skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yes, but the point is that you are giving a constructive existence proof for that bound. You asked for why there are so few total languages. The answer, as far as I'm aware, is either brute force on a fixed amount of memory or giving provable bounds either by decision procedure on a restricted language or having to manually give a proof on a more expressive language. Is that that an answer to your (presumably rhetorical) question?
I can't see how you'd avoid it. The charge on the molecule is going to be one of the things keeping it repelled from other water molecules, so as you take charge off it, there are fewer internal forces to keep them apart. That's got to be a reduction in the vapour pressure, right? In the right circumstances the water will condense out. I think that's got to be the engineering limit of the "stack of thousands of sheets" idea they mention: somewhere down the stack they short out because water droplets will condense out into liquid on the sheet.

This all assumes a net charge one way or the other on the body of water vapour. The article doesn't make it clear but I assume that's inevitable.
Usually the pictures have a bit of small text next to them. Don't expect full stories or documentary style text. You're not supposed to read these books, but skim through the pages and look at the pictures. The text is only there to give some context.

Think of it like the text next to a picture in the museum. That is also often only 2 or 3 sentences. And repeated in multiple languages.

So whichever you order, you'll get definitely English, no worries there.

Look, here you can zoom into the text, it's clearly three paragraphs, the first one repeated in three languages

https://taschen.makaira.media/taschen/image/upload/f_webp,w_...
Many of the non-generic ones are even worse. C? C#? C++? D?

Unable to look up "C++ language". The following search tokens are too short: C
If people think this is useful then it's their time to spend on it; it's not our choice to make. If you don't like it then you can just ignore it. I really don't see the problem.
As to '2' I don't think that can be done without losing some other desirable properties.
PSA: If you pay for 0.99 iCloud storage, you can host custom domain emails there
I don't see any indication of a CLA from the pull requests
Also... 61MB download!
Branching projects and diversity is always good.

But the reasons for this one are laughable. Formalising a trademark policy and a guy getting demoted to regular speaker insetad of keynote speaker? Seriously? People are screaming fascism over this?
If on a mac you can always type ‘caffeinate’ in Terminal and it will keep your laptop on when you close the lid.
I've followed enough of the Rust debate that I'm suspicious of those people that have lost sight of that particular goal.
To balance out the almost entirely negative comment let me say that akaunting does do some things quite well though. Using it with multiple users to collaborate on the accounts works without a hitch and stuff like the dashboards you can click together, the automated invoice mails for due next and overdue, the fact you can export pretty much everything you see to excel and account reconciliations are really great features to have, especially if you don't have inhouse accounting.

Akaunting is a great product, I just wish I could actually pay to self host it so that they have income from that and actually keep selfhosted in mind in the long run.
> switched to information security. I found reverse engineering, doing CTFs, and hacking things in general brought back the sense of joy I’d lost.

This really resonates with me. I did a binary exploitation class in my M.S. where we did weekly CTFs. I really, really enjoyed this - thanks for reminding me. Do you have any tips for breaking into the industry?
The esoteric languages page [0] has a few, all oddball, but piet, whitespace and befunge stand out.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esoteric_programming_language
Who gets to define the risk, though? Currently the payment processor gets to decide what's risky (and how risky) and what isn't -- with no need to justify it to anyone -- so they could just say that online pornography companies' risk justifies a -- totally proportional -- 237% fee (or whatever high number they want that makes using them infeasible).

Or does someone have to sit down and write a law or regulation that says "the risk for providing payment services to an online pornography company is X, and thus the processing fee is Y%"? I guess that could work?
> there are so many electronic good alternatives for friend cycles to stay connected if they want where you still can keep off social media..

Network effects just don't work like this. I suspect thinking that they do is related to the kinds of friendships the commenter has - small, intense, long term group friendships; and proximity friendships.

Personally I don't have the social capital to pull the dozens of people I keep in regular contact with off their preferred platform and into a new one. Very few people do. And I value those relationships far more than I hate the platforms that maintain them.

> If social relationships cannot be maintained without social media, I have no doubt, it is the wrong social relationships "maintained".

This is a value judgement, and not an argument. I have strong relationships with friends and former partners, as well as family, that I've maintained for decades through platforms like messenger - which is awful but ubiquitous - with real people who live across the world. We do meet when possible, but it's often years apart, and there's no one 'core group'. These are real world, profound friendships with people I met in person, lived or worked or studied with for years and care about.

I completely agree with the characterisation of the harms wrought by social media. But prior to social media, more than a very few distant friendships were all but impossible to maintain. And when you lost contact with an old friend, you could never be quite certain if they had lost interest, were too busy, or had perhaps died or suffered some great setback in life.
> Giving commit rights to some random person is risky, and will only happen to "celebrity" contributors, with enough social validation.

Meh. I once stumbled upon a repository the maintainer had abandoned following a change of employment, there were a few things to fix which didn’t seem to hard so I figured I’d ask (thankfully this repo was part of an org I could ask the owner of).

I was able to get access to the repo and have been low-key maintaining it (updating the infra, etc…), it’s small and simple so it ain’t much work anyway.

I can assert that they’d never heard of me, because I never actually used the package. Still don’t.

> On a meta level, I really would love that more OSS devs would user orgs, rather than personal accounts and repos, so that they can grow their projects with a team, rather than becoming the bottleneck and gatekeeper for development.

A personal repo doesn’t preclude “growing your project with a team”, you can give write access to a personal repository. An org means extra overhead and complexity, it doesn’t just pay for itself when you create it. Do you create a new org every time you create a new project? Because that’s essentially what you’re suggesting.
Or scams on eBay
As opposed to a 2D Game Engine in Kotlin Working with Kotlin? Why?!?
Maybe don't use Twitter for politics?

I use Twitter to follow many AI researchers and it's great to keep up with the latest papers and so on.

Also Twitter supports long tweets now, and people have always created threads anyway.
I was certain there where ways to reconstruct the Dockerfile but wasn't aware that tools like this existed. Thanks for the link!
Yes I've done almost 2 years now of therapy. It's partially how I pulled myself out of my depressing hole and went after one of my dreams (join a FAANG). Despite how disillusioned I sound here, I'm actually in a better place now mentally than I was in the last 5 years.
It's not our choice, but we can debate the choice. I think it's a bad choice, for many reasons, one of which is that having multiple competing forks that are all Rust but not quite isn't going to help Rust adoption and is going to cause fence sitters to look somewhere else. Whenever this kind of drama hits a language eco-system it is bad for the language, there is plenty of precedent.
Free Prompt Playground
Sharing our internal prompt tool for GPT prompts with the public, for free

Enjoy!
If you find disaster festival documentaries entertaining, there are a ton about Woodstock '99 as well.
> Metaverses need to look as good and play as well as AAA title games.

I'm sure this isn't true. We've built communities using email, IRC, MUDs and web forums with more lasting power than any AAA game.

The main problem for Meta et al is that they want to sell ads (or something) to companies, and to do that they created a virtual world. Why would anyone want to take part in a world like that? If you want to build a world, base it on the notion that most people want to connect with others who are like themselves and people they look up to, and they want to "own" their place in the world.

We don't want to be passive spectators in a dead, plastic world created by megacorps.
In a similar theme, I was recently exposed to the masterpiece which is starwarswars.com the complete original extended trilogy of 6 films superimposed upon each other in simulcast.

It is at the same time an illustrative piece about modern cinematography, a nostalgia-inducing slideshow, and digital ADHD medication.

Not recommended for those who suffer epilepsy.
> That can happen in open source, see Stallman and others.

Could you elaborate on because I'm increasingly seeing Stallman being thrown around as a bogeyman who impeded FOSS progress for years if not decades and I really dislike this trend. It seems that his personal views (which I do not support) and eccentricity is being conflated with his contributions to FOSS. I will preface this by noting that this is "my belief" but Stallman has been a positive force in ensuring that consumers today can work, play and do practically anything on a largely free platform. Via the FSF, his contributions towards the GPL license series ensures that contributions to the Linux kernel stay open allowing the kernel to improve as a whole.
If you want the day-to-day opinions of politicians and other "important people", I suspect you don't want something calmer and slower than Twitter, you just want a better block list.
Among the so-called rare-earth elements only cerium, lanthanum and neodymium have abundances in the Earth's crust (where they are highly enriched) that are comparable to lead, but the cost in energy and materials needed for their extraction, processing and recycling is many, many times greater than for lead.

However here the news is about indium, which is one of the rarest chemical elements and for which alternatives are needed for most uses as its reserves are insufficient.

In the Solar System, indium is less abundant than gold. In Earth's crust indium is enriched, but it still remains only about as abundant as silver.

The right strategy with toxic elements like lead, mercury, cadmium and thallium is not to forbid their use.

The real goal is to forbid their release back into the environment after their extraction.

It is impossible to avoid their extraction because in mines they are mixed with other very desirable elements. If they are not separated, because the mine owners cannot sell them, they remain in mining waste, causing a pollution much more severe than from any industrial products.

So if the use of such elements would be completely forbidden, the only method to make it really work would be if the governments would buy all the quantities of such elements that result as byproducts of mining operations and they would store them in safe places.

Because these toxic elements can nonetheless be very useful for certain purposes, a more rational alternative to just store them is to allow their use for various applications, conditioned by a license that should be granted only if the applicant convincingly demonstrates that the toxic element will not be released from the product during its lifetime and that there exists a recycling process that can recover the element from the product at a certain efficiency, e.g. 95% (and the selling price should include the recycling cost, possibly also a deposit refundable on return to a recycling center, to guarantee that the products are not dumped randomly at end of life).
And the reason for saying that was to get people to feel like it was ok to be critical of Mao, with the result being "reeducation" and death for any who did.
Agree on all points. Something needs to change in the Rust foundation fundamentally.

But as far as forks go this one seems quite low effort. Does the tactic work if the other side knows what you’re doing?

From Ashley Williams, former founding member of the Rust Foundation (I don’t support her pretentious tone here)[1]:

> "I don't think any of the folks who are part of it are language designers," said Williams. "They didn't even do a full find-and-replace on the word 'rust' the repo. But the community doesn't have a lot of recourse in situations like this besides making kind of ridiculous gestures [to say] 'hey, we want you to engage with us differently.'"

Personally I’d be interested in ideas for alternate governance models for Rust. Should package maintainers with over a certain threshold of users be given votes? Could strike the balance between complete direct democracy anarchy and an opaque small group making the choices.

[1] https://www.theregister.com/AMP/2023/04/17/rust_foundation_a...
I don't see how one could describe this as immature. Immature would seem to be just complaining endlessly, memeing, or otherwise being immature. Instead, they're unhappy with the direction of Mozilla/Rust, and found a perfectly good solution to the problem. That's awesome. This seems like one of the many benefits of truly open source software. You can fork not only to change code, but also culture.
Precisely. The naivety on display here about the realities of long term software development is absolutely astounding, especially for a project with such lofty goals. Keep your dirty laundry out of the public eye if you really care about Rust.
> There's space for more sophisticated trickery, trying to minimize waste by reusing everything as part of some process elsewhere. But the net entropy still has to grow, so the main question is the same as it always has been: where do you dump waste heat?

Not OP, but wouldn't the "ideal" be to pull any excess heat (energy) out of the interior air, and use it first for electricity-needs in a home like phones, toasters, etc (which generate heat). That heat will eventually be re-captured by the heat-extractor, and can be recycled - any excess heat can still be "dumped" outdoors, and "ideally" the energy required to "move" that heat outdoors is first pulled from the spare-heat of inside.

Obviously the big question in this scenario is how to convert heat into electricity, without a temperature differential. AFAIK we haven't figured this out.
Well, what do you mean by "people"? If you mean "a majority of voters", then I doubt that's actually true, for quite a few types of businesses and transactions that are currently banned from payment networks.

If you mean "those in power who can and do make decisions that a majority of voters wouldn't actually support", then sure, I think that's the case, but that doesn't make it right, and that doesn't make it inevitable, either.
I have a very good friend who is a medical doctor and swapped to engineering. He bought some books and self studied. He's now working his dream job at a biotech startup trying to extend life, using both of his skills simultaneously. Based on what he tells me I'd say there is a large demand for the niche crossover of M.D. + SWE in the startup space right now.
I have used AutoEQ with Easy Effects for 2 years now, and it's never crashed on me.
The Basics of Python Packaging in Early 2023
> Sure you can simply cut off those who don't use your preferred platform. But I've seen what happens to people who do that - when the first facebook backlash occurred back in the late 2000s. They disappear from the real world 'social graph' of their non-local friends.

Everyone is at least on Whatsapp, Signal or Line. Just ask for their number... if you don't think it's worth asking, that's probably because they're not your friends at all.
Just for those who also thought all lines on this map are underground: most of them are not. It's just pathways with segregated traffic. I could not find out how many underground sections there are, but I assume it's just the linking sections (white with black outline)
If the majority of Amos (fasterthanlime), Raph Levien, Ashley Williams, Carol Nichols and Steve Klabnik throw their weight behind any fork of Rust, then that’s where I’m putting my energy too.

I believe they’re hugely responsible for most of the adoption of Rust and have no doubt they’d see continued success anywhere they choose.
Just follow the people you're interested in, instead of hoping the algorithm reads your mind.
TS allows terms to depend on terms (normal JS functions), types to depend on terms (typeof operator, polymorphism, etc.), and types to depend on types (mapped types, inferred types, etc.), but not terms to depend on types. Macros could help there, the real world use case would be things like the classic: JSON.parse<{someField: string}>(...), in which a macro might allow the term to depend on the type (i.e. throw if the line data doesn't deserialize into the type).

This of course, goes against the "prime directive" of typescript and would never see the light of day in the core compiler, which is probably a good thing. But for a hobby project it'd be interesting.

In large scale TS applications of my experience, there's always several places where you're writing out long terms exactly corresponding to types in some mechanical way, but there's no real infrastructure to help you there so it's just a manual process.
Just waiting for wine to get fast enough to run Windows binaries in the browser. Last I checked, it's not quite there yet.
You are implying that the only measure of success for a fork is for it to exist indefinitely. If the goal of io.js was to improve Node's governance model, which appears to be the case, then I would consider it a success.
I can fork the repos too, but unless I present a large group of credible and high-level contributors (that is, I fork the team too). Which people are putting their weight behind this fork?

The readme doesn't mention the reason for the fork, who made it and who governs it. Which would be the most interesting info. Edit: apperently there is a main site (https://crablang.org/) with more info. The most important piece of info is missing though: names.
Lightning solves the fungibility issue. Then you have Monero but it's not widely adopted and has scaling issues.
> If you name things after what they do, and that name is stupid, then it’s the quickest indicator of bad design I’ve ever seen.

As a reader of the code I think 'FooAndMaybeBar_SpecialBazSupportV2 ()' is a blessing.

Aiming for cleaness when the problem is not clean is a worse sin than messy code that could be clean.
People used to be able to maintain large remote friend circles before the telegram was invented. If they could do it by snail mail, you can do it with a phone and no social media.
Adding that to the blog post would strengthen the argument.
We shouldn't assume the knowledge level of the reader.
Examples become production all the time.
Using files with unix philosophy is a tried and tested way to be really productive.
breathing is learned and habitual but also a direct consequence of one's mental state and condition. a relaxed person probably won't breath shallow. for one because that normally contradicts a physical state of relaxation and second because someone who breathes shallow will have a tough time relaxing. it goes both ways. it's also important to realize that healthy breathing is biologically the normal state. it's more that our tense and anxious society with it's unhealthy conditioning turns people into bad breathers.

now looking at those exceptional professions she lists what comes to my mind is not just that those people breathe professionally good but also that those jobs don't require you to open and read mails whose content is often highly unpleasant and daunting on a daily basis. so, one reason why office workers breathe less good while working and opening mails in particularly might also be because they are afraid of reading mails.

i can say for myself that this is true. i almost never looked forward to open a mail at work. at best it didn't evoke any emotion but usually mild stress and anxious anticipation.
To be fair, I would also say the mainstream IDEs have contributed to this situation to a certain extent, since they lower barrier of entry. That's a very good thing, but also sometimes bad.

Here's what I mean. There's a difference between:

* Using an IDE knowing what you want to do but you just like the convenience. You know what the IDE is doing for you, but you want your tool to do it for you quickly and get out of the way. If the IDE does something you don't know, you try to learn what this was.

* Using an IDE because you literally can't work without one. Not knowing your programming language and depending 100% on autocomplete to do most stuff. Not even knowing how to write the files that the IDE automatically updates when doing certain things.

It's a subtle difference, but the former is more likely to leave better comments in a web-based code review ("pull request") than the latter.

And if a project consists only of the latter type, it's unlikely that there will be comments like:

* "Use this other class with the same name but different package because this one is buffered" (because depending on autocomplete without knowing the language prevented them from even caring about which import to use, or the difference between those, as long as it works).

* "Would this change affect this other file that's not in the PR but calls this function a thousand times per request?" (because not knowing their own projects general structure due to depending on their IDE for navigation, so they're more likely to NOT notice a file that's not mentioned in the PR).

So if a project has only people that depend on an IDE (instead of using an IDE for convenience), it's easy to end up with stuff that technically works, but copies 40MB of strings around multiple times, and thrashes your performance due to reading one character at a time without buffering.

Granted, this technically is not related to IDEs, but in my experience (emphasis on "my"), most of the people I've worked with that use an IDE, are of the "can't program without it" type, and not the "I use it because it's convenient" type.

Not all of them. But most. Even if there's a learning curve at play here, I'd say there's usually overlap between "use IDE because convenient" and "actually bothering to put an effort into learning".

I understand this is an inevitable consequence of lowering the barrier of entry and making programming more accessible, and it doesn't matter if we're talking about npm, IDEs, programming languages, or anything.
So your alternative a use a different web program?

Knowing that these things happen is why I use gnucash.
I think lattices are probably more secure though. It's a similar idea to tiling but you can run it in a huge number of dimensions, without having to change the underlying math.
Real time chat in general and discord in particular. Discord cannot be self-hosted, so any support message history will be completely reliant on the goodwill of discord. Another problem with using a chat channel for support (slack has the same problem) is searching for things you know are there but are impossible to find again.
Here's how encaustic cement tiles are made - with liquid cement, cement powder, a mould, and a press: https://youtu.be/XSp5Tj4yYNc