skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
We have a fairly good middle ground - our linters only alert on changed lines. They run locally with a commit hook, so you can fix them before they hit the build. A clean linter run isn't required to merge, we trust devs to review the warnings and decide if they should fix them. Also you can turn off the github "feature" that dismisses the review when you push a new change. Trust devs to only make trivial changes after the review - or to re-request the review themselves if they make bigger changes.
Will Xi Give Putin Arms? Has a Cold War Already Begun?
Apple definitely cares about that (they actually make way more money from their app store than google despite the much smaller userbase).

But they're also better at keeping out malware than google's app store I feel.

I could be wrong.
Yeah, there are basically two native options for managing and configuring services with Nix.

The easiest one is NixOS, and that'll be enough for most people, provided that they're okay using it as the OS for their servers.

The other is Disnix, which is a bit more cumbersome but also more flexible, and works fine for deploying Nix-based software to other systems.
One of the nice things about being a public company is that you can give employees RSUs for a public company's stock that they can sell whenever they want, rather than options which are very limited.

If they had gone public they could give their employees a much more flexible stock compensation.
It's tied to arguably a worse asset base: tech startups
> But now, you all think it's 100% acceptable to just

Who is this "all" you're talking to? Seems like most of the responses are suggesting vendoring too.
Is this the company that craves to install its Store on the most profitable mobile platform?
I will try to keep that in mind
It'll handle the simple cases amazingly, and will handle edge-cases by producing wrong code: hopefully obviously-wrong, but subtly-wrong in at least some cases. A prompt will be written and honed and evolved, and tooling will be built to post-process GPT-4's output, and so the accuracy will rise – but still with no correctness guarantees.

When it goes wrong, the advice will include "write better comments, so the transpiler knows what you're doing". Proponents will liken this to type-linting comments. Critics will liken this to INTERCAL / p-hacking / tax fraud, and will claim that the transpiler can be mislead by confusing comments. Proponents will show you that GPT-4 can identify misleading comments in the critics' examples. Critics will say "real code won't contain comments like that, so this ability is useless". Proponents will say "oh, yeah, that too I guess". Critics will promptly vanish in a puff of logic.

The manually-written tool will get better: more slowly at first, but more steadily, and with only a few (predictable, fixable) correctness bugs. Eventually, it will be able to correctly process more programs than the leading GPT-4 approach can. It will be months before anyone notices this, since the two camps (manual approach, GPT-4 approach) will not really be talking to each other enough.

Eventually, somebody will write a blog post about a semi-obscure but representative benchmark (perhaps the Linux kernel), pointing out that the manual tool works better now. There will be a brief wave of hype about the "new tool" and the "death of AI". Then some people will fine-tune the model on tricksy cases using the manually-written tool's output, some other people will call that utterly cheating, and the hype will give way to bickering.

Realistic? Well… GPT-4 is proprietary, and we've got more efficient LLM architectures now – but I think the sorts of people to make a tool like this will probably stick with OpenAI's APIs. (It's In The Cloud.™)
No it's not. Just be honest with yourself and everyone else. You work on AI because it's cool, and fun, and it pays well. You do not care about world hunger and you don't care about any second order effects. Everyone would just be better off if you all just came out and said it.
At what price? Certainly not a market price. A contrived price in a private sale is usually going to screw the seller.
I am skipping the digression about whether "printing money" should taken literally to mean the actions of the actions of the Mint/Bureau of Engraving as opposed to the controlling the monetary base.

The Fed both controls the rate that commercial banks are charged (via the discount rate, or other rates based on it) to access the discount window and the rules for doing so. Infinite reserves[1] that charge interest when used aren't infinite. They explicitly have to be used to generate more value than the repayment with interest or the banks lose money and go broke.

If I am wrong, please explain how. But I interpreted most of your post a pedantic explanation about how their control of the money supply wasn't direct and instead through controlling other things that then controlled the money supply.

[1] Only, of course, capital requirements limit banks ability to lend.
Their point is that this isn't a capital raise and Stripe isn't issuing new shares.

Also, if it were to be a capital raise: issuing new shares comprising 5% of a company is not the same as having the price of existing shares reduce by 5% (in many ways).

Your post is completely off-track.
>No mention of crypto required.

what do you think you're teaching, then? Just general good practices?

A teen can be told and taught to wear a condom without explanation of the virology and biology behind the things that it helps to avoid -- similarly Grandma can learn the importance behind https without memorizing the cypher suites; it's still an aspect of cryptography.
Im in Brazil and they already have this. Pretty incredible how long its taken to make its way to the US.
This is why the NPM warnings are such a problem too. https://overreacted.io/npm-audit-broken-by-design/
Your training data is overfitting the input of my comment and classifying it as religion. I have only said, go in and in and in and in and you will eventually find the real source of your life, and it won't be your limited mind. You have not yet been given enough training data, enough lifetimes, to understand. Eventually you will.
Maybe i should have explained this..

To share objects between threads, some synchronisation is needed, for example to update reference counts. There are a few ways to do this:

- make the user add locks; the problem with this if it goes wrong it can crash the interpreter and make it impossible to debug the problem from within python, which is not user-friendly, and lots of existing code will break. Competent users are already doing this though, so it's nearly free.
- add fine-grained locking/synchronisation for object internals within the interpreter. This slows everything down, even if you're not using threads.
- Lock the whole interpreter state whenever a thread is running. This makes threads less useful (no speed-up from threading pure-python code that isn't doing IO; you have to use multiprocessing for that), but it's cheap as you only need to lock/unlock when you're doing something slow anyway (IO, thread switching, native code).

I think this explains why GIL removal has not been successful yet despite much work: the alternatives slow down single-threaded code, which is not worth it when nearly all sensible uses of threading don't benefit either.
I wonder if he ends up factoring in twitter ad revenue for this designed-to-go-viral series of posts.

I’d find this much more interesting if he had taken a day or two to see how this worked out rather than doing edge-of-your-seat engagement maximizing farming. This seems far less about what gpt-4’s capabilities and much more about how talking about it can inflate follower count.
Everyone who's candidate loses says this every single election, regardless of party. And the electoral college was a deliberate concession to the sparsely populated states where all the food is grown, as is the Senate. Because America is a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy. I don't know if this is still taught in school but I distinctly remember learning it.
That's not really sandboxing, just a limitation of what apps can do on iPhone. And I belive it has changed recently.

Doesn't really matter how the malware get there. The important part is that it waltzed right past Apples quality control.
Sounds like your team may benefit from pre-commit hooks!

Our team has an onboarding script we have every new dev run that (among other things) installs pre-commit. Our main repo includes hooks for style, max file size, etc.

If there's a style nit, git will yell at you and not accept the commit. If possible, it'll actually correct the style issue (e.g. blackify a python file for you) and you can just stage the updated file.

We still have CI/CD, but that catches other errors, not linting issues. This method has worked pretty well for us so far.
Your point about banks being forced to do what governments cannot is a stretch. Your comparing a thrird party (governments) to a first party (banks). Your drug dealer knows your an addict well before your parents do. Also as another poster said banks get warnings to respond.

You can miss me with this banks are the victim. It has been shown over and over and over from the dawn of Banking that no matter who you are if you have a lot of money there is a bank willing to work with you.

Whether banks should be allowed to do this is a different question but they are absolutely not victims.
There is always a greater fool...
I think JavaScript doesn't want this because, semantically, the whole language is designed around the idea of a single thread of execution, that can't be suspended except explicitly with an await statement. So if you call a function, you know that it can't suspend and let some other thread take control and make arbitrary changes out from under you before control returns to you. Breaking this assumption would probably break too much existing code.
Probably not. Even if the code was entirely reliant on the compiler performing vectorization (i.e. GPU & CPU instruction sets are at very the least nominally very different), GPU programming is quite different even to "lots of little CPUs"-style.
How is it person to person if there's a 3rd party facilitating the transaction? Why should someone be guaranteed to keep the money if they got it fraudulently, with the victim unable to dispute?
I had this thought today. Searched for "timeout.py" in Cpython. 0 hits.

It's right there in Lib/asyncio for Christ's sake!
Capital requirements (which is what Silvergate ran afoul of) have replaced reserve requirements. They function similarly, only instead of the amount of loans being determined by deposits they are determined by shareholder equity.
There were a lot of offers to buy into this last funding round, and I gotta be honest the price point was not appealing.
I wonder why they bothered going through with the fake bond purchase, rather than simply manipulate the published numbers of bonds sold? Unless the Bank was also keeping it a secret from central government?
On systems that have the same containerization feature that Docker requires, i.e., Linux systems with recent kernels, you can use nix-bundle¹ or the flakes-based experimental command inspired by it, `nix bundle`² to generate an all-in-one binary that you can run without installing Nix on the target.

1: https://github.com/matthewbauer/nix-bundle

2: https://github.com/NixOS/bundlers
> the entire company is suffering because of it.

What are you proposing? That the company should have instead made a "predict the future" decisions optimized for short term gains?
Experiments about a better locate using grep (2015)
Not only that, Windows 11 just did the same to a whole bunch of computers...
> It is not correct to say that the stack is "not resizable." While the default stack size is set by the operating system, many programming languages and operating systems allow you to specify the stack size when creating a new thread. However, it is true that once a thread has been created, its stack size typically cannot be changed.

Seems like a typical confused/pendantic Stack Overflow answer. I would say that stack size is "configurable", but not "resizable", because you indeed can't change the stack size (down, at least) of an already-created OS thread.
I think the 100 box explanation misses a subtlety in the problem. Conditional on those 98 boxes being empty, box 17 and box 68 are equally likely to have the prize. The key is that you have a large probability of backing the host into a corner as it were: forcing him to choose 98 of 98 openable boxes vs 98 of 99. This is where your large probably of winning comes from, but it's no clearer in the large (100-box) example than the small. Therefore I posit that the large example exploits a misunderstanding about the solution rather than elucidating it.
The 6th only covers situations where you explicitly object to a delay in your speedy trial right. Often it's in the interest of the defense to delay a trial as a tactic in preventing a conviction (e.g. by introducing a defense that the victim doesn't recall exactly). Also stupid shit like the prosecution withholding or delaying evidence that would tend to exonerate the defendant happens. What tends to happen is that the prosecution and the defendants lawyer agree to continuance after continuance. (Source: been there done that, had an open and shut self defense case that took about a year to go to trial)
You are under-informed.

RSUs also expire worthless if not vested, and furthermore privately held RSUs are very hard to sell to cover taxes.

https://www.goodwinlaw.com/en/insights/publications/2023/02/...
Here is full info: [1]

As I see it, market cap/valuation _should_ resemble the price you'd need to pay to buy a company, but it often is not. E.g. a company has marketcap of 10B, but has 30B in liquid cash on hand. It's clear it cannot be bought for 10B. Or the other way around, the company has 30B in liabilities -- the company should pay you 20B to be bought.

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/enterprisevalue.asp
Show HN: I wrote a summarizer for Hacker News top stories
> a secondary market for the shares

Only for Stripe’s investors, founders and early executives.
>you have to trust the trustees (so you "scammer" risk is irrelevant).

So you are saying that if you trust the trustee, they can't be a scammer? I don't agree.
This is also why I never pursued any GDPR complaints out of fear that I will be locked out of my account.

When I told about my issue to ICO, they basically gave advice to use different service... that's it.

There should be some sort of legal protection that if you want to exercise your rights, company shouldn't be allowed to cut you out for doing so.
Many company trading policies prohibit either of those transactions in company stock. (Some even prohibit entering into covered call transactions.) Every public company that I've worked for prohibited short selling and naked options contracts on our shares. All but one (Merrill Lynch) prohibited covered calls.
I'm not sure if there's any reason to think it's anything more exotic than a meteor.

Beautiful, for sure, but plenty of totally typical phenomena are beautiful.
Russian Oligarch.
Docker already requires everyone to use Linux, which is why Docker Desktop is just a frontend for a dog slow VM on your Mac or Windows box.
To an extent filters are already doing this... and people love it.
While not realistic to get the world to move to this there is a simple test - if you're still selling it and/or still protecting it with DRM then you have capability to distribute. If the answer to both is no then accessing the content where you originally bought it isn't a big issue anymore. What's a reasonable amount of access (e.g. "can I just redownload the game 24/7 for 8 years") would need to be defined but that's a much easier problem.

With the current model you run into an inherent conflict between protecting content you aren't truly relying on the monetization of anymore and what's fair to users because it requires putting the publisher/publisher's agent in front of the access.
The failure of SVB may be evidence that even the most well-connected, most tech-savvy bankers do not understand the monetary system.

It appears that they naively believed that if they converted $1 of today-money into $1 worth of today-bonds that those bonds would always be worth at least $1 nominally since bonds yield interest and the $1 principal is returned to the bond-holder once it reaches maturity... It seems that they couldn't imagine how a bond which costs $1 and yields $1 + interest could be worth less than $1?

It appears that they failed to understand that $1 in today-money is not necessarily worth the same as $1 in tomorrow-money (or especially 10-years-in-the-future-money). If you look at history over the past 50 years or so, tomorrow-money has always and predictably been worth less than today-money. So it's a gross oversight.

I didn't study economics, finance or business and I'm basically a dumb pleb scraping by the bottom rung of society, yet even I knew that.

That's why I often get caught up in conspiracy theories. It's hard for me to believe that these wealthy, highly educated people don't know this stuff. I tend to think that a lot of such things are malicious and intentional because I believe that the elites are intelligent. But then I think, why would these people risk going to jail over a scheme when they are already well off regardless? Are they compromised individuals being extorted for over a decade straight with the intention to basically run the company into the ground (for the benefit of third parties) and then be the fall guy? Hmmm seems very far fetched...
Hopefully white label SaaS will grow their marketshare - any estimates on annual revenue for that sector?

Revenue for the major US delivery apps is currently in the billions, with feudal taxes.
Another aspect of the british war debt, is that it was carried for hundreds of years. Rolling the specific consols into a unified public debt and then eradicating it wiped out the history of people sitting on long-tail bond payments from wreakage of the South Sea Bubble onwards.

Basically, until they rolled them up you could have a stable (if low rate of return) income denominated in Napoleonic war debt, if you wanted it, right up into the modern (1980s) era

[edit: actually consols == consolidated fund == prior consolidation of these historic debts. gilts were from time to time issued, like Churchills '27 issue for the WW1 debt ]
Yeah I try and keep my stuff to depending on the bare miniumum i.e. bash/Docker/etc (jq and maybe Python) but invariably there is something that needs to change.
Just by intuition, highly halogenated polyaromatic compounds such as this seem like they might degrade into terrible things - Compare to dioxins. Definitely would not want to burn them at the very least
The anti-robot feature to me looks like Bloomberg's, not Archive's
Stripe started issuing RSUs ~7 years ago and the first of those are set to expire next year without a liquidity event, which is why they're doing this.
"A while" might be 12 months given the pace we are at.

LLaMA is already going to be rather dangerous once malignant interests interests fine tune it for social engineering, offensive security missions, and astroturfing, and general emotional manipulation. That by itself will be enough to reshape the internet and remote interaction as we know it.
And many who are not Americans look with disbelief at those who would deny the right of self defence to a nation, embolden and support an imperialist tyrant, virtually guarantee more wars in the near, and justify it with a cynical call to "peace".
The government did actually need the money, it's just that saying "bond sales fell short so we got it from this bank" would look worse.
> Stripe benefits from the early role it plays in technology waves that reverberate across the industry, like mobile marketplaces, SaaS, and now AI, with users like OpenAI, Anthropic, Midjourney, Copy.ai, CoreWeave, and a long list of others.

So does Starbucks, by selling coffee to those companies' employees.
At least with Rust's take on monadic errors, you can sprinkle some `unwrap`s around and get what you want.
Not currently, but we have discussed the possibility in the future
My worst fears are that it makes Capitalism even worse. Capitalism already sucks the life out of everything. Now you're telling me we invented something to literally replace our creativity?

I fear that Capitalists will use it to extract exponentially more wealth from us with increased efficiency. Mass layoffs will increase competition for jobs. Labor will be much more alienated than it already is.

I fear that the Capitalists and the state will use AI to gain a level of control over people that can't be undone. They just have to run a simulation and be told by ChatCOP that ol' MountainMan is 99% likely to be a political dissident or terrorist or whatever they decide to frame thinking for yourself as.

I fear the Capitalists and the state will use it to create effective lies on a level they haven't been able to before. There is no truth anymore. They can generate any evidence for anything they want, and then they'll have another AI figure out which combination of words will make people believe it.

I fear that humans will be reduced even further to nothing but a fungible commodity to the capitalists.
So what? Cussen is a member of the HN population I'd refer to as "colorful characters". Various combinations of coherent, incoherent, and non-traditional (offensive).

FWIW, my profile is one of the longer ones. I occasionally prune some garbage but as I discover things I like, I keep adding, adding, adding. I'm not sure what the upper bounds is on max length.

I also like toomuchtodo's profile: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=toomuchtodo

The worst profiles are those with negative and/or paranoid shit in them; there are a disappointingly high number of them.
You can make up any reality that you want, just consume these first and don’t ask me where I found them.

In all seriousness though, what you are asking is whether an objective reality exists which is not a settled debate. There is also the whole solipsism thing though many disregard as a valid view of the world because it can be used to justify anything and is not a particularly interesting position.

Of course there is also the whole local realism thing with QM and of course the whole relativity thing and time flowing at different speeds destroying a universal “now”.

Then there is the whole issue with our senses being fallible and our brains hallucinating reality in a manner that is as confident as GPT3.5 is when making up facts.

In fact, it’s all just information and information doesn’t need a medium.
No. Hardly any startup allows common employees to sell options on the secondary market
> License: Zed will do so for Zed’s benefit, not yours.

Never in my life have I seen such a boisterous "fuck you" in a legal document. Who are your lawyers, and what on Earth (or off Earth for that matter) are they smoking? In what alternate reality is this a "boilerplate" EULA?

I mean, holy shit.
No I’m saying that Apple Photos literally copies to a local library automatically if you have a mac and open Photos.app. I didn’t even have to set it up. My partner did the same thing, and she’s decidedly not tech savvy. It’s one of the only reasons I ended up paying for Apple One for the 2TB cloud storage, is because of how easy they made it.
Stock owners are not liable. The company is. Right?
GPT-4 had no issues answering this.
I find it far better for DevOps. It is really easy to get the team up and running via conda environment files.
It's good privacy practice to use cheap and disposable VOIP numbers for online/phone shopping, changed periodically.
T-Mobile to Buy Ryan Reynolds’ Mint Mobile in a $1.35B Deal
What Pakistan’s Collapse Could Mean for the World
Is it just me, or does their example of the traditional way of doing those calls user literally the least efficient possible way of writing that code?

Surely using async/await would get you to something nearly as clean as their end-state