skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Our recipe:

* 3 tablespoons bacon grease
* 1/2 cup popcorn kernels

Put the bacon grease in a large pot and add three kernels of popcorn. Heat it on half heat (5 on a gas burner, anyway) until the three kernels all pop -- this will usually be the point at which smoke from the grease is accumulating in the pot (if you have a large lid you can watch). Once the three pop, dump the rest in. Scoot the pot vigorously back and forth on the stove to shake the unpopped kernels to the bottom. Turn off the heat when the popping stops.

Pour in a bowl and salt to taste. No butter required. As above, you get almost no unpopped kernels this way!

We use "rainbow popcorn," which is multi-color and we think tastes better. It doesn't pop as big as the regular yellow kind.

I'll have to try the paper towel trick, especially with the smaller pot I sometimes use.
We are most certainly engaging in cyber attacks against states that we are antagonistic against. Here are a few of the more public operations:

* Stuxnet: In 2010, the Stuxnet worm was discovered, which targeted Iran's nuclear facilities. It was widely reported that the United States and Israel were behind this cyber attack. The attack aimed to disrupt Iran's nuclear program by targeting specific control systems.
Source: The New York Times - "Obama Order Sped Up Wave of Cyberattacks Against Iran"

* Regin: Regin is a sophisticated cyber espionage platform discovered in 2014. It is suspected to be a joint operation conducted by the "Five Eyes" intelligence alliance, consisting of the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Regin targeted various entities, including governments, research institutions, and telecommunications providers. Source: Symantec - "Regin: Top-tier espionage tool enables stealthy surveillance"

* Flame and Duqu: Flame and Duqu were sophisticated cyber espionage tools discovered in 2012, believed to be associated with state-sponsored actors. While attribution is challenging, it has been reported that these attacks were possibly conducted by the US and its allies. The primary targets were in the Middle East, including Iran.
Source: Symantec - "Flame: Questions and Answers"

* Equation Group: The Equation Group, classified as an advanced persistent threat, is a highly sophisticated threat actor suspected of being tied to the Tailored Access Operations (TAO) unit of the United States National Security Agency (NSA). It was responsible for developing and deploying sophisticated malware and exploits. The group's activities spanned several years and targeted various countries worldwide. Source: Kaspersky - "Equation: The Death Star of Malware Galaxy"
The only thing we should take away is that there are no rules. The Fed will decide the winners and losers without the deference that a system claiming to be for the benefit of people should have. If you’re not too big to fail, then you’re too little to succeed.
The short answer is that litefs uses a single primary node (see: https://fly.io/docs/litefs/proxy/). I work with Ben so I imagine that over time we'll find a configuration that works with multiple databases each with their own primary node, but until then, this works for now.
How to improve and get out from mediocre?
I currently work as a Java developer with over six years of experience. I'm employed at a mid-sized neobank, but lately, I've found myself stuck in a monotonous routine focused on JSON manipulation and CRUD operations. I don't want to belittle my programming abilities, but I haven't had the opportunity to work on truly challenging and sophisticated systems.

I'm eager to break out of this mediocrity and explore new avenues. One approach I'm considering is dedicating time to solving coding challenges on platforms like LeetCode, as well as exploring opportunities at local companies with a FAANG-style reputation. (Checked my crying with chatgpt so you can read it)
Prosperous universe players don't use Excel, they use Google sheets because of significant collaboration between players. The main spreadsheet of a corporation may have hundreds of tabs and runs into the 10 million cell limit all the time. The spreadsheets run Javascript code to import data from a tool called FIO.

A major downside is that these spreadsheets end up taking forever to update. You change one thing and wait five minutes for it to finish updating cells.
Aside from the report (ex-director of marine operations) David Lochridge wrote in 2018, he and other experts warned the company:
"OceanGate faced similarly dire calls from more than three dozen people — industry leaders, deep-sea explorers and oceanographers — who warned in a letter to its chief executive, Stockton Rush, that the company’s “experimental” approach and its decision to forgo a traditional assessment could lead to potentially “catastrophic” problems with the Titanic mission. ... The critiques from Mr. Lochridge and the experts who signed the 2018 letter to Mr. Rush were focused in part on what they characterized as Mr. Rush’s refusal to have the Titan inspected and certified by one of the leading agencies that do such work. Mr. Lochridge reported in court records that he had urged the company to do so, but that he had been told that OceanGate was “unwilling to pay” for such an assessment. ... Mr. Lochridge reported learning that the viewport that lets passengers see outside the craft was only certified to work in depths of up to 1,300 meters".
SDL2, which is an abstraction intended for games (gives you a window, sets up OpenGL and handles input events, but leaves the drawing to you), has a very simple text input API that can handle IMEs: https://wiki.libsdl.org/SDL2/SDL_StartTextInput + https://wiki.libsdl.org/SDL2/SDL_SetTextInputRect. But the trade-off is that you can't write a text editor with this. It just lets the user type text using the OS's text field or similar and the app is not in control while they do so.
Cameron had a fantastic interview last night on CNN. It was one of the best interviews I’ve ever seen done by Anderson Cooper (probably because he barely spoke…).

There is no question that Cameron has extensive knowledge on this subject. His level of detail on materials, design guide, regulatory agencies was incredible. He knows everything about this subject.

If he says they cut corners, I believe him.
Tom Scott made a great video about it, he even got to the guy who started using microwaves for thawing entire small animals. Before microwaves (diathermic heating) they would use a hot piece of metal, like a large spoon.

https://youtu.be/2tdiKTSdE9Y

And yes, you can unfreeze a rock solid rat, then see it walk around. This is why cryogenics was hyped so much, because it sort of works on small animals.
> LLMs don't get drunk .

Well actually they sort of can...

https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/13vv941/tempera...
You might not be aware of this, but the USG separately decides how much to spend and how much to tax.

The difference commonly comes up every now and then when the Gov threatens to shutdown because congress decided to spend more than they decided to tax and eventually that difference catches up to them as that already approved spending is dispersed but there wasn't money to pay for it.
They don't need to spin up a production facility for a run of four trash cans. I guarantee there are ad hoc metal shops aplenty. Cut some sheet metal on the CNC, run it through a folder-thingy, rivet/weld it up, add some hinge hardware. You're talking one guy and 2-4 days, including the CAD work.
For those who are interested, James Cameron and Robert Ballard did an interview with ABC News, https://youtu.be/e9YB31ElEFQ
>The military bought the hammer, Kelman explained, bundled into one bulk purchase of many different spare parts. But when the contractors allocated their engineering expenses among the individual spare parts on the list-a bookkeeping exercise that had no effect on the price the Pentagon paid overall-they simply treated every item the same. So the hammer, originally $15, picked up the same amount of research and development overhead-$420-as each of the highly technical components, recalled retired procurement official LeRoy Haugh. (Later news stories inflated the $435 figure to $600.)

"we didn't ACTUALLY spend that much on a hammer, we just averaged it out across a bulk purchase! See, we aren't terrible with money."

Framing something as 'the myth of the $600 hammer' is implicitly pointing to external sources (congress, journalists) and messaging that they 'invented a myth' that the military spent $600 on a hammer. They didn't invent anything. They worked with the information that was provided to them by the military.

If you wanted to discuss the same issue, but under a framing that wasn't disingenuous, you could title it something like 'the reality of abysmal and misleading accounting throughout the military and their contractors'.
Indeed. It's exactly the same (albeit on a different scale) as NTP synchronization, where you can frequently (ha!) reach a few ms accuracy over a hundred ms latency network.
It might be very annoying but I still don't think they offer 1:1 bug compatibility, and I don't think they ever did.

CentOS stated:
https://www.spinics.net/lists/centos-devel/msg19564.html

> We came up with the phrase "bug-for-bug" compatible during EL5 as a GOAL to aim for. CentOS was NEVER bug-for-bug compatible.

Rocky may have changed that line, but I would be surprised. CentOS was always "good enough".
And this is just the tip of the iceberg. OG failed to get basic certifications every other deepdive got.

They failed to test multiple fail-safes at depth. There's no indications of testing air supply or scrubbers over time. They bolted from the outside despite claiming to learn from spaceflight (Apollo 1, anyone). The composite hull, viewport, and more were seemed by everyone else to be insufficient.

Previous missions included them finding out the propulsion was on backward, getting snagged on the titanic, getting lost for 5 hours, losing communication with the tracking ship.

Did they systematically fix a single one of these problems? No!

They removed ability for the ship to contact them because the CEO was tired of getting interrupted.

I know it's sacrilegious to say it here, bit billionaires are not magically brilliant by nature, and they got caught up in their own hubris. I'm sorry but this was one of the biggest waste of resources I've ever seen. But god forbid anyone say that because they're "mean" or "just hate the rich" or whatever other uninformed take Ive seen.
Are you confusing EQT and Micro Focus?

SuSE is owned by MicroFocus.
...
I stand corrected, it is still owned by them in 75% though

As per the Wikipedia article, EQT still owns 75% of SUSE, not Micro Focus. Micro Focus is no longer involved with SUSE
What people tend to miss is that the likes of Lockheed, Raytheon, and Boeing do this shit on purpose because they are public companies with few customers, and effectively zero accountability. They are literally forced by public markets to continually grow profits, and I'd wager Lockheed spends a gargantuan amount of money on black projects and research that they can't really turn a profit on (let alone disclose much less sell off), so they have to resort to making a profit by bilking the Pentagon in any way they can.

Since the Pentagon doesn't give a damn about passing an audit, and the revolving door between defense companies, industry lobbyists, and the Pentagon is so huge, they can just get away with it.

Spare me the bullshit about jobs and readiness, it's not good for the economy to continually employ people to utilize 30 year old tech to prepare for a battle that will never happen. Look at Abrams tanks - some senator couldn't face the prospect of not being re-elected, so they continually pushed for Abrams to receive billions to continually produce tanks, which went out of style after Desert Storm....which was in 1993. The Pentagon didn't want more tanks, and said as much many times, yet nothing happened. Those tanks were produced for years and had no use and sat in a massive warehouse. All so that senator could enjoy their cushy benefits, nice lobbying kickbacks, and not having to actually run a competitive re-election campaign, much less do the hard work of saying "look folks, your jobs are irrelevant now, here's some money to go re-train in a different industry".

Now, is spending on military tech inherently bad, even on unprofitable or pie-in-the-sky ideas? No. Is it a bad thing to invest in the engineering sectors? No. Should it be done? Yes. Is it good to invest in technology and in education? Yes. Should companies that are completely reliant on Pentagon funding be allowed to be "private" entities who need to adhere to the whims of wall street bankers above all else? Absolutely not. Should they be allowed to lobby? No. Should they be allowed to hire tons of former military officials to effectively just be "relationship" people so the money keeps coming in? Absolutely not.

The root cause here is that there's a revolving door between the Pentagon and private industry, and we're turning a blind eye to it.
Do the caches really just use the last few bits and not any kind of small hash function?
I disagree. Risk isn't binary. Part of being an engineer is trying to quantify the risks of a given design so that anyone subjected to the platform is aware of them. If a submersible with a cylindrical carbon fiber hull fails after five or ten dives and gives no advanced indication of its impending failure, that's a much riskier proposition than a metal structure which can go hundreds of times and shows very obvious advanced warning signs.

To put it in a different context, consider when Uber was playing with autonomous driving. Their miles-driven-per-incident rate was orders of magnitude lower than any commercial fleet of human drivers or even the general population of human drivers.

Engineers have an ethical duty to try to quantify these risks and present them as accurately as possible to those who make decisions. Anything less than that is performance art.
> The metric to compare bitcoin to is energy per transaction compared with EXISTING forms of digital finance with which it is competing.

False. Bitcoin might have originally been envisioned as "p2p electronic cash" but that's not really what its use/goal is anymore. Even though throughput and cost of transactions is not irrelevant to Bitcoin at this point, it is definitely far down in the list of priorities. The much more important aspects are now security and suitability/reliability as a store-of-value.

> It's like saying, "sure child abuse is bad, but war causes way more suffering and there are still wars so no need to do anything about child abuse, at least until all war everywhere stops first. ..

Wow, that's really just an astonishingly bad comparison.

What would you estimate? What proportion of people in the world would support the statement "child abuse is bad"? 99 %? 99.9 %? 99.999 %? Probably significantly more than 99 %, I'd guess.
Why? Because the statement is kind of philosophically fundamentally true. The word "abuse" practically implies "bad".
You'd sure have to search a long time to maybe maybe find a single person who'd say "child abuse is not bad" and who'd even be okay with "child abuse" having happened to them individually.
And you'll have an even harder time trying to find people who'll publicly go on record stating "child abuse is a useful tool for society".

And you compare that to a technology where many people argue that it'll be a useful tool and society will benefit from it and they can even give arguments for that?

That's just ridiculous.

Now, of all people in the world, how many of those that know Bitcoin will support the statement "Bitcoin is bad"? Maybe 50 % or 70 % or it might even be 90 % (from perpetual campaigning against)? Whatever the number is, you'll find hundreds of thousands if not millions of people on the other side who'd be willing to publicly say "Bitcoin is useful" and give reasons you could then try to debate.
You think you'll find even one person on the planet who's going to state "child abuse is useful and thus I'm going to make sure I'll have some for my children"?

Your comparison is so far off, it's completely meaningless.

A better comparison would be ... quite obviously ... gold.

You could say: "Gold isn't useful enough to legitimize the harm that's done through its mining even though many people like it. It is just a small dent in the carbon footprint worldwide but still. Compare that to steel production which is much more important for keeping society running but it also produces orders of magnitude more emissions and environmental destruction than making gold bars."

Now that'd be a somewhat legit comparison I'd be willing to discuss, but your comparison to child abuse, that's just absurd.
The Logitech F710 wireless gamepad used in the Titan was similar to a PlayStation 4 controller and not at all similar to a MS-Xbox-Wireless-Controller.
I don't think it was the point of failure.
Never seen this, but it looks like originally it was VB6 and he is working on (or has completed) a C# based remake. I recognized the form icon on the youtube video and nostalgia kicked in.
A few reasons. The US was very corrupt back before the Progressive Era and to clean that up in a hurry we got a bunch of very prescriptive rules around procurement that prevent the use of common sense and make bidding for government contracts a hard to master skill that reduces competition.

We have a federal structure and use a common law framework so the interaction of law, precedent, and agency rules create a confusing thicket of regulation that's hard to deal with.

Finally, outsourcing of planning to consultants means frequent shifts in direction and makes it harder to exercise control over costs.
Nice, building with TipTap/ProseMirror is such a joy.

Not mentioned (but inferred from TipTap + HocusPocus, the guys that originally built both are awesome BTW) this is using the Yjs CRDT (conflict free replicated datatypes) library and its bindings to ProseMirror to provide the underlying realtime collaborative system. Again absolute joy to work with these tools.

This is one of my favourite stacks.
I did some modeling of the future auto market in graduate school.

My model came up with a huge demand for low priced, simple ICE vehicles as a response to increased energy costs and lowered disposable income levels for many consumers. EV demand came from the high end of the market as consumers willing to spend a lot of money were more open to switching because they were spending a lot of money anyway and it was another option, and ROI on the EV is based on the consumer's ability to overcome the frontend costs, which wealthy consumers are more capable of.
Same here. There have been hundreds of documented fatalities on lost subs since 1960.
Couple reasons:

1-An external API is a product, you have to maintain it, keep it backward compatible even when you change your internal models, monitor it, protect it against attacks, etc. So no, I do not agree that it would be easy for Slack to expose an external API for 3rd party clients. It would be at least millions worth of investment.

2-A lightweight CLI client for Slack? Let me tell you, this would have a very very tiny user base. Probably just you, and even you would be bored of it after 1week. Would it be worth it for Slack to invest millions in an external API just so a couple hundred geeks can make their own crappy client?

3-Analytics. Slack runs analytics on usage of their app, in order to know what users use and want. Can't do that if you don't own the frontend.

4-Brand. If one of your main competitive advantages is a good UX (And believe me, it is the case for Slack), would you want to grant people the right to create crappy apps that ruins the UX and turn people off your product? This is what is killing Android brand value for example. Sure it's open, but it means there are a lot of Crappy UIs that turn people off.

The beauty of liberal capitalism is that ultimately, at least to some extent, what is good for users is good for the company, so incentives are aligned to some extent, and very unlikely to be completely opposed as you seem to suggest. So yes, I believe that companies are taking strategic decisions (such as not shipping an external API and 5 different native clients) in large part because it does indeed benefit the majority of their users.
US Military is one of the largest (the largest?) Jobs Creator in the US.

Cities can literally be made or break by the Military (and other Gov functions) moving there or leaving.

A vote against the military is a vote for more unemployment in your district.
Turn off your iPhone for five minutes
The ad industry calls this kind of auto-generated content for ad placement "MFA" or "Made for Advertising". And they hate it. Ad platforms spend time categorising this content so they can either exclude it from all their users or just exclude it from those users who don't specifically opt into it.

Like many other metrics in the industry (viewability, brand safety, etc.) it's actually the largest brands who are the biggest spenders and the ones you'd think from outside would be the most ruthless about "money in, results out", that care about this stuff the most. The ones that don't are the no-name dropshippers or those "You won't believe this story about X" content mills, but those ones also are willing to pay the least for their ads.
If the folks who were killed in the sub were arrogant, deluded or just thrill seekers, they paid the full price for those faults as will their families going forward. I think of the many times my own arrogance, pride or just stupidity should have gotten me a Darwin Award. I hope we can learn key lessons from this sad incident without flogging the dead and their families.
The "old UI circa 2010" is like the second refresh, and the game already had the reputation back in 2007 when I started playing. It refers to the big business players, who actually play the game like they're real life companies.
That hardly makes him an expert on submersible construction when there are others out there albeit few, that have this experience.

The parent comment was on submersible construction expertise of which Cameron has little to none. I'd agree that he has piloting expertise (and definitely unique experience ). Again, whats his naval engineering resume like? How many submersibles or submersible subsystems has he designed? The thing he does have is a good team that he probably listens to of which stockton rush did not have.

He's relatable though and has strong opinions which make for more clicks.
Israeli firm Verobotics using AI-powered robots to clean Hong Kong skyscrapers
It's still on the plane. If nobody tested it at the pressure a plane is at, and it turns out it explodes and injures the crew, that's not great.
He didn't want to hire "50-year-old white guys" because they weren’t "inspirational" figures:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/jun/21/stockton-ru...

Perhaps this demographic asked too many questions about safety.
On the acusations of publicly calling for regulation while privately lobbying for something else: https://youtu.be/A5uMNMAWi3E?t=362

On public bars with Elon Musk: https://youtu.be/A5uMNMAWi3E?t=507

On the Microsoft relationship: https://youtu.be/A5uMNMAWi3E?t=586

On OpenAI financial structure: https://youtu.be/A5uMNMAWi3E?t=836

On where Russia and China are on AI: https://youtu.be/A5uMNMAWi3E?t=1195

Why should people trust OpenAI?: https://youtu.be/A5uMNMAWi3E?t=1258