skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Is this the norm?

I'd say no if you were to treat your data with the same requirements as accountancy systems, like double entry bookkeeping accountancy systems.

So accountancy systems and thus your app would let you make changes to data that forces the reason for change to be documented, but either way its documented using the app, so that when looking back, just like accountants and auditors know why a change has occurred when doing year end or quarterly reports, you can also do the same. It also helps you highlight devs not cutting the mustard and it also highlights any potential fraud occurring inside the business with staff gaming the system.

I'd never allow any direct change to the db, but then my apps would also be encrypting data making it near impossible to perform changes to a db, other than messing around with the unencrypted data in index fields, which forces hackers to acquire the app and reverse engineer it, and then they have to understand the obfuscation built into the apps besides the obfuscation built into the db, but this approach makes rebuilding corrupted db indexes easier should they ever occur.

I know some people prefer having all the logic in the backend, but its about balancing the logic between the backend and the front end, ie spreading risk to make hackers jobs harder.

> This also seems like it could bring compliance issues.

This approach (making and documenting changes from within the app(s)) would meet all compliance and ISO standards.
Whiteboard coding almost always devolves into leetcode which also requires at home study. You're going to be spending evenings and weekends coding something in either case.
Is there a simplified term for this similar to Conway’s Law?

Wouldn’t the mental health reflect the organization and its communication style?
Again, cannot believe so many people are wrong about this.

teams.LIVE.com is the HOME version of TEAMS. - does NOT work on ANY FF version.

teams.MICROSOFT.com is the ENTERPRISE version of Teams. - WORKS on FF

But hey feel good when devs are wrong about basic shit. I have some job security then.

*again downvoted by mad incels
https://youtu.be/aPd8MaCyw5E ("ShmooCon 2014: You Don' Have The Evidence - Forensic Imaging Tools") was quite an eye-opening talk about common tools, like the article-mentioned `dd` (and its cousin `ddrescue`) and how they deal with I/O errors.

To be clear, I do not believe that the tools are at fault - rather, the SATA/SAS/IDE controllers have a different design goal, and software tools can only do so much.

Tools like DeepSpar (HW+SW), PC-3000 (also HW+SW) allow for a scary level of nitty-gritty access to HW, including flashing SSD/HDD controller FW in case in went pear-shaped), but for data recovery - be it in a forensic context, or in a context of retrieving important irreplaceable data, I have always had a nerd-lust for those tools. Used them at a previous job, but can't ever justify the price for personal and very infrequent use. :)
Streets have to access all buildings due to fire fighting reasons, unless you also plan to rearchitecture the firefighting infrastructure to use pipelines branching from a huge central fire extinction station.
If you accept things like space and time as a given, it is not so hard to see why. When you are measuring many-particle systems the easiest thing to do is measure each particle individually, with detectors that interact with small numbers of them. That privileges the basis that separates out particles over those that we would describe as entangled combinations. Carrying that over to the cat picture requires noting that most of our measurements of the cat, like reflecting photons off of it, interact strongly with individual particles in a way that separates them by spatial location.

This takes us back to my original point, which is that although the consequences of space seem mysterious in a perspective so abstract that there is no space, they no longer seem so mysterious when you include other facts about physics, like about particles and fields. I am aware that there are some attempts underway to figure out how space could come about as a consequence of quantum stuff, but even they add extra behavior on top of the postulates of QM in order to plant the seed, so to speak, that spacetime grows from.
The siesta is the middle of the work day, not the end.
I'm a grown up adult and if I wanted to block tracking I could. The fact that I don't should be the only answer needed but that's not good enough for the EU. They want to force companies to ask me because they want to take care of me and make sure I'm all right. You know, I left home at 18 to get away from my parents...
This looks really promising. I wish the abstract used some English words :-D
The explanation for why US passenger rail is so slow, as I've read in other threads, is that the lines are at capacity with freight and it often has precedence. The distances traveled are often enormous, and the amounts so large given how hard it is to move things by ocean from the west coast to the east, that it is probably hard to do this. This has been bemoaned by passenger rail as misplaced priorities, but in terms of the environment this is probably optimal since train is many orders of magnitude more efficient than trucks, especially with the length of freight trains in US (another advantage US freight efficiency has over European, and also blamed for slower passenger lines in the US).

Europe has far more passenger rail, but seems to pay for it with less efficient
freight rail and a lot more trucks.
Rule 0 in Engineering: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Need to do this study across a couple of economic cycles because the last few years have been atypical for both stress and hiring patterns.

It reads like Denmark has linked employment and health data so I guess they can do so for as far back as the records go.
This makes a good case for effect systems in conjunction with FP, so they can be reasoned about as well. Something like
https://koka-lang.github.io/koka/doc/index.html

Having said that, having something like Daedelus in there as well would give a handle on temporal-based determinism, and then some allowance for delimited continuations would top things off nicely.
Why is it "official"?
I’ve personally enjoyed their blog (and software) a lot and am sad to see it stop.

While there are many other great web security-oriented blogs, what are your favorites? I want to expand my (preferably RSS) feeds.
If your performance is measured by these signup metrics, guess what a mediocre manager will do
You have realize the purpose of SV automation then. Not to advance human productivity but to rid itself of a class of people en bulk.
I self host most everything through unRAID. I spent a good amount of money getting a good server setup. The only thing I rely on the cloud for is email.

I've gone through several iterations of hardware and hard drive capacity over about 7-8 years now. Hard to imagine I'll ever go back.

It's not even about the monthly subscriptions, I've spent more on hardware I'm sure, plus my monthly VPN and Usenet fees. It's really an exhaustion of SaaS becoming essentially keyloggers of our entire lives. I guess self hosting is the closest we have of opting out, but even then it's not enough.
I don't know what you mean. Just because C++ has "const", you can still make a method that doesn't mutate without the keyword. Seems like a "No True Scotsman" definition of expressiveness.
P.S. It's possible I was simply blind to the upper class signalling. Things like word choice, manner, etc.
No. Ironically I bought the unlocked version then never took it past stock speed. That's why I didn't bother getting the unlocked new one.
The question is where do we start setting the limits for regulations? I mean ya we ban nukes, but we also ban high powered layers and anti aircraft weapons. It's going to need limits in multiple dimensions.
Breakfast is the only meal that's unavoidable... since it's the one that breaks fast. Call it dinner, or lunch or whatever, but if it's the first one, it's breakfast.
At the time Microsoft worked directly with vendors to have many of what would be vendor extension on OpenGL become cross-vendor core DirectX features.
Are we celebrating theft from tech companies now?
Maybe you should read my rebuttal first? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35026981
Dunno, I successfully refactored some legacy services. Some of them even were a big index.js spaghetti files.

You have to start with the smallest and most conservative to the most "refactory" ones:

- figure out what enters and what exits from the program, and create a test suite that reflects every known combination

- move parts of main() to funcions

- figure out what variables can be converted from mutations to returned values

- move thr ifs(){} to maps, early returns and such

- figure out the database schemas from newly written data

- infer model relationships fro further writes

- attempt to implement some pattern design, even if its just dummy variables

Sometimes you even have to do it at the last stretch of time of your workday, and slowly the mess will become clearer, your test suit more exhaustive and comprehensive.

And at some point it will achieve feature parity with the legacy service
> There's a reason why Harvard is happy to take people's money and give them an education in the Harvard Extension School, but why they firmly tell those people they can't call themselves Harvard graduates.

Just wanted to add since I've looked into Harvard Extension School (HES): a HES graduate from a degree program is enrolled in the Harvard Alumni Association and does get to refer to themselves as a "Harvard graduate".

The degree is from the HES with a degree in "Extension Studies", which is the big distinction versus "real" Harvard, but I also suspect that beyond you first or second job, that becomes about as meaningful as your GPA.

Also importantly, that difference has come up in the last few years, to the point where the Harvard College Undergraduate Council and the Harvard Graduate Council both voted last year in favour to remove that differentiation from HES degrees[1]. It is however, Harvard University that has to decide, although it's quite interesting that the students - who are generally considered to be the ones who make the biggest fuss about "real" Harvard - are the ones in support of the move.

It's also worth noting that the child of a HES graduate is still considered a legacy, so that benefit is also conferred on their family.

---

[1] https://blogs.harvard.edu/lamont/2022/03/28/harvard-college-...
The logic of reparations does not require poverty on the part of the victim.

It requires acknowledgement of an injustice, and a requirement that the perpetrator has to make good on it. In the case of blacks we have forcible capture, slavery, a variety of discriminatory laws and policies, lynchings, and so on. There is no shortage of historical wrongs done to blacks that were never meaningfully made up for.

So far, so good. However the logic runs into some major problems. First of all, what are the rights of current blacks to reparations due to the wrongs done to their ancestors? Second, how do we identify the perpetrators who need to owe repayment? Third, is it fair to punish those descendants now for the actions of ancestors that they do not know? And fourth, what reparation would be sufficient?

My personal position is as follows.

First, if we extend to one group reparations for wrong past, we have to extend this to all groups. That way lays insanity. I'm half Irish. My ancestors were targeted by the KKK for being Catholic, targeted by the English over centuries for being Irish, and escaped to the USA from an entirely preventable famine. Every ethnic group can rehearse its own story of victimhood, and the act of doing so primarily harms those groups again.

Second, identifying perpetrators is hard. For example American blacks are more likely to be descended from slaveholders than the average white American. I grew up in poverty and there were no slaveholders in my ancestors for at least the last 200 years. I don't think it is fair to ask me to pay for the crimes of other people's ancestors.

Third, holding people accountable for the actions of their ancestors crosses the line into collective punishment. Collective punishments of all kinds are considered human rights violations, no matter how strong the rationale. See https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v2/rule103 for a list.

Fourth, no one-time cash reparation can make up for the ongoing problems that we continue to inflict on black communities. Therefore rather than focusing on the justices or injustices of such reparations we should focus on fixing what we continue to do wrong in the present. Of which, unfortunately, there is no shortage.
> I've never seen an "alignment proponent" who didn't already agree and consider it a terrible idea.

Their position is that it is a hard problem to solve, but not impossible. They are fully committed to bring about AGI/ASI.
I'm not referring to the challenge of coding with this style. I am referring to actual trade offs.

It increases safety at the expense of modularity and expressivity by a huge amount. The trap door to get around it, is to implement the copy trait, but the point of rust is to minimize this action as much as possible for speed.
Questions I'd ask:

- what's the dog's daily routine?
- what commands does the dog understand?
- what will the dog do if the leash is dropped?
- how does the dog react to: cats, squirrels, small dogs, larger dogs, birds, loud noises, children, people approaching, etc?
- what foods are ok? What foods are not ok?
- is the dog allowed on furniture? If not, what's the command?
- what is the dog's tell to go outside?
> Rust is designed around safety and soundness. Roughly speaking, safe code is code that doesn't use the unsafe keyword, and sound code is code that can't cause memory corruption or other undefined behavior.

I'd be a bit more precise here. Safety is indeed a property of some particular lexical part of the code, but soundness is really a property of an entire interface. A sound interface never causes UB when you invoke it according to its documented preconditions; an unsound interface may possibly cause UB in some situations even when invoked according to its preconditions.

Some take a narrower definition of soundness, treating it primarily as a property of a safe interface: a sound interface that can be invoked from safe code can never cause UB under any circumstances. But personally, I prefer the broader definition, since it also includes unsafe interfaces which don't document all the preconditions they rely on.

Knowing your interface boundary is an important part of writing unsafe code in Rust. For instance, suppose you have a data type with a method that unsafely makes a certain assumption about its fields. Then you have to be very careful to uphold this invariant in every other safe method that creates or modifies those fields. Furthermore, you have to ensure that no language-level operations on the object as a whole (e.g., swapping, dropping, forgetting, or covariant transformations) can break this invariant. But once you have locally checked all of those things, then you don't need to check any other part of the code base to know that your data type is sound.

As another example, contrary to what some people say, it's not necessarily unsound to have a safe function that can cause UB on some inputs. You just have to ensure that external code cannot call that function (without having previously unsafely promised not to call it incorrectly), and no internal code calls it incorrectly. Here, the interface boundary is the entire section of your code that has access to the function.

In particular, you sometimes see this with data types that have to implement safe traits using unsafe operations (for performance or for other reasons). Often, the function to create an object is unsafe, since you have to promise that the rest of your safe code does not invoke those trait implementations in such a way as to cause UB. Practically, you can do this by limiting how much of your code has access to the created object.
> The regulation, proposed by the Commission in 2021, was designed to ban some AI applications like social scoring, manipulation and some instances of facial recognition. It would also designate some specific uses of AI as “high-risk,” binding developers to stricter requirements of transparency, safety and human oversight. The catch? ChatGPT can serve both the benign and the malignant.

This does not mean that the regulation is broken but that it should have come even sooner. As Uber found out, to run faster than regulations just works for so much time.

> In February the lead lawmakers on the AI Act, Benifei and Tudorache, proposed that AI systems generating complex texts without human oversight should be part of the “high-risk” list — an effort to stop ChatGPT from churning out disinformation at scale.

This seems an actual good goal. Move fast and break things is not a good approach when what you are breaking is the whole society.

> The EU's AI Act should “maintain its focus on high-risk use cases,” said Microsoft’s Chief Responsible AI Officer Natasha Crampton

> A recent investigation by transparency activist group Corporate Europe Observatory also said industry actors, including Microsoft and Google, had doggedly lobbied EU policymakers to exclude general-purpose AI like ChatGPT from the obligations imposed on high-risk AI systems.

Of course Microsoft wants to sell a product even if they do not know the impact that it will have onto the population. EU should balance that desire of profit taking into account the need of its citizens.

> ChatGPT told POLITICO it thinks it might need regulating: “The EU should consider designating generative AI and large language models as ‘high risk’ technologies, given their potential to create harmful and misleading content,” the chatbot responded when questioned on whether it should fall under the AI Act’s scope.

Funny one.
It isn't. The baseline profile is limited to 9 megapixels, the advanced profile is limited to 36 megapixels, but you can also have a valid avif file that doesn't conform to any profile and that is larger. For software decoders that will not be a problem. Hardware decoders in consumer devices will likely most typically be limited to the baseline profile: only 4:2:0, at most 10-bit, and at most 9 megapixels (e.g. 4K). Tiling can be used to combine several independent bitstreams in a single AVIF; there might be visible seams at the tile edges though.

It's a limitation that makes a lot of sense for a video codec — video requires hardware decoding to keep battery consumption sane, and hardware decoding requires a limit to the frame size since hw implementations need bounded SRAM buffers (and the cost in gate count is more or less proportional to the max frame size).
>I think what might actually be hard to game is teacher recommendations. After all these people have been with the kid for a long time and know what they can do. They also tend to be distanced enough that they don't have to say good things about every kid.

Recommendation letters aren't worth a lot. Most kids who have a shot at getting into a top-ranked school surely have some teachers they got along with. But then there's the luck of the draw whether said teacher will also put in an effort beyond a pro-forma recommendation.
My opinion on this one, for games authors anyway, was changed by reading an early 2000s piece by someone rebutting a lot of the noise Carmack was making on the topic, focusing on exactly this point: by DirectX 6, you got an API that was a suite which gave you, yes, the graphics, but also the sound, the input handling, media streaming for cutscenes and so on. OpenGL vs Direct3D was a sideshow at that point for most developers: it was "solves one part of their problem" vs "solves all of their problems". And no-one involved in OpenGL showed any sign of being interested in those other problems.
Tesla building in Mexico has a lot more to do with the EV subsidy requirements from the IRA than it has to do with China.
I don't get it. For the first example, the system is only a tool used and the responsibility is still with whoever does the sentencing/traffic stops etc.

In the second case, how is this different from e.g. Kelley Blue Book for car prices?
I'd love to see an indicator showing how quickly you are rotating. That would make the final touchdown a lot easier to get straight, IMO.

Also, could the trajectory stay visible at all times? That would help plan burns better.
Yes, that is exactly what they say. I've heard it many times since I am one of those kids.

But they don't really think about how to deal with the fallout if things don't go well. I mean sure, tell the kid it's important to do well, but don't put everything on passing the test. I've never heard any strategy for what to do in case it doesn't go well. You'll destroy the kid's confidence and possibly his friendships too if you make it about your worth as a person.
I absolutely have noticed. In interviews, people coming from difficult and stressful positions absolutely radiate this in their interviews! I know that I will feel emotionally drained after an interview with such people. Further, I have explicitly worked to de-condition survival behaviors in negative organizations with new employees multiple times, and it wouldn't surprise me that these sorts of behaviors could be "contagious" in other organizations.
> When the page is sufficiently narrow, revealing sidebar items is done via small clickable elements: if the user has never seen those before, I expect they will miss out on them.

Absolutely this!

Upon seeing sidenotes and before reading the article, my first instinct was to see how these elements would react in full v. narrow, and was immediately turned off with how information appeared to wholesale disappear.

Thanks for sharing your blog as a contrasting implementation...so clean and beautifully nuanced.
There is a tension between the need to level the playing field and the need to minimize the harm potential.

For example, land mines, machine gun emplacements, and chemical weapons can be effective forms of home defense. An intruder would have access to the same equipment, but at least the playing field is level, right? However, an attacker would also be able to inflict astounding mass casualties in moments with this equipment.

On the other side, if the most effective self defense weapon available is a kitchen knife, the playing field is not very level, and a weak victim can be overpowered by an attacker or intruder. However, the ability to inflict mass casualty is greatly limited.

So, I don’t have a specific level to prescribe, but I would start the discussion by framing the decision as a balance between these two elements.
Python can’t even do multi line lambdas
Let me put it this way:

I have a ~12 year old (110,651 power on hours), 500GB PATA Maxtor/Seagate HDD with 135 power cycles.

It's still alive and kicking ass as we speak.
It's very baffling why, after Russia conducted multiple invasions of bordering countries, the states elsewhere became "US-friendly". Russia is the victim. Yes? Thirteen time zones of territory, and their prime time TV is filled with sadistic dreams of marching into Europe, and we know what happens when the Russian army comes. It's just.... a mystery.