skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I worry we're replacing polluting ICE cars with just as many, polluting EVs. EVs pollute less than cars, but they produce a lot more tire dust and road wear, since those things scale exponentially with the weight of the vehicle.

Tire dust has been shown to damage salmon populations and disrupt endocrine systems.

Yes, improving infra for EVs is an incremental improvement, but we are decades too late for iterative improvements, we need to take more radical action.
Unless you want, you know, accurate facts in your news.
Time zones, saying yes to one thing but doing something different, very high attrition rates.
What's the plan, full (parallel) rewrite or refactor?
The "I will be happy when" trap is a dangerous one. Work on being content with that you have. Your health, your family, your friends, your hobbies. The fact that you live in 2023 and have the entire world of entertainment and information at your fingertips, something no human in the previous 200,000 years had.

> Everyone says ... a true engineer's paradise.

I've never had this impression of FAANG. I always figured there were a tiny number of people working on amazing projects, surrounded by a much larger number of people keeping the lights on, or working on very periphery projects that either no one cares about or which will never ship because of politics or business whims. Did you really think it would be ... paradise? Thinking that about ANYTHING is a recipe for dire soul-crushing disappointment.
Its from memory of some old interview. Think he was talking about some aspect of a design flaw in his cars.
+1 to talking with a therapist. If you’re in the US, you may have access to Lyra through your FAANG job, entitling you to a bunch of free-to-you sessions… but even if not, if you can find a therapist you click with, it’s worth the money,
IME.
Unfortunately Australian tax forms take me a few minutes and are 90% prefilled by the app.
Oh, it's super hard to build good interfaces, I'd never claim otherwise. Everything user facing I build is trash and I know it, so I work with UI people. I would assert that most of what's made under the banner of "UX" by people who think they're good is also trash from a usability perspective.

(it's possible that the ux people are optimizing for something other than end users getting their stuff done, like conversion rate. But that doesn't make a trash interface good, it just means you get to pay your mortgage this month.)
You probably work at Meta. I am same age (over 40). If you are E6+, you have more lean-way on what type of projects you pick. Make sure to switch teams if you are not happy with your current situation/org, and make sure to get a good director (not, M1, or M2) to back you.

If you find a mature leader in your org, to back your initiatives, you will have a lot more leanway into what type of projects you pick and what type of work you do. It actually makes a huge difference. Also, don't get into the psc games, just do a good job, screw the ratings.

That's what I am doing, and it made me happier.

Ps. The alternative is to start a small project, that makes you happy. Something, very small and duable within a couple of months. (avoid over-ambitious projects). A utility, or a simple app. If it shows promise, develop it fruther.
Yes, people usually don't want to engage when the contradiction of your new statement is put so clearly in contrast with your past statement.

I wasn't really expecting you to engage with the point in any way. It is so rare that people do.

The fact remains that you now admit that yes you want to force certain businesses, specifically utilities, to sell to people, and this contradicts your previous statement.

You even did one of the most effective forms of non engagement, where you say "you can have the last word" thereby making it so either your statement remains unchallenged, or making it seem like you "win" because I responded, which is what you told me to do.
Not if some of those improvements have reach bona fide >100% efficiency.

Whatever you do, you will be adding heat/entropy to the system somewhere. Even the most efficient heat pumps heat things up on the net - they cool by moving heat around, and then they add their own waste heat on top.

The trick is, and always has been, to make sure your waste gets dumped somewhere you don't care about. A heat pump will dump its waste heat along with the heat it moves out of the place you care about, like inside your house, to the place you don't care about, like the ground beneath your house or the air outside. Other such tricks include dumping heat into rivers and lakes (see: most power plants), routing it where you need things heated up (see: combined heat and power plants), or just dumping it to space (Earth's atmosphere happens to be transparent at certain IR wavelengths, allowing you to use the universe as your heat sink).

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?
Maybe 'propane tank'?
In this hypothetical situation you've set up in which Visa somehow knows that one of their billion+ payments is for the contract killing of another human, then no, it's probably better to not let the payment go through.

However I find the argument you're posing apparently in favor of allowing a business like Visa to decline transactions on ethical grounds to be missing some important rigor. It's honestly kind of boring to argue about very clear-cut and extreme example like a credit card payment that is clearly for a contract killing. That's not where the meat of the issue lies.

If you'd like to make the argument that a business like Visa should decline transactions based on the ethics (as opposed to legal & financial risk, which appears to be how they do it now) of that transaction, then I think you need to come out of the gate with a bit more rigor. Here are the questions that immediately come to mind for me:

1. Can we agree that the rules applied to a multinational corporation with billions in income utilized by hundreds of millions of people on a daily basis to exchange legal currency for goods and services should be different than the rules governing the bakery down the street?

2. If yes, then within the context of multinational financial corporations, what is "ethical"?

3. Who decides what that definition is for a multinational financial corporation?

4. Is that definition industry-wide or specific to a corporation?

5. Is a corporation expected to hold to a consistent definition of "ethical"? If they are, how is that enforced?

6. If a corporation is not required to hold to a consistent definition of "ethical", how is this different from "for any reason or no reason at all"?

7. If an individual's small business is deemed "unethical" by a monopoly or near-monopoly, such that it is impossible _in practical terms_ for the business to exist based on an extralegal decision by a multinational financial institution, should there be any recourse for that individual? What would that be? Over what timeline could it be reasonably accomplished?

8. Remaining firmly in the context of applying your above answers to multinational financial corporations: how do your answers create a net boon for society? Who is likely to benefit from your policies? Is there any apparent harm from your policies? Is that harm a net boon for society? How and why?

Without some thought put towards these questions, or ones like them, your (apparent, there's not a lot to go on here) proposal of universal ethical freedom for all businesses looks a lot like "unlimited freedom without regard for how that unlimited freedom affects others." Which, if you are seriously putting that argument forward, I'd like to circle back to contract killing and ask what damn right does Visa have to limit one's freedom to run a contract killing business?
>It could and probably will replace my job

People tell stories about employees at big companies whose entire job is to send a small report to someone once a week.

Even in cases like that, it's illogical to fear AI, because if it really was so simple to automate, it would've been done already.

Either the storytellers are clueless about the true nature of the job, or else there are defenses against redundancy that aren't obvious.
White kids who can’t academically compete against Asians will get more slots. Asians will be relegated to their racial percentage regardless of academic acjievement.
1. Power to credit card processors, banks, and potentially the government.

2. 1.) can shut you down and you can be left without any form of durable payment or value.

3. Makes it very easy to track all of your consumption habits.

4. Creates a tiered society where the unbanked (poor and unhoused) are second-class citizens and cannot access the same things as others.
Where it's a complaint worth making is that every time there's a BGP Hijack there are a series of articles written incorrectly claiming DNSSEC would have prevented it.
Lisa: Steve Jobs’ sabotage and Apple’s burial
I just tried some of these and their normal thread level challenges are actually quite nice on their page. The hard ones chosen by HBO are just crazy though.
It's an interesting idea to me, and something I hadn't thought of before. Usually in these kinds of round-robin self-peer rating paradigms the peers are thought of collectively as a kind of oracle, especially as the number of peers increases.

Theoretically I guess there might be some pattern of behavior that goes unnoticed by everyone participating in the exercise. You could imagine, for example, some AI program that analyzes daily recordings of everyone in an organization (admittedly dystopian in its own way but relevant), and identifies some clear pattern in a person that goes unrecognized by everyone in the organization. Whether the AI would "count" in the Johari window exercise is where things get blurry but to the extent the exercise is about human cognition and its consequences I can see how it would apply.
Yes, I think I understand, both why you believe P=NP and what the 2XSAT construction is.

You're basically saying "Look at this polynomial problem and this other polynomial problem, if we combine them in a natural way, suddenly it becomes exponential?". My point is that your intuition is wrong. For example, XOR by itself is not Turing machine equivalent, nor is NOT, nor is AND and OR by themselves, but combine some subset and suddenly you get NAND, NOR etc. which gives arbitrary computation.

One of the interpretations of the Halting Problem is that one can do no better than raw simulation. The intuition, by extension, is that for NP-Complete problems, one can also do no better than raw simulation (search the space for solutions). If we could do better than simulation, if there were a "short circuit" to the computation, then the program I listed above, which looks suspiciously like running arbitrary program with some time and space bounds, would not need to run in exponential time.

Arbitrary computation is the norm, not the exception. 2SAT and XORSAT are the exception because of their restrictions putting them in polynomial time and their inability to do arbitrary computation. If their fragility is disturbed, even by adding just a whiff of freedom in the form of more gates or arrangement, then they suddenly allow for arbitrary computation.

You believe your addition is just a slight nudge so the topple to arbitrary computation and, potentially, exponential time seems drastic, but you have a bias on what's "natural". For example, you could have decided to add some portion of 3 variable clauses to the 2SAT instance to see how quickly it blows up (if at all). Or you could have combined some different proportion of XOR clauses to the 2SAT instance to see how quickly it becomes intractable (or if it stays tractable). Which is more natural? Which is the smaller nudge? Why is your nudge not a shove?

FYI, there's a lot of work done for NP-Complete phase transitions. When I said this is poorly understood, I mean it. For all intents and purposes, "random" 3SAT (each clause chooses which variable uniformly at random, with equal probability of being negated) is, for all intents and purposes, solvable, even for millions of variables. As far as I know, there isn't a good proposal or understanding for a "natural" and "random" 3SAT ensemble that remains difficult as the scale increases.
There's limits to analogies but take a look at a soliton in a wave: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=909o_kbCdFg

Solitons are self re-enforcing wave packets in some medium, where the dispersive effects get canceled out. I like to think of field quanta as being similar at a very high handwavy level. Of course the trick with quanta is only certain energy levels are allowed.
apparently yes.

> Note: Avoid portable air cleaners and furnace/HVAC filters that intentionally produce ozone. Ozone is a lung irritant. Note that in some cases, air cleaners that contain electrostatic precipitators, ionizers, UV lights without adequate lamp coatings, and plasma air cleaners may have the potential to emit ozone. Both the California Air Resources Board and the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers maintain lists of air cleaners that have been tested and shown to emit little or no ozone.

from: https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/guide-air-cleaner...

following the link to the california one you get:

> Electronic: Air cleaners that are listed as "Electronic" may be capable of generating small amounts of ozone, but have been tested and found to produce an ozone emission concentration less than 0.050 parts per million. This category includes ionizers, electrostatic precipitators, PCOs, hydroxyl generators, devices with UV light components, and other electronic air cleaning technologies.

I imagine electrostatic precipitators would fall into that category
> If you're suggesting running a humidifier and then generating electricity off the temperature difference

That's not what I'm suggesting. I am merely pointing out the absurdity of arguing that entropy increasing globally means that cooling cannot occur locally.

> an extreme example known as a solar cell

If you think solar cells operate via temperature differential, I'm just going to go ahead and end this conversation before I say something ugly about people who don't know things trying really hard to look like they do know things.
Two economists were walking down the street. One saw a dog s*t on the ground, and told the other: “If you eat that, I’ll give you thousand dollars.” Other guy looked at it, thought “It’s bad, but I’ll get $1000”, and ate it. His friend paid him, although he still regretted it because it was really bad. After some time, they encountered another dog s*t. This time the guy who ate it before, seeking revenge of the foul taste in his mouth, offered $1000 for eating it to his friend. He accepted, thinking “I’ll gain the $1000 I lost”. He ate it and got paid. After some time, they stopped for a while, and one said to other, “I feel like we just ate dog s*t for nothing”, his friend replied: “Oh, come on! We just contributed to the GDP by $2000, it can’t be for nothing!”

(Commented this exact comment a few days ago, but very relevant so doing it again.)
Timeones. Some firms offer a near shore PM, but that still didn’t help as it’s a big delay.

The language barrier can be tough too, but manageable.
Karpathy's post is really great, thanks!
That's exactly right, and they even use the same API[1] for accepting and replying to HTTP requests . As well as supporting other service worker APIs like caches.

[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/FetchEvent
A bit tangential.

Offshoring to India is being done in engineering fields as well. Many international Refinery / Petrochemical/ Offshore platform engineering companies have huge design office here.
How is this Wikipedia's fault if the Vatican doesn't even make usable graphics of their own flag available? I suppose an ancient conservative institution like the Catholic Church failing to adapt to the internet isn't all that surprising, but you can hardly blame well-willing volunteers for the Vatican's lack of public information.
Well it could be the entire page and then you would get a giant flash or repaints. It is not clear that is any better.

The main things that are different:

* the user links (shows what user you are logged in)

* whether you have a new message notification

* your skin preferences (this will totally change the entire html)

* your language preference (normally this only affects the UI not page content, but some pages it affects page content)

* other misc preferences can affect wikipage content (e.g thumbnail size), although there has been a general effort to avoid adding new ones and remove existing ones that arent used.

* some stuff makes assumptions about logged in users not being varnish (e.g. how csrf tokens work for js based actions), but most of those can be changed if push came to shove.

That said there might be a reasonable argument that much of this isnt needed and it would be a net benefit to kill most of those features.
Pretty sure he means given a single compiler.
It never seems like any of these opensource accounting solutions have bank feeds? Why would anyone manually import bank info when an automatic feed exists.
Thanks for putting into words something that was on the edge of my mind, but never quite graspable.

Two more examples (for me?) of features that I find you really miss in a language even if you’re fluent in the local idioms: First-class functions and pattern matching.

Passing functions as values is so nice and afaik most modern languages have that feature nowadays. But I remember when it used to blow people’s minds.

Pattern matching is something I’ve missed ever since having it in Haskell. Such an elegant solution to a problem that you have just often enough that the typical native approach feels clunky.
The compiler is deterministic - for the same inputs, you'll get the same outputs. Unless you've got memory corruption in it.
Yes, but then my code wouldn’t be vanilla if I used VanJS…
I'm currently building a real-time multiplayer editor on durable objects and I love them. I wish other cloud providers would ruthlessly copy them so I don't have that vendor lock-in feeling.
Async/await in no_std rust was a godsend for embedded firmware and driver development, turning really simple and linear code into a tiny state machine with zero alloc and no runtime cost. I can imagine how coroutines could provide similar for C++.

I migrated a rust LoRa driver from traditional blocking to async/await in order to test two modules in simultaneous send/receive mode as part of the test suite on a single STM32 chip. Aside from pleasing the HAL abstraction by bubbling all the generics throughout, it was an entirely pleasurable experience and made much better use of available resources than the traditional approaches without having to manually manage state across yield points or use a dynamic task scheduler. No OS, no runtime, no manual save/restore of stack, no global variables. It is really the future of the truly micro barebones embedded development.
What are the two different reasons?
I'm never truly sure about how to answer these questions. "Why go to space?" "Why try to visit Mars or Venus when we have so many problems at home?"

As the other posts have stated there are so many exciting discoveries that have led to new technologies, but I've had a handful of in person conversations about this. And those answers don't seem to resonate.

I get it though. Some of these seem so far off, many don't produce results, and money sinks especially if they're tax payer dollars. It's just not possible to 100% fund the winners - that's just not how discovery works.
Re: long term capital gains, the point of tax loss harvesting is to defer capital gains, so you can also defer the capital gains taxes.

Re: 401(k), you are assuming knowledge of the future that nobody has.

Re: extra steps to do a Roth conversion, it's something that can be done in literally under 5 minutes, at $0 cost, if you have no other money in traditional IRA accounts, so I have no idea what you're talking about.
There are some Chromebooks with Snapdragons that are somewhat interesting (though half the speed of an M1). And some of the Windows ARM laptops might be decent in this niche. Some of the Samsung Galaxy Books look interesting.

You'd basically be giving up on running really serious stuff on the laptop itself. If you have good wifi/5G, a home server or an AWS rental might do the heavy lifting.

It's a mixed bag, because the whole purpose is for traveling, and that's often when your connectivity is iffy. So, not sure. Battery life would be nice though.
> Forgive me, but can you be clearer than "mentioned"? Is the mangling required to contain template parameters for return types?

The mangling will contain template parameters, as you can have:

foo.hpp

template<typename T>
T f();

foo.cpp

template<>
int f<int>() { return 123; }
template<>
float f<float>() { return 123; }

bar.cpp

std::cout << f<int>();

and the right function has to be found. demo: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/rMjYoEzaK
Back in the day bank feeds were horrific to develop but these days I think there are aggregate feed services. Seems like you could just implement support for one of those?
My personal problem with Kysely is that the migrations are not aligned with what I needed personally.

I would have wanted to see Kysely have the ability to generate migrations for example. I also personally prefer the approach that Drizzle takes when it comes to more adoption (in my case, CockroachDB).

Just a personal preference - the project is awesome.
Getting Started with Dusk OS
Dusk OS is a 32-bit Forth and C-based operating system created by Virgil Dupras.
It's nice that CloudFlare workers use the service worker API... But useless unless other cloud providers also get on the standards bandwagon -_-
Oh what a shame! I just replied to the parent comment (before seeing your reply) about how incredible async/await “coroutines” were with embedded rust requiring actually zero runtime cost (no alloc, no runtime, no dynamic scheduler).
Portrayed by who?
What are some good resources/courses/books for learning compilers, especially in a hands-on way? "Crafting Interpreters" seems to be well-liked, is that a decent place to start? Appreciate any other tips.
Also consider Operation Choke Point, where the government pressured banks not to do business with firearms dealers, tobacco dealers, and a variety of other firms they didn’t like.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point
Bots aren’t random, someone is running them for a reason. The problem isn’t the “insightful and useful comments”, it’ll be the ones which sound like that to any non-expert but are designed to sell products or push political outcomes. Historically the tell for things like that were things like copy-and-paste messages, poor grammar or spelling, etc. which LLMs are great at avoiding.
A chiral aperiodic monotile
Why not go back to HFT or more general quant trading? In my experience the direct link between work done and profits or lack thereof keeps the skill levels high and reduces internal politics.
I didn’t have to relogin on my nvidia shield. Downloaded new app and it launched right to my profile selector.
everything makes sense now, thanks
Sigh. No price. No ship date. I hope this actually ships - so many Hugh end ARM workstations (except the honeycomb ) were always call and never in stock.
> This is exactly what high paid SWE work is these days. You can have less collaboration by moving to infra, but it'll still be the norm.

As someone who made the switch to infra, don't do it. The same problems mentioned before will become uncontrollable roadblocks to you getting real work done and you'll have zero power to do anything about it.

You do get to provide enormous amounts of value but typically only when the stars align.

Unfortunately the only real way to make that difference is in software team management and then say goodbye to contributing code.