skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
One of the other comments about continuation passing style seems likely.

Basically, all you do is define a function (fun (arg1, arg...) -> result) and invoke it (the exact same way you define a callback with .map(() => result) in Javascript for example).

You can store the local state of the function you're currently in, into the callback and state can be passed around that way. (Say you are in a JS function where you defined a number or other variable above: you can use that number in any continuation/closure/function and pass it around, to .map() for example or another function.)

I've also heard of recursion as being a way to pass state around in a functional language. If you have a recursive function that takes a num parameter and calls itself with (num + 1), the number can be viewed as mutable state written in a not-so-mutable way.
> So swapping languages, yeah maybe, but I expect of more practical use would be the situation where you inherit a legacy codebase in an ancient version of a language or framework that hasn't been loved in a long time. I saw this so many times when doing dev team for hire work.

I'm exploring this problem space - this is a wide spread pain point across almost all companies that are older than 3 years old. I've seen this at tech startups as well as very large companies and anything in between. Dropbox is arguably a top tier engineering organization that probably manages tech debt as responsibly as can be expected and they still had to make major investments to move their codebase forward from various eras of web tech
1) https://dropbox.tech/frontend/the-great-coffeescript-to-type...
2) https://dropbox.tech/frontend/edison-webserver-a-faster-more...
Everyone else is much worse off so the investment required to move forward is usually immense. This leads to full rewrites. Which is nice but error prone and sometimes entails huge opportunity costs

> Obviously you'd want to do boat loads of testing and there may well be manual work left to do afterwards, but I think it would be the kind of manual work that felt like you were polishing something new and clean and beautiful rather than trying to apply bits of sticky tape to something unmaintainable.

Agreed. In my opinion, now's a great time to get started with a semi automated approach like this while betting that the program synthesis and code generation capabilities will rapidly improve over the next few years. Larger context windows, solutions for hallucinations / reliability and better training data will help reduce the manual labor required.

> I also wonder about eventually being able to say to an LLM "take this codebase and make it look like my code", or maybe one of your favourite open source developer's code. Maybe everyone could end up with their own code style vector attached to their github profile describing their style. You could find devs with styles close to yours to work on your team, or maybe find devs with styles different to yours so you could go and argue about tabs vs spaces or something.

I've been thinking that personal style / training / fine tuning could become somewhat of an asset. "You are a principal software engineer at Google with particular expertise migrating codebases from {sourcelang} to {targetlang}." works fine but imagining a much richer portable input would possibly be quite valuable.
Is Twitter a small new platform ramping up in scale?

Context matters.
It's also because the employer has invested a fair bit of time/money into you and would like to see you take more responsibility after doing so. This is most obvious with juniors, where besides the salary cost, there are hidden costs of training. The expectation is that it will pay off in the future.
Last I checked, you have 18 months after publication to file the patent in the US.
I am with you on personal automobiles which take up enormous amounts of space on our streets per rider, even when every seat is filled. That doesn't mean individualized urban motor transport is a dead end: there are still E-bikes.
There is also the Bates stamp:

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

I got one of these for a Christmas gag gift when I was in Google Legal. What's amazing is, in legal docs they still sometimes refer to the Bates page number even though no one uses these.
Stumbling in the Dark: Trying new language, new platform, new IDE, new framework
Patents protect commercial interests of intellectual property. But this is fundamental physics that hasn't made it out of the lab yet, so any lack of reproducible research is an enormous red flag. In many jurisdictions it shouldn't even have been granted in the first place, but patent offices are notoriously bad throughout heavily lobbied western nations.
Being pedantic about standards and expecting people to recite them perfectly as a way to assess skill or seniority is what is wrong. Even when you are implementing a 'standard' there's room for robustness principles (liberal in what you accept, strict with what you send) that should be weighted instead of blindly following a 'standard'.
>In the correct physics engine, with the correct models of eyeballs etc., a connectome-based model may experience qualia. It would likely tell us that it experienced qualia.

Sure. It would say it touched water. It would just not actually be wet. Which is something...
llvmbox – Self contained, fully static LLVM tools and libs
It means that your solution is scored on how fast it runs.

Frequently we end up with solutions that use tricks that would not be applicable to the n=1 problem in TFA ("parse 1 timestamp") when we try to get the fastest solutions for "find the sum of all these timestamps."
Though I'm not an expert I find this hard to believe because even actual commercialized prior art seems to be no barrier to patenting something[1].

[1] https://homepages.cwi.nl/~paulk/patents/isnot/node9.html
I believe this is the idea in theory. I don't think it holds a lot of weight in reality.
Hope someone makes a Lemmy version soon!
The Spy Shadow Trojan: Unveiling the First UEFI Motherboard Bios Trojan
I give you this feedback with respect and to help you become a better internet commenter, because I believe you are capable of substantially more:

This is an incredibly rude and insulting way to give feedback. There is no reading of this that's kind or charitable, don't tell people their work is the "product of a child" and how you "can't overstate how poorly constructed [their] post is".

But, thankfully, you can learn to improve! Try to avoid insulting the author and their work. Instead, just try to offer actionable suggestions on how to improve.
What do you suggest people do when the weather isn’t quite as nice?

Where I live, it gets so brutally hot and humid in the summer that people literally collapse and die if they do anything much outdoors.
Very interesting but wow does this remind me of how little I know. I understood exactly zero of this.
You could probably make a FAR more compact MRI too, along with hundreds of other massive breakthroughs. A room-temp, ambient pressure superconductor is a world-changer on the same level as a new battery technology with thousands of times the energy density of existing tech.

It's almost impossible for one person to list all of the ways technology would change, and the world with it.
> when it's equally likely (depending on the program) that they CAUSE dangling pointers

Packing your objects into their own tight heap not only doesn't solve memory allocation issues, but makes them harder to debug. The tools for fighting these problems in C don't work as well.

In TXR Lisp, I have to have a number of strategies in place for debugging GC issues.

One is Valgrind integration. If you want to use Valgrind, but have implemented your own bump allocation within packed heaps, Valgrind won't be as helpful.

For example, what is a semantic use-after-free in your world (something accessing an object that has been garbage collected) looks fine to the C library; you're just dereferencing a pointer into a large object that you allocated just fine.

With Valgrind integration, you can use the API mark free objects inaccessible. But: that only means Valgrind will detect the wrong use of a reclaimed object (quite swiftly, thank you very much). It will not tell you who allocated that object. The diagnostic will be something like "invalid read, 15300 bytes into a 262164 object, allocated at <call stack>". That is not very useful! It gives you the call stack when that entire heap was allocated, not when that misused object within that heap was allocated.

I have some debug support which takes advantage of reproducible repro test cases where we can count on addresses of bad objects being the same. Once I know the address of the offending object, I can put it into a debug variable called break_obj. When the object is allocated or reclaimed, there is a VALGRIND_PRINTF which will dump a trace. I can also get a breakpoint in gdb (that's why it's the break_obj).

There is also an option to run the GC in a kind of torture mode where garbage collection is invoked on every allocation. Newly allocated objects that are not properly retained by the caller (made visible to gc) will be scavenged immediately, revealing those kinds of bugs by bringing the allocation and misuse contexts close together. A substantial portion of the test suite runs in this GC torture mode. Not everything, because it's quite slow.
I wish our management understand that. Even getting basic cables and adapters can be a kafkaesque battle that requires endless justification. I never thought that this is what it would be like working at a FAANG. Fwiw, I worked at different FAANG and they had a self serve kiosk with free cables and adapters. It was way more efficient.
Can you for one moment be not west centric? Ignoring tschetschenia , georgia, Ukraine, first Afghan invasion, the uighurs, the Tibetan, mount karabach, kashmir, Syrian proxy wars, Serbs vs Bosniaks, Yemen and all those funny little conflicts the lesser empires engaged in the last 30 years.
They did not always go medieval, but did so only because the US would deter the worst.

The US is not the center of the universe and lots of influence sphere pushing goes down in lots of backyards.
Sybil attacks are more general than just in cryptocurrencies. They actually apply to Tor as well, just not to _this_ part of Tor.
> Confidential computing is designed to protect applications and their data from theft or tampering by protecting them inside a secure enclave, or trusted execution environment (TEE). This uses hardware-based security mechanisms to prevent access from everything outside the enclave, including the host operating system and any other application code.

That brand of confidentiality appears to be, as it's described in the article, sandboxing for hardware.

Sounds like creating potentially multiple proprietary _black boxes_ inside one system, that could use available network tools to report to vendors any and all system functions, in some uniquely and completely opaque way.

Therefore, _confidential computing_ (black box filtering of processing input and output in different pieces of hardware?) seems as opposed to _confidential use_ (confidentiality of user's data) in a computing system as it possibly can be. Or peddling confidentiality while opening some doors to the exact opposite.

I can understand the need for vendors to be informed about what we do on system they manufacture, just not sure this is what we need as people having to use computers.
…and hope that climate change makes the weather nice enough for bikes and walking all the year round!
Why Relying on Robots.txt Disallow Directive Isn't Enough
Setting the discussion of this topic without everyone losing their minds as a goal to be achieved via the intentional use of psychedelics seems like a fun and interesting idea for all the people in this thread who perceive themselves as wanting to "change the world".

Before you can run, you must first learn how to walk.
> I'd say the US is a hegemon but not really an Empire except for a few small islands

This is the ruse. The US is a global empire. Except, as history has shown, imperialism is somewhat unpopular to local populations. The US modern imperialism playbook is designed so the population really believes they are self governing themselves. The US doesn’t care who runs the day to day domestic government, so long as they have military bases, are the primary trading partner, and effectively direct this countries foreign and economic policies unilaterally. The fact you think the American empire is limited to a few vestigial takings from the pacific theater of wwii shows how effective this modern and silent hegemony really is.
No, bugs can come up without any subtraction. If an event was recorded as happening at 23:59:60.2, you need it to be sequenced strictly after 23:59:59.9. Winding back the clock by 1 second makes it so you end up with the later event as having occurred at 23:59:59.2, violating causality. Even without sub-second precision the situation is still buggy, just not as bad - you end up with two simultaneous events when there weren't any in the original representation, which is itself quite surprising when the two look like they have the same precision.
What makes this a guaranteed fraud is that the guy is literally known in his field for faking data. This shouldn't even be a headline unless someone completely unrelated comes in and confirms it.
Let’s keep it simple and assume we has a really awesome superconductor: critical temperature of 100C (so it keeps superconducting even if it gets decently hot), a high critical field (so you can make electromagnets and such out of it), good mechanical properties so it makes nice wire, and cheap.

It would be awesome. Off the top of my head:

Big electromagnets would use it: MRI machines, magnetic plasma machines (fusion reactors), industrial magnets (for lifting), etc. A lot of the size and complexity of some MRI machines is the cooling system for the magnets — this would be unnecessary.

There are designs for superconducting transformers that could be smaller and more efficient than current transformers.

Long distance power transmission would be considerably cheaper at high power levels.

I can imagine that some interesting motor and generator designs would become possible.
Why couldn’t it drive that person to a police station for the criminal or a suitable place for the homeless person?
Certainly they detect when anybody is in the car.
> small AST nodes will be pointlessly padded to account for the size of the largest AST node.

This is a great point, and something I mentioned in my blog post on custom-bitwidth integer types: https://alic.dev/blog/custom-bitwidth

Discriminated unions can work, but you have to be clever with your memory footprint.
You're cherry picking years again. Funding in 2010 was far lower than 2008. https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/styles/report_580_h...

Market forces do apply to colleges. Their customers simply are not price-sensitive.

Universities are not businesses. Tuition is frequently less than the cost of teaching students. The cost of an education has risen independently of how that education is paid for. Removing loans from the equation wouldn't lower prices because prices are set by costs, not by profits. There is a ton of administrative bloat, but universities will always prefer to not fire employees over reducing costs for transient members of their school.

Even if it was true, it would not prove your theory that it has anything to do with student loans not being subject to bankruptcy. Universities do not issue loans. Bankruptcy leaves lenders holding the bag, not universities. You have not given any explanation for your theory of undichargable student loans causing higher prices, you've only attempted to refute my explanation as proof that your theory is the only alternative.
Lego made a Flappy Bird clone
north america is a continent, not america. america is a short term/name oten used for the united states of america: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_(disambiguation)

and ok you are right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit#Usage

its the USA, Cayman Islands, and liberia that do not use Celsius so i will rephrase: 95% of the worlds population uses Celsius not Fahrenheit.
One should always strive to become a valuable commodity - consistently solving hard problems is the best recruiter :)

of course, the issue then becomes why settle for only ~1% of the value you produce as a salary?
Why will self driving cars enable this though? It seems to me that an equally plausible outcome is that we move even further towards cities built solely around the car.
The first night these are driving around, a homeless person or a drugged up techbro will turn a car into an expensive autonomous outhouse.
Wonderful? /s
What I really like about this explanation is that it highlights the fact that entropy is not a natural property of the physics system: entropy is only defined with respect to some coarse-graining operation applied by an imperfect observer of the system. So as Sabine points out it seems we should really be talking about multiple different entropies, each of which corresponds to a different mechanism for coarse-graining microstates into macrostates, with each different entropy changing at different rates depending on the coarse-graining mechanism and physical system. (And in particular, God observing the universe would not see entropy change at all; even if there were uncertainty in the initial conditions of the universe, God would see that uncertainty perfectly propagated with no loss of information, in a way made precise by Liouville's Theorem.)

But even this is not the full story, because I can take a mass-spring network, and no matter how I choose to coarse-grain it, I will not see the entropy corresponding to that coarse-graining increase, because the trajectory of a mass-spring system is periodic. Entropy increase requires that the system is ergodic with respect to the chosen coarse-graining operation, i.e. that over long times the trajectory visits the coarse-grained states in a "random" and uniform way. It's not at all obvious to me why the dynamics of particles bouncing around in a box have this property, and particles attached in a mass-spring network do not; and neither the Sabine nor the Veritaserum videos address this or why we should expect all practical real-world physical systems to be ergotic with respect to practical coarse-graining mechanisms.
You don't actually have to switch to Wayland, you can keep using X like for the last couple decades. The python change was annoying, but it took like a decade and I'm not sure it was actually user impacting; most distros switched packages over invisibly. Same for GTK and systemd; they were annoying for tinkerers and maintainers, but would an end user actually notice?
CISOs’ Accountability for Product Security
There's a massive disconnect between what students do at universities and actual effective learning. Universities are not sources of knowledge, they're more like knowledge middlemen that sell branded knowledge for more than what it's worth at face value. It's no wonder that students stop caring once they realize this. That's really what explains the attitudes in this article. It's not lack of discipline, it's justified disillusionment.
It sounds like you've had very boring and uninteresting psychedelic trips. It's kind of laughable to even think that any benefits come from the "hallucinating" aspect of the trip, as you imply.
> Cities don't use public transport,people do.

Straw man argument. Nobody is saying they do.

> the personal transport choices made by individuals

Also fallacious; people's choices are constrained by the options available to them. If you live somewhere with excellent public transport, as I have most of my life in the 3 major cities I've inhabited and indeed most of those I've visited for work or pleasure, you have more choice. You can choose to drive, or to ride a bike, or to ride pubtrans.

If there is no pubtrans, or little and inconvenient, then you are being deprived of choice, deprived of diversity of options: the result is a car monoculture.

You are attempting to argue the inverse of the position you claim. I don't know why.
Polish uses "w" instead of "v" and it's pronounced as "v" yet we are taught to write it rounded in cursive (capital letters are still edgy).
I wouldn't say mods are unelected. Readers basically vote by visiting the subreddit they mod. If a bunch of mods become too much of a problem, you can just "leave the country". If enough people leave, those mods will just be dictators of an empty subreddit.
This seems like more than just an alarm clock with NTP; it's got weather and stuff.

Sorry for self promotion, but If you want an alarm clock with NTP and iCal, you might take a look at my project. https://github.com/russor/ClockThing I'll try to get some pictures up soon.
Good point, valid concern.
It’s assumed you need to pay to enter the vehicle and this is tied to your credit card. Could the system be setup so you are charged until you exit the vehicle and your trip doesn’t end until you do?
Cameras or presence sensors could detect when the occupant enters or leaves the vehicle.
"Might" is doing some lifting there. If long term weather patterns settle down, then that might be true, but in the short term, there's going to be a lot of crops that are dependant on having certain weather within certain times. Maybe there'll be a major shift to only growing irrigated crops, but it's pricey to shift water around to where it's needed.

I think there's going to be more food supply issues than can be solved with simply transporting food (especially to poorer regions).
By using a GC language or something like Rust, you (in theory) avoid a few of these, but the majority of them are logic errors that are hard to discover, IME.
Is that a fact? Or just a hypothetical way that could save the second principle?
They should simply be held to the same standard as any other road user. Whoever is ultimately responsible for these cars should also be responsible for the traffic offenses. Prosecute them. Revoke their drivers license. Impound the vehicles.

Im not against driverless cars, but I am against unbalanced treatment of road users, legal persons and natural alike.
Yes, that means that :60 should parse into same value as :59. My reading of the code is that now it might end up in the `return false` branch instead, although I'm not exactly sure how the limits thing is used here
Umm, anything windows can't be open sourced because significant parts are still in use and source access would create serious security issues due to how MS handles legacy components, right?
The level of disingenuous is absurd at this point.

Do investors get paid in exchange for returning the bonds?

Yes.

The fact that the government repeats the process is irrelevant to the simple fact that the Cash printed is done so by first securing an equal amount of funds to back them which is then returned with interest to the bond holder, inherently meaning that the Cash is not printed out of nothing but rather printed explicitly to represent real world value.

The amount of wealth in circulation and the amount of cash in circulation are not equal.

Wealth is constantly changing as new commodities and services are produced which create new wealth "out of nothing". You're engaged ina complete misattribution of cause and effect

At this point it seems intentionally deceptive...

Poe's law is in effect and I will begin treating you as a troll until proven otherwise.
yes, there are lots of quantitative details. I wanted to emphasize the key qualitative concept, from which the others can derive. In a similar way you can derive all of special relativity, and approach an intuition about the strangeness of spacetime, starting with only two ideas: the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames; the speed of light is constant. I prefer to start there and derive e.g. Lorentz factors than start with the mathy stuff.