skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> rust demands that I cross every last t before I can run it at all.

It's worse than that IMO. Rust makes it very awkward/impractical to have cyclic data structures, which are necessary to write a lot of useful programs. The Rust fans will quickly jump in and tell you that if you need cycles, your program is wrong and you're just not a good enough programmer, but Maybe it's just that the Rust borrow checker is too limited and primitive, and it really just gets in the way sometimes.

Some of the restrictions of the Rust borrow checker and type system are arbitrary. They're there because Rust currently can't do better. They're not the gospel, they aren't necessarily inherent property that must always be satisfied for a program to be bug free. The Rust notion of safety is not an absolute. It's a compromise, and a really annoying, tiresome drain on motivation and productivity sometimes.
I communicate with my dentist on WhatsApp. They send me appointment reminders the night before and I have to confirm.
Wagner Chief Accuses Russian Military Leaders of Lying About Ukraine War
I suspect that these animations make launch feel faster much of the time by hiding the true launch time of the app. And I think this is a primary purpose of launch animations.

Compare to iPhone OS 1: apps had static launch images that the OS animates to be visible so an app has hundreds of milliseconds to load before the user feels a hang.
I think that it's mostly combination of location, soil and terrain shape. Letting cows graze on a plot of land isn't worth much. If you let the cows graze somewhere that's because you have no way of getting anything more from that piece of land.

Lumping pastures with high class, farming suitable land is a bit dishonest.
> it was already done and paid for. It's a trashcan, it doesn't require specialized tooling

The government doesn't spec "a trashcan." They create size specs, water-tightness ratings, material durability, etc. The exact spec they provide may be met in 90% of areas by an existing trash can, but that won't do. If there are requirements for some level of waterproofing, you can't just seal it or even mold it from a single piece of material, you have to PROOVE it. It has to be tested and usually adhere to an existing standard so you're going to design several trash can, submit them for approval and use the best one that passes.

It's mind-numbingly tedious to build anything for the government.
Assuming you are serious, there is https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/tree/main/crane... which is written in Rust and is targeted to become the default debug backend in rustc. LLVM has accumulated a lot of optimizations contributed by various groups and people over more than a decade. It's hard to catch up to that by virtue of resource limits.
But those same hobbyists might eventually get a job at a place where they need to decide between Debian or RHEL, or influence the decision.
I think we're talking about a distinction in a different spot. My distinction was that rather than "They're shutting down personal subreddits" this post was more "Reddit is even coming for mods who blackout their personal subreddits"

I do understand that they are talking about their own personal subreddits. I appreciate the clarification though!
And the curation is good. MS picks good games, including AAs and indies.
> We provide a platform for voices you won’t often find in the establishment media and investigations, analysis and video content about the crises of racism, inequality, colonialism, and climate breakdown.

Weird. That's all the content I see in the establishment media.
I just bought it on Steam under Linux and it won't install due to "unsupported platform", so I guess it's currently not working with Proton :(

EDIT: never mind! I forgot to check the "force the use of a specific Steam Play compatibility tool" in Settings -> Compatibility. With that checked (Proton 8.0.2) it installed and launched just fine (after launching the "repair easy anti-cheat" once)!
why would apple buy them?
I'd say it's pretty impressive. Building and igniting a rocket engine is hard. For more detail, I can recommend watching "Why starting a rocket engine is so hard" by Tim Dodd [0].

It's not "never been done before" impressive, they're a few years behind e.g. SpaceX's Raptor engine, which uses the same propellants, and is also reusable. But still, a new rocket engine is no small feat - the engine is probably the hardest part of a rocket. This is quite literally rocket science.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAUVCn_jw5I
What a remarkable distortion of humanity.
I was being sarcastic, when Cranelift becomes the official reference implementation then I shut up.
If they're swamped, and they're asking all the ones they're swamped with to do a project that takes hours, that's abuse.

Why abuse? Well, let's say they have three solid candidates. They ask each to do an assignment. Would I do a 6-hour project for a 33% chance at a job? Maybe, especially if I really wanted that particular job.

Now let's say they have 30 candidates that they ask. Would I do 6 hours of throwaway work for a 3% chance at a job? No - not knowingly. If I'm an average candidate, I'm going to have to do that 30 times to land a job. That's 180 hours, or more than four full-time weeks of throwaway work. That's an abusive process.

Could I spend just as much time interviewing? I could, but there's a difference. If I'm interviewing with you, you're there talking to me. You can't waste my time without wasting your own. Whereas with a take-home assignment, you can waste my time but waste little or no of your own. As a result, interviewers (usually) pay some attention to not doing needless interviews, but pay less attention to not asking for needless take-home assignments.
For every 9 leetcode interview companies, there is 1 that doesn't do that and would rather pair program or work on an actual ticket together for half a morning.

Adjust your sights on those and it's lovely. More often than not those companies are great to work for across all metrics.

Most of these leetcode interview companies just follow what Google does for that reason alone. And Google does it because they have to cull 20,000 applicants somehow in the first wave. They just _can't_ interview that many people from the jump.
right-option to forward delete on the internal laptop keyboard.

I used to use it to remap capslock to control, but apple has since added that to macOS itself.
I'd normally agree with this. For most of my life the concept of fascism was a bit lost on me; a political concept in history books. However, in recent years there are certainly some members/subgroups of our politics that have brought real tangible policies/actions/words that fit the bill of fascism. Which is why I use the term and feel that Greg Abbott in Texas is a member of that cohort as evidenced by his body of work as Governor (and his general approach to deciding what to focus on). I've lived in Texas for almost 50 years so I feel I'm somewhat qualified to demarcate the fact he's cross the line into that territory even given we've had fairly conservative leaders most my life, this brand of it is different.

That said, the term resurfacing these past handful of years is absolutely with reason. I'm not just name calling because I disagree on policy. Your comment is without sustenance and a lazy dismissal of a fairly serious concern.
Anybody in the world can put a notability tag on an article in Wikipedia. The notability tag is properly read as a "this article needs more sources and more claims of notability" call for help, not a "get this article off the site" argument.

Livingston will have no trouble maintaining a Wikipedia article; she's had profiles written about her in mainstream sources.

A big chunk of complaints about Wikipedia notability come from people who don't quite grok the dynamic of how biographical articles like these get added to WP. Usually, someone writes a stub article with few sources and no clear statement of what the person is notable for. Those are bad articles! They actually need the notability tag! That's how they turn into better articles!
My old Windows 98SE box on a 200Mhz MMX processor was perfect responsiveness.

We say that today, and remember the best part of the experience... but we do forget, it was all at the mercy of your (maybe if you're lucky) UltraATA/33mhz bus.
If it is the wrong metal, or wrong enough alloy, merely by touching the things it is in contact with can cause a galvanic reaction. Several airplanes have crashed due to damage caused by galvanic corrosion. The FAA is frequently called a "tombstone agency" because they tend to only take action after a bunch of people die.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_corrosion

Mercury versus aluminum:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrdYueB9pY4

In an earlier life, I shipped items requiring this particular hazmat label on packaging:
https://www.safetyemporium.com/12332
The whole ...at work series by Apress is excellent. VCs, Coders , etc.
In my experience even in those "sketching" areas static types and strict checking is the better trade-off.

I think the real criteria for "will static types and stricter checks help?" is "how long will this thing last for?".

E.g. for a shell REPL you definitely don't want to have to write our types, but for a shell script you definitely do.

Something like using MATLAB for exploratory research is probably another decent example. Or maybe hackathon games.

But for most games, data analysis, machine learning etc. then being stricter pays for itself almost immediately.
My comment was on topic and directly addressed the argument without any personal attacks. What is the issue here?
One issue is that the memory model isn't just a flat space that can be addresses by any pointer value - it may look similar to one if your compiler and OS let you, but doing things like accessing memory allocated as a different type or outside (an array of) objects is invalid, and the compiler is perfectly allowed by the standard to assume that never happens and happily "optimize" everything that may be a result of that away.

A lot of bugs have been caused by programmers assuming any access to the 'linear address space' is fine, but that has never been reliable as it's not allowed by the standard. The worse thing is when it looks like it works for a while, but you're relying on stuff not allowed by the standard so may change at any time (like a compiler version or option change, or even a change to a different part of the code that happens to tickle the compiler's analysis stages a slightly different way). See the "Time traveling NULL-check removal" - as the compiler "knows" that no pointer can ever have the value of NULL during deference, any path that does that can be completely removed - even if there's something like a NULL check and a logging output before said deference, if compiler decides that deference will eventually happen in that path unconditionally, that path and logging before the deference Can Never Happen so can be removed.

Or type punning and pointer aliasing - objects are created with a type, and so the compiler Knows if you convert a pointer type to another type that isn't compatible with the first type, they somehow magically point to different memory, and all the assumptions that implies for the following code.

A lot of these restrictions are pretty similar to things like Java have - the difference is that the JVM checks and flags violations and/or straight up disallows them when compiling - not just allowing the compiler to (silently) optimize based on those assumptions, and throwing the result at hardware to see what happens.

There may be a few platform/compiler-specific behavior used to implement super low-level stuff like OSs, but that's platform-specific stuff outside the C++ (or C) spec itself.
"Heavily involved" means what?

I would like to know details on the design and why specifically it's bad. Saying "it's poorly designed because Cameron says so" is not good enough. There is more detail in the YouTube videos from actual marine engineers on why specifically a carbon fiber hull is bad, why acoustic testing is insufficient, etc. They're not known and not relatable to the public yet more informative. That's my point.
Well, the CIA wouldn't attack its allies. That leaves only a handful of targets in the world, chiefly, China and Russia - both of which have issues of language, media accessibility, and open internet.
I'm actually waiting for the bonnet to be reduced to the minimum length for the crumple zone. It would make driving and parking much easier.
I don't know what you guys expect from a Microsoft company.... Seems obvious.
What happened to Salt? I felt like it was everywhere in 2015, but I almost never hear of it anymore. Even their official documentation site has an ad promoting "SaltConf 2021", a conference from nearly two years ago.
There are also applications where the desired output is heat, not electricity. In that case, iron fuel would be useful.
Oh, yes. In terms of societal impact its far worse to pay people with valuable talents to not be productive than it would have been for the defense contractor to just pocket the money and pay it out as bonuses and dividends. But the system has its own logic and inertia.
It depends what you mean exactly. The C and C++ official memory model is very much not a flat space, but exactly what you describe for Java - you can only (validly) access objects. For example, the operation x < y is only defined if x and y are both pointers into the same object or array of objects (or one past the end of an array of objects). Otherwise, the operation is entirely undefined in both the C and the C++ memory models. The following program has no defined C or C++ semantics, and neither the C nor the C++ standards can tell you anything about what it could do:

int x = 0;
int y = 0;

if(&x < &y) {
printf("???");
}

Now of course the implementation of C and C++ actually assumes without checking that you only access objects and not raw memory, and thus will happily read raw memory directly.
Yes? That doesn't affect my point about it being a kind of bloat.
These are not anecdotes, that's a fact and clinical trial doesn't attempt to hide that: you are stuck on those injections for the rest of your days or half the weight returns in about 3 months and nearly all of it, in a year.
Titan sub CEO dismissed safety warnings as 'baseless cries', emails show
Well, see for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_pyramid_(nutrition)#Criti...

The Wikipedia copy derides and downplays some of the criticisms, but at least they admit that criticism exists.
The general case is hard, because ideally you want some level of vacancy, to keep availability high. It's probably better for the city to have overbuilt than under, and attempts to discourage vacancy are likely to discourage new construction. One approach I could see would be a carrot-stick approach, where the city subsidizes new construction by way of offering low-interest loans, but with the caveat that the loan can get called in if vacancy numbers rise by some amount for some amount of time, or perhaps a stipulation that requires the building be converted into residential if there's not enough commercial business (on threat of the loan being called in).

Ultimately, regulation would require a clear distinction between 4 cases: Vacant because supply > demand (alright), Vacant because market price < projected value of not filling the space immediately (bad), Occupied on paper only, such as a company owned by the building owners with more floors of the building than employees (bad), and Occupied (good).
I think you might be misunderstanding. The complaint is that the media isn’t covering this like they should, and my realization is that it is precisely this lack of coverage which our policy reflects.

Like if the media coverage was empathetic to the lives lost in this tragedy, and if it had been so in the past, the public opinion towards refugees and the policy made by our leaders would perhaps be different, and this whole disaster would have been avoided. But that’s not the world we live in. European border and refugee policy reflects the media’s attitude of billionaires dying in a submarine disaster is worth the coverage, but not potentially the top 50 worst maritime disaster in history.
One common component where things are really secretive is with flash storage. This is because the underlying physical components are pretty commodified, and the software/firmware (like block virtual addressing) is where brands actually distinguish themselves. It's kind of unfortunate since there's a lot of really cool stuff you could do with more control over the hardware like reducing the size of a failing disk to extend its life instead of complex wear-leveling techniques.
My experience so far is that even subs that have reopened are nearly ghost towns, with major reductions in user activity. It's like people just aren't feeling it anymore.
>Mostly Microsoft fault,

It's the lack of capability based security, and a common tragic misunderstanding of what it is, that is the root cause of this dumpster fire. This effects all operating systems in common use, including all versions of Linux, Mac OS, Windows, etc.

Imagine if your only choice to buy an ice cream cone was to give the other person full access to your checking account, forever. That's what phones do, and as a result, we've learned to call that a "capability"

Imagine taking out a $5 and handing it over to pay for that ice cream... the most you can lose, ever, is $5. That is what capability based security does. You interactively chose what side effects you'll allow (by picking bills out of your wallet), at the time of purchase.

For desktop apps, like an office suite, all you have to do to port code over is change the calls to file selection dialogs (which return a list of file names) to "powerbox" calls (which return handles), then use those handles instead of directly opening the files. The user doesn't see any difference in behavior, but they are now firmly in control of things, instead of your program.
“Rule 4: When you want a raw pointer as a field, use an index or an ID instead.”

literally just woke up but: wouldn’t it be simpler to use a pointer to a pointer, or am I missing something
Although I complained about the lack of feedback in another thread here[1], I was pretty surprised by the number of people who hated take-homes and refused to do them at all.

Why is that? Personally, even though I spent two days working on it and ultimately failing it, it was one of my favorite interview processes ever... way more efficient use of time for both parties, IMHO, and a better way to measure the actual skill set. And it was fast! I did the assignment in a couple days and then heard back from them in another day. That's way better than the other interview gauntlets I've had to run, which usually included 3-4 rounds of talking to a bunch of people, with weeks or sometimes months in between, and most of those folks are people I will never see again after the interview cycle.

And there's also not the absurd pressure and ambiguities of real-time whiteboarding or live coding, which is not at all representative of how people normally work (with access to the internet, their preferred workstation and IDE, etc.). Having gone through one of those sessions, THAT feels way more like a "dance, monkey, dance" bullet dodged vs the casual take-home.

By contrast, a take-home gives me a "just pretend it's a normal work day and show us how you work" situation and I can focus on the problem at hand instead of the politics of hiring. Isn't that a good thing...? What am I missing?

[1]: My complaint was about the lack of feedback after a take-home, not the take-home itself (which was actually illuminating and fun): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36446949
Do you have a reference to that? Not doubting just interested to read what he wrote about it.

Edit: Here it is (removed link) (ironically another link to his site, sorry about that.)

Found it easily through googling Tom MacWright and Hacker News.
Aside: Dear HN reader, if you are somewhat curious about 'getting into' Shakespeare, I thoroughly recommend it.

During the pandemic, I managed to get into him. It took me ~2 years of reading him, getting used to meter, the phrasing, the ideas, the structure. Yes, ~2 years of ~30 minutes/day on weekdays. About 250 hours total, give or take.

Dear Reader, it is totally worth it.

The depths of English that you reach are just amazing. The feelings and thoughts, so well said. The simple and yet universal themes, the characters, the actors that do him such justice and some that do such injustice, the theater of it all. It is a truly enriching experience for your life. It's tough, no doubt, but my oh my, dear Reader, it is worth it.
This is partly an OS design issue. There's no deep reason the OS should ever throw away keypresses, but contemporary GUIs have a very weak and flaky notion of focus. Contrast this with mainframe apps where users could learn to go incredibly fast, because keystrokes were buffered per connection and the mainframe would process them serially, so even if you typed faster than the machine could process them it wouldn't matter, no keys were lost.
>It's just the latest hipster language trend. When OO was new, structural C was evil. When functional programming happened, everything before that was evil...

Right.

By any measure OOD/OOP has been enormously successful in the real world and hence it is annoying to see blanket statements like "OOD/OOP/Inheritance/etc. is bad" on HN (i expected better). It is one thing to discuss cautions/caveats/different approaches but to dismiss the whole thing is quite silly. Hence my attempt at edification of the readers :-)
Their direction is clear:

* closed

* pay per usage api to make money and have ability to shut down users

* hide their research results

* quickly build up data

* quickly advance with Microsoft in bed

* lobby law makers to regulate it

* ...so entry barrier is higher for competition

* ...so they secure as much pie for themselves as possible

* exploit any other means to increase their dominant position and keep throwing rocks at others if possible

They're open-for-business, not open-source.

The best we can do is ignore them and support alternatives.
While there are many, many reasons to worry about a flood of fake & false autogenerated AI content, in media & forums not yet armored against the new reality, I am also hopeful that various kinds of LLM writing-prostheses can help in places that do adapt.

This seems like a good example, automating what a speedy & diligent stickler-for-what's-supportable could discover, & recommend, about drafts from users (or other AI-writers).

Other opportunities might include drafting for clarity, & against common misreadings. Might services like Twitter improve if a user-loyal & advisory-not-censoring writing coach was there to warn when your wording might be misunderstood? When your reply might've assumed-the-worst about the root message whose actual or likely intent was more agreeable to you?

Sympathetic reading & sympathetic reading can be hard for those under various online stresses, or having just been fed a heavily-spun/decontextualized narrative, or just learning a new space's realities. It's possible specialized AIs could help improve online conversations, if deployed and tuned by those seeking understanding rather than division.