skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I love it, the entire argument of this article boils down to, "A problem with visibility" rather than any failure of the policy. As though an existing problem being visible isn't societal pressure to better address the problem. Oh they also present statistics contained to the 2019-2023 period as though that wasn't pandemic-driven.
> However, I'm reminded that city governments have zero incentive to streamline the process.

I closed last year on my new home northwest of Houston. The suburb is one that's growing like crazy, but still is run like the small town it was once was. (We didn't get a water bill for some 3+ months due to a ransomware attack).

The final certificate of occupancy was potentially held up due to the one person who signs off on them, who wears multiple hats and apparently only processed them one day a week. If you got on his bad side (and this included trying to bribe him to hurry up), he'll put yours at the bottom of the stack.

Try systemizing and scaling your way around that.
alternatively:

var errClosed = errors.New("closed")

func doAThing[T any](ctx context.Context, c chan T) (T, error) {
// the generics are not necessary, but they're also not awful for
// DRYing up this type of a select.
select {
case <-ctx.Done():
var empty T
return empty, fmt.Errorf("could not doAThing: %w", ctx.Err())
case item, ok := <-c:
if !ok {
var empty T
return empty, fmt.Errorf("channel of type %T is done: %w", empty, errClosed)
}
return item, nil
}
}

// ... and later...
for {
item, err := doAThing(ctx, channel)
if err != nil {
break
}
// code goes here
}

I dislike labeled loops, naked returns, and else statements, so this is the pattern I use.
> - You need ORJSON for maximum serialisation performance (perhaps this has changed with Pydantic v2) [2]

The common orjson trick no longer works in v2 and will throw warnings, but it appears it's no longer necessary since the JSON formatting leverages the native seralizer which happens in Rust-land.
Agreed, although I think the gap will close substantially once everyone has access to the Copilot X set of upgrades.
GitHub Copilot improves your productivity by 55.8%
From [2] above:

> Private schools may have a long, honorable tradition in America that goes back to colonial times, but that tradition ended—at least in the American South—in the last half of the 20th century when they were used as safe havens for Southern Whites to escape the effects of the impending and ongoing desegregation mandates. This exodus from public schools began in the 1940s, when private school enrollment in the 15 states of the South[1] rose by more than 125,000 students—roughly 43 percent—in response to U.S. Supreme Court decisions outlawing segregation in graduate and professional schools in the South.[2] While the decisions only concerned institutions of higher education, it signaled to watchful Southern leaders that desegregation might soon spread to their public elementary and secondary schools, compelling them to react in ways to defend their way of life.

> By 1958, the South’s private school enrollment had exploded, increasing by more than 250,000 students over an eight-year period, and boasting almost one million students in 1965. This growth was catalyzed by Southern state legislatures, who enacted as many as 450 laws and resolutions between 1954 and 1964 attempting to block, postpone, limit, or evade the desegregation of public schools, many of which expressly authorized the systematic transfer of public assets and monies to private schools.

> During this time, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) vacillated in its allowance of tax deductions for private schools. In the early 1960s, facing growing backlash from civil rights organizations, the IRS temporarily suspended applications of avowed “segregation academies” for federal tax exemptions, a tax status permitting taxpayers in Southern states to reduce their federal taxable income when contributing to racially exclusionary private schools.

> As the IRS trudged along with implementation of non-discrimination policies and went back-and-forth in a series of proposed administrative procedures and Congressional hearings, private school enrollment in the South continued to grow. What was once the South’s 11 percent share of the nation’s private school enrollment had reached 24 percent in 1980.
https://www.davidschlachter.com/

Infrequently updated, mostly open source work or research these days. It's been online since I've been in high school.
As with everything in algorithm analysis, it depends on your model of computation. That is, it depends what you're counting.

For sorting (comparison sorts), one fairly typical model is to just count how many comparisons you do. Which, this does none (kind of, not really, they're really just implicit or hidden in the OS).

It's just playing around with computational models, not a serious proposal. It's either just a joke, a troll, or an parable about the need to be careful about what metric you're measuring. Or some combination of those.
My observation (which could be wrong) is that ChatGPT as a programmer's aid is only useful for the simple cases. Not so much for complex stuff, and certainly not for something as complex as the Unreal engine.
> the above 2 passages cannot be serious at the same time as translations of a literary work

This honestly reads like maybe you don't understand how translation works? I mean, you're clearly coming at this from the standpoint of "I have a culture war axe to grind and I'm gonna grind it", but here goes: languages don't map perfectly into each other. Even languages that exist in the same time, in the same physical locations, where many people are fluent in both languages. There are words in modern Spanish and German that you can't express in a single word in English, and those languages have massive overlap and lots of common roots. There are words in English that mean different things to different people. My 21 year old cousin and my 70 year old father would understand the sentence "I saw Bill Murray on the street today, no cap" in completely different ways.

All of those issues are massively compounded the farther you are from the context of the original text. A 50 year gap between living people in the same country and speaking the same language is enough to make communication confusing; a 3,500 year gap makes it nearly impossible. The article this thread is based on (that you are clearly commenting on without having read) displays 5 different ways that different translators approached the exact same passage in the Iliad over multiple centuries. Lombardo's translation, much like Wilson's, much like any translation, is a work of invention. It has to be, because we aren't Ancient Greeks and we are not operating in the same milieu as the original audience for this work.

You clearly don't like Wilson's work for personal/political reasons, but trying to generalize that to "she's a bad translator" because her translations are different from other translations is a silly complaint that reveals a fundamental shallowness in your understanding of the process of translation.
That's called a general contractor.
Awful bastard hacker strikes a death blow against an evil corporation from beyond the grave. Very cyberpunk.
We also have a lot of tooling that invites semantic abuse for presentational effect (i.e., using markdown blockquotes as notes, and even the fancy behavior browsers attach to the <details> element).
Maybe a lawyer told him. But was he listening?
It was unsupported to jump releases while upgrading twenty years ago when upgrading woody to sarge as is now. Don't spread rumours. I've been there and the READMEs are still online for reference [1]. And unsupported does not mean impossible. One just can't blame the distro for a failed install.

And if you had bothered to read the Release Notes for bookworm: It's in there [2]. Also you are instructed that only upgrades from bullseye are supported, and to upgrade to bullseye first if you are running an older version.

Nobody else to blame for your fall.

[1] https://www.debian.org/releases/sarge/i386/release-notes/ch-...
[2] https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/c...
> AMD has the patents for putting a SSD directly on the card, they could be killing it in the home AI market, but.... they just can't get it together.

Radeon SSG was just a PCIe switch chip on-card, with the SSD+GPU behind it, so functionally it is the same as having the SSD on the motherboard.

I'm not sure if they got patents but either way the problem it solved was not the one people think it solved. It wasn't "using the SSD as memory", and in the way that it did (block storage) any other SSD+GPU can function identically in the same way without needing the SSG tech. Putting the SSD on your mobo performs as high in every way on any GPU (CUDA RDMA Direct have been around for a while, since Fermi/Kepler at least).

It was just a convenience thing of getting a SSD mountpoint built into your GPU basically. They even showed up as a HBA in windows and were treated as a striped disk.

https://youtu.be/-fEjoJO4lEM?t=62

More recently this idea has re-surfaced with some of the modern GPUs with x8 interfaces (6600XT, 4060 Ti, etc) getting a couple M.2 drives in the other x4x4 via bifurcation, and this functionally performs the same as SSG but without the switch chip (needs hardware support instead). And if there are patents around using a switch chip that may be how the patent is evaded. But combination cards utilizing more than one type of hardware in general is not that novel (network card/ssd combos are another popular one) and I'm not sure AMD patented it or it's defensibly novel against prior art.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/asus-demos-geforce-rtx-406...
I don't get it. I assume the author is trying to make it sound absurd that you would need all these layers of factories to build a simple spice rack and, by analogy, that frameworks are also absurd.

But if you were building spice racks at scale, of course you would build them in a factory! And you'd use machinery made in other factories. And those factories would have tools and machines made in yet other factories.

That's why you can go to Amazon or Wayfair or the Container Store and find 100 different spice racks for less than $30, and why nobody builds a spice rack by hand, except for fun.
But then the presence of the LLM doesn't change anything right?
Umm 70M is actually not a lot on meta/Twitter scale.

Also, gaining users is only the the beginning. Keeping them is the tough part.

Personally I'm not rooting for either. I'd rather see mastodon and Lemmy win big.
Joe Armstrong: “but I wanted a banana”
Holy bananas, what an adventure. Thanks for linking this :)
Honestly, you probably don't!

If you need to build stuff out of wood, you have three options: buy something pre-made, hire someone to build it for you, or hire a team of carpenters to build it in house. Arguably, the third option should be your last choice.

Stretching the metaphor a bit, sometimes it makes sense to hire a team of carpenters, but contract out or buy pre-built a few particular parts that are particularly difficult or complicated.

That's essentially what these SaaS products are supposed to offer. The problem is not that they exist, the problem is that it can be difficult to know when you need or don't need any particular product.
Genuinely asking, how so? I've had my bouts of depression and burn-out in my life, but even then, I just assumed it was an unforeseen consequence of some action(s) and got treatment.

This is also the boiled down version though, so I'm kinda curious what you see in it and how it could influence the bigger picture.
True - but what model would they want to use on-device?

All the feed ranking stuff is done serverside I assume... And apart from that, the app is just for posting and reading text and pictures. I don't really see any use for any ML there.
Holy fuck that triangle renderer hello world example lol
Wait, you're saying that calculators now do symbolic differentiation and integration (like sympy and mathematica)? Kids today...
I can't help but feel that the reason why new developers reach parity with existing ones so quickly is not due to the productivity of Go, but because the productivity ceiling has been intentionally lowered so that everyone is equally constrained. Having to keep reading reinvented wheels because the language is intentionally poorly expressive is a burden on getting work done. There maybe is only one way to do a thing, and everyone has to keep doing it, rather than being able to write it once and build an abstraction

Compare say Java 5 code written with raw servlets implementations and JDBC calls versus modern Spring code. The implementation of the former is easier to understand because everything is very explicit, but the intent of the latter is far easier to understand, since the boilerplate is mostly gone, allowing the actual business logic (what you care about 90% of the time) to be obvious. And you can of course see the implementation if you need to
On my system the root account is primarily for upgrades, but also storage administration! ZFS snapshots protects me against silly mistakes like strange permutations of `rm -rf ~/` in day to day operations. Not having root all the time protects me against `zfs destroy -r nagato/data/home/drbawb` which will nuke my home folder, 144 frequent snapshots (15 minute intervals per 36 hours), 14 daily snapshots, 4 weekly snapshots, and 3 monthly snapshots. That would suck. A lot. (I have a file called "RIP", where a drive image used to be mounted, because I got a little too over-zealous with the recursive option on some ZFS commands on a file that had `copies=1`. _RAID is not a backup, snapshots are not a backup, etc._)

This also means that theoretically ransomware (running without root) could encrypt my home directory, but apart from doubling the number of blocks used on disk it would have no real impact on my data. (If someone writes a virus that can encrypt the blocks inside a ZFS partition, without mangling ZFS data structures beyond repair, then I'll be more impressed than angry. Not even the ZFS devs can rewrite block pointers on a running filesystem.[1])

That being said ZFS has an awesome feature called delegation which lets you run a subset of commands without root permissions. I use it sparingly, mostly to allow unprivileged backups. (Each host gets a login on my backup server, and can only create/destroy datasets that are children of a host-specific dataset. So `nagato` can `zfs destroy -r backup/hosts/nagato` but not `zfs destroy -r backup/hosts` or `zfs destroy -r backup/hosts/someone-else`.)

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2vIdPmsnTI#t=44m53s
> Mathematics and science do have right and wrong answers. That's why physics, chemistry, etc. are "science" and not "religion" or "ideology".

That's an excessively reductio view of the practice of science, and frankly dangerous. I think you know better than that. I mean, is newtonian mechanics "right" or "wrong"? It can't always give you the right answer, yet we do teach it and we should.

Most science is working on the edge of what is known. The idea that there are "right" and "wrong" answers in practical science is what has supported peoples' belief that "hey, I heard of someone getting the vaccine and yet they got sick anyway -- what a scam!" or "Scientists said not to bother with a mask but to wash hands furiously, and now they want us to wear masks -- they don't know anything".

The reason I put "experiment" in quotation marks is a lot of "experimentation" in high school is at the level of "pour the solution from the bottle into a beaker, put a strip of litmus paper in, and record the pH." Everybody uses the same bottle of solution so there's one correct answer. That is not "experimentation" that is simply practicing a lab procedure.

"Experimentation" is open ended, and involves debugging. "Make a solution that has a pH of 7.2. How did you determine that? What attempts did you make and what went wrong." Or "reproduce the Millikan oil-drop experiment. What's the charge of the electron? How did it compare to Millikan's result and why?"

The "science is about facts" attitude is a pernicious meme in the public consciousness. It's just as bad as the deterministic teaching of history.
Features are a looooooong second place to userbase. Hashtags mean nothing compared to having millions of users to interact with.

Launching in a hurry to capitalize on the mistakes of your competitors is an amazing plan. Better to ship without the feature than to ship the wrong feature and be stuck with the tech debt. Better to launch and acquire users when possible, and slowly add the necessary parts.

A far more important piece than hashtags is the ability to search posts. But even that is far behind the ability to have good image sharing on posts, and Threads already does that better than Twitter, as the carousel allows far better viewing.
Imagine being a doctor's patient and someone write that in your medical file! U+1F631

Luckily, this is clearly not a professional project in any way, so no aneurysms were had this day.
Presumably they're making a higher margin on the professional cards.
http://www.nuke24.net/plog/

Random personal projects. Some hardware, some software, some random bits of what I think are insight. Maybe someday I will get around to adding an RSS feed.

(my previous post was missed, maybe because the "H" in "http" was capitalized; idk, try again, maybe one of those scrapers people are writing will pick it up)
So, no game engines then.
I'm no ally of copyright; however, as long as it's here and a thing to be dealt with, I'm not going to cheer on a company operating on the back of flagrant disregard thereof. This isn't "code I'm using in a personal project that maybe only my friends will interact with". This is a full fledged business, owned in part by of all people, Microsoft, the people who rammed copyright down our throats for the last 3 to 6 decades while doing everything they could to cripple FLOSS.

I expect the absolute most aggressive enforcement of copyright in this case.

As to my more general assertion of AI only getting the traction it is because of an industry looking to devalue it's currently incredibly highly priced laborers; spend a bit of time around shareholders/management types and you'll soon understand why I think the way I do. Magical thinking, "as long as it makes my outlays lower" thinking is par for the course. There are, in fact, social classes who see the "hired help" as something meant to be out of sight, out of mind, and lucky they get what they are willing to give.

Besides the above hot take, I also see AI as being fundamentally disruptive to the human social fabric. I'm not convinced that as a society we're even prepared to have a real conversation eith regards to a technology that at any time could cross a threshold to sspience. The choruses of such individuals as Carmack and plenty of other HN posters on "it's just a statistical model", and "lets wait til it's at least a developmentally challenged toddler before worrying about those types of concerns" (where those types of questions are those with regard to sapience, and the matter of where the line between "just a statistical model" lay) only proves my point The reductionist viewpoint will be stretched right up to the point that there's a court case where the public finds out that training or instantiating models that communicate with one another basically involves torturing a collective mind that no one bothered to see that way because it was just so stupidly productive.

Hell, the outcome of said case would probably be shifting research in a direction whereby it's possible to make a construct that just barely toes the line. Which misses the entire moral point.

You could say I'm fairly black-pilled on the matter. Humanity can't even deal with one another, or competently raise their own children. We don't need to be committing terrible parenting on an industrial scale.

...If you've read through all of this, you're ptobably a better person than I currently, but know there was a time I shared your attitude toward the subject matter. Then I really started to pay attention to how people treat one another, and how money actually gets earmarked for different things. The learning experience is something I'd not wish on anyone, but as you, and our shared friends the Trafalmadorians say,

So it goes.
No? I disagree. If people are safe, healthy and comfortable then they're in a better position to cover their costs.
So, there's a practical reason for this, though it's not particularly relevant here. If you say Elon Musk's name _on Twitter_, that tends to summon his insufferable fans (via kibozing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Parry#Growing_fame) (this isn't a post-acquisition thing; it's been like this for years), so the wise tweeter uses a nickname.

Now, obviously it's not particularly relevant here, and in any case "Elongated Muskrat" is well-known enough that people presumably grep for that _too_.
off-topic, but since she's joining Meta to work on Threads, I guess we proooobably won't be getting as many of her info-dumps? kind of a bummer, love her stuff
FWIW, I am willing to believe that I have misunderstood the comment I responded to, and that they are not making a sarcastic proof that people should not have to learn calculus to merely use a tool like a calculator, but that they in fact should do so, and I'd actually be willing to get on board with that? (But, as anti-framework as I am, I think that might be going a bit far.)

I frankly still can't tell as that's use of "fallacy" to describe "people picking up frameworks without fundamental understanding" is apparently extremely confusing to me as it isn't in the form of a fallacy--like, is the fallacy that this happens? that this is a problem? is it the thought which leads people to do that? etc.--so I automatically added stuff to the sentence to make it work and maybe I did it wrong.
I don’t think this is a bad thing. Most developers think of themselves as more advanced than they are and end up making a mess trying to do abstraction beyond both their ability to do it well and beyond what the problem requires. And even the truly advanced developers very often prefer simpler tooling because it allows them to concentrate their resources on the complexities of the problem and not those of the tool.

Further, the idea that Go is somehow bad for motivated engineers doesn’t match my experience and it doesn’t explain the proliferation of interesting tools and services (much of the container / devops ecosystem). I think your mistake is assuming that the only kind of motivation/creativity/etc involves tinkering with language runtimes and that someone who is building original things like Docker, Terraform, or Kubernetes must be “unmotivated”.
Haskell threads have some similarities to Goroutines. They are also real cheap and there's no problem creating lots of threads (M:N scheduling behind the scenes). There's also no function color problem with the threads.

There's one special thing that Haskell threads have that I think I've only seen in Erlang: it's safe to kill threads. Things will be cleaned up properly. You can safely expect that Haskell code created by someone else has been written to not go into a bad state if it's suddenly cancelled.

For example, you can write a generic timeout function that works by launching the work in a new thread, then wait N seconds, then kill that thread if it's still running. You don't need to make any kind of signalling thing where you send "please stop" message to a Goroutine.

The article talks about Goroutines in context of serving lots of requests. I like to think Haskell's threads and the fact that you can kill them safely makes it much easier to develop servers or job orchestration with simpler code.