skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> HTMX is the Future

I'm not seeing it. SPAs can be overly complex and have other issues, but I'm not seeing HTMX as a particular improvement.

Also, a bunch of this article doesn't make sense to me.

E.g, one of the listed costs of SPAs is managing state on the client and server... but (1) you don't have to -- isn't it rather common to keep your app server stateless? -- and (2) HTMX certainly allows for client-side and server-side state, so I'm not sure how it's improving things. That is, if you want to carefully manage app state, you're going to need a mechanism to do that, and HTMX isn't going to help you.

It also doesn't somehow prevent a rats nest of tooling or dependencies. It isn't an application framework, so this all depends on how to solve that.

SPA's also aren't inherently "very easy to make [...] incorrectly".

Also, the suggested HTMX approach to no browser-side javascript is very crappy. Your app would have to be very specifically designed to not be utterly horrible w/o JS with such an approach and instead be just pretty horrible. There are just so much more straightforward ways to make apps that work well without JS. Also, this isn't exactly a mainstream requirement in my experience.

I could go on and on. "caching" - htmx doesn't address the hard part caching. "seo-friendliness" - Like all the benefits here attributed to htmx, htmx doesn't particularly help with this and there are many other available way to achieve it.

IDK. These kinds of over-promising hyped up articles give me the feeling the thing being hyped up probably doesn't have a lot of real merit to be explored or else they'd talk about that instead. It also feels dishonest to me, or at least incompetent, so make all of these claims and assertions that aren't really true or aren't really especially a benefit of htmx vs many numerous other options.
I have darned socks this century.
Typically it's long-term building games. Where one is playing for months, or for an unlimited amount of time, as opposed to shorter games.
You can also determine that _some_ programs terminate. That is, there is a class of recursive programs that the compiler can look at and say "yes this terminates". Where it fails is that the programs that it says "no" to may still terminate. (So it's a "yes" or "maybe".)

Languages that I've worked with that do this are Lean4, Idris2, and Agda. It's needed for dependent type checking as you only want to run total functions at the type level (to ensure type checking terminates).

Idris will build the call graph as you described and analyze whether values get structurally smaller as they pass through any cycles in the graph. (Also lexicographical stuff like "arg1 gets smaller or arg1 stays the same and arg2 gets smaller".)

I don't know the details of Agda.

Lean has a couple of things that it tries: detect straight up structural recursion, detect general recursion where an argument gets smaller, and it also lets you provide a function on the args for what gets smaller (e.g. length - ix) and a proof that it gets smaller.

I gave this a try with a heap implementation that I wrote. I worked through the proof and hit a wall having to show 0 < 0. It turned out that I had an off-by-one error (I was doing the math for a starts at 1 array). Once I fixed that, I got my proof and the compiler certified that it was total.

Writing proofs is not something your average programmer would want to do for the average program, but I think there is some utility in the compiler being able to say "yes this terminates" or "maybe this doesn't terminate".
"We've waited far to long already and simply can't afford to ignore any part of the solution that can help reduce total emissions faster. "

Totally agree. No dogmatic framework is helpful, that opposes solutions out of principle. I hope I am not doing that.

It is just, that ressources are limited.

Any solar, wind or water plant, that connects to the grid is helping. Likely also every nuclear reactor.

But the carbon capture solution I see not really helping, as long as coal plants are being build and are proposed by the exact kind of people, who said before that it is all not so bad and economy growth is always more important.

" So don't let them lead you think that carbon capture isn't an important part of the solution that is being developed by people who care deeply and climate change."

With what I know, I sadly really don't see it as part of the solution, but part of the distraction, part of the problem.

In germany the car lobby recently achieved, that the ban on new ICE cars in 2035 was in effect negated, because cars with E-Fuels should obviously excempt. Except that cars that can run with E-Fuels can also run with normal fuels and E-Fuels make no sense economically, so they already demanded for massive state subventioning of the concept. Spend lots of energy to generate a bit of fuel to continue the big roar of their loud engines. So all just fake. And those are the exact same people who lobby for the concept of carbon capture. Lot's of politicial "activism" to effectivly change nothing, except on paper.

So to repeat myself, I am not against carbon sequestering by principle.

I just think focussing on it now is just distracting from the real solutions needed now.

Once we stopped the last coal plant - then we can talk about spending surplus energy to capture existing CO2. Not before. And it is still a long way to get there.
This line of thinking is just flat out wrong, and uneducated.

Price discovery is critical to any system, and money is the shared store of value of those that hold it so long as it retains that store of value.

Producers set prices to make a profit, if they can't do that they stop producing. Factor markets, same things happen, as an employee you don't do $1000 of work in exchange for $1 in purchasing power by the time you get paid.

When government debases currency, unproductive efforts unwind into losses at the individual level, and inflation at the macro level. You can't print money out of air and use it to pay for things without issues that result in cascade collapses over time. The more you do it, the bigger the bubble, deflation, and crash/collapse from a combination of interest rates (that need to raise to fight inflation) and bubble pressure.

If it continues, eventually credibility is lost, and the currency is abandoned. This usually happens sometime after a 3:1 debt to GDP ratio, though it can be much higher, anything after 3:1 is where the smaller effects become noticeable.

I'd suggest you educate yourself a bit more on this. I'd recommend Debt, the first 5,000 years by David Graeber as a starting point, and then Big Debt Crises by Bridgewater/Ray Dalio for case studies of how these things actually play out.

If pricing becomes irrational, you run into economic calculation problem, breakdown, shortages ensue, then death (its been tried in non-market socialist systems).

There's a good reason central banks were not allowed during our countries early years. Quite simply, its well known in a historic context that money printing can end civilizations.
Even worse: Client-side validation and server-side validation (and database integrity validation) are all their own domains! I call all of these "domain logic" or domain validation just to be sure.

Yes, they overlap. Sure, you'll need some repetition and maybe, indeed, some DSL or tooling to share some of the overlapping ones across the boundaries.

But no! They are not the same. A "this email is already in use" is serverside, (it depends on the case). A "this doesn't look like an email-address, did you mean gmail.com instead of gamil.com" is client side and a "unique-key-constraint: contactemail already used" is even more down.

My point is, that the more you sit down (with customers! domain experts!) and talk or think all this through, the less it's a technical problem that has to be solved with DSLs, SPAs, MPAs or "same language for backend and UI". And the more you (I) realize it really often hardly matters.

You quite probably don't even need that email-uniqueness validation at all. In any layer. If you just care to speak to the business.
> You can’t really change what people want without enacting dystopian/fascist policies.

Yes you can, you can educate them. Decide on how to categorise the environmental impact of each car and mandate that it is labelled as such. Unless you deem such regulation as dystopian?
It seems VICE like many media outlets in the age of social media couldn't decide whether to just shovel clickbait for easy profit or become a real news organization. It's actual news coverage was pretty good but you had to wade through a mountain of clickbait BS to find it. You can't be both.
Binance Faces US Probe of Possible Russian Sanctions Violations
Elon Musk went all-in on the culture war of American politics and has vocally sided with the political party on an authoritarian and minoritarian track. He has put his thumb on the scale on more ways than one, including seemingly bad-faith actions e.g. his banning of journalists and unbanning of much less savory characters.

He's not running for office, but he's inserted himself part of the larger political narrative.
Waymo and Cruise have also been operating in San Francisco for a while, which is quite the opposite.
You misunderstand me; there is certainly no religion in my line of thought (I have abandoned religion entirely since 25 years ago). The point is simply philosophical: when will we consider them to be ”complex” or ”advanced” enough to be sentient? Surely not using the Turing test. Who will define where that line is drawn? And why? Every ”being” designed and created by humans will always have a purpose. Humans, on the other hand, have no purpose, we just exist. That is the difference.

Humans were created by a natural optimization process that used to be entirely outside of our control. Concepts like for example freedom to choose your mate and reproduce are not religious, yet are philosophically ”sacred” at least in modern western societies. Why? Because we understand that we cannot ”design” ourselves.
The types of games he plays have a more strategic and less open environment where a score or rank can be obtained.
Lawn chair Larry's story was kinda like that I think. I would love to take the flight but would never want any interaction with the authorities or publicity. They seem to ruin everything.
> Propaganda? eh c'mon let's not bring conspiracy theories

You can call if 'PR' if you want to make yourself feel better. But its the same thing.

Its representatives of a company making lots of false public statements. To mislead people who don't know better.

> Shall i remind you who was scared to launch James Webb telescope?

LITERALLY NOBODY. All this comment does is reveal that you don't know anything about the space industry.

> and who successfully did?

Funding the launch was part of ESA investment into the James Webb project. NASA always partnered with other countries on big projects and they do different parts. In the case of James Webb Europe was to provide launch and therefore Europe picked the launch vehicle, obviously the picked Ariane 5.

NASA has certification for launch vehicles, and there are different levels. To launch the most expensive science mission, such as James Webb, you need the highest level of certification NASA has.

When a launch vehicle was started to be planned for both Atlas 5, Delta 4 and Delta 4 Heavy had the necessary certification. I assume only D4H would have the required power (but I'm not certain on that). So had launch not been assigned to ESA, James Webb would have been launched on Delta 4 Heavy. And ULA would of course not have been 'afraid' to launch it, as they have launched most major NASA missions of the last couple decades.

Falcon 9 has achieved this same certification, I don't remember when exactly, late 2010s. So SpaceX, if something like James Webb would be competing for that missions. In fact currently its the only rocket that is not sold out with that certification. Falcon Heavy also has this certification and will launch things like Europa Clipper.

The idea that SpaceX or ULA were to 'afraid' is so moronically dumb that I can't even fathom where you got this absurd idea from.

After that the rest of your post is just whataboutism that has nothing to with my correction to your original comment.

> Whos spreading propaganda?

Not me, almost everything I said is plain fact. The only thing that is questionable is if 'incompetent' is the right word to describe ArianeGroup. Maybe that word is to harsh, replace that word with 'noncompetitive'.
Looked really hard, on their website. They have a really nicely designed website and it was really difficult to find out how to buy a thing from them. That has all the hallmarks of vapor hardware. It looks like they have actually made one of their cars, and that other people have driven it.

That's a long way off from any kind of regular manufacturing for EVs
I don't really plan.

I get an idea, draw up a diagram and start building it.

Eventually, I'll screw something up and learn something. That's part of the process.
What exactly is the resource-intensive request here? Loading an E-mail, or list of E-mails? I don't see why that should be any more resource-intensive than any other CRUD app.
Drones have been used for crop monitoring for a while now. Using the aerial footage to determine the parts of crops in most need of specific resources such as pesticides, fertilizers, or hydration. Something a bit more automated like what this guy's talking about seems like it should be in use today or, if not, very soon. I remember reading about this stuff several years ago around 2018-2019 when I had a drone and looking at ways to make money with them. Of course, it may not be in widespread use.
It's only a matter of time before there's some truly awful crash between a 9,000 lbs. Hummer going 60+ mph and anything else (car, building, train).
Trees grown for paper pulp regrow quickly and are farmed. If you know of old-growth forests that have recently been clearcut for paper pulp, please cite a source.
What Europe has done is to tax the externalities in for these vehicles.

They are heavier, so they wear the roads more, so there are higher taxes to cover that.

They are less efficient per km, which uses more grid, so there are higher taxes/charges to cover expanding the grid.

This seems to work and they same thing could work here
Regarding number of people actually using the system, do you have any good estimates in mind by chance? I'm seeing claims of 7% of Indians for example, which would be in the millions by itself.

https://triple-a.io/crypto-ownership-data/
Waymo buys renewable energy for charging https://blog.waymo.com/2023/03/paving-way-toward-fully-elect...
or just tax the shit out of vehicles by weight.
They are vans.
Seems like the perfect place for a museum, tbh.
This is interesting/surprising and I would like to learn more, but the linked study is truncated behind a Paywall.
Simon Willison: Deno KV
At Musk’s brain-chip startup, animal-testing panel is rife with conflicts
In this situation code for a good strength meter is going to be an order of magnitude or two more complicated than the boolean validity check. Porting 50x as much code to the server is significantly worse than having two versions or having one shared function and one non-shared function.
20 minutes is still an inconveniently long time. 4s is much faster, but now we're on a proof of stake coin.

Mastercard doesn't have a daily withdrawal limit. Bitcoin requires access to both your wallet and whatever security paraphernalia you have set up around accessing it. If you lose access or it's compromised you're out all that coin unlike a credit card, and you're burning massive amounts of fossil fuels for these "conveniences".
10 for the display, 20 minutes for deep hibernation. I reboot around once a week. Never had issues with it waking up.
You are thinking about this entirely wrong. And quite frankly you seem to be doing everything you can to make crypto look favorable in this comparison.

The only "fair" comparison, would be to estimate how much energy bitcoin/crypto would consume if it replaced the US dollar. In that scenario, the government would still exist, the military would still exist, most of our existing financial infrastructure would still exist (crypto has done nothing to squash financialization, if anything it encourages it).

In the above scenario, the only thing that would probably disappear is the federal mint. Crypto mining already uses way more energy than that. And crypto mining would almost certainly increase exponentially if it was adopted globally as miners are incentivized to mine right up to the edge of probability, and the value of tokens in the above scenario would increase dramatically (because most tokens are deflationary) thus resulting in a massive surge in mining.

At the end of the day, there is just no way to rationalize away the absurd waste of energy that is crypto mining. They are increasing the cost of energy for everybody and they are increasing global energy demand when we desperately need to be reducing consumption to save the climate. Proof of stake exists, any crypto currency that does not use it should be outlawed in my opinion.
The only thing that matters is how the system performs under a sustained attack. Any "cryptocurrency" system which depends on the lack of such an attack could be relpaced with a federated system and instantly be thousands of times more efficient.

Coins like tether cannot continue to exist unless they are allowed to continue.
I've read the paper quickly, the main idea is simple and interesting, but maybe a little dubious (it's kind of an accuracy for memory trade-off).

In the transformer architecture one has to compute QKT.

QKT=(hd * Wq * WkT)heT (equation (2) page 3 in the paper).

Where hd is the hidden state of the decoder, and he is the hidden state of the encoder, and Wq and Wd are some parameters matrices, and T denotes the transposition operation.

By grouping the calculation this way, in a transformer encoder-decoder architecture, they can build and use only a single index (you index the he vectors using a vector database) for all the decoder layers queries. Instead of having to build 2 * L * H indices (with L the number of layers of the decoder and H the number of head in the decoder).

But what makes it a little dubious, is that this transformation mean you make your near neighbor queries in a space of dimension "dimension of the hidden state", instead of "dimension of a head" that is H times smaller.

So if you had to build 2 * L * H indices each index would be H times smaller.

So you only gain a factor 2 * L. But the trade-off is that you are doing a near neighbor search in higher dimension where you are then subjected to the curse of dimensionality (the higher the dimension the more similar all points are to each other). Whereas the whole point of projections in transformer is to lower the dimension so that the knn search make more sense. So to get the same accuracy, your near-neighbor search engine will have to work a lot harder.

Also as an approximation of the transformer, because it's using some knn search, it comes with the problems associated with it (for example harder to train because more sparse, and a tendency to hyperfocus), but it can be complemented with low-rank linearization of the attention to also have the neural net act on the gist rather than the closest neighbors.
That's certainly what they were saying to the press. It's hard to know to what degree they actually believed the things they were saying.

Although, if actions speak louder than words, choosing to go ahead with Ariane 6 is pretty strong confirmation.
I mean, I think this makes the point in the original comment even more clear. It's easy to promise things. Be suspicious of any claims without physical evidence of the actual end result. That goes for Tesla, and any other company promising energy storage.
Interesting absence of scanlines. Close Encounters of the Third Kind has them but a image search appears to indicate that was only used in a few cases. The Matrix has somewhat of a scanline inspired artifact and Tron could be argued to be somewhere between the other two. Given how many consumer logos of the late 70s and 80s were influenced by scanlines, it's interesting that sci-fi logos appear to have mostly avoided their use.
I'm just going by what the Texas Comptroller said https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/fiscal-notes/2022/aug/...

> "Despite its heavy power needs, cryptocurrency mining offers a potentially beneficial and symbiotic relationship between power usage and power generation. Miners can participate in demand response programs, incentives offered by ERCOT to quickly turn off miners’ power during periods of peak demand. When electricity prices are high or supply is straining to meet demand, miners can reduce their energy use. Supply and demand run in tandem, so if a miner stops using electricity, it’s the equivalent of a power plant producing extra electricity that could assist in meeting grid demand and help with grid stability."

> "simple economic theory suggests that increased mining activity could spur additional energy infrastructure. Mining facilities often are located near wind and solar farms that provide access to cheap electricity prices"

Do you disagree with the Comptroller?
Various refcount overflows also abort: mpmc, Arc, Rc: https://doc.rust-lang.org/src/alloc/rc.rs.html#2628

I think we're lucky the usual "aha rust isn't so safe after all, checkmate rustaceans!" crowd hasn't run into these aborts yet, because they won't have any kind of debugging spew so are not very friendly. You have to intentionally leak refcounts to hit these aborts or else you first run out of memory just storing the pointers; but then again, intentionally leaking things is just the sort of thing the anti-rust crowd is likely to try.
I know at AWS they drill into folks that spot capacity isn’t guaranteed capacity. I didn’t even think about more demand for spot reducing supply or additionally AWS just simply not investing in as much hardware to accommodate spot because of lack of growth. That said, we're seeing leading indicators that this trend will reverse in as cloud growth returns, https://www.vantage.sh/cloud-cost-report/2023-q1
> They are vans

I was in a Jaguar. The one they show on their site [1].

[1] https://waymo.com/phx/
We're a one car family for two working parents and two kids, living in Pittsburgh (in the city, not the burbs). We make it work but there's a bit of Uber involved sometimes, and some compromises. Generally worth it - cars are both very convenient and a burden that requires ongoing care and feeding and money.

If we do decide we need a second car as the kids get older, this is _exactly_ what I want. No gas stations. Super easy parking. Low capex and opex. Awesome on all fronts. (But as a second car.)
There's no need to attack the entire HN community over one person's opinion. Preprints and discussions here both have value, and different forms of review suit different needs.
The US government was also largely responsible for incentivizing the supersizing of American cars with emissions standards based on footprint (road to hell paved with good intentions, etc.), which then had a knock-on effect on consumer demand. So it's certainly possible to incentivize automakers to go the other way, even if you can't change public behavior directly.
IWW is the organization that has been promoting the "One Big Union" mentality historically, and tries to work across borders.

It's not exactly a major player, though, and hasn't been for many decades now.
Incorrect. You can't create a website without HTML. The term "frontend developer" exists because frontend is a complex mix of HTML, CSS, JS, browser functionality, screen sizes, accessibility requirements, privacy requirements, server interactions.

Backend devs just lampoon it because they assume it must be simple.
Update: the Supreme Court has halted his scheduled May 18th execution (while they consider his requests for an appeal).

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-halts-executi...