skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I see a difference between millions of deaths due to war and millions of deaths due to government incompetence/policy/brutality?

By your logic the 6 million killed in the Holocaust shouldn't be such a big deal either.
After thinking some more, if what you're saying mostly boils down to "there are serious issues with open core cloud offerings" then I agree.

I work on embedded products, so for my purposes open core usually means "you're getting free beer, but you might not get free updates". We've also paid for commercial licenses of dual-licensed projects and I think that model works pretty well.

Once we're talking about services, if you're not willing or able to operate the service yourself (at the scale you need...) then the open core seems pretty useless as a check on the company's ability to squeeze you for more cash.

On the other hand, it doesn't seem to me like explicitly commercial services solve those problems. Just because a closed source service has a pricing model I accept as fair today, doesn't mean it will tomorrow. But I guess there's something to be said that there was never any pretense otherwise.
I would be happy to be proven wrong... but I bet your transformer has a grounded neutral point with a dedicated conductor to your service panel, even if all your loads are phase to phase.

It could be corner grounded... but my understanding is that is very uncommon.

EDIT: I read your post again and I think "three phase" means "three wires": a 240V hot, a 0V neutral, and an earth wire?
I fear the end game of a fully propieatary software world is that the only real way people interact with computers is app stores, programming is not something people can learn online anymore (but it used to). not even command line, just app stores. the new "hello world" in this dystopia is "go to app store, buy hello world the app, done".
>For example, it's hard to reconcile how the users of these functional languages can be so passionate about them, while non-users find them so perplexing. Why is the gap between these two perspectives so large? My conclusion is that there are major, well-justified reasons for why people strongly dislike functional languages. The hypothesis I aim to test with a new programming language is: By making different tradeoffs, these issues can be mitigated and a more broadly-appealing functional language can be built.

Maybe that is the case for Haskell. But I see F# as friendly, readable and easy to pick up by a beginner.
And of course Nikola Tesla. Which probably makes Edison The Master.

OK, sure, fine... but then who was The Rani??
Very cool! I love the use of emoji as icons. I'm surprised more simple games don't make use of them.
Otherwise pcem also has full voodoo support.
An easier to click link: https://github.com/gregfjohnson/aplette
Maybe the issue is that undetectable errors are possible, but if the system is in such a bad way that they're happening at any rate, you'll also be getting quite a lot of the detectable ones and then get prompt notice that something is wrong.

Whereas without ECC you could have silent data corruption for years and only discover it after it gets severe enough to warrant a manual investigation, after the damage has already propagated to your backups.

> Of course, the majority of desktops use non-ECC RAM and it's mostly fine, so I assume this is only ever going to matter in production workloads, and exactly what impact it has is hard to gauge.

There are two reasons it's useful. One is the cosmic ray random bit flip that happens even to hardware in good condition, and then ECC can usually detect and correct it, but that's less common and more important for production workloads.

The other is, your hardware is experiencing a higher than average number of random bit flips, and then ECC gives you immediate notice when this starts happening instead of letting it sow chaos until something crashes so hard you take notice.
I love this topic, maybe too much...

Don't you think that a lot of what you're talking about depends on how people react to this technology and it's use? To ask another way, if everyone around you is in complete suffering and misery from "AI", we're all broke, hungry and miserable, maybe people will just not want to use AI and prefer to buy and trade services with other humans so that we maintain a nice quality of life?

There is an assumption Silicon Valley is making here which is whether we like it or not, we're all going to have to give up everything, our money, careers, professions, lives and just use AI(tm) because they've made it and while economists will tell me I'm wrong, because "economies of scale etc", I'm certainly not going to trade everything, and everyone I know so I can get images cheaper than I can today from Getty Images.

Maybe <Insert billionaires who control all the bots> will just build his own robocops who will come and make sure I do what I'm told, or maybe even just wipe me out completely for growing my own food and trading goods and services with others who are out of work, I don't know. But I just can't see humans, who still actually do have brains btw, to just roll over and let our lives descend into chaos over Clippy.

Edit: I want to say that even to this day, I actually buy things from people who grow things locally etc just to support them rather than go to the grocer, I do this because I know it's doing some good for my community, I'll just be doing more of this in the future if people aren't working.
Outside of undergraduate economics 101 textbooks Labour is not perfectly fungible.

- People have aptitudes, especially for creative work

- Changing trades requires training/education which in itself requires capital

- for most people their brains are less adaptable at older ages. Which worsens the other two effects.
Probably realizes the Crypto ting is tainted, he needs a new steaming pile of shit to scam people with. AI is perfect like crypto, because you can use techyspeak to confuse people.
The Treadmill collector was designed for realtime contexts (https://www.cofault.com/2022/07/treadmill.html is a very good explanation for it and how it works, but the paper itself is also very readable). Really any incremental GC can be used in a realtime context though, where you visit objects until you hit some time budget and then resume your interpreter.
Ohio residents sheltered in after another train derailment
Even those 1-10GW numbers aren't enough.

(60000000000 MJ) / (1000000000 watts) = 2 years
(69.4 days if you have 10 billion watts)

Going the other way around, releasing that energy in 0.1 seconds requires:

(60000000000 MJ) / (0.1 seconds) = 6E17 Watts

or almost 60 million times more energy than what Tesla himself claimed he could do.

Your source, Oliver Nichelson, seems to have done the wrong math (or perhaps I did?). 1 megaton of TNT is 4.184E15 J

(4.18400E15 joules) / (1 000 000 000 watts) = 48.4 days
(4.8 days if you have 10 billion watts)

48 days is not an "incomparably small interval of time". And if released in 0.1 seconds:

(4.18400E15 joules) / (0.1 s) = 4.1E16 Watts

or about 4 million times more powerful than what Tesla claimed he could do.

Also, it doesn't seem like Nichelson is clear about the difference between power and energy.

Power is the energy transferred or converted per unit time. That's why it's measured in watts = Joules/s or the equivalent in other systems.

Energy is just the Joule part of that term. The phrase 'If that amount of power were released in 'an incomparably small interval of time,' is imprecise. It should be 'that amount of energy', which would then give the needed J/s for power. But there's no reference to what that amount of energy was.

Thing is, the power supply was already given, as "tens of billions of watts". You can't release tens of billions of watts - J/s - in an incomparably small interval of time because that's meaningless - power isn't measured in J/s/s.

What you can do is release tens of billions of energy in an incomparably small interval of time. But it would take time - months or even years - to build up that energy with only a 1-10 GW power supply.

The essay you link to doesn't describe how that energy is stored before release. At best is says "build up electric fields", but it still takes days to get that much energy in the first place.

Since the math doesn't work out, since the author seems to be confused between power and energy, and since there's no explanation of how Telsa could have generated 60000000000 MJ of energy, much less release it in a split second, I think it's appropriate to discount the thesis of that essay.
The computer mouse is good for point-to-point movements, but pretty bad for drawing precise shapes. Even cool drag&drop workflows feel annoying if repetitive or if the target areas are very small.
Ah, that's nice. I think a year or so ago I was dealing with api docs that'd been run through Swagger and it just stopped emitting fields when it hit union types.
My brand-new Voodoo graphics card in its shiny package was the only thing I took with me as a teenager when I was leaving the flat in a hurry after the big earthquake in 1999[0]. I remember noticing the missing silhouettes of distant buildings with some fires burning behind where they used to stand and thinking, oh boy we surely won't have electricity soon.

You tend to have different priorities in those ages, I guess.

It's a dark memory, sure, but probably the packaging somehow made me get attached to a "stupid computer part" (not my words) and that's interesting.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_%C4%B0zmit_earthquake
> You get more production with less labor, so you on average need to do less labor to meet your cost of living.

Citation Needed.

This isn’t how it works out in practice though. If the predictions of the 1950s were to come true, we’d all be working 10 hours a week and bringing in the same wages.

They weren’t wrong though. Efficiency did go up. It’s just that these efficiencies were never passed on to workers. Instead you’re now 3x productive, but for less money. That’s a pay cut.

The same thing happens if/when AI automates us all. We won’t become unemployed, because people like pmarca are scared to death of people with the time and energy to be mad about the raw deal they’ve been given. So instead, we’ll all get paid less, while working longer in more bullshit jobs.
Not Pandas but very similar and (in my very biased opinion) better is PRQL (www.prql-lang.org) which as of yesterday you can now use in DuckDB!

See my comment above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35027712
Your work on reverse engineering DPTF seems abandoned. Is it that everything was upstreamed? Because there's still a performance gap between Windows and Linux.

Also, why is Intel so reluctant on fixing this themselves? It looks so simple to me too fix this by releasing the docs and fixing thermald, and still, here we are having to use throttled for those wanting a little bit more punch.

And finally, how is it that nobody it's creating a custom, patched thermald that takes all this into account? Is it that the process for reverse engineering is too complicated and that we don't have the full picture yet? It shouldn't be too difficult to read the values Windows takes and reverse engineer it, although it may be tougher than it seems at first.
No, that's a different (and often "officially allowed") thing. I believe it has to do with stray capacitance. A lot of 2-prong devices are doubly insulated (the symbol on the charger is 2 concentric squares). Weirdly though I have noticed that "tingly" feel even with my 3-pronged laptop charger.
> I don't understand what's so difficult about this.

It requires parsing multiple undocumented binary file formats, making sense of how the information in each is interlinked, and writing code that keeps track of system state, compares it against the firmware policy, and then imposes the appropriate constraints.

> Why is Intel not providing the documentation?

I have no idea.

> And what is it so difficult to reverse engineer?

https://github.com/mjg59/thermal_daemon/compare/028bde5bf0f1... was my initial implementation of this (remember to click "Load diff" for anything that's too large for github to display by default). There's a fair amount of complexity here!

> Is this tool correctly reading the DPTF data and correcting for it?

Thermald reads the DPTF data, throttled doesn't. I can't promise that thermald reads it correctly given the lack of a spec, but to the best of my knowledge it does.
* FiDi or SoMa got kinda seedy during the pandemic, so you might want to avoid living there. Since you're young, you might like the vibe in the Mission or Marina/Cow Hollow. My favorite neighborhoods are the ones with Victorians/flats west of Hayes Valley (Duboce Tri, Lower Haight, Castro, Divis/Nopa, etc).

* When I first moved to SF I got a 1br apartment, but later rented a very nice 2br2ba flat as the "master tenant" and got a "subtenant" roommate. Maybe you wouldn't consider having a roommate, but it's nice to have someone else around. If you set the rent price relatively low for a high-end apartment where each person has a private bathrm, you'll get more roommate applications than you can handle. Winnow the emails down to dozen or so. When you interview a dozen candidates, there's almost always one person who stands out as someone who would make for a great flatmate. (Warning: if you rent a 3br place and get 2 roommates, it's a lot more complicated. Difficult to know who did what, e.g. left food in the frig, etc)

* You might consider joining a lot of meetup.com groups. I joined literally over 100 SF-based groups and during the 2010's would go to at least 2-3 per month. I stopped going to meetups during the pandemic but it seems like in-person meetups are ramping up again.

* You run a mobile game studio? Join the Stanford Games/Entrepreneurs list.
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/gsb-videogames
It doesn't have as much chatter as it used to, but every once in a while there's some insider discussion. I used to be in the game industry, so I'd offer to connect you with people, but it's been some years so my contacts are kinda old.

* Your main goals are mostly professional, but consider the opportunity for other things. When I first moved here, it was supposed to be temporary for maybe 3 years max, so I tried to take advantage of things here that I couldn't do back in Atlanta. I did things like: every winter I joined a shared ski house in Tahoe, I volunteered as a National Park Service docent at the Point Bonita Lighthouse, and did more biking/hiking/outdoor stuff that I rarely did in Atlanta bc it was too hot there. This mindset turned out to be a nice forcing function to push me to do things that I wouldn't have done otherwise. Like, you're right by the ocean so you might consider taking up scuba, surfing, kayaking.

* Feel free to contact me. My email is in my profile.
The New Obesity Breakthrough Drugs: I'm not using the term breakthrough lightly
Hipreme Engine is fully ported to PS Vita (written in D)
1. Hype over Rust.
2. Pragmatism because of the many complexities with imperative programming and multi-tasking in a more and more multi-core world.
3. Hype over Rust.

:-)

I personally find Rust so ugly that I refuse to learn it. I don't understand why things like "let mut" are even allowed to exist. Why not simply "create" or "var" for "let mut" and "define" or "def" for "let"?

I am not trying to start a flame war, rather I believe I'm documenting my own ignorance of Rust, the language which I believe you are subtly referring to. I tend to learn languages from an aesthetic angle: If they look beautiful and practical to me (like Python with type annotations), I learn them. Otherwise I steer clear of them while waiting for the world to become ecstatic over them and cool down again a few decades later.
I've seen Haskell being used commercially plenty of time.

So rust and go
> you can't tell the difference with 150 FPS and 165 FPS

First byte latency makes cache misses significantly slower which in turn makes 99%ile latency (which is perceived as microstutter by humans) significantly higher even if it doesn't affect throughput (fps). This was well documented way back when the first DDR5 sticks came out and they performed like crap compared to overclocked B-Die DDR4.
Wholeheartedly agreed there. If (still an if) the automation tools are widespread (preferably open source), the vector of possible businesses that could compete in those areas also greatly increases. What once took a firm of thousands of people might be doable by a few nerds with some AI tools they copied from the internet. Yes, that means a lot of jobs lost at those firms, but it also means massive competition to drive prices down to their minimums - which benefits the consumer and enables entirely new second-order effects.

Regardless of how this all plays out... there's gonna a whole lot of Abundance of Things, and Services. As producers/workers - it's gonna be an awkward time. As Consumers? Ho boy baby - shit's gonna get crazy cheap
> This is due to lack of staff support and other reasons. See ya.
I worked on it to the extent that it worked for my use case, given it was a spare time project. It's all been merged upstream, and Intel (to their credit) are maintaining it now even though still refusing to document it.
The ultimate limit that prevents processor damage, called THERMTRIP, is not possible to disable AFAIK --- it's a purely hardware feature. The one below that, PROCHOT, can be disabled, but it's not useful to do that because it'll just hit the THERMTRIP temperature and shut down instead.

Like I said, Intel warrants their CPUs to be operational at TjMax continuously, and that's the temperature they'll reach and stay at automatically if not given enough cooling. There's plenty of stories of people with computers whose heatsink has somehow detached or become so severely clogged as to be at that limit all the time, and the CPUs survive just fine.

This article isn't about that; it's about manufacturers artifically limiting performance beyond that to hit a marketing target like battery life or power consumption.
Right, thanks for the correction: my memory is at least approximately on point :)

FWIW, I think Gtk+ was independently extracted from Gimp as Gimp Toolkit, but KDE success drove GNOME creation based on LGPL-ed Gtk+, which, as you point out, later put pressure on Qt to be relicensed.
> Open core companies tend to lean into "we'll figure out how to monetize later" which inherently means it's harder to trust what they say now because their incentives are guaranteed to shift towards monetization eventually.

How is this guaranteed? If the OSS product is truly core to the business, the incentive will always be to make it as best as possible, which will benefit both OSS users and commercial customers.

This "shift towards monetization" either doesn't happen, or if it does, has no negative effect for OSS users, who will only benefit from the company having more resources to invest in growing the team, more frequent updates, better support, etc.

I can name countless products that have done this right, yet can't think of any that haven't. Can you mention some? Your article lists a few along with their funding data, as if this is somehow inherently a bad thing.

Chances are that companies that did this wrongly had much larger problems, and took advantage of their users in other ways as well. This isn't an issue with the open core model, but with these companies.

> The other models bake in monetization from the start, so you know what you're getting into when you start using the product.

The thing is that none of the alternatives you propose have any benefits for the user. They're either not free software (source available), the OSS component is not standalone and is intrinsically tied to a proprietary service, which serves more like a commercial hook, or the OSS components are noncritical to the business, which doesn't incentivize maintenance.

This is a very opportunistic view of OSS, and is no better than companies that do open core wrongly.
Except it doesn't do GPU compute stuff, so it's no use for anything except games.
As someone who dabbles in code without too much of an idea of what he is doing, using pure functions whenever possible helps me reduce cognitive complexity and makes the code more easily testable.
FMA Woes
this is fantastic, and gives me some ideas. It's always hard to find enough people willing to commit to a party...
You don't have to move across the country. Considering SF, you can just move to Modesto, which is 1.5hrs away and has a third of the cost of living.
I don't understand why Intel is so reluctant to do the things right
Calcium stones run all along the male side of my family too.. and I've had a few. The notion to me that lemonade would be helpful is counterintuitive. Generally we've come to understand that high doses of Vitamin C are part of the problem, because that's been something the men in my family do to ward off sickness - but my father, who took 5000 milligrams of C a day for years, always got the worst stones of all.

>> 2. Don't drink spirits.

This is probably true, but it contravenes the one piece of hard-won family folk wisdom that has helped me. Our method of removing kidney stones is as follows:

1. Go to a bar, take a piss if you can, then sit and order a Guinness.

2. Order 5 more Guinnesses and make a concerted effort to drink them all without taking a piss. Wait until you're absolutely desperate.

3. Go to the men's room and eject the stone. [the intoxication helps numb it, too].

I've watched my father pass them in the hospital; I remember remarkably twiddling one of his kidney stones in my hand as we drove him home, it was iridescent white and about the size of a shriveled pea. So far, though, this method hasn't failed me and I've yet to be hospitalized.
LLMs stand to be much better at research mathematics than humans. Breakthroughs in mathematics often come from taking a concept from one area of mathematics and applying it to another area. Humans find this difficult because it's hard to be a research-level mathematician in more than a few areas, a human life isn't long enough to learn that much. Humans learn depth-first.

LLMs learn breadth-first. You can go ask ChatGPT about literally any field of mathematics and it will give you an answer (probably a bad one). It's been trained on the entire Arxiv and (likely) library genesis. When they do become as good at humans at abstract reasoning, they will be as good at humans on all fields at once: an ultra-Tao.
It seems like if we want an answer to the question of “What impact will a human-like AI have on the economy?” then a relevant thing to look at would be historical times and places where slavery was prevalent.
If we get to a point where the average person can spend a year’s salary to buy a human-like robot to work for them, well, that has been the case in many times and places before (it just wasn’t a robot).
> [Religion] is the [...] realization of the human essence [in fantasy], since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. [...] Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.
Ask HN: Build a startup in the US while on H-1B Visa?
Hello Hacker News community,

I have been working on a couple of personal side projects for the last year, and I believe they have reached a stage where they can be useful to their target market and generate revenue. (I could be wrong, of course.) However, I am currently on an H-1B visa in the US, and I am unsure if it is possible to build a startup while on this visa.

I understand that it's not a straightforward process, so I am looking for advice on whether it's possible to register a company anywhere else in the world and run it. The company would be a one-person company with minimal time investment (less than a couple of hours a week) and is designed to be a self-service application.

I would greatly appreciate any insight or experiences shared by the community on this matter. Thank you in advance for your time and help.