skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Since the rise of cloud applications and electron based applications I'm back at writing faster than the application can process my input. And I'm not a fast typist.

If the application you're using (the one(s) you're referring to when you say "cloud applications") is sending the key input to the backend and waits to render it client-side until it received a response, it's doing something horribly wrong and if that's how they write things, you probably want to avoid that for a multitude of reasons. Please name and shame though, so others can avoid it too :)

Same goes for Electron-based applications, there is no reason they'd block showing the text you inputted, and if they just use <input/> without doing anything egregious, you really shouldn't be able to type faster than characters appearing on the screen, something is really, really wrong then, and I don't think it's because of Electron.
Kinda like options - you get taxed on imaginary numbers on money you don't have access to. You received zero profits but owe taxes.
It's a bit like when smart phones happed we started doing ui "mobile first" as it easer to scale up a mobile UI to desktop, it's easier to start "offline first" and move to constantly online (even collaborative) than to start online first and add "offline" eventual consistency later.

There is much chat about real-time collaborative apps, but the reality is that most people are working async most of the time. If you start with the concept of offline first, with eventual consistency for collaborative work, you implement all of the same conflict resolution as if you are implementing a real-time app with conflict resolution. Then adding real-time collaboration later is easy.

This is where CRDTs (conflict free replicated datatypes) work better than OT (operational transforms). OT need more supervision from the server, the further you diverge from the servers state the more likely there will be a corruption. CRDTs are inherently designed to work with massive diversion and no central authority, really they are offline first.
You quite clearly are unware of the evolution pain points to move past Java 8, .NET Framework 4.8, and how the Java community embraces Java 20, or the C# one sees C# 12, and the rate they are adding new features.

As for JS, everyone knows the mess of the Web ecosystem and frontend development.

Ada is doing just fine, as most vendors are still adopting Ada 2012. Ada Core and PTC are the only ones with the latest version, from 7 remaining vendors.
In a world where all software actually has a comprehensive spec, I think the distinction could be made pretty easily, but the line is definitely fuzzy in this one.
The sheer number of people (thinking particularly historically, pre-industrialisation) involved in them I suppose.
The article isn't very informative.

I watched a video of Emad Mostaque (Stability AI CEO) recently; he alluded to discussions with Apple, but who knows to what degree. The general thrust being we need to have greater control over our data and that's one of the things Stability is working towards, which chimes with Apples overall approach.
The executive in charge of that strategy, by then, will have moved on to Google.

Also, likely microsoft has realized there's zero long term revenue in operating systems -- you'll have been forced to move all your data to their Office 365 environment and will be paying them rent regardless of if you use a windows or a mac or a linux or an oracle desktop.
> All push load balancing algorithms try to somehow predict how busy downstreams are.

They KNOW how busy they are. They are the ones tracking and forwarding connections to them. That's why leastconn works in the first palce

But, for example HAProxy have option to directly back-feed weights via healthchecks from app, so there is an option for app to signal back-pressure in RR balancing
> So you're saying people came up with Maxwell's equations, quantum mechanics, the standard model of cosmology, et cetera, by… fudging?

Partly, yes, though I am not really familiar with the exact context behind them. People fudge theories so those theories would fit known data. That alone doesn't guarantee that those theories would fit future data.

> How do you even devise a new theory without indications from experiments?

It's a two-way process. You need experiments to improve theory, and you need theory to create experiments.
Edit: replied to completely wrong comment. Below was supposed to go to one comment above.

Government rate is $120 per imaging session, with standard 1/3 deductible. Minimum wage in Tokyo at this moment is $1336, so more like 3-5% after additional diagnosis and fees.
The sandboxing is pretty important to keeping things isolated, but I've also wondered about the right way to ensure my writes to files are "atomic" in 9p, and never really understood the guarantees or lack thereof.

In POSIX-land, I can write to a temp file, sync it and the parent directory, and rename it over the original and be pretty well guaranteed anyone accessing the file by name will never see a partially written to file.

How the heck does this work in 9p servers? For a "synthetic" file server one could decide to update the state depending on receiving full payloads I presume, and discard anything that's nonsense or incomplete. (like changing the baud on a serial port through the control file - you need to know the format of the commands and send the correct payload)

But what does one do about regular files? Write to temporary files and rename over them? Do the Plan 9 file systems have any atomic guarantees (HJFS, Fossil, KenFS etc?) and do I need to understand each of them?
I'd love to see the source code of it :)
Apple have been shipping various pieces of advanced AI in their consumer products for many years already. As the technology has allowed it, they have started moving even larger models to the edge - siri is now available on-device, for example.

They have been building dedicated hardware into their devices specifically for this - for years! State of the art LLMs have already been shown to run on ios devices.

I very much doubt that apple is behind - more likely just polishing off their next usecase.
Jorge Luis Borges also wrote about his blindness as a writer. I remember some interviews, but the most popular of his works on the topic is his "Poem of the gifts" [1], a poem he wrote about being named director of the Argentine National Library around the same time as he went completely blind.

[1] https://thefloatinglibrary.com/2009/01/06/poem-about-gifts-j...
Show HN: Karma Design Suite – A powerful wireframe and UI toolkit for designers
We've designed an extensive wireframe kit and a more extensive set of UI kits. All feedback is appreciated.
AWS Application Load Balancers seem to default to round-robin, would be interested to hear how many people change this to their "least connections" equivalent called "LOR" [1]? And why they don't support any other options?

I'd guess AWS default to round robin because it's the least complex, and doesn't have issues like if a worker responds extremely quickly due to an error (eg. returns a 500 immediately) then using LOR it seems it would consume all the requests until it's taken out of service by any health checks. But maybe there are other potential downsides?

[1] - https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2019/11/applicati...
Solo 2 fixed the bent connectors issue. Solo 2 USB-C has supply issues, you'll probably have to wait a couple of months to get one.
Linux Matters Podcast
Show HN: Open-source warehouse native product analytics
How to Load Code in Ruby
I have to disagree slightly. The default for Windows 98 had a consistent aesthetic, consistent short-cuts across applications, and a sensible menu system (even if things were janky on the backend).
I happen to agree that this is a bad use of attestation (as well as a pointless one, since it’s cheaper and easier for a click farm to do attestation with a bunch of yubikeys than to contact out CAPTCHA solves).

However, I don’t really think it’s an indictment of either WebAuthn or attestation more generally: as pointed out, most public services do not (and probably will never) require attestation. The winds are against it more generally: non-attestation flows are easier to implement, and WebAuthn adoption is increasingly driven by authenticators that don’t necessarily offer useful attestations (e.g. on-device and virtual tokens). Most future users of WebAuthn won’t have physical keys of the sort that Cloudflare’s scheme will require.
Danish as well. I didn’t see it mentioned, so I will add: that back then, a ship could not moor along the key on starboard/styrbord side. So it had to be the other side: hence the English port side.
It's not difficult. loadbalancer knows how many requests are in-flight to server. The OP is plainly wrong.

That's why leastconn works in the first place. And leastconn is almost always one you want. It's almost magical. GC stall on one server ? That means it isn't processing, which means every new request will go to other servers.

One server processing 2x as fast as the other ? Well, it keeps its connection count low, so it gets more of them
> Physical access is not game over, there should be additional layers of security (i.e. a passcode)

Please re-read what I said.

In particular I point you to the "AND" in capital letters. ;-)

As I said. Apple gives you the tools. Use them.
How Hollywood Is Making Me a Union Man
Terminal Velocity: how to get faster as a developer
I don't know why this is downvoted. It's a good idea.
Review of James Coglan’s Building Git
I like https://movielens.org Non-commercial
At least the printer protocols have stayed true to themselves, the more the merrier.

Picking a random example: "AirPrint®, Brother iPrint&Scan, Mopria™ , Cortado Workplace, Wi-Fi Direct®".

Will a lists like that be enough to overcome your fear and skip the costly upsell to exactly the same printer, but it also understands PCL6? (likely a bit flipped in the firmware...) You decide. It's like a reverse confidence trick: "look, it's 2023 already and it's awesome, you really don't need PCL6 anymore. Trust me."
Do you have references for the last of your claims? I thought I did a reasonably exhaustive search for a layperson, but the sources I found could certainly be wrong. My hobby searches in this area have led me to conclude that etymology isn't a hard science, and ultimately one will arrive at someone's qualified opinion about something.

The relation between 'kase' and casein is very fair; cheese production obviously predates protein chemistry. I guess what I was trying to say was that the words are related, but if 'kase' derives from Latin for 'cheese', the rabbit hole continues. Why does the French word derive from shape, if the Romans already had a word for cheese? And what did their definition of cheese include?
> Let’s start with a simple truth

It is the blatant self deception, right from the title which drew me in.

I don’t want to be overly snarky or trollish, yet something here cannot go unnoticed.

The simple “truth” the author begins with is complete rubbish.

Our ideas are turning over as compost from one generation to the next.

The delusion of new generations thinking things have “always been this way” is a shocking conceit.

The modern term “generation” is a fifteen year span. Every idea that humanity has completely dies out every 45 - 60 years. Whatever persists in the world has been refactored and reseeded and regrown in the now present generations. The world is made and remade through generational transitions.

It is very apparent to anyone studying history that this is so.

History is not one single point that we ended up in. It is a vacillating wave of human rise and fall. Upstarts and cancels, inspirations and fails. Our modern memory is a regurgitated cliff note of what came before.

The take away is written by the prevailing side. The modern prevalence relies upon sweet lies over bitter truths. The populous wants gratifying answers, to be paid, and to be agreeable among its mob of contemporary interests.THESE CONTEMPORARY INTERESTS CHANGE THROUGHOUT HUMANITY.

One might fool themselves that “there was always religion.” Yet what is “true” is that humanity has always sought this reciprocal connection of meaningfulness between existential being and selves.

This is a psycho-tramatic drama that every single wayward ascendant being must personally undergo (it was not done once and for all long ago and now everyone knows about it.)

Our very idea, purpose, and relation to tradition and religion shifts glacially (or tectonically) through our generations.

What is a source of liberation and personal power in one generation, is the source of great evil and abuse in another.

It is the struggle to reunite our daily chaotic lives with a sublime order and purpose which rekindles and invokes this perpetual search beyond ourselves.

Modern science is only a new form of occult knowledge worship.

If you think of science as anything more than a tool to undeceive ourselves of our own ignorance and confusion, then you are an ignorant and confused self deceiver!
No, that duplicates fixed administrative costs, requiring more government.

Also, prior commentator didn't fully read the comment they were responding to.
I agree with this one. Specialise, and then branch out if you like into a second or third specialisation. People who say "stay generalist" - I don't know what they mean. Maybe they mean "people/project management", but that is still a specialisation.
I'm going to guess about 80%. I haven't counted.

In fact plenty of the movies you and I have probably already seen ("Easy Rider", "2001: A Space Odyssey", "The Graduate" for example). So perhaps even before I began going through the list I may have seen 20% or so.

But there are also a lot of early films from the 1930's I had not seen, and plenty of foreign films. In fact, now that I'm working through the 1970's, "foreign films" is more or less the rule.

Sadly the foreign films are the ones hardest to find both on Netflix and at the local library.
Those cases should both be solved with optimistic UI, so there’s no difference.

You can have a little checkmark to indicate that it’s synced, like many chat apps do.

> In my experience optimistic UI is way more complex to build. Many times the complexity is worth it though.

Yeah, can attest to this. I’m working on an app[1] that strikes the trifecta: p2p, real-time and offline first. All of those things combined makes the amount of tooling, design patterns and resources available shrink to a tiny sliver compared to a typical web-based tech stack. I have researched probably 100 projects that sound promising but almost all have been a poor fit for one reason or another. I opted to build almost everything from scratch.

Kudos to the JS ecosystem. They are way ahead in this space, with rxdb, watermelon, yjs, automerge etc. Unfortunately I couldn’t use any of them because I use a split-language stack.

[1]: https://payload.app/
And the fact that you should tune for loadbalancer to queue and eventually drop, not your app server.

Then in case of leastconn there will be no dropped connections as long as total server capacity < incoming traffic.
Fair enough; I guess I don't pay him that much attention.
Other people were wrong in general, light doesn't work like electricity. Electricity takes available paths weighted by least resistance. Light bounces at the reflection angle. Not the same. Most people understand this during high school physics. They don't argue that light is the same as electricity and water because of quantum mechanics and solar sails, then not be able to back up anything they say in any way.

This was all about taking the path of least resistance, so show me anything that shows light doing that instead of just bouncing off the reflection angle.
Seen that on mattermost, it is poorly written React or other SPA. It is one of reason why SPA get so much hate around.
Well no, you have a 1.2M profit, and decided to reinvest 1M into R&D to produce a software asset.

It's bad that the tax treatment changes suddenly because businesses need stability, but the change itself is perfectly rational.
From what my testing it's really basic even compared to open source alternatives like Open Assistant and Vicuna.
I worked for a company that had both Slack and Workplace and... Workplace wasn't a Slack replacement at all? It felt like a separate instance of Facebook for our company. How would it act like a Slack replacement?
The model trained 3 years ago was only trained on 300B tokens, heavily undertrained (in terms of the Chinchilla scale), that's why LLaMa models can easily beat it on most benchmarks (they were trained on 1/1.4T tokens). About the current GPT-3.5 models, who knows, OpenAI is not very open about it.
Some friend of a friend always have something interesting going on. But interviewing them is key. Remember the interview process isn't just about them accepting _you_, it's equally (or even more) about you accepting them.

Take references (talk to people working there about what the environment is like). Make sure they're a good team fit (make sure to have interviews with the people you'd be working with). Ensure they're as competent as they say they are (talk to people there working with similar stuff as you to ensure they know what they're talking about). Et.c. et.c.

Once all of this is cleared, you can start talking about salaries and other superficial things.
Elon Musk Launches X.ai to Fight ChatGPT Woke AI
And play what? Solitaire?
That was a good read. If only you could make every Fox News viewer read it.
It's a good callout and I think these things should be documented just so security researchers can expose flaws in the process publicly. Basically, these companies have unlock keys for our accounts and we don't know enough about their internal processes to know how secure we are from social engineering attacks or internal threats.
Yes and no. Or, yes for such use cases you mentioned, also it is miles ahead in reasoning capability, translations from Chinese, etc. etc. But still, for more casual talk, like bouncing ideas, brainstorming etc., I prefer Claude. It's kind of more "friendly", less formal, and, which is sometimes also important, much quicker.
I expect other people to write tests (including compile time tests).
It's extremely hard to believe any GPT is going to enhance service delivery in any significant way. It's possible it will give Google's sw teams insights into more straightforward mechanistic improvements to search.

They already do shedloads of NLP optimisations. Inference of wider intent in the query? Maybe. Optimisation of which matches to prioritise? Hard to see how they can do that without breaking profit. What I want is less, more specificity, not more.

The risk side is immense. They're adding it out of fear, not an innate belief it adds value. I'd admire Google more if they gave a reasoned response why not to do it.
> websites just get this for granted? it’s like stealing.

Isnt the user getting free content in return?
They do, and their only care is how it's going to disproportionately affect self-identified victims of oppression and drag queens.
Yeah I agree with this, and at the same time people's expectations grow to meet the capability.

I remember when writing some C to do some basic network IO felt like witchcraft.
Quantum Computation Simulation in C++
I disagree with you as well.

There's no reason losing something 100% of people keep on them 100% of the time should equal losing their online digital identity.
It has: password managers, which both mobile operating system manufacturers have implemented, not to mention 3rd parties like 1Password. And then there is Login with Google/Microsoft/Apple/GitHub/Twitter/etc. And now also Passkey with Apple, Google, and Microsoft being on board.
>> Putting aside any thoughts of whether this is persuasive, I think this seems to be a case of Lucas and Penrose doing what they claim is uniquely human: thinking outside of the box of formal proof. More generally, almost none of human knowledge is couched as a formal proof of something or other, and almost none of it has been acquired that way.

Well, except for all of mathematics :P

Then again, it's useful to wonder what, exactly, is a formal proof, when derived by a human. My understanding of proofs (after having had to come up with several for my PhD research) is that the purpose of a proof is to convince a human that what the associated theorem states, is true. The human is first of all the person stating the theorem, so for example these days at least when I write down a theorem, the next thing I do is ask myself out loud "why do I think this is true?". Then I try to write it down in simple English, and then I try to put it in the standard format of an inductive proof, or a proof by refutation- and I do that only because those are proof structures that are well understood and they will cause the least confusion about what I mean. Even so I've got proofs wrong and I had reviewers pick out my mistakes and help me correct them, which is a bit of a "phew, dodged a bullet" (worst case is you get your erroneous proof published and look like an idiot for eternity).

Btw, I picked up that idea that the purpose of proofs is to convince others (other mathematicians) from some article or paper I read about proofs in mathematics, but I have no idea which one it was now. Anyway it's not my own idea, I just found it somewhere and it made a lot of sense, and still does.

Then there's the proofs you can construct with an automated theorem prover. I wonder if that's more the kind of proof that Penrose is talking about? In a sense, I don't think any human can really really construct an entire proof. All the proofs I've seen (and all the ones I've written) are more correctly proof sketches. That's why I think their point is only to convince others that what you say is true, and not to uncover some fundamental truth about the nature of the universe. Humans don't do that. I don't think we can do that. Formal systems like arithmetic or logic try to capture what is our ideal reasoning procedure, but not what we do in practice. I think so anyway.

>> This depends on S being consistent. Lucas and Penrose apparently suppose that any proposal for explaining thinking as a computational process would, ipso facto, cast a mind as a concrete instantiation of a consistent formal system.

I haven't read Lucas' and Penrose's work but I would find it very hard to be convinced about the truth of that.

I don't understand how humans reason. I can see what I do, and what others do, but after a certain point all models seem to break down and minds seem capable of just jumping to conclusions because they like them. It's such a huge question how our minds work, exactly. I will probably never know.
Conway's Game of Life digital clock
But you can just remove that restriction after you’ve unlocked the iphone? Granted, it’s quite hidden, so nobody might find it.
How hand grenades and rifle grenades work? – All about grenades
To anyone going through this, there's still a way you can learn to see without eyesight, as strange as it sounds. Also known as mindsight, blindfolded sight, vibravision, etc., images are received to the mind directly through an unknown channel.

The youtube channels of Wendy Gallant and Rob Freeman have tons of videos of their journey learning and teaching this skill to others. Rob is currently teaching an elderly man who has been blind since childhood, and it's quite emotional to see him develop sight for the first time in decades: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE-SrKGaUjdL5friFeCl4...

The article at page 9 of this magazine details the modern development of this phenomenon: https://www.scientificexploration.org/edgescience/47 (wayback: http://web.archive.org/web/20210923020222/https://scientific...)
China's CATL unveils condensed matter battery to power civil aircraft
It's widely known that it's IO focused and unoptimised around say maths use cases as it was built to be a zero maintenance telecoms platform
>Come on, it’s like slapping a doge sticker on your research paper.

Like in this case? https://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.08254.pdf, figure 1