skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The Death of PLCs (Program Logic Control) Is Coming
We have been working on #Industry4.0 Implementation and Industrial automation for more than 4 years. We see that the requirements are continuously changing to have more control on the operation and at the same time the data need to be sent and managed from the central server.

Today in the traditional system, we have a #HMI which has some program running to ensure that the human communication is transformed to send commands to PLC for it to read from sensors and write to actuator interfaces. PLC programs are done to work in tandem with the HMI.

In our projects, we were able to read and write via Digital interfaces to get the automation done bye passing the PLC. I believe we will be able to achieve the same with the analog interfaces as well.

Why such smart IoT Devices will replace PLCs on the long run.

1. Data communication both the ways comes by default enabling centralized control.
2. No need for the local data or instructions anymore.
3. Devices has become robust as PLCs running 24 X 7 for years in Industrial conditions.
4. Most Important point- No need to do programming at two places.
5. The customizable functional blocks of PLCs will be replaced with NO CODE / LOW Code application being embedded into these devices.

This is something that will happen over the next 10 years. There is a equal chance of PLC getting evolved with much better sophistication and merge the HMI programming into its layer and HMI will be just displays and eventually become the current day micro devices.

My Post on Linkedin - https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7031122084877455360/
That's cool.

Last I remember, the lifetime profile stuff was there, but there was still no way to add your own annotations. For some reason, I didn't hear too much about any of this, it was

- clang is working on it

- clang is working on it

- clang is working on it

- Visual Studio has it

- clang is working on it

- Silence

gcc still has nothing, right?
Disclaimer: I work at Google but not on docs.

I thought docs was working? At least in Mac's voice over on a laptop. There's also a menu setting to turn on more accessibility things. Not sure what that actually does though. But as of December VO could read the body text.
Author here if anyone wants to discuss or ask me anything.
"Do I seem like a rational person?"

Nope. Nor a rational one.

While there is little more frustrating than a spreadhsheet pretending it's a database this seems like it was written by a first year IT associate who doesn't really understand either side of this cycle.

Their advice boils down to do something stupid with a higher support burden rather than understanding when to use each tool in the arsenal.

While I'm deeply sympathetic the author should be discussing their issues with a therapist rather than spreading this on the internet as of there's some real basis for it.
Malicious compliance for C++ programmers. This is the person who thinks they're clever for breaking stuff because "You didn't say not to". Managing them out of your team is likely to be the biggest productivity boost you can achieve.

In the process of "improving" the performance of their arbitrary benchmark they make the system into an unmaintainable mess. They can persuade themselves it's still fine because this is only a toy example, but notice how e.g. squares grow a distinct height and width early in this work which could get out of sync even though that's not what a "square" is? What's that for? It made it easier to write their messy "more performant" code.

But they're not done, when they "imagine" that somehow the program now needs to add exactly a feature which they can implement easily with their spaghetti, they present it as "giving the benefit of the doubt" to call two virtual functions via multiple indirection but in fact they've made performance substantially worse compared to the single case that clean code would actually insist on here.

There are two options here, one is this person hasn't the faintest idea what they're doing, don't let them anywhere near anything performance sensitive, or - perhaps worse - they know exactly what they're doing and they intentionally made this worse, in which case that advice should be even stronger.

Since we're talking about clean code here, a more useful example would be what happens if I add two more shapes, let's say "Lozenge w/ adjustable curve radius" and "Hollow Box" ? Alas, the tables are now completely useless, so the "performant" code needs to be substantially rewritten, but the original Clean style suits such a change just fine, demonstrating why this style exists.

Most of us work in an environment where surprising - even astonishing - customer requirements are often discovered during development and maintenance. All those "Myths programmers believe about..." lists are going to hit you sooner or later. As a result it's very difficult to design software in a way that can accommodate new information rather than needing a rewrite, and yet since developing software is so expensive that's a necessary goal. Clean coding reduces the chance that when you say "Customer said this is exactly what they want, except they need a Lozenge" the engineers start weeping because they've never imagined the shape might be a lozenge and so they hard coded this "it's just a table" philosophy and now much of the software must be rewritten.

Ultimately, rather than "Write code in this style I like, I promise it will go fast" which is what you see here, and from numerous other practitioners in this space, focus more on data structures and algorithms. You can throw away a lot more than a factor of twenty performance from having code that ends up N^3 when it only needed to be N log N or that ends up cache thrashing when it needn't.

One good thing in this video: They do at least measure. Measure three times, mark twice, cut only once. The engineering effort to actually make the cut is considerable, don't waste that effort by guessing what needs changing, measure.
> If you have more than one person working on a codebase; clean code matters a lot.

You can have fast and clean code, just not the Uncle Bob style of "clean code". Uncle Bob hijacked the meaning of cleanliness. It doesn't mean that code written like that is actually clean, in fact it's usually the opposite: Uncle Bob's clean code is NOT clean.
I like how A Philosophy of Software Design discusses this issue you described:

> An abstraction that omits important details is a false abstraction: it might appear simple, but in reality it isn’t. The key to designing abstractions is to understand what is important, and to look for designs that minimize the amount of information that is important.
Printers and scanners are massively more complicated than my microwave. It has two physical dials and a hefty spring-loaded button to open the door. It doesn't speak USB or any network protocol, it doesn't have ink cartridges or paper to replace, it doesn't link up to a computer or smartphone…
>You do realize only a tiny tiny subset of kids were like that back in the day, right?

Not if you grew up in some post-communist/eastern european country in the '90s to '00s and wanted to play pirated games on the family PC. Except the linux part, no kids really cared about it.

All that tinkering to obtain and make pirated games work made a lot of kids proficient in PCs and Windows internals. Almost every 15 year old back then new at least something about .RARs, ISOs, .DLLs, .cfg and .ini files, IPs, network settings, registry settings, direct connect, CD burning, anti-viruses, binary patches, driver installs, etc.

I remember some article about 15 years ago that the SW industry and computer usage proficiency in eastern Europe blew up so quickly despite being impoverished VS the richer west because kids there had to fight witch complex systems to play videogames VS the kids in richer countries who would just plug in a cartridge or disc in the console and hit PLAY.

Not every kid back then was into tinkering and hacking, we only wanted to play games, but those of us who were went into tech as adults and the childhood experiences around PC problem solving definitely helped.
> Canada has announced it is banning TikTok from all government-issued mobile devices

This is only on work phones
> They never got together because I was between them.

I don't know how confident I would be about this, given that our body is mostly made out of a very good neutron moderator (water)…
On this note, there's a fantastic (bit of a curiosity item, but fantastic nonetheless) called Tempest for Eliza (http://www.erikyyy.de/tempest/) which will show the appropriate patterns on your screen to produce, as interference in a nearby AM radio, any music you pass to the program - including MP3s in its recent versions.

I used to think it would only work with a CRT, but it actually makes no mention of such a restriction in its latest README, and since I'm at work I'm not able to test it right away.
For anybody curious about the Catholic and monastic spirituality of silence, I would recommend a profound book:

The Power of Silence by Cardinal Robert Sarah

It’s final chapter is in fact a discussion with the Carthusian Master Dom Dysmus himself.
>"just like Russia and Iran are already doing."

Nice. I like it. They have forgotten longer list of countries that are doing or going to the same thing though. I guess not to dilute the impact of the statement.

I do not condone what UK is going to do of course. Just find the argument fishy.
If you want people to support a cause, you need a reason that resonates with most people.

Whether it being blasphemy, witchcraft, communism, terrorism or child abuse, just choose whichever is relevant at the current point in time and people will support your cause regardless if it is relevant. Politics within a democracy is just marketing, and fear is the most efficient marketing tool of all.

That's also why you always hear typical cliche's during election periods "during these difficult times", "it's time for change", "we must stay strong", etc. As cringe as it is, it has proven over and over again that it works.
One of my favourite writeups: https://www.the-angry-chef.com/blog/the-worlds-deadliest-thi...
Closest thing in Tarragona is Hierbas de Montserrat... similar but quite different. Also look into DOM Benedictine.
Why are these things always for Debian based distros, but never for Fedora ones?
That it is mentioned that it was a fellow $TechName employee is a testament to how rare violence between employees in the tech sector is.
I found PyO3 to be a bit weird to use. There's plenty of documentation, but it's kind of vague on the general basic concepts, which makes the library hard to understand (even though I have a background in writing CPython extensions in C).

Also, once you play with it more than 30m, you quickly realize that struct attributes are copied all over the place... which is not only slow, but more sadly any mutable function on an attribute will just silently modify a temporary copy...
If you like chartreuse and want something in a similar vein, I'd highly suggest Strega, an Italian herbal liqueur often stocked on the same shelf as chartreuse.
> That's the very opposite. That's a camera that uses IR illumination to record at night. That's what all those LEDs around the lens are for. And due to this it lacks any IR filtering. This particular camera is more IR sensitive than most cameras like DSLRs or cell phones.

No, the camera also has IR cut - it lists the feature right in the product title, and the customer-provided samples in the reviews clearly have an IR cut filter applied (you can tell by the "natural" colors in the daytime photos). Is has two modes of operation, daytime mode and nighttime mode. During daytime mode it employs an IR cut filter, and during nighttime mode it removes the filter and adds additional IR lighting for "night vision".

For more info on how IR-cut works in security cameras, see this support article from Annke (another seller of cheap security cameras on Amazon):
https://help.annke.com/hc/en-us/articles/4403980153497-What-...

> They still can see the blinking LED on an IR remote, because the filter isn't perfect.

Being able to see a faint blinking LED from a remote is not sufficient to prove that the effect is strong enough to completely obscure a person's face when an IR cut filter is applied, in my opinion.
It sounds as though you need to be more persistent. Keep replying. Ask to meet in person for an interview. Maybe see if any reporters would be interested in writing about your experience.

Make it painful for the MP to be an asshole.
There isn't opposition to this bill because authoritarians from the left and right love the idea of it. The left will be able to spy on the rich, the right will be able to spy on the poor.

There is nothing really you can do about it. Even if you vote this government out, the next one will implement this.
Something like "mesmerizing" coming from the German person named Mesmer?

That also happens in other languages, too, but English has a great affinity.

I think that's just drive by English having, what, 40-50 sounds? Which is quite a lot for a language, and English speakers having a huge aversion towards words with many syllables. 1 is perfect, 2 is okish, 3 is a lot, 4+ is an abomination.

So they tend to import anything they can pronounce and is under 3 syllables.
True, the example is simplistic, but that's just to make it fit within reasonable exposition.
The author has in the past shown (elsewhere) how his techniques can actually make dramatic differences in more concrete examples (he rose to some Internet fame for building a performant shell that could actually handle larger outputs orders of magnitude better than most available alternatives).

To me the interesting point is the reminder that there is an innate tension between going fast and being "clean" (i.e. maintanable/understandable). And once you are aware of it you can make your decisions in an informed way. Too often this tension is forgotten/ignored/dogmatically put to the back ("performance doesn't matter over cleanliness" and the likes).

Mind you, I'm also of the camp that performance is very secondary to cleanliness in modern enterprises, but I appreciate a reminder of just how much we are sacrificing on this altar.
In a Kerr black hole spacetime there is no orbital angular momentum (OAM, L), only the intrinsic spin angular momentum (SAM, S). One can get OAM in a relativistic n-body black hole problem. Each of those black holes will have its own SAM.

See §5.11. ANGULAR MOMENTUM in Misner, Thorne & Wheeler (MTW) and in particular Box 5.6 D (Intrinsic Angular Momentum) and E (Decomposition of Angular Momentum into Intrinsic and Orbital Parts). The latter gives J = L + S. Admittedly, in MTW §33 the authors prefer to use S (e.g. eqn. 33.4) but that raises the important caveat for binary black hole (BBH) mergers at the end of Box 33.4 (I)(A)(4), which refers back to Box 5.6). Newer textbooks and other sources (including Wikipedia [1]) prefer J, although commonly it gets called spin angular momentum (as in [1] and my earlier comment). Carroll's textbook calls it the Komar angular momentum (near eqn. 6.73, referring to eqn. 6.48) and "spin (angular momentum)" (above eqn. 6.47). This is the sort of thing that annoys mathematicians and non-relativist physicists about relativists; confusion is completely understandable.

A binary black hole (BBH) is not a Kerr solution. No exact analytical solutions to the Einstein Field Equations for a BBH have been found, only approximations and numerical solutions (see the comprehensive review by Baker et al. at <https://arxiv.org/abs/1010.5260> and \vec{L} therein, notably at section D(2) in the second column on PDF p. 26, "In a related phenomenon, the direction of the total angular momentum (\vec{L} + \vec{S}_1 + \vec{S}_2) may change.").

No change of coordinates can turn a BBH into a Kerr solution; the former radiates gravitational waves (if there is no incoming gravitational radiation), the latter doesn't.

(Another way of distinguishing is in the algebraic symmetries of the Weyl curvature tensor. Kerr is a Petrov type D spacetime, BBH spacetimes are generically type I up to some degeneracy measure.)

Finally, I can tie this in to neutron stars: the (exterior) Hartle-Thorne metric is an approximation of the Kerr metric useful for relativistic stars without horizons (neutron stars, white dwarfs) and without regard to interior differentiation. Its usual write-down uses J, but sometimes S, and sometimes both (e.g. <https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.04264>, where at the top of p. 2 the authors give J = GS/c^3).

[1]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_metric#Overview>, "J represents its spin angular momentum" and see eqn (6) further down, "a = J/Mc".
Is There an Ethical Way to Kill Rats?
> It’s not funny if you have to explain it but it was mostly a joke, without rolling eyes.

Poe law strikes again! My apologies then, because I known how Arch can have this reputation.

But Arch is just so good! Ubuntu and RedHat seem to be stuck in the past: it's not just about rolling releases, but many small details that pile up.

FYI I also find Alpine very interesting.
Auditing each tool by ourselves would cost a lot of time. Not to mention that it would not be a one-time thing. At each update, another check would be required for "peace of mind".

Curious to discuss if there is a way to trust these extensions without establishing ourselves that the code is not harmful.
> More complicated than your microwave, fridge freezer, television?

Absolutely, none of those tend to crap out by merely looking in their direction!

> There's nothing complicated about these devices

Printers and scanners have had atrocious UX for as long as I've lived - going from driver installation, to the accessory software, to poor hardware build quality and questionable decisions by the makers that reek of planned obsolescence, poor regard for consumable economy, and other nefarious ploys. This applies to both the home and professional (office) markets in my experience.

It's only in recent years where I've seen some printers or scanners where I've said to myself: "huh, you know what, this one ain't half-bad".
I wasn't long time ago wearing a mask mandatory on many places. So I guess it would be fine to cover face "because of fear from covid"?
I feel that office juniors must have been making that mistake since the 1960s? It doesn't need a "gen z is dumb lol" article.
Pseudoscience: The Fall and Rise of Bioelectricity
Well, my microwave never releases lovecraftian horrors instead of warming my food, whereas my printer regularly produces ancient runes instead of my documents.
> and the models were dominating every known task

I don't think this is very accurate. How well does LLM perform on image segmentation, for example?
One of Silero-VAD developers here. Check out our VAD here - https://github.com/snakers4/silero-vad
I think part of it is that current technology is mostly interacted with via software rather than worrying about how it is actually implemented. The article mentions not knowing that a paper to be copied needs to be upside down so it faces the copier glass. It's fun to laugh at that, but younger people aren't making that mistake "because they are stupid" but because they see that as just a weird user-interface fail. If you think how a copier works internally, obviously the copier can only copy things facing the glass, but if you are not used to thinking about the hardware, that just seems user-hostile.
Market it however you want, but when I lived in Scotland I never watched anyone pour any into a glass, or close a bottle back up.

They opened it. They drank it. Chaos followed.
Do you think government cares whether some service most of them probably have not heard about leaves or is shut down?

After all it will be all for the "greater good".
I assume PyO3 is a reference to the chemical formula of iron oxide (a.k.a. rust), which is Fe2O3?
Hmm. Example of such a service? Wonder if we can reverse engineer it.
Every country should have their own "Great Firewall" in order to control what's accessible (countries have their own laws) and to protect themselves against attacks, including by cutting themselves off from the internet.

In any case, as you mention many countries can already block specific websites and services from being accessed from within their borders.
That's till they learn the Google way, which seems to be: never contradict the algorithms
This argument is like watching multiple Tarot-card readers arguing over tea leaves. Hilarious content. This entertainment is why I come to HN. Everything you said is a guess, but you say it with such sincerity and conviction, as if it could have been written by the new Bing-powered-by-ChatGPT. Good work all.
I skimmed the article and really enjoyed it. I admire the authors effort and will come back to read it in full soon.

I have spent a lot less effort on a similar endeavor before deeming GPT inappropriate for this purpose, with similar takeaways as the ones noted in "What doesn't work"

I think the reason behind these shortcomings is because of the nature of GPT.

It's designed to predict the most likely words to come after the prompt and as such it's very prone to fall in cliches, stereotypes and tropes.

I think the next iteration algorithm is going to feel less like generated content but will still maintain a hack writer feel.

I would wager the author could get better results with a system where the substance of the content is generated through another process, possibly something like dwarf fortresses world and lore generation, and having a GPT layer that would put that content in more creative prose.
It's already passed the commons unfortunately.
In which ways?

I agree with this, but I'm interested in example of things that can break.

Assuming I've not been badly burned by spreadsheets in an automated process, I would not be convinced by this post alone.

It would be interesting for instance as additional convincing arguments I could give to refuse spreadsheet use in a process.

But maybe this is not the point of this post.
If I commission a unique work of art, I own the copyright to it. Noone can legally copy it without my permission.

Back to my original post, I don't understand why this is a persistent issue? Regardless of how it was produced, the legal owner of a unique work has copyrights.

Using an AI tool to produce a work of art is no different than using a camera to produce a photograph. In either case, whoever used or controlled the *tool* used to produce the work is the legal owner of it.
And now watch a select few buy up as much stock as they can with an attempt to flip it for a much higher price.
I will say, this guy is one of the less shady characters. Hasn't even seen a ufo in real life, even though many of his peers did. I enjoyed his KONCRETE Podcast.

His description of UFOs isn't anything out of this world either. They can do Mach 1, almost from standstill, with no visible means of propulsion (no heat byproduct for Flir).

But same playbook as every other ufo tard. Release the top secret sensor data and blow trillions of dollars in tech advantage. So he will get to blow hard for a long time. He is leader of a UFO council of industry that seek to understand and exploit these crafts for tech benefit.

I have a pretty good feeling he knows the UFO craze is BS. He speaks very couched on the subject. This article is really about as far as this guy goes. I'm very surprised he even ruled out balloons, as he usually sticks to facts, and the facts in most of these cases isn't so exciting when you realize everything is just forward looking infrared radar. And pilots use the word "saw" interchangeably for things their eyes see and things FLIR and other instruments see.

This crowd is way more than willing to consider infrared radar instrument created images and videos as just as real as light. Problematic.