skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> And if France makes it mandatory to cover all "substantial" parking lots it will generate as much electricity from just that as 10 nuclear power plants [1].

It will not, not even close to that. You are being deceived. This deception is willful, because it is obvious to anyone who has any idea about realities of energy generation. The linked article, however, while not literally lying, omits some obvious facts, the goal of which is to make you believe falsehoods.

The article talks about "installed capacity", and compares installed capacity of photovoltaics vs. nuclear power plants. It is extremely deceptive to make such comparison without taking into account the notion of capacity factor, and the proof of this is that you have successfully been deceived.

The nuclear power plants typically generate north of 90% of their installed capacity, averaged over the entire year. The photovoltaics in Europe, on the other hand, typically generate 10-15% of their installed capacity, averaged over the entire year. This is caused by the unfortunate fact which is that the sun doesn't shine at all for at least half of the year, and for the significant part of the remainder, it is occluded by clouds, or shines at suboptimal angle, preventing the panels from reaching their maximum generating capacity.

This means that 1 GW of installed nuclear power capacity is worth at best something like 6-9 GW of installed photovoltaic capacity. At best, because photovoltaic generation will mostly happen on summer days, resulting in excess supply and so low value of generated energy. In winter, when photovoltaics generate relatively little energy, and the energy demand is high due to heating needs (especially during the night), the value of 1 GW of produced nuclear power will be higher than value of 1 GW of produced photovoltaic in summer.

The result of this is that covering half of all parking lots in France with photovoltaics is effectively worth less than a single nuclear reactor. This is obvious to anyone who pays even minimum attention to the economics of energy production, but the activist-media complex works very hard to deceive the public, leading them to believe that photovoltaics are already cheaper than fossil fuels and nuclear power. They are not, not even close, and this is even ignoring how nuclear power in France subsidizes solar/wind in a deliberate, systemic way.
I'm guessing the comment was about regulating against sufficient large battery installations in a dense urban setting until standards where in place.

Australia has a high (very high by world standards) % of houses with solar panels on the roof which feed power back to the main grid (in cities and surrounding towns) which minimises the need for battery walls (which will no doubt come soon enough).

In (sub)urban housing in Australia it's against zoning for residential houses to have large tire piles (ie an entire yard of old car tyres with more house high stacks out the back) due to the dangers of dirty fires, ditto having a shipping container of fireworks next your house (and other houses in area), massive fuel tanks, etc.

I dare say large battery walls were also zoned against until plans were in place re: standards, etc.

Australia does have neighbourhoos battery banks here and there, one that serves 200 houses (at mean consumption) can be purchased for ~ $1 million AU (IIRC) - and there's the South Australian battery bank that was the world's largest when it was installed.
It absolutely was not.
And now the Arm (Neoverse) V1 is Armv8
Since this gets repeated so often, it is probably worth reproducing a little more of Knuth's quote.

"There is no doubt that the grail of efficiency leads to abuse. Programmers waste enormous amounts of time thinking about, or worrying about, the speed of non-critical parts of their programs, and these attempts at efficiency actually have a strong negative impact when debugging and maintenance are considered. We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: premature optimization is the root of all evil.

"Yet we should not pass up our opportunities in that critical 3%. A good programmer will not be lulled into complacency by such reasoning, he will be wise to look carefully at the critical code, but only after that code has been identified. It is often a mistake to make a priori judgments about what parts of a program are really critical, since the universal experience of programmers who have been using measurement tools has been that their intuitive guesses fail."

The context for this statement, is of course his article [1] saying that goto statements should not be regarded as bad for religious reasons, but should be used appropriately. How common is the pragmatic approach to goto today, vs the "religious" response to goto?

So this is the context in which it's appropriate to quote Knuth on this: if you are thinking about efficiency all the time, making intuitive guesses about where your programs will be slow, using measurement tools after the fact, and in danger of spending your optimization efforts on 100% of the code instead of 3%, and if you have a rational rather than emotional response to seeing goto statements in your codebase, then Knuth's quote is for you. What he was really arguing for is a practical, rational approach rather than religious, emotional responses. Which was also Dijkstra's point about goto. The whole article is well worth a read if you haven't already seen it.

[1]: https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/356635.356640
Just to add to this excellent answer, because I don't think it's clear to most people: if the deposit is not created by that bank, the assets the bank takes on are the balancing side of the original deposit (so a loan at another correspondent bank or, if the spending was from the government, an asset at the central bank). Clearing might simplify the net situation, but fundamentally the asset the bank takes on matches the original asset that created the money.
Perhaps from my limited AI-centric point of view, I have a simple definition of Systems Programming: when I hit enter and run Python/C/C++/Java program, what actually happens?

In AI, we think of mathematical algorithms, but computers do not understand math. Math is a purely human invention, computers have no idea of math. Nor computers understand Python or C. The only things CPUs are designed to understand are 0s and 1s, quite literally. It's a very long road, and lots of layers of abstractions, from 0s and 1s to Python (or C for that matter). This long road is Systems Programming to me and I find it quite fascinating.

To do Systems Programming, I would think you want direct access to hardware, to the metal itself. C and C++ (some other languages? C#?) provide such an access. Python (or Java) does not provide such unfettered access to the hardware. Having said that, I find author's assertion, that "Dynamic programming languages ... are not conducive for good code quality", both inaccurate and irrelevant to the System Programming assessment.
I really do not understand why this is a discussion, why a video had to be made about it and why we now need an interview about this.

Clean code / readable code / whatever you want to call it is often at odds with performance. This has been a known fact for decades. Everybody is aware of this. And for most enterprise projects it just doesn't matter.
The performance analysis discovered nothing new and added nothing of value
then go ahead and improve it, nobody is telling anyone to stop improving shit. but claiming you could use a tech at a point in time where it is not much more than a gimmick, people wont take it serious or too serious. just like with ChatGPT: just because it can return highly probable language doesnt mean its correct.

just because you can drive one "artificial tree" around doesnt mean you should pursue in making those on a scale fit to dent the problem, because in making those "trees" you just release more dead-tree-gas and make the problem worse before you can make it better.
But it's the job of the government to enforce that via warnings and fines, not private entities sueing for "emotional damage".

The IP alone is almost useless anyway unless it can be tied to other information you've given up to google already - in which case you can't tell you are that cautious with your browsing to begin with.
I could see how they float to the top organically, so it might be just the unreplyable aspect that is automated?
There are plenty of instruments though with different maturity dates, from a single day to decades.

There is no reason to lock money in 10 year notes, it can stay as cash or go to money market or short term obligations.
Could anyone in the know explain how "shorting" works?
You're not dealing with the geniuses. You're likely just dealing with people smarter than you. I can assure you geniuses are rare, and people of the same intelligence level tend to gather so you can go through a career completely missing them depending on where you work. There's enough noise such that among these groups you won't notice the correlation.

Tbh the geniuses don't view their own code as shitty, to them it's quality. It's only viewed as shitty externally.
>but systems is an exceptionally vague term.

I don't understand the use of but here. This doesn't contrast with what I said.

>Everything programmed are systems

Then 'systems programming' is a redundant turn of phrase. You don't say you're 'food cooking', while there are foods you don't cook.
Strong disagree. This is something people say to sound clever. It’s not true at all. The real cause is basic entropy and complexity are always increasing. Rarely does a project manager request a feature be deleted. This is compounded by most companies having a few good programmers and mostly mediocre programmers, so the codebase will tend toward the mean over time.
And how much money was lost in those failures by depositors?

And don't fall back on 'they were bailed out'. They were bailed out by other banks buying their assets + liabilities, and by the insurance payments they were making. They weren't getting a blank check from the treasury. That's the system working.

Who bailed out the crypto losses? Some of the losers got made whole, but many, many, many are realized losses.
I haven't used this yet, but I am currently running GPT-J on my Mac Studio, so I suspect so.
The difference is at least with banks e.g. SVB here you get back your 250k. When these coins die you get 0.

And if only we're true to the "original idea" (whatever that might be). As seen with lots of coins / exchanges it's been a front to do something else.
> Time for a forceful redistribution and system change. Can’t happen soon enough.

Sadly revolutions have a really bad track record for the 99%. It may feel good in the short term but the people who end up assuming power are usually much worse.

OTOH fractional reserve banking and cronyism are really past their expiration dates. It'd be nice to stop kicking the can down the road - we have technological solutions now.
I think that’s an entirely reasonable response - thanks for suppressing my inner cynic!
Glicol CLI: music live coding in your terminal
There is a reason the interviewee pivots from questions about how big of a take to from the short to the situation “certainly not something to be celebrated.”
A Very Odd Technical Problem featuring Meatwad
>If everyone knows this, why keep your money there?

Because that applies to literally every single operative bank, and given FDIC insurance and other refulation, the risk of deposit losses for average joe is so small that they do not need to care.
It's kind of telling that I truggle to tell whether this is satire. I could totally see a cryptobro unironically making this claim.
It's absurd that the party still insists using the word "elected" in English articles, do they want everyone to laugh at the "election"?
In this case they created a new bank. From an outsider's perspective, it implies the bank run was either too sudden, or SVB would have been too expensive, for FDIC to be able to run an expedited auction.

In one of the earlier two threads a poster linked to this segment of 60 Minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAE8i40A5uI . (I would link to the comment directly but I can't find it right now. Apologies to the poster.) In case of a relatively small bank, the FDIC had run a secret auction a few days earlier, and had an acquirer ready on the day.

SVB was pretty big. Lining up a buyer that can absorb and handle a balance of ~$200B might take a while, and interestingly there may be political reasons to discourage depositor haircuts. Buying at firesale prices favours those with deep enough pockets. Buying at par (or near enough) needs more than just money - it gives advantage to those who can do extensive diligence really fast.
His politics? Do you know anything about him besides the fact he's a so-called "Republican"? He's a Democrat in everything except name. He even married into Democratic royalty. Even when he won as Govenor, we all knew his politics was Democratic rather than Republican.
Function calls are expensive, more news at 11
In browser speech-to-text transcription using Whisper.wasm
It is slow, and I presume that’s because competent developers wrote it clean. It’s quite possible that it’s not clean either and was just written by developers incapable of performance or cleanliness. That possibility doesn’t detract from my argument - there’s no point in discussing performance or clean code with them if they’re incapable of either.
Because held-to-maturity treasuries don't have to be marked down unless you start selling them, and because if you hold them to maturity, they will be worth exactly what they say on the tin.

SVB's problem is that it can't hold them to maturity, it has to sell them today at firesale prices, because they already sold everything they have that's not marked held-to-maturity.
I disagree. Many abstraction makes it easier to read for human. Example, the first abstraction is to use functions, if/else, and loops instead of plain goto everywhere like the CPU like.

Now abstraction also have a cost that needs to be kept under control. (Some have zero costs, some have compile-time costs, some have different level of run-time costs)
And of course, not every abstraction is a good one: Sometimes it can even be counter productive to hide details if these details are simpler than the abstraction itself.

In summary, it's all about trade-offs and not over-doing it.
You borrow some stock. You sell it. You wait a while. You buy the same stock again. You give it back.

It's very similar to when you take a loan:

You borrow some money. You 'sell' the money for goods and services. You wait a while. You acquire some money again. You give the money back.

In both cases, you pay some interest while the loan is outstanding. (In both cases, you typically pay the interest with money. Instead of with small pieces of stock.)

As always Wikipedia is worth a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_(finance)
To a large extent it reflects liquidity demands. When governments are falling over themselves to profess "fiscal responsibility" the liquidity demands are met through private banking.
Crazy how 100m is such a short distance in most walks of life except for underwater.

It’s seriously non intuitive to a layman the whole pressure thing.
This reminds me of how scammers swap lists of people who have previously fallen for their tactics, then phone them up and get them all over again…
>good code is easy to change so it will easily get rewritten until it's not easy to change anymore

Sounds like the 'bad currency drives good currency out of circulation' problem. Bad code drives good code out, because good code is easy to understand and change.
I don't think arm26 was a typo: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/26-bit_computing

Check the parent's username.
It's currently the top article on CNN, Fox News, NYT, WSJ, and Twitter Trending. Your friends must live under a rock.
I write more. I think writing can be broken down into three main things - the idea, the structure of how you laid it out, and the style. Now I don't have to care about the style, I can focus on having clear thoughts and good ideas. It's like autoformatter for programming. And who formats their code manually these days?
> Those numbers at the bottom of a cheque? Yeah, they include your account number.

Yes, as well as the routing number.

> There's no inherent information risk to giving out an account number …

Of _course_ there is. In the US, the account + routing number is sufficient to perform a ACH transfer, write checks against that account, etc.

The risk is enormous.

> Especially when one considers the accompanying fraud risk thereof.

I’m assuming you misunderstood the risk when you wrote the above. It is, in fact, extremely high.
Maybe? You could replace the FAA with voluntary certification. People could demand the same standards as the FAA enforces.

Let me bite the bullet:

Flying is arguably way too safe. In the sense that flying could compromise a bit on safety, and still be much safer than cars. If that compromise would lead to lower costs and thus prices, perhaps more people would fly and fewer would drive; leading to better safety on average. Despite flying becoming less safe.
Privacy concerns are justified.

It's not just that, this can also work completely offline.
Hm... Ad hominem, truism, truism, ad hominem. And not even disagreeing with the conclusion in the end...
(some other languages?)
Assembly, of course. `unsafe` rust.
A simple explanation is that you borrow a certain number of stocks, sell it, and re-buy at some point in the future (at a lower price hopefully) to return the number of stocks you borrowed.

Imagine you think widgets that are worth $1 today are going to be worth $0.50 tomorrow. You say to me, "Hey jpdb, can I borrow 100 widgets and give them back to you tomorrow?" I say sure and you turn around and sell those widgets. Tomorrow, we meet up and you take your $100 and buy 100 widgets for the new price of $0.50 each. You return the 100 widgets you borrowed and you now have $50 in your pocket. In this example you have "shorted" widgets.
I agree this seems very likely. A bunch of people will be having interesting phone calls this weekend, but it's the weekend and it's pretty useful.

Then again last time I thought this I had a contact text me joking he was preparing to learn Korean because his bank was probably going to get bought by Koreans. Seemed like it was just a matter of time to wait until Monday to see what the higher ups had decided.

You can guess where this contact was working. Until that Monday.
Julia 1.9 precompilation will be a turning point
If you are willing to do Zen practice 100% you can go to San Francisco Zen Center and ask to be a student. They are on Page near Laguna.
Avoid miserable people. In office just smile, nod, and agree.
It should be a celebration when there is rain.
Or you know. Have a toolbelt. You keep tools on that belt and you use them as necessary.

Making a simple service? It’s in the descriptor. Just keep it simple.

Making something large that has a bunch of people working on it? Time to pull out the toolbelt.

Making something super mission critical? Use the right tools.

No approach is perfect. That’s why you use what makes most sense, mixing and matching, to put together what works best for the task at hand.

Anything else is noise and just ignore.
Strategies, Protections, and Mitigations for the Electric Grid from EMP Effects [pdf]
Short selling on its own is trading on the hope that a stock goes down by borrowing shares from someone who owns them and immediately selling them. Your broker will match you to an owner who is willing to lend the shares if there are any available. To exit the trade, you buy back the shares you borrowed.

Your profit from this trade is the stock's price when you entered the trade minus the price when you buy it back (i.e. you want to sell high and then buy low), less any financing costs from borrowing the shares.
Ponzi stamps were also a great deal anytime they went on sale too.. until suddenly they weren't.
But is it more interesting than the reasoning of the losers? I'm tempted to say the losers' reasoning is more interesting.

A winner's reasoning could be completely unrelated to the event at hand and we'd never know the difference. A loser's reasoning is definitely wrong in some way, so we can learn something from it.
I hear this a lot and it's in a lot of "explainer" videos on youtube and so on. The idea that banks have a special state-sponsored privilege to create credit is completely and very obviously untrue.

Try this thought experiment. You and I are in a bar. We order drinks but oh no the bar's card machine is down and you don't have cash. No problem I'll lend you a tenner.

1) Am I a bank?

2) Did I first contact the state to check it was ok to create money in the form of a loan to you?

I go back to the bar on another day on my own. Oh no! Their card machine is down again! This time I don't have cash on me. No problem the barman sees me all the time I can have the drink this time and pay up when I next get there and either have cash or their card machine is working.

3) Are they a bank?

4) Did they first contact the state to check it was ok to create money in the form of a loan to me?

The answer to all these questions is obviously no. Credit is created throughout the economy at all levels and it is not a special function perculiar to banks.
it's not about being smart or anything, they just explain how they figured it out, doesn't matter how much money they made, that's just focusing on the wrong things
This is glorious. I smell a book deal for the judge. The writing is beautiful.
Including the will to take illegal steroids without which he wins nothing and has no fame or career in public life.

Meh, his biggest body-building claims to fame were multiple Mr. Olympia titles. Is there any other Hollywood A-list type (current or former) of which that title has been the make or break factor? Schwarzenegger's peer at the time for the same title(s) was Lou Ferrigno, and he never did better than runner up at a time in which that competition had the most cultural cache within Hollywood; he even he had his own success in Hollywood as The Hulk (and 36 other movie/TV credits per wikipedia.)

Some of Schwarzeneggar's success comes down to "sheer will" as the GP posited. Some of it is also luck (right place/right time, the right "look" for a given role, etc...) And some of it is help from others, which he seems to readily acknowledge and pass on as a message to others[1]

To say Schwarzenegger is who he is only because of steroids is as shallow of an assessment as to say it's all "sheer will".

1. https://www.reddit.com/r/MadeMeSmile/comments/o9infd/not_a_s...

edit: cleaned up a sentence.
They go into the details quite nicely in their documentation [1].

A more cynical take would be to wonder if it has anything to do with their steps trying to monetize Docker Desktop. This move puts the same stack in use with Linux, maybe giving them monetization on Linux as well. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that. You can still use the Docker Engine freely on Linux if you want. )

[1] https://docs.docker.com/desktop/faqs/linuxfaqs/#why-does-doc...
The point is, without a reasonably clean starting point, you'll never get to apply those 20-25x optimizations in code bases beyond a certain size, because they've become a wasteland of mediocre micro-optimizations before you even get started.

So the sensible thing to do is to identify a component of manageable size, fence it off with suitable abstraction boundaries, and then apply optimizations WITHIN the confines of that component only.