for non-businessmen, you take on debt to get the thing you want now, not later, vs businessess, which take on debt now to make more money now
The pattern for past large google outages has been:

1. Some networking-related service has global, non-standard (compared to the rest of the company) configuration

2. The relevant VP is aware and has decided not to change it because that change is quoted as impossible

3. Some change elsewhere happens that assumes standard configuration

4. The networking service breaks and causes a global outage

5. VP is told to fix it

6. Fix rolls out in weeks, because it wasn't as hard as they said before
Life lessons from differential equations – John D Cook
I think the point is that often the "quick" approach is slower even in the short term. Meaning you end with hacky, poor quality code for no benefit. It isn't always the case, but it often is.
We spend more, separately, on health, social security and income security than the military. Military spending is tied with medicare.

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...
I find the most helpful way to think about it is to think that most tech debt is introduced by the product manager. A product is built according to spec, and then the spec changes, a new feature is added, a performance characteristic is changed, and now the engineer has tech debt he must resolve to satisfy the product manager’s spec.

This changes the conversation to where tech debt is good, but so is paying it down. Good engineers will better anticipate the possible future changes in requirements and design for them and will incur less “tech debt” to pay back when product adds a feature.
I find the killer feature to be the ability to pause games. Sure, I could do that on my PC, but since this whole Deck is dedicated to just running the game, and I can set it aside, do the thing I need to do (maybe on my PC) and come back and start right where I left off, it feels different, more integrated, because for a little while, the game state and the deck state are the same. It is less like the Deck is running the game and more like the Deck is the embodiment of the game.
Someone manually flagged the post.
Yeah, but their history ( and accumulated goodwill ) are similar to Microsoft's. They may say it is 'open' or sprinkle appropriately sounding corporate speaking all over the press release, but the actions will, at best, temporarily prevent them from going 'full evil ahead'.

And I like that announcement. I just don't think they will actually follow through on this.
Can you be too thin? Yes, but most people have problem with eating too much, not too little. Same with technical and organizational debt, places taking on too little debt isn't a situation worth talking about since it is so rare. Much more likely people are motivating their poor choices since yes, in some cases it is worth taking out, but when you are already obese then eating another pie isn't going to help you stay healthy.
I guess one technique is to train a model on various language model outputs to classify these as good/bad/intriguing/robot-sounding/repetitive/etc. A human can tag the answers for the training dataset.

Then, we can use this model to compare different LLMs and optimize new models - could be with genetic algorithms or just a human tweaking the model - so that the LLM maximizes whatever we want.
Dinothey
I assume they just threw the trash into the bin and probably kept it outside.
To each their own! I feel the same way about Algol family languages, too many arbitrary design decisions that have been internalised for decades at this point for my liking.
We Should Keep Reading Freud
Prompt Injections are bad, mkay?
https://archive.ph/XC5VS
Yeah, my background is history so that explains the difference in how we're considering things.
Inside the home office of Daniel Stenberg – the creator of curl
Heh, pretty excited that my cpap machine is coming today
> What I meant was that these days a lot of people feel the need to immediately push back on someone's opinion by framing it as ethically bad.

I think the problem with statements like this is that there are some things they could refer to that are very, very obviously (at least from where I sit) actually ethically bad, but were considered by many to be acceptable things to say few generations ago. Things like sexist and racist jokes, comments about where women and "colored" people belong, blatant homophobia and transphobia—y'know, all the widely-normalized bigotry that was a part of the rich white male landscape in the postwar years, à la Mad Men, remained so to some extent at least through the late '90s, and continues to be aggressively defended by some to this day.

It is true (I might even call it a truism) that some people go too far and overreact, but I think it's important to step back and think for a minute about just how short a time it's been since these things were considered widely acceptable. Then think about how that affected the people still around today who had to sit through that. Then remember that, as I said, there are still many people today who are actively advocating for a return to that blatant bigotry.

This is why you get people who overreact even to genuinely-benign questioning of such policies: because it's very hard, in many cases, to tell the difference between someone who's just asking questions, and someone who's "just asking questions"[0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
It's a large region. Also the virus didn't come from anywhere near there. Also, the bats they supposedly came from weren't sold at the wet market. Start with the suspicion and work your way through the facts from there.
I go with "baggage" for this reason. It's stuff that you need to bring along every time you move forward and the more you have the more you have to bring forward each time.

Getting rid of it implies a check to see if you need it and some work to do that (while you can wholesale throw away things, sometimes you'll find that you've thrown away some important functionality).
And the story that got me hooked on hard sci-fi that's about a neutron star as well (but not about life on a neutron star)! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_Star_(short_story)
Interesting that the term 'meme' appears in this text, which didn't get much traction until 2010s

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=m...
Let's assume there's a correct "brand" for Coca Cola in Arabic (I have no idea if there is, but I'm sure there's some large brand that was localized) - there will certainly be a very large number of people who recognize that brand name, even if they cannot read, and will recognize it if you break it, just like someone with no literacy at all can recognize something is broke if they see a coke can labelled LOCA CACO.
The GPT-3 they are comparing to is the one that was released on 2020. Since then OpenAI made a lot of improvements and nowadays I believe GPT-3.5 is competitive to Palm (540b). Still, LLaMa is in the same tier, with much less parameters.
To those who are saying that she got what she deserved, she will have plenty of job offers lined up because she was selling herself as being the kind of person we abhor and typical management loves and clearly we have bought it. So will some others who have jobs to offer.
I'm not even talking about 'in the long term'.

I have often seen developers weigh up doing it 'right' or doing it 'quick', and the 'quick' solution turns out to have more complexity than originally anticipated, and take a lot longer than expected. Sometimes the reason the 'quick' way seemed quick was just because the problems with it were less understood.

The 'right' solution generally is harder, but the 'right' solution is better understood, and people can be surprisingly productive on things they understand and believe in when they knuckle down and get to it.
For those unaware this is a reference to the Three Body Problem trilogy, where some people out together a human archive on Pluto as described.
The meaningless error message can be entered into Google and the user can find a thread about how to fix their specific problem instead of wading through endless threads of similar-but-unrelated problems.
> I always thought technical debt was a euphemism for speed over quality.

For a first pass approximation it is.

The post is a soup of manager-speak and blogger-speak. I might be too hungover to decipher it properly, but I'm pretty sure it's saying: go back and fix the places you scarified quality in the name of development speed, but only if fixing it will unlock more development speed. (And don't let those shifty fucks sneak in a refactor that doesn't bring any development speed RIO).