skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Not to mention the use of `ProxyContracts` that obfuscate changes to the actual contract implementation.

When you interact with a certain contract, you are likely interacting with the ProxyContract which relays your calls to the actual contract. The proxycontract is often under lock or has multiple signatories to amending but the "origin" contract doesn't.

So many DeFi projects get "audited by Certik" actually just get their proxy contracts audited and there is nothing in there but a single line per function, calling the origin contract.
RAII for memory management implies that destructors free owned memory, which can quickly cascade out of control for complex objects (e.g. you still need to think very carefully about memory management).
One of the issues with NASA is that the centers are a source of alot of political capital for their congressional sponsors. So things get funded on that basis.

The big deal made about it is because government is more transparent. Big companies are often far more wasteful of shareholder dollars, but they generally don’t have boards as insane as congress.
While not exactly a drugstore, one fun one that others might not know is that Sears' camera lineup was actually quite extensive and serious, featuring premium models rebranded from Asahiflex/Pentax, Nicca/Yashica, Mamiya, and others. A Sears/Tower brand camera wasn't bad at all!

It sounds odd, but "white-labeling" by importers was quite common in those days - Pentax cameras were often sold as Honeywell Pentax, and large format camera lenses traveled through extensive networks and partnerships (Calumet, DO Industries, Graflex, etc). Today's distributor networks are very, very centralized in comparison, and there are a lot less players in the market. Today the closest analogy is probably CCTV lenses where there's still a pretty thriving industry and lots of sub-vendors.

Given the historical nexus of drug stores to film developing... I guess I could see a drug store carrying some products, especially popular ones, and maybe having the ability to order some stuff too. Ansco was a film brand too (actually it's part of Agfa iirc, quite a large one!) so they could have been able to order cameras.
Is the military industrial complex really that big? I’m under the impression that it’s honestly pretty weak and fragile.
http://archive.today/W0LzA
I can understand that. The text selection was just changed due to the sheer volume of people copying whole articles and passing them off as their own. I also know you can just view the source and copy so there isn't really a foolproof way to prevent.

Maybe if I made the lists copyable and also had an icon to copy to clipboard, would that help?
On the other hand, why shouldn't voice actors benefit from this tech?

I can easily imagine a future where AI-generated impersonations are deemed by courts or new legislation to be protected by personality rights. In that world, voice actors could expand their business by offering deeply discounted rates for AI-generated work.

Alternatively, if/when tech like Play.ht is consistently good enough, maybe it just becomes a standard practice for all voice acting work to include a combination of human- and AI-generated content, like a programmer using Copilot or a writer using GPT.
With Lua, you don't even need to export a config object, the Lua script is the config object. I do think there is some promise to this - see Neovim for example.

There are a lot of downsides though, because now you've got a leaky config language instead of a leaky config interpreter.
Compared to paying lacrosse coaches in Stanford - as if US universities are any better!

Your rich dad endows a building in an Ivy and you are in - and apparently it's all good!
I'm going to use this to pump out podcasts
ShareX

https://getsharex.com/

https://github.com/ShareX/ShareX
You don't need the shell for that. Every modern cron supports randomization internally.
MITRE Systems Engineering Guide [pdf]
People are joking that they can't wait for the next big thing in AI to come out in a few weeks, but this seems pretty big. After fiddling with it for a while, its not perfect, but this isn't that far from being able to replace (or at least dramatically change) my job as a software engineer.

For example, I asked it to write conway's game of life, and it took about 4-5 attempts but it wrote fully functional code that popped up a matplotlib window with a fully functional simulation. This would've taken me a day at least.

I asked it to write a FastAPI backend that uses SQLite for storing blog Posts, and it struggled with that one a lot and couldn't quite get it right, although I think that's largely a limitation of the python REPL from langchain as opposed to GPT.

On the one hand I'm excited to build all sorts of new things and projects with this, but on the other hand I'm worried my standard of living will decline because my skills will become super commodified :/
I wonder if the article takes into account secondary effects. like if 300M people are spending making less money the demand for other services probably goes down.
The bricks are already there, just not perfectly stitched together I give you that, we already have near perfect text translation for some languages, high quality earbuds, near perfect voice synthesis in some research papers.

Sure right now you can't use a product which works very well with those bricks together (I've seen some but it's still unconvincing) but in 5 years maximum this is a solved problem.

I'm even expecting the global English level to peak and then decrease because of that in the next 20 years. Learning foreign languages is very hard and less people would continue it just as a hobby if they have some software doing it for them.
It is weird, and as usual there is a Black Mirror episode with this exact premise. The unforeseen consequences in the episode even seem pretty realistic based on current GPT behavior.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_Right_Back
Checkpointing HPC applications using Spot Instance notifications
> If you are 100% Mac then it's a good product. Going outside of the walled Apple garden leaves a lot to be desired.

I think Apple would consider this "working as designed."
Did you read the article? You can't "desensitize yourself" -- your brain is wired differently.
not really the point. a PGP-style tech could easily exist for phone or video tomorrow, if it doesn't already. but PGP-style tech for email (called "PGP") has existed for 32 years and basically no one uses it. whether or not the tech exists doesn't matter nearly as much as whether or not people actually use it.
What's different between debian:bullseye-slim and debian:bullsye (assuming you are talking about https://hub.docker.com/_/debian)

let me try to answer/research this question myself to find the answer/go on this journey:

takes me to

non slim: https://github.com/debuerreotype/docker-debian-artifacts/tre...

slim: https://github.com/debuerreotype/docker-debian-artifacts/tre...

https://github.com/debuerreotype/docker-debian-artifacts/blo... versus https://github.com/debuerreotype/docker-debian-artifacts/blo...

two files are identical

so at a quick glance i have no clue what is going into rootfs.tar.xz that makes one slim and one not

go to google:

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/59794891/how-does-debian...
The real reason to filter out short men is they tend to have exactly this sort of complex about it. It's the king part not the lambo you don't want to miss.
> Keeping the state changes separate from the UI is a good thing

Why? Can you give an example?
Hate generally the 'if not for' type stories (usually by writers about certain inventors or some technology) . They would have figured out even if this hadn't happened that photography made sense to do.

Also in addition to what others have said about $40 and today's cost the modifications and time for that were not factored into the actual value of the camera.
> I just wonder .... is that what Google built Drive for? / how much of that they were thinking of.

They sell enterprise plans, and have for years. It's definitely an intended use of their product.

https://workspace.google.com/products/drive/

It's funny to read your comment, because to me, Google Drive feels like an enterprise product that incidentally happens to provide a consumer-facing version as well, not the other way around.
A mole? I'd rather call them whistleblowers.
Presumably by writing content that is hyper-targeted at specific questions (e.g. "which is the best X for me to use?") that the LLM will then consume, hoping that it will be regurgitated as fact when the LLM answers that specific question. [I am not an expert on LLM training, so I might be wrong]

This will then mean writing a lot of such content, because hyper-targeted and presumably more repetition = more weighting.

Which is too boring a task for a human. So we'll have an LLM that churns out blog articles that are not designed for humans to read, but purely for other LLMs to read. They may even discover optimisations over "natural" language that improve readability for the target LLM. So we'd end up with half the web being full of incomprehensible junk designed to game search results for commercial gain. So no change then ;)
I will tell my family to use iCloud Keychain the day when it works across all major browsers and OSes. Or at least that they provide an API to sync with other password managers.
Are you aware at some point in your career you didn't know what those things were either?
we're f'd?

(on the verge of being bombarded with more AI powered sales garbage)

wonder how long it will be before someone builds an AI bot to waste the outreachers' time & money, like they did with spam callers
The "really sketchy behavior" rant came to mind [1]. This isn't someone who's trying to build regulatory relationships. It's someone who wants to look like he has them. (Similar to SBF's political donations not resembling someone who wants to build political goodwill. Just someone who wants to appear as much.)

Note: I'm not arguing Armstrong had no points. But if you're going to air out your regulatory complaints ex ante and in public, you're not playing in the good-and-compliant lane.

[1] https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/14354392917153587...
That's what I would expect a giraffe lady to say :)
They already have an app, Keychain Access, but for weird reasons they integrated the new features into System Setting instead of expanding the existing app.
Fully in agreement here, getting people used to Apple Passwords can be a task purely because it's stuffed into settings.

Would like to see them in the process of transitioning it away from settings, also include the ability to change the name of the entries. Multiple URLs per login would be great too (or even a linking of separate entries). Think these are the biggest things keeping many general users still relying on the likes of 1Password/Bitwarden, which is where I disagree with the writer here, I think third party password tools should be replaced by sane defaults as soon as possible outside of niche cases.
You can't trade futures on Kraken if you're an US citizen. I suspect the same is true for Coinbase.
On 3, at least: Apple assumes you'll use search on device. If so, it's:
1) Swipe down
2) Type "p"
3) tap autocomplete result in "settings" group.
Agree on most of this but Keychain Access IS a standalone app on the mac so slightly confused about the comment about it being buried in System settings. Its still a pain to go to the app and copy a password for non-Safari browsers though.
1. can be fixed with typescript

2. can be fixed with Deno - https://deno.land/manual@v1.31.3/basics/permissions

3, 4, 5. Why not have that wrapper to solve those? (AFAIK you do need the wrappers for jsonnet too)
next up, water is wet
I think a minimum viable VOR network is planned to be maintained as a backup to GPS.
> D has a more unusual take on private fields. Private fields prevent access by other modules, but do not prevent access from within the same module. The module is really the unit of encapsulation, not the struct.

Other languages would call these "internal", not "private".
I was confused by this, too. It feels like the target audience for this post must be people coming from dynamic-typed, late-bound languages? Hence the references to e.g. Ruby? Certainly Rust's immediate mainstream "competition" all have the same constraints.

However, languages in the ML language family like StandardML and OCaml and Haskell do get away (sometimes) without explicit type signatures in function definitions. But I believe it's also considered good practice to declare them explicitly much of the time anyways. Because the alternative is, as the article pokes at, confusing error messages.
> and the impedance is just really not a big deal

Im quite happy you haven't come across major issues with this. If you develop clean architecture solutions that are live products across years, this is a major problem (eg. table X is now a separate full blown service; table Y is an external materialized table with no inserts, as inserts now go into an external messaging system such as kafka) etc.

> "Impedance mismatch" is just a thought-terminating cliché.

So are the whole ORM advantages. My personal distaste from ORM doesn't even start in the obvious technical drawbacks, starts with the fact that a developer should have a solid grasp on the domain he is working, which more often than not, ORM advocates lack. If you can't model data from a storage perspective (which, btw, is often the bottleneck of your application), you shure as hell won't do a good job modelling it in a business domain.

> Yet we find solutions and workarounds and the severity of these problems is generally overrated outside of purely theoretical contexts.

Ahh yes, the typical "lets not get theoretical" argument. ORMs are usually crap, and in python they are actual crap. If Django is a good example for you, good for you. If you ever have a look at Entity Framework you'll be amazed. Try to use a schema-first approach with any mainstream ORM and you'll quickly realize all you do is workarounds because of assumptions and limitations. Thing is, for my daily work, these problems are actual problems. So much we don't use Django or ORMs.
The problem with inter-app audio routing is that it's not about sharing a data blob.

Still, other people have found ways to do it without shmem, so in some sense it doesn't matter all that much.
Deploying Open OnDemand with AWS ParallelCluster
This talk already happened but for some reason it's not posted. Very odd.
Invoke is like a Makefile but in Python: https://www.pyinvoke.org/index.html
That true I was just pointing out with a tiny bit of effort you can get the same for far cheaper and a better version as you can customize the system prompt so it can act how ever you like
> And it all syncs across your devices, for free?!

Really? My Linux devices? Android? Windows? I don't think so.

I recommend considering one of the most important features of a password manager is that it doesn't force you to use a single manufacturer's products forever. Even if you swear undying fealty to Apple (or anyone else) today, you might change your mind in the future. 1Password, Bitwarden, and others allow me to switch PC manufacturer, phone manufacturer, browser, and so on.

I can't tell you how many people used to think "Internet Explorer is popular, it'll always be the one and only browser". That did not end well.
The difference isn't even less friction. It's more familiar friction.

Here's the most crucial point: windows has the most thoroughly documented friction. If you ever have a problem, chances are 1,000 or more other people have had that problem, or a closely related one, and 1 or 2 of them even wrote about it somewhere. Life is way harder than it needs to be, but you are not even remotely alone.

Apple takes the opposite approach: walls instead of friction. If you can't figure it out, it's because you computer can't do it. That implies your computer shouldn't be able to do it. You would be surprised at how comfortable people are with this conclusion. It doesn't get them what they want, but it saves them time and energy by providing early and confident rejection.

Linux maximizes the ability to manage friction. There is always a way to actually resolve it with constructive effort. That's an unfamiliar strategy, and it requires some level of education that the average user refuses to accommodate, even if it will definitely save them time and effort.
The ubiquitous waiting/loading/error(msg)/success(data)

Lots of frameworks and state management libraries already lean towards helpful design, in languages with async and ADTs as first-class citizens you've got a real leg up, but at the end of the day it comes down to preventing impossible states.

You can't have an error message when in the success state, you can't have success data while loading or waiting.

By preventing this at compiletime, it also means the UI can't ever show bogus data (i.e. it's impossible to have a success screen with the error message dangling at the bottom because somebody forgot to clear it)
I'm gonna politely disagree and say, I don't think "spooky action at a distance" is very scary when it happens at build-time

Much of my background is in TypeScript, which encourages mixing and matching explicit and implicit return-types, and I don't think it's just bias when I say I broadly prefer that. Having the flexibility to decide which part of your code is driving your types in different circumstances is really helpful. And Rust already does this in lots of situations, like in variable declarations and generics; Rust closures even let you have inferred argument and return types, so it feels a little arbitrary that regular functions are one of the only places where explicit types are absolutely required

Caveats:

- Crate exports should definitely require explicit types, since you don't have all the callers available when you build your own code to see that you don't break the API without meaning to

- Rust of course tends to be used for slower-moving and more careful projects than TypeScript, so in general I'm less bothered by having to be explicit in a Rust project than I would be in a TypeScript project

- TypeScript types have no runtime footprint. They in no way affect the underlying data or how it's represented, they only describe data that has its own separate material reality. Rust being a low-level language, that isn't the case here! When the return type of a function changes, that isn't just for checking, it changes the actual runtime footprint of the function in a small way. So I could see this being a reason to keep types explicit. Though, again, Rust already does lots of type inference in other places with potentially much bigger runtime implications, like when .collect() infers the data structure the items are going to be allocated into.

In all: it doesn't matter to me that much, but if it were totally up to me, I'd strongly consider allowing inferred function return-types
Still not eating the bugs, fake meat, living in the pod, or in the walkable city.

IPCC has serious problems with integrity, one look at the now ancient Climategate mails proves this.
ha true good point
Make wasn’t designed to be a task runner. It can be used as one, but it doesn’t make (pun not intended) a very good one, and it doesn’t have the best syntax, either.

Make is an artifact updater. Although it’s not its main focus, Peter Miller’s classical paper ‘Recursive Make Considered Harmful’ does a good job of explaining what it is.

One great benefit of make is that it’s present everywhere, so there’s no additional hassle of installing an extra tool. Depending on the project, this hassle-freeness may or may not outweigh make’s relative incomfort as a task runner.
> This is the most surprising. Why was it so?

How about 'let's get him back alive'. If that had not happened there quite likely would have been no program or a big delay in the program.

The writer (as is typical looks at upside not downside of attention to certain details) is predictably glib with that as if 'geez why wouldn't they thought pictures were important!'
I use Keychain Access app, but admittedly the UX there is terrible. I wish it was nicer, and also integrated with browsers other than Safari.
This article is written in entirely negative terms, talking about "damage" and "adverse effects", but I wonder if research into these mechanisms could lead to some effective form of birth control for men.
> ORMs are just not performant unless you reason about all the code at the level of "what queries are going to be generated and when", which makes the ORM an unhelpful layer of obfuscation over the layer of abstraction that you're actually reasoning at.

You're assuming I use the ORM to not reason about SQL or not think about performance. This isn't true; first of all because even if you write SQL, SQL performance is not immediately obvious for any but the simplest of indexed queries. In no storage system do you ever get away from reasoning about this.

Second because SQL is actually a mediocre abstraction layer over your data storage. You can't really compose SQL queries; in an ORM taking a base Query object and adding a bunch of various `filter()` statements automatically does the right thing. Basic queries are much shorter visually; ORMs deal with the abstraction of table and column renames that mean rewriting all your SQL in other systems. I feel like you're just trotting out "reasons" out of a blog post from people whose priorities aren't the ones that people like us who write CRUD systems day in and day out do.

Again, you're talking about theoretical disadvantages which I have only really encountered about a half dozen times in over a decade of using Django even in performance-sensitive areas. Rewriting one ORM query out of a hundred is not a problem, especially if I had to rewrite the SQL in the first place.
> Sorry but this is just vague insinuation. You haven't given any hints as to what you believe will be a surprise.

Well, I did say earlier:

> > and under policies that elevate "gender identity" over sex, will be believed.

> This does not apply to the actual policies I assume you're complaining about.

You misunderstand what "self-identification policies" are – or, at least, what current implementations look like. They don't "just believe" people: the processes for getting recognition can be quite convoluted.

> Okay then, please share your evidence?

I can't share the sum total of my relevant life experience, I'm afraid. You'll just have to make do with what I've already provided: the evidence from your own comments. As somebody who has researched this, and – presumably – is motivated to portray trans people in a bad light, you are not in possession of the statistical data I would expect to exist if trans women were statistically like men.

People like you pick at every single case you can to paint $insert_group_here in a bad light, but in this case, you can't even get enough data points to make a statistically-plausible argument – and neither can anybody else who argues the same as you. (I have absolutely no idea why you can't: I would expect you to be able to. Apparently, reality is even more biased than I am!)

> I'm sure you know they are male.

:eyeroll: I'm sure you can't even define "male" coherently, consistently, in a way that lines up with your ideological beliefs about what it is and isn't.

You know how I'm using words. I'm extending you the courtesy of accepting your language use: please return it.

> The same argument I made in other comments applies to these […] too

And by this argument, why have segregated prisons at all? Your original argument was about reducing harm… so why are you suddenly switching to a different argument, now that I've brought up the increased harm your proposal would cause?

You've got two different criteria now. Please weigh both situations (thing you're complaining about, and your alternative proposal) according to both criteria. Don't just pick and choose, otherwise I'll have to assume you're arguing in bad faith.
The utter futility of fad diets, in one chart