skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Just speculating, but the server is probably throwing 429 (Too Many Requests) errors, and yes, the client should respect and back off when it encounters that. According to the post, it seems not to. Strange!
> Some horrific monstrosity of step functions, lambdas, and glue. All because they've been told that serverless is the correct way to build "scalable" software.

If it’s a horrific monstrosity it’s either because you don’t understand it or it was poorly done.

Seen several .NET step function implementations which were clean and easy to understand. And we’re cheaper than what they replaced. And new devs could easily pick it up and understand it.
Wait, what? A tsunami 500m high is not something you’d miss.
The user I replied to is clearly arguing that SATs do not provide any correlation with IQ. They called the proposition “bullshit.”

As for your question, g is very difficult to improve through training. Almost impossible in adulthood. The only studies I am aware of which indicate an ability to improve IQ score over time are those which allow participants to repeatedly take similar IQ tests. This enables the respondents to practise the type of question and answer faster and more accurately. Obviously this would produce an inaccurate result, over-estimating the intelligence of the individual.

To draw parallels with the SAT, I see evidence that repeated attempts reveal gaps in one’s knowledge and skill, and these are prerequisites for the test. This permits the individual to study those areas and practise the kinds of skills required to improve their score. Given this, we should acknowledge that the SAT is not a perfect analogue for IQ tests, but in aggregate, they do yield striking correlation. To tie this to my premise above, it is highly likely that the average Harvard student has an above-average IQ.
Non-profit in a capitalist society? Seriously? This ain't Star Trek.
Was thinking about this too. Or mining Bitcoin and using that wate heat etc.
There's heat pump boilers apparently with some additional loops for external heating (meant for solar water heaters) that could be used for this.
No it isn’t. This is what you replied to:

> The Pentagon should have recognized that the Eastern expansion of NATO

This is your mock-quote:

> "The so-called victim must have realized that going out dressed like that

Clearly you are mocking this statement on what the Pentagon “should have realized”.

Then I come along and point out that the mock-quote doesn’t apply since The Pentagon is not the victim in this war.

It’s not my fault that you want to find my spooky ulterior motives.
It feels to me as though LLMs should (eventually?) really shine at these kinds of tasks where the intent is already defined in code of some sort and the challenge of the task is lots of detailed legwork that humans find hard, more because it's time consuming and not interesting so hard to focus on, rather than because it's technically challenging.

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.

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.

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.
Version control. It can be as simple as “Updated version here”. In fact they already have that feature
Freedom to be exploited or be homeless…
We'll I'll be damned, Dutch Twitter lied to me
And?

These are the hardcore programmers of Twitter 2.0, aren't they?
I have never met somebody paid 50% above market price here in Paris, France. The only way to get 6 figure salaries seem to be going the management route, and to go beyond that implies reaching C-level at a reasonably sized group. Other than that there is only freelancing.

Usually from the discussions I gather, is that anything above 60k is a pain point from the recruiter perspective, even if it means having 2-3x the xp (say, 10y vs 3y) and somebody productive within the first month versus 6+ months of training.
Some of you might not have time to read 10,000+ words. I’ve tried my best to summarise the essay here: https://twitter.com/sagarpatil/status/1675438574140006401?s=...

If you have time, I recommend you reading the whole essay.
Thats not most of what Ukraine has been getting though, the majority of what they have been getting is decades old like.

- Leopard 1's.

- M113 APC's

- Mig 29's

- Sukhoi 24's

- Mi-28's

- Mi-8s

The HARM's that you speak off, we don't know what variant they are but they won't be super effective because they cannot be effectively integrated with the aircraft Ukraine has so they are probably older variants using pre programmed fixed coordinate attack modes.

That should hopefully change once the F-16's arrive and they can start more effectively using more modern air borne weapons especially for SEAD.

The air defences are probably some of the most modern pierces of equipment that Ukraine has.

HIMARS are a good example of modern equipment with relatively modern munitions but they still haven't gotten any PrSM's or ATACMS.
They abstained, probably because of a combination of being leaned on by both sides and, broadly speaking, a desire not to endorse secessionism.

As I mentioned. You did read what I wrote, right?

It mirrors this map:

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:State_positions_Ir...

Where, again, the distribution of opinions is more easily explained by "we don't generally want to endorse invasions as a concept, because we're afraid of them" and "we got leaned on".

Although the UN vote was presented as an unequivocal condemnation of Ukraine invasion, the condemnation of the invasion actually came from countries representing just over 40% of the world's population.

The % of the world population that sanctioned Russia (i.e. that made a gesture that involved sacrifice) was smaller still.
Has anyone else noticed these kind of posts appear quickly for certain vested-interest areas, get voted to the top but don't have much if any backup to them?

Let's break this down.

> rather than cost-benefit must be some sort of cognitive bias because it makes no sense

Agreed

> ...once assessing the upside nuclear is still going to be a contender for the best possible form of energy.

No justification given in the form of a cost/benefit analysis (which the poster just invoked the need for), just a flat statement that it is the "best possible". Note the use of weasel word 'best'.

> having electricity justifies taking some rational risks and is working to undo the damage caused by post-Fukushima overreaction ... there was an insistence on choosing technology ideologically rather than using practical concerns

"Rational" in "rational risks", and "overreaction", also "ideologically" versus "practical concerns" More weasel words, pure emotive invocations.

I could go on, but let's finish with

> that they are cheaper but also less effective at maintaining a comfortable society

Absolutely no justification for this, and completely ignoring the fact that climate change is now kicking in badly.

How the hell did this get voted to the top, because I'm starting to have my suspicions. If it's not shilling then it certainly against HN rules "..don't post shallow dismissals ... A good critical comment teaches us something", this being precisely a shallow dismissal and nothing I can learn from except some people are wilfully blind to what they don't want to see.

Something, somewhere is blatantly going wrong with commenting.
Ppl make money (an insignificant bit) by charging their car. Like €15, while the car cost is easily €3-40k
This sounds pretty much like boilerplate exploitation
This is a real problem considering that some programmers are just sloppy with code-quoting paths and such. And it’s even debatable whether (sort of stylistically) you should even code-quote paths.
Isn’t Derek Sivers CD Baby?
>I think the solution is entirely separating "identity" from every single other concern such as security (private keys), hosting (home servers), and public identity ("display name").

I'm not sure you can separate it from security (private keys). If there's nothing stopping others from using the same identity then it's not _your_ identity.
I think it’s just a bit of latency maybe and lots of video compression artifacts.
> It’s a shame smart meters have such a bad rep in Europe due to the privacy issues.

They've got a bad rep because they're some proprietary computer with a cellular modem transferring who-knows-what back and forth to the mothership.

My power company (in .nl) wanted to install one, and I rejected it on that basis.

It would be trivial to implement what they're supposedly doing without relying on user-hostile technology and autonomous phone-home.

But what you're mentioning doesn't require smart meters at all, you could just e.g. poll prices online, and at the bottom of the curve turn on the power socket to your dishwasher with ZigBee. You'd just need a dishwasher that would start as soon as it got power.

Smart meters are there to phone home about your consumption in real time. They're mainly there to benefit the power company, any ability to inform your own consumption is incidental.
The difference is that great work is achieved by 1 in one million people. Good work can be achieved by one in 1000 people, or one in 100 depending on your definition. You can adjust your definition of good work to your circumstances. The difference is that even if you are much smarter than average you have miniscule chance to achieve the kind of great work pg tells you about. You can have a high chance to achieve good work, if your definition of good work is realistic.

Yeah, I have some contrarian tendencies, always had, but I am not contrarian in every topic and hopefully not contrarian just for the sake of it.
I don't think this is related to your ADHD.

When your read a program it puts cognitive load on your brain. How much is a bit depended on your education and experience on the subject, but what you have to do is to transfer what you are reading to your mental model what the program is actually doing. Your capacity of things you can process in your brain is limited so you can fairly assume that the more load is put on your brain the more of that capacity is used, and the nearer your are to your maximum capacity the more difficult and exhausting is the task to understand the program.

When you need to decode a "{" or a "@" in the program to a actual processing step. you can assume that

if (a) {
b;
}
else {
c;
}

is more difficult to decode compared to

IF a
THEN b
ELSE c
ENDIF.

simply the latter one is nearer to your natural language (I actually think to replace "ELSE" with "OTHERWISE" would be even better) and the "ELSE" implies both the opening and the closing braces.

You can argue if

a ? b : c;

is more readable, I would argue it is not.

It's not like special characters are always bad. For example

a->b

works quite well when a is pointer and the arrow "->" symbolizes graphically where a is actually pointing at. But nowadays we languages which use "->" and "=>" for different things and for their similarity they interfere which each other when doing the decoding and adding to the cognitive load.

When designing a language you have to trade of brevity or number of characters to type and readability. Most, if not all languages, nowadays opt for brevity because it appeals to the developers to type less and makes it more easy have more complex functionality in one statement. The price you pay is readability and finally maintainability of the program.

I think the first programming language which failed by its overuse of badly readable syntax was Perl, which was replaced by the much more easy to read Python.

I personally believe the psychology of programming is an under-researched subject

Disclosure: Alongside to CS I studied cognitive psychology when I attended university.
Very unlikely to be helpful. Oxygen saturation is maintained very well within the body and is under normal circumstances outside of disease and high altitude not a product of the environment.
Gonna have to hard disagree here. Rust developers straight up opted for obscure, weird, idiosyncratic, non-self-explanitory syntax.

'?' doesn't mean anything like what it means in every other programming language, and it's everywhere. It is so frequently used that you get used to it pretty quick, but it is very not obvious to a beginner.

Obscure #[blah(blah)] attributes attached to nearly every line of code in some places. Do those have meaning? Are they just hints to the compiler? You'd better hit the docs to find out.

Do I need a &mut Option<Thing>, or an Option<&mut Thing>? And how do I get that out, as a `opt.as_ref().mut()`, `opt.as_ref_mut()`, or &mut *opt`? Are these valid? What's the difference? Idk, it's inscrutable.

Rust syntax really, really sucks my friend.
Hi KomoD,

There are several reasons why Auto/dynamic lock do not work. Each have it's own issues. for example, Auto lock doesn't work if you have YouTube running or if you have a website playing a video ad silently. Dynamic lock also fails and interrupts your work if your phone disconnects from Bluetooth. Which is annoying and users end up disabling it (I did). In addition, you need a compatible device. And not all devices are.

Unfortunately, not everything can be open-sourced. some of the open source component we used (And modified) are open source to comply with the licenses (check https://github.com/leiratech).
We also worked with DigiCert and they vetted us extensively (including me personally) and issued us a code signing certificate. If you download the app and right click, then properties, you can validate that the installer is signed by a valid Extended-Validation Certificate from DigiCert.

I'm not saying that you should trust some random website posting a download, but these should give us some credibility.

As far for the link, it's a shortened version. We use this to update the installer download link for new versions. This way, it gets updated everywhere we posted it when we release a new version. So if you click on this on Twitter 6 months from now, you will get the latest version. The full unshortened version is https://lockfyae.blob.core.windows.net/lockfy-consumer/Lockf...
It is 81MB because we included dotnet 7 runtime with it, otherwise the setup process would be complicated.

And, here is my linked-in profile https://www.linkedin.com/in/adelzu/,

I hope this eases up some of your concerns.
Technically correct, but I think it can be assumed from the question that it's referring specifically to a conical frustum. Of course, the answer is then that the shape of such an object would be, well, a conical frustum, which renders the question tautological.

I believe that the intent of the question is something like “What are the dimensions of a conical frustum having 1/2 the volume of a cylinder, with the same base and height?”, or, put another way, what would the ratio of the diameter of the top of such a frustum be to its base? The answer being somewhere between 0 (as it would be for a cone) and 1 (for the cylinder). I'm sure there's a formula to calculate this value for a given volume, but I don't really care to figure it out at the moment. Although, it might be interesting to see if such a formula scales to values for the relative volume above 1, creating an “inverted” conical frustum…
Lifetime offer on a website that was registered on the 31st May, just about a month ago? Full of AI buzzwords without explanation? I'm sure the business will definitely exist two years from now, and will honor this offer! What a deal, where do I sign up?
There's a typo in the article: it should be "all our bug are belong to us" (rather than "all our bugs")
The problem is that going to Stanford is skewing your definition of what "failing at life" is and of what a "good job" is.
This is not ADHD, this is Dyslexia
The way I remember it (if we’re thinking of the same image), what it measured was the amount of blog posts about its own tech stack. The more complex the setup, the more the blog becomes about explaining how it’s built.
Limiting the scope to software, I'd say it's fair to distinguish MIT licenses from GPL. The latter provides way more freedom for the user (as opposed to corporations willing to profit without giving back). I am fair more comfortable contributing to an AGPLv3 software as opposed to a MIT licensed one.

I can't talk about licensing for content creators (like youtube), because I do not have much experience about it.
Yeah. His comment is very hard to parse for insight.

One thing that happens the more experienced you get is that more and more of your work seems "not complex"/"too trivial". But then you realize how many people struggle at those trivial things in similar position and realize it's a trait:
- implement simple solutions that provide value.
- empower others to understand and use your solutions and implement their own.
- tackle on more issues that provide the most value (and not necessarily the most complex).
- repeat and expand. Do more with less. Make it less or a battle.
- help and foster collaboration of heterogeneous actors.
- proactively fix projects before they go the wrong way.
- etc

It's not about being particular smart or better but finding methodologies that work and being very conscious and intentional about your work.
You mean ¾?
Why is “nation state” weird? AFAIK a nation and a state are two different things?
> Countries don’t need protecting. Countries should aim to protect themselves. The EU doesn’t need the US for its protection and should have invested in a proper army decades ago.

It's simply not possible from some countries to protect themselves for other larger aggressive countries (such as Russia) that can both out spend them and have many more bodies to throw at the problem.

A collective defensive alliance in this cases makes sense as both a deterrence to any possible belligerents and as a practical measure if someone does try something.
Unfortunately, that fails more than you think. A youtube video running, a video ad playing silently, a video driver issue, a reboot pending notification from the OS. all of these and way more could prevent your OS settings from kicking in. This also applies to enterprises using Active directory policies too.
You're right, but I don't see how we could not have those things with the copyright laws as they stand and people being what they are. Maybe it could be a little bit better, but not substantially better.
My reading is that systemd was just used as an example of the benefit of this change. It could be any software which loads separate parts of glibc and so could run into problems during libc upgrade. Now with this idea of one shared object from musl, the entire system becomes more resilient. systemd is a benefactor but not the only one nor the reason for the change.
Do you mean C++ forward declarations? If so, it’s basically an entry in the linker table. A placeholder of sorts. You can’t reference something without it being known, so you have to make it known first.

Where C++ gets weird is that you can’t instance something without it being fully known (the full definition needs to be visible). This is rooted in the .cpp / .h header split, which as far as I know is pretty unique to C.
https://atproto.com/blog/federation-developer-sandbox

>Given that this is a testing environment, we will be defederating from any instances that do not abide by these guidelines

>As part of the sandbox, we will be doing routine wipes of all network data.

It seems like it's centralised on a single "Big Graph Service", even if you run your own server.
No one is talking about mental illness here. ADHD and dyslexia are not mental illnesses.
Some of the most skilled tech people I know have had some of the most low-tech tech solutions in their non-professional lives (and sometimes similar on the professional side too), imo because they had the experience to spot ideas that were perfect for a simple use case despite seeming like a silly idea.

If gfycat provided them with an ideal - for what they and their users wanted - and free (I assume) way to host their clips that the community liked then apart from the eggs in one basket issue can you really say they made a bad decision? If (and sure it's a big 'if') they made sure everything was backed up and ready to easily move should something like this happen, then it could well have been an idea decision that worked well for years?
It's hard to compete with something free, with many users.

If those information providers weren't on Twitter (well, a year back, nowadays may be sifferent) they'd be ridiculed.

Of course using Twitter as only/primary channel is and always was questionable, but alternative systems are more expensive.
> Economically, they're an adversary; they undercut western manufacturing and all our manufacturing went there.

Wow, you make it sound like it was some devious Chinese plan where they intentionally made their people work for American manufacturers and lured them in with bribes.

The reality was that American corporations willingly went over to China because number must go up and paying their own people living factory wages wasn’t cutting it.

So tired of this stance - “China did it to us!”

America did it to itself.
Could be interesting to port Hubris to x86_64 and use it on bare metal commodity hardware -- specifically to run Rust server code, with perhaps a perf advantage over larger OSes?

Though the biggest advantage to Rust-on-bare-metal would have been running all the code in kernel space, which it seems Tasks don't allow for (in order to provide robustness at the OS level).
(x^3)/3 is so much faster for me to read and far harder to read incorrectly. Yes there's the memory trick for order of operations, but division symbols are so easy to get confused around that the extra clarity of the parenthesis should be standard for all non-trivial (one item per side) cases.
You should, the Russian language will outlast any Russian Government
No, the point was that you don't have to be stuck in a bad position as an H1B abusee and can make enough $ outside USA if you are really good.
Being skeptical of the sudden rise of "everything is ADHD" when the end game is access to stimulants following years of relaxed regulation on prescribing those drugs is perfectly reasonable.

It's amazing how every symptom became ADHD when unscrupulous VC-backed startups took the pandemic as an opportunity to start marketing and prescribing ADHD medication online.
> Seems more like a thinly disguised attempt to force people to purchase subscriptions. Blue checkmarks and all.

6k tweets a day even with the blue mark of shame makes something like tweetdeck functionally useless.

Obviously Elon and I have different uses for "The Worlds Town Square"
World already has one C++ too many
. Thanks op
A greater partial pressure of oxygen != lesser partial pressure of CO2.
I never had to get used to Lisp, Python, Nim, Julia or SmallTalk syntax. It was easy and natural from day one. Getting used to C-style syntax (C, C++, Java, JavaScript, Rust, etc.) took some effort, and I have to work to get used to it again every time I pick up a C-style syntax language again after working for some time in a different language. I can’t put my finger on exactly what it is, but there is something about that particular syntax that my brain just refuses to internalise.