skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> should be met with harsh penalties

> war on drugs has been so expensive

> we need to try something radically different

You want something different and then advocate for the same?
I tried to get chatgpt to draw and describe simple ascii charts and it failed. I also tried to see if it could understand coordinate data, like svg files and it couldn't. I was able to give it and example of coordinates for a simple shape (a triangle) and it deduced the shape. Obviously it doesn't have or pretend to have spatial reasoning abilities, it's interesting to see what it can do anyway and how it breaks down.
No, we're talking about a completely different usage of the term here. Objectivism in this context has nothing to do with Rand's Objectivism. It's just the term being overloaded with multiple meanings in different contexts.
Interesting. So I’d imagine it’s less predetermined but people still end up taking a certain side and from there all the same toxicity appears
" many of its top proponents have come out and publicly said."
You don't have to uncritically accept that, it's far more likely that they're just self aggrandizing in a "wow I'm so smart my inventions can destroy the world, better give me more money and write articles about me to make sure that doesn't happen".
Perl 5.38 Released with New Experimental Syntax for Defining Classes
> modern, readable, fast, type-safe, cross-platform programming language

Let's assume this is all true (although I wouldn't say it's particularly modern, and I don't know about some of the rest). And let's forget that some of these adjectives are relative or subjective.

Even under that assumption - there are other programming languages which meet these criteria. Why would we prefer Object Pascal over them? Especially when it has existed for many years and not gotten a lot of traction?
Even if I grant you this, an article about how Sam Altman ingratiated himself into YC would be more much interesting than blathering about "work hard" and "be bold."
Went to comment this. A mid-range or high end product from a gen or two ago is often the same price as this year's budget option, and way, way better in every sense.
Does that mean that 5+ years go by before code starts running in production? How do you cope with the existing system evolving as the rewrite is taking place?
Does that count as a plug-in hybrid vehicle?
Teacher and kids not being focused. I learnt using Pascal and it was perfect.
I've been researching this recently because every time I need to use my FLIR One, it's annoying because I need to find it, charge it, plug it in, and use FLIR's awful software. In the last few years, a Chinese company started selling sensors that seem to be far superior to anything you can get for reasonable prices from FLIR (256x192, and 25Hz since they're not subject to American export controls). I've been looking into buying a Android phone with one of their sensors built in as a replacement, because it seems to have a lot of advantages:

- not needing to futz with a dongle, way better displays than the standalone camera options

- never needing to charge it if you leave it on a wireless charging pad

- lots of internal storage that can automatically sync captured videos/pictures to the cloud

There's tons of options that look great in the $300-$500 range, which is a problem because it makes choosing difficult. This review has me leaning towards getting either a Doogee S98 Pro ($270), or a V20 Pro ($330, newer and has better specifications across the board except for not having wireless charging, so I'd need to get a wireless charging adapter for it): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4002_MqVNfY
because we aren't talking about candy here. we are talking about purchases that are hundreds or thousands of dollars. and people are normalizing making these purchases yearly. sure if you're dumb and rich go ahead buy what you want. but the culture pushes this mindset on people who cant afford it as well.

unless you have the money to blow, then having critical thinking is an important skill. to ask yourself "is this a waste of money?", "should I really be buying one of these every year?"
All these factors are reflected in the price and yet ordinary silicon PV panels are still dominating the market.
It's hit and miss. Sometimes I get almost no improvement and sometimes I get 10x. But the slow warmup and up to 3x memory use (in my experience) really make me prefer CPython unless I have a very specific problem.
Middle class? He went to a private high school and Stanford. He's not one of us.
I've seen this misconception a lot, but HTMX and Alpine do two different things.

Alpine enables client-side reactivity and does not require a round-trip to the server. Say, clicking a button and incrementing a counter on the page.

HTMX enables something more akin to server-side reactivity. You could use it to modify, say, a single element in a list of elements. The crucial difference is that HTMX makes a call to a server. This means you would use it when you need to read/write data to/from the server.

Alpine provides client-side reactivity. HTMX provides server-side reactivity.
German here living on the US. This matches my observation. I believe this is because of enforcement. It seems extremely rare to be fined for using the phone while driving in the US (LA at least), while it's common in Germany.
Where do they claim to be scientist?
I'm terrible at reading code.

I've analyzed myself in process and it's because I get bored and start glossing over details.

In some cases, I feel this makes me a weaker engineer than my detail-oriented counterparts.

In other cases, I connect concepts and problem solve better than they do because I am quite smart.

The division of labor, I guess.
"Billionaires" are the few people who can afford tackling large projects, such as developing reusable space rockets (see SpaceX), or putting public libraries across he country (see Carnegie), or founding a really weighty scientific award (see Nobel).

Monopolies (especially via regulatory capture) are bad. Rich folks who actually made the money (not inherited it in fifth generation) are usually pretty okay.
Back in the days of Turbo Pascal 5.5 I had a secondary monitor, a monochrome orange phosphor, connected to an EGA card, I think. The main screen was VGA. Two monitors provided a huge productivity gain, with common and cheap hardware, and it was super cool. Turbo Pascal was the only software I used that could display on the second monitor. Sometimes I miss seeing everything in orange.
What non-transparent GIL specific behavior are developers relying on exactly?

When I say GIL specific behavior, I mean "python code that specifically requires a GLOBAL interpreter lock to function properly"

Not something that simply requires atomic access or any of the garuntees that the GIL has this far provided, but like, specifically code that requires GIL like behavior above any CPython implementation details that could be implemented with more fine grained concurrency assurances?

I've seen some really cursed python in my days, like checking against `locals()` to see if a variable was defined ala JavaScript's 'foo in window' syntax (but I suppose more portable), but I can't recall anything specifically caring about a global interpreter lock (instead of what the GIL has semantically provided, which is much different)
> If the code is well designed with separation of concerns,

"If" is the operative term here. "If" it is well designed, then there is usually not alot of reason to scrap it in the first place.
Try that line in both Python and Perl and see how they behave, you'll see that one (Python) respects types (the most useful notion of "strong typing" is no or limited automatic type coercion and "weak typing" as an excessive permissibility around mixing of types in operations) and the other (Perl) does not.

I pointed out the OCaml example because both you and your sibling poster brought up type declarations as somehow mattering with respect to "strong typing". OCaml doesn't require type declarations, so I guess it's weakly typed according to both of you. Which is a surprising result.
> by hooking up Threads with other social media services like Mastodon

Is there any evidence this will actually happen, and isn't just marketing fluff to try to get SEO anytime mastodon is mentioned?
Thank you. I didn't know that was the correct spelling.
I compared. They are better on bang per watt but I'm still getting significantly shorter compilation times on 3970x.
What's your point? If I only allow you to eat C, H, O, N and their compounds, will you survive?
How Redshift distributes the tables, what immutable blocks have with Redshift and how to find slow queries
Depends on your workload. For me 3970x is faster in all my workflows.
iOS yes: https://docs.adacore.com/gnat_ugx-docs/html/gnat_ugx/gnat_ug...

Never used it though.
> Nobody has ever chosen Python for its runtime performance.

No, they choose it for the ease of using its performant extensions. And those extensions are fundamentally limited in performance by the existence of the GIL. And the authors of those extensions (and their employers) are behind the work to get rid of it.

There are three groups here:

1. "Pure" Python users, whose code makes little/no use of extensions. GIL removal is an immediate win for these uses.

2. "Good" extension users/authors, whose code will support and benefit from no-GIL. GIL removal is an immediate win for these uses.

3. "Bad" extension users/authors, whose code doesn't/can't support no-GIL. GIL removal probably doesn't break existing code, but makes new uses potentially unsafe.

Maintaining the technical debt of the GIL indefinitely so that group 3 never needs to address its own technical debt is not a good tradeoff for groups 1 and 2 which actively want to move the language forwards.
Going a step further: It isn't just that some companies don't know how they became successful, but that their success is largely up to un-repeatable factors we can only call "luck".

Disregarding the influence of chance is a systemic issue, because humans are hard-coded to look for distinct reasons—stories—even when they are ridiculous. Consider how common it is for people who are flipping a coin to end up talking about "hot streaks" or the opposite outcome being "overdue."
Does activity pub not use public key cryptography? (I don't know the answer to this but assumed it would have)

If each post is encrypted and signed by the author, and Sig chains are verified by servers when recieving updates that each link in the chain is an approved follower, then while posts could be more widely reshared by recipients, they wouldn't show up as from the original author, because the sharer and the Sig wouldn't match.

Seems to me this would be equivalent to using a centralised system like Facebook, where anyone with access to your posts can just copy paste to re share them.
> While Pascal can be used for serious work, it is first and foremost a teaching language friendly to beginners

But that's not what the linked article argues as a reason to use (Object) Pascal.

> The syntax is easy to learn, fairly clean and the language has very fast compilation (C++ really can't compete here). Which is important when teaching - permits rapid iteration.

1. There are other languages than C++ you know...

2. For language-teaching purposes, basically _any_ language compiles essentially instantaneously on modern hardware (including C++).
I saw a talk that touched on this recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tml94je2edk

He explains that dynamically-typed languages like Python, Ruby, and JS became popular in the 90s because they offered a fast feedback loop for website building, and they didn't need an IDE or compilers, which were slow (and often not free). It ended up not being worth trading your development time for the performance increase when all your users were connecting via 56k modem anyway.

The talk makes a lot of other cool points about how development has changed in the past decade or two, and why the trend is moving back to static typing.
I am working on a (unofficial) Code Interpreter API I already got a code interpreter app working at scale (look on my discord bot which proves this https://gptassistant.app) and it will be released soon you can follow me on twitter@shroominic for updates :)
Appreciate the feedback here. I think the "shallow takes" would be my approach if pursuing this.
I get a popup saying "Unknown Error" on Firefox/ubuntu. I disabled ublock, but still.
Me considers switching to OpenSuse Tumbleweed.
We need not be locked in a two party system forever. If enough of us demand same day primaries and ranked choice then other parties have a chance.

Only voting in blue strongholds certainly isn't going to break the duopoly.
> Clicking the "feed fake data" button is an explicit alternative to denying permissions, it's not a replacement.

Yes, it should be a separate option. However, instead of "feed fake data", perhaps the options should be "Allow", "Deny", and "Custom"; if you select "Custom" (which you can do also when installed or in the settings menu, even when the app is not running) then the user can program their own handler of the data requests, and can also choose from a list of such programs which have already been programmed before.
> but you cannot distinguish between limited access and full access

I believe you can check whether you received limited photos access: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/photokit/phauthori...
That is a very fair point - this is quite possibly an issue right across "the West" (which can include NZ in this case). I've noticed it in Ireland, in France, in Germany. Even the Scandos seem not to be immune.

I'll have to think about it some more. I will say this though - America is at the vanguard of anti-intellectualism, and has been for quite some time. Mark Twain commented on it frequently, for example.

And even so, the last couple decades have seen the dismissal of deep / nuanced thinking grow far worse, even as "bipartisanship" also rapidly got bad enough to bring us a lot closer to civil war than I expected in the 90s.

One last point - it's weird that this would happen even as everyone gets nerdier. People all use computers, watch LOTR and Harry Potter, cosplaying and conventions are all normalized... It's not what I'd have expected.
I love how he made Wozniaks Apple1 code run on his breadboard computer with just a few minor modifications

I highly recommend watching his "Build a 65c02-based computer from scratch" video series.
-> https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLowKtXNTBypFbtuVMUVXNR0z1...
I never do 1+”1” in my code, so this example is not useful to me.

I do however annotate types and expect Python to respect type annotations which is not the case. Then I dont understand what is point of annotating types if they are not respected?

If your argument that Python doesn’t convert from one type to another - well, it doesn’t need to do that if doesn’t care about types in the first place and lets you pass any junk into any method (and this is #1 thing that type system is supposed to prevent)

Is it only for documentation so that people reading code could understand what types to pass?
"For those who like this sort of thing, it is the sort of thing they like." - attributed to a number of people.

There are other languages which meet these criteria. But if Pascal fits the way your brain works, then it does. So use it.

And if it doesn't fit the way your brain works, then don't.

People are different. It doesn't hurt to have different tools.
> I don't see the difference honestly. both are pretty loose.

There's a clear difference, in PHP 1 + "1" is 2, in Python it's a TypeError, (and as a bonus, in Javascript 1 + "1" is "11").

The definition of "strongly typed" being used is related to type coercion, not type inference. In PHP the string is being coerced to an integer, but Python requires you to explicitly say 1 + int("1") if you want to add the numbers together. This can be helpful to developers because it requires you to make a decision about what behavior you actually want rather than assuming you want to add two numbers or concatenate strings when you may have wanted the opposite.
Wirth doesn't mention math as inspiration because it is obvious.

Surely he derived the syntax from ALGOL, that is no secret, but it was his choice to do so and not invent something unconventional like Thompson and Ritchie did.

In addition to that I find it quite telling that ALGOL's designers were all mathematicians while Thompson and Richie were Electrical Engineer and Physicist respectively.

I don't know why you put equals by definition into quotes as if I had invented that and also why you falsely claim that it is not listed on the Wikipedia page you referenced. It is there with := as symbol in the section about equality.

If you need another reference:

":= (the equal by definition sign) means “is equal by definition to”. This is a common alternate
form of the symbol “=Def ”, which appears in the 1894 book Logica Matematica by the logician
Cesare Burali-Forti (1861–1931). Other common alternate forms of the symbol “=Def ” include def
“=” and “≡”, the latter being especially common in applied mathematics." [1]

Sure, there are alternative forms but := is what was taught in Germany and Switzerland in schools and university when I was there and I'm pretty sure also when Niklaus Wirth was there.

[1] https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~anne/WQ2007/mat67-Common_Math_...

EDIT:

In Niklaus Wirth's own words:

"A notorious example for a bad idea was the choice of the equal sign to denote assignment. It goes back to Fortran in 1957, and has blindly been copied by armies of language designers. Why is it a bad idea? Because it overthrows a century old tradition to let “=” denote a comparison for equality, a predicate which is either true or false. But Fortran made it to mean assignment, the enforcing of equality. In this case, the operands are on unequal footing: The left operand (a variable) is to be made equal to the right operand (an expression). x = y does not mean the same thing as y = x."

—Niklaus Wirth, Good Ideas, Through the Looking Glass
Either that or they were aware of what they were doing and left the extreme irony of what they chose to repeat as a kind of Easter egg for anyone familiar with the source.

Just kidding, they're lazy.
I liked the forums. It used to be like any other single-topic forum site.

Then Yahoo bought it tried to make it more like Instagram, and suddenly every forum was a porn spam forum.
"She'll get years for that. Off switches are illegal!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9AZZVnNw60
Genetic associations of “Prefer not to answer” response to surveys
A faired recumbent with an oval and a regen direct drive motor as torque assist
Don't build the whole thing at once. Go step by step. So, first plug the RAM and the CPU onto the MBD, connect the PSU and power it up. When you hear the cheerful "beep", then turn off the PSU and continue adding stuff. A PC builder's set of PWR/RST/LED cables is a must, as well as 4-pin SPKR, piezzo buzzer. Good luck!
I would compare the experience to putting together a large IKEA furniture piece. Not as hard as you’d think. Very satisfying.

The hard part for me 7 or 8 years ago was actually getting the right combination of all the parts. But those are all listed and put together by an endless parade of PC building YouTubers and websites like Newegg.

Later, any time you want to upgrade or change anything it is a pleasure. I have since moved on to an M1 but the machine is still humming away hosting stuff and rendering things and what not. I highly recommend doing it.
I see, so when it comes to the top experts in AI screaming “we made a mistake, please be careful” we should use nuance and actually conclude the opposite — that we should press ahead and they’re wrong.

But with Web3, we should just listen to a bunch of random no-name haters say “there are NO GOOD APPLICATIONS, trust us, period, stop talking about it”, use no nuance or critical thinking of our own, and simply stop building on Web3.

Do you happen to see the extreme double standard here you’re employing, while trying to get people to see things your way?
Sometimes doing such things are deliberately what the user intended, which might be necessary if the app does not have its own options to specify what location you want, whether to avoid the social media publishing your location, or to specify your own currency conversions.
Presumably https://github.com/imartinez/privateGPT
You don’t own an ICE or natural gas heater then right? Otherwise, “their pollution bad, my pollution good”
There's a reason they're fighting a war that has already killed tens of thousands and displaced millions. This is a random article comes to mind, but is just one piece of many. Russian suppression and oppression is brutal, for those who know about it.

https://neweasterneurope.eu/2023/03/20/45000-body-bags/
I do not. Co-routine thinking is more complex than imperative coding regarding the teaching aspects.

Java and more concrete C# are the one who took Pascal and Delphi originally out of the game for day to day programming. And Go is already so much more popular than Pascal for real life work, that competition is a really the wrong word.
Perhaps for one person doing it a few times and competently patching systems.

What happens when a more novice grey hat tries it and bricks the machines? What happens if they patch the routers with software patches that have embedded malware?

Ultimately, patching systems on the internet means you are very likely crossing jurisdictional boundaries, so beware what governments you might piss off.

Personally, I like that prosecutors in the US are ethically bound to understand why the suspect did what they did (their intentions/motivations) and that prosecutors have the duty to prosecute only cases that they can convince juries to convict on. More than that, prosecutors rarely have lots of spare cycles, so they have to plan+choose their prosecution resources judiciously.

And then civil liability is very different from criminal prosecution.
I was curios about that 16GB pi. (I want to have one myself :) Unfortunately, it looks like soldering the 16gb ram chip onto the pi did not increase the usable memory due to other hardware limitations. [1] https://forums.raspberrypi.com/viewtopic.php?t=350514
I forget my mech-e skills but those large oscillating masses (the up down linear motion) would seem to be hinderance to efficiency. In a bike almost everything is moving in a circle on a bearing, it's the legs that are inefficient.

Another thing is he's not really accounting for lifting the pedals like you do with clip-ins nor back forth motion you do when you get better at biking. I wonder what the torque curve of a trained biker looks like. I'm assuming a bunch of folks here have that in their training data set.

I'm just here reading HN in the shade outside relaxing after walking the course yesterday. :)
If I paid for first class, you gave my seat away, and I was offered an exit row or a next-day flight, I would weigh my options and then absolutely tear you apart on the customer service line. Not at the gate; there's little that can be done there at the last second. But after.
Polarization is everywhere (in AUS/NZ mainly due to being part of Anglosphere yet proximal to China), but in America it is on a totally different level than NZ.

I occasionally will see nuanced, heterodox comments from AUS/NZ politicians that would not be tolerated in Washington.