skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> In the context of fires big enough to matter the only tools in your toolbox that are sufficiently scalable are very low tech.

Isn't that the whole point of this X Prize, to improve the tools available?
Yes, I know I was just surprised it even checks for changes without being prompted, but I guess that's where all the resources go. The point I was trying to make was a response to your claim that hot reloading magically happens without "compiling", it doesn't (I know I know, it's transpiling in js).

It usually goes something like this: some tool watches the file system for changes > trigger build > another tool in the chain injects changes into session > picked up by client to reflect changes, if done well without resetting state.

These are many tools in a toolchain working well together. This DOES exist in other languages, incremental builds exists. You can save and restore a binary at a certain state, and it's less hassle than it is in js.

One thing the systems development world has that I haven't seen in browser tools is radare/ghidra to follow code paths but it probably exists as a browser extension. The web is just reinventing and repackaging tools that have existed for decades.

> you get all I wrote in my original comment and much more for free

Yes, but `apt install gdb` is just as "free" as `apt install chrome` no? Everything you mentioned exists in systems development, you just haven't used it.
>Specifically people who can say what they want because they have no fear of losing their jobs.

Ah, like the Supreme Court. Good thing we don't see anyone suddenly wanting to do away with lifetime appointments there, otherwise there might be some hypocrisy floating around.
I mean we could maybe put uranium in iphones...but not that many transistors
Until we have energy storage orders of magnitude cheaper than we do now, a power source is only as good as its minimum output.
Florida’s Corkscrew Swamp
Yes, no. Regardless of how many shares he owns, the CEO can be fired by the board of directors.

If that CEO happens to be a controlling shareholder who wants his job back, he would have to nominate a new slate of board members and schedule a shareholder vote according to the corporate bylaws (that are in turn regulated by the state of incorporation), which is a process that could take months to finish.

Presumably the new directors that the ex-CEO elects would hire him back, though it is worth noting that the directors have a duty to represent the best interests of all shareholders, not just those who voted them in. So if the CEO was fired for legitimate reasons and the directors act according to their duties, the ex-CEO should not be hired back.
1. There's a lot of ways to store energy

2. There's a few ways to transport power

3. Wind isn't the only renewable, though it can be really cheap

At this point, I'm having to remind myself of the xkcd lucky 10,000, because it feels disingenuous to even need to ask.

And I'm saying that as someone who really hopes the new fusion companies succeed, and that nuclear should have been used to move the world away from coal (and ship fuel) in the 60s onwards, and lament the risks and accidents were handled so poorly by the politicians.

But now? Meh.
Storage can provide base load and for anything non-critical you have flexible pricing that automatically lets people stop doing things that can be done later the week, like charging your Tesla. Markets work. Use them.
Prof jobs might be researched-focused, teaching-focused, or a mix of both.

Some universities really pushed research, in order to go for grants and donations. It also helps attract grad students. They usually make less enjoyable undergrad experiences.

Then again, having profs that only teach, not research, can become very disconnected after a while. You may as well have a grad student repeat from the book.

I know a few tenured profs (and my partner is one). I think most of awesome ones are those not pressured to run after grants constantly, and those that brag about them are red flags.
Most modern C++ code bases also completely lack explicit frees/deletes, but not many would argue that C++ is a managed language.

Though a more objective distinction is hard to give on what is a managed language, I found the garbage collection handbooks’ quote on the topic the most illuminating (linking to my older comment): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35332600

In Rust and in C++ memory layout is part of your public APIs and has to be refactored when it changes. This is not the case with managed languages.
Any electrical infrastructure is a strategic target. If it's not a power plant, it's a substation.
Nuclear proponents when trying to sell nuclear love to shout about how successful France is.

Someone from France is telling you that actually, it's really not that great...and now France's nuclear program is terrible and the result of 20-30 years of neglect and politics? Also, which part of "nuclear plants are sensitive to environmental changes" didn't you get? If there's no cooling water, or the water is too hot, the plant can't run.

How many times do people need to be told that with all the renewables coming onto the grid, we don't need more base load? We need storage. Also, wind keeps working just fine when the sun goes down.

Do any of you geniuses realize that it's a lot more difficult for the grid to accommodate the injection of tens of gigawatts of power, than it is to handle tens of gigawatts of highly distributed generation and storage across a large region?Guess where utility companies are spending their money? Hint: not on nuclear.

Nuclear is the most expensive form of electrical generation while wind and solar are the cheapest.

Nuclear capacity takes a minimum of ten years, more like 20, to come online and then takes decades longer to go carbon-neutral.

Solar and wind take months to deploy and are carbon neutral within a few years.

Nuclear plants require a continuous, expensive, complicated supply chain and hundreds of people supervising and maintaining it.

Solar farms require maintenance that just about any asshole with an electrician's license can handle, the panels last for decades, and can be recycled. Wind turbines require more maintenance but it's standard industrial electrical/mechanical stuff, just on a tall stick.
I don’t think it does.

I’m not looking to explicitly launder copyright. I’d like to be blind to it. I don’t want to explicitly use an LLM to remove copyright. I want to use an LLM to build software systems without having to cross reference its output with every line of code ever produced under a license to see if it’s already copyrighted.

Agree with your take that motivation matters.
For one, the second argument should be (upon success at least) a list. But in your program it isn't a list for `[]`.
Keyboard tricks from a macOS app dev
The rate at which is gives teenagers depression is enough of a reason, imo. There's broad consensus this stuff is detrimental to young people's mental health. Facebook claiming otherwise is akin the Philip Moris company testifying in congress that it's actually completely normal for a baby to be born with a small head.
>I find that becoming an X who codes is easier than a coder who Xs

How would you know? We have these scenarios:

1. a coder first who learned how to design second

2. a designer first who learned how to code second

These paths are mutually exclusive, you can't experience both. How then can you judge one as being easier than the other?
Well no, it's because the upstart cost is insane. I could build a bunch of wind turbines for a few million, or drop BILLIONS into an already-existing reactor design, or even more money into getting a new design approved.

If SMRs were more of a thing, a town could build their own power plant for a few million bucks, removing the natural monopoly that exists.
> Soon you're going to run out of land for your renewables.

Ramping up from 40% to 100% increases land use by orders of magnitude? Did I miss something?
> Yearly production means nothing on the night when it produces single-digit percentages of its installed capacity, does it?

It's even worse than that actually because the electricity demand isn't linear during the year.

So technologies which can produce reliably during the high loads are inherently worth more than the others.
That is kind of a niche use case ;)

In the times when it was a real issue (I would hazard a guess that that means “before XP”) the reason was that the original registry on disk format made every registry access more or less O(n) in bunch of things like the overall on disk hive size, total number of keys, number of subkeys in each of the keys along the path…
It's interesting that a person without any background in biology (Peter Bogner) was able to start a sequence database that has now become critical infrastructure for public health.

But it seems like GISAID has outgrown his ability to lead it, and it would be good to transition to more responsible leadership.
The case they are referencing hinges on whether use of the LLM constitutes fair use when it regurgitates someone else's code.
I mean, they treat me fine I think; everyone has been polite to me, I'm just a lecturer.

It just doesn't pay well enough to survive. I mostly enjoy teaching, but honestly I don't think that I will be doing it again next semester.

It's tough to say if I'm a "good" lecturer obviously, especially I think it's borderline impossible to fail a teaching evaluation here, but I do know that it's trivial for me to find work that pays more than twice as much in the private sector, without a ton of extra work.
Some are arguing that the tenure system is broken. Maybe. If this change was done in good faith to make the system stronger, it is worth considering. But there is little evidence that that is what is going on. Conservatives have been beating the drum for decades that colleges brainwash their kids into being liberals, and so they want control to fire any academic that doesn't confirm to their views.

edit: I'm speaking as a 19 year resident of Austin, Texas who has watched countless other power grabs, including Governor Perry installing biblical literalists to oversee Texas school books that deny evolution and rewriting history -- too much Jefferson and not a mention of Phyllis Schlafley (not joking). The same legislature has pushed a law requiring every K-12 schoolroom to display the Ten Commandments.
tl;dr Just treat it as a technical manual and there's no controversy. But biased models are "opinionated" and "intellectual" anyway, you just need a "thick skin".
We - in Sweden - noticed this when we saw our electricity prices go through the roof due to those interconnects enabling German prices to trickle back up the lines. Thanks to the boneheaded "green" politicos in Germany shutting down nuclear power plants we'll be paying more for our electricity in the coming years. Please, German neighbours, vote out those watermelons and put some sense back in to the Bundestag.
This is rare and currently we have a diverse mix of electricity production. When wind gets more dominant, it will be offshore and connected to a larger North Sea grid. Then storage will be more important and also more viable.

I'd guess that in ten years the max capacity for wind electrical energy in my region (Northern Germany) is around 2 to 3 times larger than the max demand. Thus large scale storage will be build up.
Right? This article makes a good argument for why he should stay on if anything.
Right, conflict of interest is more like it.
> Even a 5% generation-to-generation improvement would be exponential, it’s just 1.05 to the power of the generation.

if you change the exponent from 2 to 1.05 at some point then it is no longer an "exponential" function

(guess what happened to chip scaling?)

if the exponent changes (EVER) then it's no longer "exponential", it's likely sigmoidal
I'm tired of responding to folks caught up on the wrong shit, so here's what I should have said in the first place:

In my personal experience I've seen or heard of more professors espousing their personal views as fact than most online and academic discourse would have otherwise led me to believe possible.

I think removing tenure is a net loss for research because professors now have to worry about politically motivated reprisal for their research, whereas I believe it to be a net gain for student education since professors can then be held accountable for failing their basic responsibility of teaching factual information to the best of their knowledge based on the available research in their field of study.
I watched the video.

> has preferences over world states

I think that part is a leap. I don't think is given that a super intelligent AI will "want" things.

> presumably a machine could be much more selfish

This feels like we're projecting aspects of humanity that evolution specifically selected for in our species with something that is coming about though a completely different process.

> It's a mistake to think about it as a person.

I agree, but I feel like that's what these concerns about AI are doing, because that's what people do.

> (The whole stamp collector thing)

It also seems to me there is a huge gap between a super intelligent AI and the ability to have a perfect model of reality along with the ability to evaluate within that model the effect of every possible sequence of packets sent out to the internet.
OK, this is going to be my last response in this sad thread.

First, the specs for Starship mean it can hold about $1 million in fuel in its tanks. So we can externally estimate fuel costs. His aspirational goal is $2 million for a launch. His stated initial target is $10 million. There is room in his aspirational target for lots of things other than fuel.

Second, you keep insisting on a ton of people doing unnecessary things. SpaceX already has a tracking system in place to keep track of everything in space and make sure that none of their about 4000 StarLink satellites hit anything. Adding a few hundred Starship rockets to this system does not require an army of dispatchers. You're now talking about rocket pilots despite the fact that essentially nobody bothers with rocket pilots, and they can't be used in SpaceX flights because human reaction time is too slow to do anything useful.

Third, you've talked over and over again about packing billionaires in like sardines. But the target passenger is NOT billionaires. It is executives in companies who currently fly first class, but would rather avoid a 20 hour flight from Los Angeles to Dubai. Every day, literally tens of thousands of people fly first class over an ocean. The Concorde demonstrated that a sufficient volume of them are willing to pay more for a shorter ride in a less comfortable plane to enable regular commercial flights.

Fourth, your set of requirements for civilian rating should be seen as negotiable. Elon's position is that Starship IS a rescue system. He has a point. For example external analysis has found that if the Space Shuttle had simply put the shuttle on top of the rocket, nobody would have been hurt in either accident. If he provides a compelling service, but only offers it where local authorities allow, authorities are likely to figure it out. Just look back on the history of how the Concorde was allowed to land in the USA despite our laws against sonic booms.

And fifth, I DO NOT AGREE that I should accept, on your authority as an IT person, that automation cannot reduce the cost of people for a given task. History is full of counterexamples that represent far better evidence than your claim to authority. Granted, Jevon's paradox is common. We reduce the cost, which increases the demand, which leads to more overall usage. But on the per unit economics, the cost really does go down. Were it otherwise, nobody would be particularly interested in automation.
Thankfully these regulations don't seem to hurt much. Here in California, every grocery store has a corner where cow milk and all kind of plant-based milk products are displayed side by side, so it's made extremely obvious that they are comparable beverages. These days the plant-based section may even be larger than the real milk section.
This. Owning ~20% of normal stocks and ~60% of voting stocks shouldn't be allowed for public company. At some point company becomes just CEO's toy to do things they want, in this case "metaverse".
I have speculated that the fracturing as well of the melting of the Greenland ice sheet could lead to large area ice slide-offs? I am not sure how rough the underlying terrain is, but I expect millions of years of abrasion by stone in ice might lead to this occuring in some areas? Ice is structurally weak, so any motion embodying fracture would break it into ice boulders/gravel - none of these scenarios look at all good - how likely are they?
Are you familiar with the Hacker News Guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)?

“What to Submit

On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."
I took the simple precaution of moving a mile above sea level.
Agreed, there are many concerns. But there are many concerns with every kind of energy generation, and for any of them, problems have to be solved and the system maintained. We, the people, have to take our own responsibility to hold our governments and companies accountable, if we care about the consequences.

....we could also choose to just use less energy and become more efficient. but my guess is nobody would accept it :D
None. There was not ever widespread anticipation of global cooling. There was one (1) mass-market magazine article about it that the dupes of fossil fuel propaganda campaigns have been pointing to for years. Rush Limbaugh talked about it constantly in the 1990s, then someone photoshopped up a bunch of fake magazine covers supposedly from the 1970s and your uncle, who is an idiot, has been forwarding those to everyone since.

The only underlying science was some debate about whether air pollution, the kind you can see and scrape off your skin, was going to be so bad that it would offset the greenhouse effect. But Nixon effectively ended that debate with the Clean Air Act.
Even with tenure, you would need to be extremely passionate about education or research to go into academia in fields like software or mech/chem/EE. The opportunity cost is easily 6 figures/yr, for your entire career.

The hours are long, the pay is laughable, the kids are not alright, you must publish or perish...maybe these universities are intentionally selecting for professors who will have a high tolerance for abuse.
No. That's far beyond our capabilities. Somebody calculated that LHC would have to be over 1000 light years in diameter to do this (and then still we would have to wait for thousands of years for particles to get accelerated).
> He still owns the majority of it

Not quite, although he controls the majority of votes due to the controversial dual class shares. Owning shares in Meta/Facebook is really owning shares in Zuckerberg Inc. He has total control, your share ownership means nothing. Investing in Meta is nothing other than an investment in him and his management.

This is a relatively unusual situation (although Google was similar) and I believe the SEC don't like these structures and they don't really happen anymore.

Most other company's don't have these absurd structures and so an investor has a right to an opinion. So while I agree with the parent in relation to Meta, it is not a normal situation, and it not "right".

> Facebook has Class A shares and Class B shares. Investors hold Class A shares, but Mark Zuckerberg holds Class B shares, which have 10 votes each. His shares represent roughly 14% of Facebook's economic ownership but control nearly 60% of the voting rights.

https://www.wyrick.com/news-insights/what-is-a-dual-class-st...
>>See Fractional Reserve Banking for the gory details, but the gist of it is, private banks create money out of thin air (within limits) so they can lend it to you. And then they charge interest back for it.

So I've googled and read upon it every time I hear this almost exact same sentence (and I see it every now and then), and I don't get it at a basic level. I have little to none awareness of high level finance, but my understanding of 'fractional reserve banking' is thus:

1. 100 people deposit $1 each to a bank. It has $100 of deposits

2. Without fractional reserve banking, bank would basically have to keep $100 in its vaults. It would be useless money going nowhere doing nothing.

3. With fractional reserve banking, bank basically has to (say) keep $10 in its vaults (digital as they may be), but can loan $90 to other entities (and do more complicated things with it). There are risks and benefits to this, and it is basically a full time job of many people at the bank and regulator to find various balances of risk and benefit, to bank and society, based on the policy and goal.

I don't understand where, in this simple math, does a regular bank "create money out of thin air". I'd love to understand when and how this may be the case (but NOT via angry youtubers, please:).

I do understand that central banks and/or the government control circulation and "create money" through various mechanisms, but I never get the feeling that is what we're talking about when people say "fractional reserve banking means private banks get to make money up".
No, it's literally just a blogger expressing their opinion based on broken link data that we can't independently evaluate, so it's just as valid as an HN comment.
>We know that isn't the case because we can see code being reproduced even with comments

If the comment is something like

//check fromIndex is greater than toIndex

then that is not any more individualistic or different than the actual function. Sadly, many people comment like this, on the other hand if it reproduced a comment with typos or something more complicated like

/* this hack is because Firefox's implementation of SVG z-indexing does not match how Chrome or Safari does it - please read this article ...url...*/

then yeah, then you would have something
If, like me, you stopped reading at the "you are a fool if you think otherwise" quip in the first paragraph, for a more grown-up take I recommend Stratechery.

https://stratechery.com/company/meta/
I made more two years into my industry job than any of the tenured professors at my Tier 2 mathematics department (comparable to A&M).

There’s no way Texas state govt can stomach paying competitive salaries for non-tenured professors. They can’t even stomach investing in critical infrastructure.
I'd actually prefer if marketing stuck to the facts. Sugarcoating too much doesn't help the consumers.
I'd like to be open-minded and optimistic about this, but Texas is a noted enemy of education.
Yea, this attack doesn't make any sense as a threat model worth defending. If the thief is willing and able to replace substantial amounts of the car's electronics:

1. They're already in the car. So how you authenticate the ECU and door modules to each other is really irrelevant. They bypassed that already.

2. They can just go ahead and replace the ECU and all the door modules with their own. So, again, how auth works doesn't matter.

3. At some point, you have to ask: Am I replacing the electronics in the car, or am I replacing swapping all the non-electrical parts from one car to another?
I can't imagine actually posting this publicly for people to mock, and not even under a throw away. Incredible.
This attitude isn't a good look for the owners of this private platform and I don't think they'd agree with your perspective nor do most of the users. Food for thought.
> rent free

Not surprised to see this so often negatively correlated with quality comments
Aren’t the reactors there too old and being operated above the original build age? Not sure so was wondering