skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I've used a domain with "uber" in it for over 20 years, and since the ride sharing service started I have quite a few issues pop up. At least people know how to spell it now.
Such a bitter angry hateful sad way to go about your life. Wishing for god to punish people for not being a mopey sad sack like you are. Lot of projecting in your comment I'm afraid, none of it applies to me despite your seething armchair psychology.
I am non smoker, never started.

My parents were smokers - can I blame them for their smoking habit that had negative effect on me, on their health?

Well not really because they never had a bad intent.

When they got smoking induced health issues were they able to make a new decision? - Not, it was too late.
The original problem was working on strings that only hold 's' and 'p' characters, as seen in bench.c. The first implementation checked against 's' and 'p' specifically, and all subsequent version optimized that first version.
> Any criticism boiled down far enough ends up in "they did things in a way I didn't like". It's not a meaningful response.

Objectively false. Although, granted, much criticism does fall in that category and it's generally worthless. However some criticism is "they did things in a way that was strictly worse than this other alternative that I will describe in actionable detail."

Interestingly enough, virtually all unsolicited criticism falls in the former category.
When the void is the norm, it is no longer the void. This is what everyone in tech aspires to.
These prediction models are getting to be really good.
> There are obviously more characters than the token vocabulary size of typical current models.

Not really. A contemporary Chinese or Japanese person might know 1-10,000 characters, while even the GPT-2 BPE was ~51,000 tokens, and there is no real barrier to pushing it to hundreds of thousands; IIRC, FB did one with around a million BPEs recently. Plenty of room... There may be X0,000 hanzi total, but most of those are vanishingly rare & specialized (and you have the amusing 'ghost characters' which are in Unicode but never actually existed), and don't matter: you probably don't have the text corpus to learn them in any meaningful fashion nor will they ever show up in your real-world applications. So the usual approach has always been to just assign each character a unique ID, and that's how you tokenize. (If you run into one of the rare ones, you can just replace it with an Unknown token, or encode it as multiple bytes.)

There is in theory 'subword' structure to characters, but there's much less than there is for other writing systems like alphabets, where letter-level tokenization is ideal, and tokenizations trying to exploit that structure remain a niche. So, hanzi-level tokenization it is.
That's actually a good example - The early seasons aren't necessarily worse because of the end of the show, but it definitely killed a few spinoff shows HBO was planning, and also killed the Star Wars movie that the showrunners were working on.

Obviously we're still getting House of the Dragon, but if you'd told me before the last season came out that we'd only have 1 spinoff GoT show now, and that it wasn't that big of a deal, I'm not sure I'd have believed you.
I can just imagine it, “spend $500/month with Twitter Pay and you get a green checkmark, promoting your tweets even above the already promoted blue checkmark tweeters”
It adds up. I stopped chatgpt when I discovered phind + copilot.
> That people often fall for sunk cost issues.

In this case, it's not necessarily sunk cost. There are switching costs associated with bringing in a new contractor, so it is likely cheapest to continue with the current one, even if they didn't bid it right initially.
It's easy. Kill all of the hype that keeps the fans interested in the franchise.

Games do this all the time. Just ask Mass Effect 3, Halo 4, Metal Gear Solid Survive, Dead Space 3, etc.
it looks like it interfaces with bim products
One of the very first times I was paid to professionally develop software for someone else I totally fucked it up by trying to build some kind of “modular” “reusable” contraption, that in reality was a vague collection of ill-defined ideas for what I wanted to make.

I have since come to believe that this is a trap that many people fall into.

Even a colleague of mine at my current job might be sort of in this track himself at the moment I think. And I don’t feel that he is interested in listening to me at all. Even though we are supposedly on the same team.

I think these kinds of things, when you fall into the trap, is something that you have to eventually realise on your own why it was a bad idea.

Meanwhile I am at the verge of quitting because I find it frustrating that we are working on this thing where it seems I am not being listened to and we are implementing something in a way that I recognise from my own past mistakes as a patently poor way of going about things.

But at the same time, I love the company I work for, and the pay is really good, and I am scared that if I quit I won’t find another job for a long time that will pay well enough to support myself and my girlfriend and our expenses.

Anyway. Point is, I agree with you, there will always be people trying to build these frameworks and what have you.
1) When I send an email to someone, why would I care whether they can forward it and prove I wrote what they forwarded? I want to prove I wrote my emails, not theirs. If Apple/GMail/Office365 feel this is important, they can include a signature for the decrypted text -- this could even be togglable. Then when you hit "forward" on an email sent with that toggle enabled it includes the signatures of the earlier senders in the chain for provability of those content blocks. But this isn't how DKIM works and I don't think it really matters. If I'm wrong about it mattering, see above for a quick solution.

2-3) What? Not seeing the problem here? Do you also think encrypted emails need to prevent someone taking a photo of their screen with their phone and sending the photo to someone else? If we can't prevent screenshots and copy/paste of decrypted content, we just shouldn't encrypt anything? What is the logic here?

4) It would also be signed by DKIM and/or the sender's private key, so your proposed MITM attack is not trivial at all. Are you aware of DKIM and PGP signing? You're trying to establish authority with "Email wasn’t designed with encrypted headers in mind [so you can't do it]" but that authority is undermined by not demonstrating understanding of modern email.

5) By the magic of controlling 90% of all end-user email in the western world, a consortium of Apple, Gmail and Office365 can do whatever they goddamned well please.
What’s the point of having [Spoiler Alert] in the opening paragraph if the spoiler is already in the title?
I was once told about similar cases in mathematics by a famous professor in the USA. The subject came up in reference to dissertations he knew of that were exceptionally high quality. I think that in those cases, the published articles were repackaged a bit for submission as a dissertation.
Hasn't Threads been around for awhile? I thought I ran across it when browsing Facebook's store page on one of the app stores and saw it a long time ago.

Regardless I do think its funny that Facebook had photos but Instagram is still a product and now Facebook has always had status updates and now Threads is a product. Facebook is almost just a mashup of Instagram + Threads. Or in a way some demographic of users liked a Facebook experience but for photos only (Instagram) and another set of users liked a Facebook experience but for status updates only (Threads).
This is going to be a very personal opinion, so please don't hear too much into it, and keep doing what you think is best, what you're doing is awesome :)

That said, I absolutely love the pixel art, characters and animation. I think you should leave aside platforming for interactive pixel art rich environments. Kind of like an adventure game but extremely interactive? Say maybe you could pick up flasks and mix potions to do things, and the environment could be reactive as well. I think that would be much more interesting and unique (I'd love to play it anyways :) ).
> at a minimum, is it too much to not publish outright provable lies?

I'd love to hear some examples. From what I can tell, they don't lie, but they will leave out details that may provide additional context (much like the NYT and WP opinion pages tend to do).

There is a careful line between opinions and facts. From what I can tell, the editorial board doesn't allow outright facts that can be disputed from being published. But things where there may be a disagreement on a given topic, they will allow it to be published.
Reminds me of an issue I submitted against Apache WS-XMLRPC 15 years ago, related to a class named RequestProcessorFactoryFactory.RequestSpecificProcessorFactoryFactory:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XMLRPC-147
The narrative is right though.

Here is a common thing that happens to me:

- someone sends me a funny post

- I want to "like" it or save it or whatever

On Twitter and other centralized social media this is very easy to do. On Mastodon, it is not. I have to copy the URL, paste it into a text field on my instance, and then like it.
Would you write a check to fund a business that could potentially self-destruct via lawsuits alone? In the end, the best model will not be owned by a mega corp like MicrOpenAI. It may be the most popular, but it will be the equivalent of the sanitized version of history students learn in school. The best model will have no problem telling you, very factually, that the hallways of Versailles used to smell like sh--.
> Complaining that a gasp woman could beat up an octogenarian is more of a commentary about you than the inevitable march of time.

I think it's more about how anyone _would_ beat up an octogenarian, rather than their ability to do so and it being a woman.
It’s pretty surprising how little evidence there is for anything unusual to be recommended other than proper sleep, proper diet, light exercise and good relationships. You’d think by now there’d be some random supplement or something that’d have gained traction. Often, from my life experience, the people that take a ton of supplements/pills don’t last as long tbh.
It has more to do with the idea that the system has evolved and advanced for a while. It's not so much about the system ending soon, as it is about it being deeply entrenched and widely adopted, its long-term negative consequences having had time to manifest, and/or being the late stages of a deliberate long-term agenda.
I've learned to avoid software tools that proclaim they are "opinionated" which usually means it's their way or the highway.
I definitely agree with this.

Though some of these other comments may suggest otherwise, there's no reason that the thing you want to do today can't also be the result of careful consideration.
Part of the work was explaining that a print out of an email is just a representation of the email, an actual email contains headers (like a digital stamp) that explain how the email got to where it is (in gmail -- "show original" -- that naming really helped, btw) and without it, you just have a piece of paper with words on it. The equivalent would be printing out the body of a newspaper article without the author or source. You have words, but you can't prove that it came from that newspaper unless someone else can corroborate it.
The way I like to explain the difference between the two approaches — and therefore the two educational requirements — you are outlining here is the difference between being a software developer and a software architect. A software developer is focused on developing a certain feature or fixing a certain bug within the context of an architecture that's already determined, rarely making decisions about how to structure the overall data or control flow of a system or what abstractions the system uses, but accepting what's already there; meanwhile, a software architect is going to be making those more broad abstract philosophical decisions that form the framework of how further features are implemented.

This is not to suggest that there is a rigid distinction between the two — all software architects are going to also be software developers in the process of building an architecture, or when new architecture is not needed, and many software developers will occasionally act as software architects. Nor is this intended to suggest that the architecture of a software project must be planned out in advance with all of the concepts and data and control flow either — just that there are points in the process of developing software where these large-scale architectural decisions about what abstractions to use and the flow between them must be made. But there do seem to be two somewhat distinct "hats" people who program wear.
For the record, no registries or TLD holders allow you to own the domain.

You are always leasing it, and if the registry decide to jack the price, remove your domain or give it to someone else they can (usually with some level of self-imposed rules). The ruls vary between gTLDs and ccTLDs, but believing you "own" a domain can be a dangerous assumption.
And the spice rack itself is just a container for preprepared ingredients from spice factories, to enable a cook to easily access them.

The end product here is the food, after all.

When you go to cook a meal you’re oblivious to the framework of abstractions that go to make it possible for you to obtain and store and conveniently dispense your spices - as well you should be.
This is really cool! I had some of the same points of confusion as others did, e.g. what do times mean, does “I was in $place from $time to $time” imply being somewhere else before and after, etc. I think being more explicit with what you _can_ and _can’t_ conclude would go a long way.

I also echo the suggestion to add more clue formats.

But I think it’s really nice and shows a lot of promise. Good stuff!
The answer is in the next sentence after the one you quoted. "It's not work."

Well unless the company is actively working on integrating their product with iCloud.
>* If you're playing with Microsoft Windows for personal use, that's fine, but maybe consider whether you'd prefer to spend your time and energy instead learning and creating atop an open source software platform.

Open source does not address my need or desire for Windows, regardless outdatedness.

Seriously, it's annoying that fReE and oPeN sOuRcE are thrown around like they will solve all the problems in the world. Spoiler alert, they don't. Especially if that problem involves a practical need that most libertarian neckbeards wouldn't care about.

Yes I run Windows, and yes I happily run EOL Windows because they are required to run something reliably. And yes, I happily run unpatched Windows because updates break shit and waste my time compared to the dangers posed by hypothetical threats outside my practical threat model.

Something being free or open source does not in any way fundamentally address my needs and desires. No, Wine is not a panacea (unless we're talking about the drink). No, I'm not going to waste even more time getting Linux to work just so I can get on with life.
Wait til you find out about the stuff you can get from China!
I can't necessarily disagree, but even if Meta wasn't marketing, Twitter suing less than 24 hours after launch meant it was going to be front page news for at least a couple days.
I'll help you with that -50
Even worse, jfloren.net is not on the HSTS preload list.
> As for _why, there is nothing special about him

That sounds patently false to me considering we're still talking about him almost 20 years after his flagship work was published.

Minimizing _why because of a tired, narrow-minded focus on identity politics seems disingenuous and like a missed opportunity to learn
Ask HN: Could you please brutally review my product website?
Can you please answer these questions: What am I selling and how is it helpful?
>can see my review with my account, but no one else can.

Your review got shadow-removed. That's a new one on me.
Why are you letting perfect be the enemy of the good? Regular email doesn't preserve sender identity when forwarding, and why should that even matter for encrypted mail? Encrypted clients can disable including the original email in a reply, which is totally unnecessary nowadays. And it's okay if headers are unencrypted as long as the client knows it's unsecure. All I'm seeing is a strictly better system than cleartext mail which might have holes around the edges but none that can break the integrity of single-recipient encrypted mail, which is what most people use encrypted email for anyways.
The Apple version is very nicely integrated into iOS.
The EU will never let "Meta's WeChat" become a thing. That is a good thing.
Well that is a bad look. I am sure the highlighted performance metrics have had a lingering impact on library decisions.
Don't worry, your opinion will change about 12 seconds after your first child arrives.
+1 for litestar[1]. The higher bus-factor is nice, and I like that they're working to embrace a wider set of technologies than just pydantic. The framework currently lets you model objects using msgspec[2] (they actually use msgspec for all serialization), pydantic, or attrs[3], and the upcoming release adds some new mechanisms for handling additional types. I really appreciate the flexibility in modeling APIs; not everything fits well into a pydantic shaped box.

[1]: https://litestar.dev/

[2]: https://github.com/jcrist/msgspec

[3]: https://www.attrs.org/en/stable/
> If the state of California legalized FAFO to include lethal force for self-defense, a vast majority of these problems would go away overnight.

I’m sorry, maybe I am misunderstanding but are you suggesting that we make it legal for you to just kill these people…?
I personally think electrified vehicles are the way to go. They're quieter, accelerate faster, require a lot less maintenance and don't smell as bad.

However, I'm not convinced lithium batteries are the answer. It's a fairly limited material, recycling is super difficult. With higher volumes it doesn't seem prices are shifting much. And that's all without the charging problem.

Hydrogen may solve a lot of problems? But it has its own set.

Going entirely in on lithium EVs today feels a bit premature.
Nobody should be fighting with 80 year olds. Show them respect (if they lived a decent life) or GTFO.
then those companies are not scaling up in tech bro style with a minimum viable product and looking to sell services, they're laying out tens or hundreds of millions of dollars on real property and construction before making any back. They're not tech bros and they're not doing what they do through tech. You aren't going to beat them with this one cool AI trick you discovered in an LLM. They have people on the ground moving millions of tons of earth, designers working years in advance to plan all of this, applications to government for approval etc.

This isn't "magic construction sauce" that allowed them to do it. Its massive amounts of money, labour, time effort like every other construction company. You won't disrupt them if you aren't better at their business than they are.
Is it? I asked a while back and there was a huge discussion as to whether GC does this or not: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34409077. I don't know.
It ignores what's already in your liver. It will just keep producing until you stay out of the sun. Roofers have tons of vitamin D in their body.

Amount produced is dependent on both duration and intensity.
There are a lot, and some are mentioned here in the comments.
If NVidia doesn't, somebody else will. Maybe AMD, maybe Apple, maybe Intel.

Apple's neural engine is really interesting as a GPU alternative. It's still just a bunch of tensor cores, but the unified memory architecture allows it to use the full system RAM without a major performance hit. I think we will see more of this in the future.
I haven't heard of Starlite or Litestar before. Is one a fork of the other? Their documentation intro text is identical:

> {Litestar|Starlite} is a powerful, flexible, highly performant, and opinionated ASGI framework, offering first class typing support and a full Pydantic integration.
>
> The {Litestar|Starlite} framework supports Plugins, ships with dependency injection, security primitives, OpenAPI schema generation, MessagePack, middlewares, and much more.
For things where you don't have to know which type of shape you're actually trying to create - sure. But now consider you're making something that displays shapes in one of two GUI toolkits, depending on where you're running it. You have basically 3 options:

- if/else everywhere to make ShapeA/ShapeB depending on the current toolkit

- generic Shape DTO and if/else + transforming all around the dispatcher to each toolkit

- pass in ToolkitContext instance which has a .createShape() which requires a single condition at app initialisation stage

Well... that ToolkitContext is a ShapeFactory. (Among other things) Then if you want to use a nicer system of handling this, you use DI, which is then effectively a FactoryFactory. Whether it looks obnoxious each time or you simply say AppContext.Get<Shape>() depends largely on your language though.
And interestingly, your argument also falls apart in the same way as the framework argument. It might make the average developer more productive on an average project. But most projects are not average, and neither are most developers. Everyone has some unique combination of strengths, just like every project has special cases that don’t fit within the box of a framework.

A framework is great if you don’t know much about the domain and just want to get something together quickly. But if you’re working on anything novel, then eventually you’ll bump against the walls of the framework. Hopefully you designed the project in such a way that you can break out of the framework for these inevitable special cases.

And I like frameworks! I’ve used a few in various languages and think they do a good job organizing the code for the basic cases. But every professional project I’ve worked on has eventually been trapped by piling workarounds on top of the framework to make it work for some unsupported or complex case, or an inevitable architecture fail which the framework has not considered an escape hatch for.

Just like developers and their tools. I have an IDE and nvim at work. The IDE has a lot of power for major refactoring and hinting features, and it’s reasonable enough for an untrained dev.

But it is very slow for the other 99.8% of my job where I’m not doing a big “find and rename all instances”. I am usually wading through a large project and jumping between files to try to understand a complex system. Once I understand it, I’m jumping between those files again to make my changes. All of that is much faster in a lightweight editor than an IDE. But I still open up the IDE every now and then to double-check some change that I made, or do those big fancy refactors.
Moaner's Mandate: Regardless of its content, every headline is destined to be the target of at least one disgruntled reader's ire