skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Not really. I'm sure there are some edge cases where the ability for someone to do silly things like this is harmful but otherwise this goes in category of things where the general advice is "just don't do that and you're fine".

Basically, if you look at why the standard library would not go out of its way to prevent you from doing stuff like this it boils down to the same reason as why they put the string compression optimization in to begin with: doing so would make things slower rather than faster. And that's just not desirable in something as performance critical as string initialization, which is a thing that a lot of Java programs would do a lot.

Having string compression helps save some memory but it's a weird low level hack. It's fine as long as you don't actively try to break things in your own program. You'd have to jump through some hoops to do it accidentally. That is not likely to happen just like that.

So, not a bug but a known limitation that you should be aware of if you go down the path of doing lots of concurrent modifications to arrays that may or may not be used to create Strings. Java has lots of nice primitives and frameworks to make writing such code less error prone but it's up to you to use those properly and it's entirely possible to write all sorts of code that has lots of concurrency issues.
Even the low-end NUCs are much faster than the fastest Pi.
You sir, are a legend. This has strong stallman [1] vibes, and I say that not in a bad way, but as a norm-busting, trailblazing way.

[1] - https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html
I've looked into this!

The issue with python is dynamic typing... It could be a tractable problem for fully type hinted code, but when your object type can be meta-programmed from external data, something I've seen SOAP client libraries do (point client class object at WSDL -> call virtual method name on client class -> get arbitrary tree of data objects which have no code representation with specific class types as appropriate)... it can be nigh impossible to fully resolve this.

I'd love to have tools to scan what I could, but its remarkably challenging due to the level of meta-programming that Python provides.

I admit I'm clearly not as well versed on the topic as you are at this based on looking at your work, so its entirely possible I've missed some obvious tricks that make it easier, but I'm not sure I've got the time any more to tackle a fun new project.
Which is why we've banned spicy food: it's just too risky to be used safely.
As sibling comments point out, mutexes aren't needed here. But to answer your direct question, Rust's type system enforces the use of mutexes to access protected values (if you're using the stdlib Mutex implementation) by only allowing access to protected values through a MutexGuard object which is created by locking the mutex. The borrow checker enforces you can't access the MutexGuard concurrently, so therefore you can't access the protected value concurrently.
Learning difficult concepts is only one aspect of developing perseverance - which is probably the greater ability to master. Others are finishing what you start, developing habits to complete undesirable tasks (like regular exercise or doing the dishes) and overcoming fear.

The latter is something you see creep in as you get older and it's something that's always attracted me to hobbies that require you to keep your nerve like skiing, scuba diving and flying planes. There's nothing like having to land a plane solo with a bit of a crosswind to give you confidence in yourself.
I have a Samsung S21 from 2021 and get both feature and security updates almost every month.
Chiplet ASIC supercomputers for LLMs like GPT-4
Too much ambiguity that needs a large amount of context to resolve.
I mean, I found learning calculus to be fun and rewarding in its own right! It can be challenging at times, but also beautiful.
What's it really mean to be hard?

Some things are vaguely impossible, like finding a solution to fluid mechanics, or finding a theory that combines quantum mechanics and general relativity.

Others are proven to be impossible under some conditions like the halting problem.

Others still require access to some amount of resources, or some amount of leverage, like buying a $100M yacht.

Lots of these hard things are quite unlikely for me to be able to do.

I think most people refer to the resource one? And that some people have more access to resources than they think, and the scales of resources needed are smaller than assumed?
WHO’s we comrade?
Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three...
Oh weird, I thought its basic concept was embezzling VC funding?
>There's some nitpicky bits (like how "utils.py contains two utility functions" is then followed by _three_ bullet points :P )

There are three functions:
https://github.com/anonanonme/takehome-sample/blob/master/ut...

I don't judge people for these types of mistakes either. It's all nits. Especially in an HN comment. But someone evaluating a job candidate, in my opinion, needs to step up his game and I'm thinking a lot of these people are treating it the same way you're treating it.
> To get the best isolation you need to patch the source

This shouldn't be underestimated. It's really not that useful for most apps that don't have the source patched.
These sigils seem to exist to make it easier to balance the expressions. I personally find {#if} … {/if} much more intuitive. {:else} is an unfortunate compromise necessitated by the fact that elseif is ugly in most imperative languages.
You may be already using something like AppArmor provided by your distro without being aware of it.
>Donald Trump

UGK - pocket full of stones (1992)

>Ivana Trump

Kreayshawn - Gucci Gucci (2011)
Corporation board members, top stockholders and lobbyists.
> Of course you can do all these things (on Linux at least), but it involves a dizzying array of technologies.

SELinux is pretty standard nowadays, most people just can't be bothered to learn it.
Neither agreeing nor disagreeing, either, but the thing is… that both, monoliths and µ-services, are loose concepts, and they mean different things to different people and/or in differing circumstances.

A monolith itself can be monolithic either at the design level (only the whole thing can build and work) or at the deployment level (multiple components build, test and – to a certain extent can work – independently of each other but are assembled into a single deployment unit).

As far as differing viewpoints are concerned, let's consider a hypothetical design where GET, POST, PUT, PATCH and DELETE are a «µ-service» design and deploy as 5x distinct deployment units but as the whole and at once, i.e. leaving the DELETE out of the deployment renders the solution inoperable from the business POV. So far so good, we have a conventional µ-service.

Let's now consider a hypothetical yet real scenario where a single POST invocation triggers a chain of 27x service invocations to 10x different systems to produce a result. The implementation is stateless and idempotent, but the processing logic is complex, and it has to be executed in a particular sequence, intermediate results have to collated or fed into the next processing step – either sequentially, or in parallel, or both. And the processing can't be refactored out into smaller components due to the complexities or the business logic or due to technical constraints that the 10x external systems impose. Is the implementation of POST a µ-service, or POST is a monolith, or POST is a monolith within a µ-service? It can be either, neither or both – depending on the point of view. Such hypothetical design are, in fact, real and are fairly common in large environments.

On the scalability point, there is no single answer, either. A design can have scalability constraints either at the design level or at the deployment level. An example of the design level constraint is the strict processing order requirement that imposes substantial restrictions on what and how it can be scaled. It can typically only scale up but not out with not much room to wiggle around in. If the processing order is not important (i.e. the eventuality – not the linearity – is the only requirement), then scalability (up and out) becomes a deployment level constraint which is easy to fix (i.e. a configuration time or an auto-scaling policy change).

Scalability can also be impaired in both, monoliths and µ-services, if at least one external system is slow to respond, or the response time varies. In such a case, both designs will equally suffer.

> […] and be cheaper to […] deploy.

I have deliberately omitted the «develop» part to emphasise the «deploy» part. The deployment cost has gone down significantly over the last decade alone. What used to be an arduous task requiring a coordination of multiple people has now become a few line deployment file change and a one person job in many cases. Even complex deployments are much easier now than they had ever been. Therefore, I would posit that the cost of monolith and µ-service deployments is roughly the same today compared to monoliths being cheaper to deploy 10+ or so years ago.
For running Kodi, this player worked very well for me for years now:

https://osmc.tv/vero/

They have hardware x264 and x265 decoding, support is great too.
The website says "It's like having a friend-of-a-friend to crash with wherever you go, even on a powder day."

I don't know about you, but I have no idea what a "powder day" is. I assumed it meant skiing/snowboarding (ie, powder snow), but the first google result is urbandictionary about snorting drugs.

Just my 2c but I would maybe change that.
> Likely nothing. I don't understand why people believe in these things.

Likely Sony will take them to the cleaners.
But why is that a problem? That's literally how we speak every single day.

In fact, given that this is how all the languages that humans are already familiar with work, it's hard to see why this wouldn't be the best approach for constructing a programming language.
When you build for the common denominator, people with brains often get left out.
You forgot the semicolon.

Note the semicolon is significant. Barbaric, I know.
Finalizing in COBOL:

I am altering the data. Pray I do not alter it further.
Ah, the trap of the gifted student! When everything other students find somehow hard is easy for you, you get a delusion that nothing is hard, and that putting in some effort is not necessary. A rude awakening may come at high school, or at college. Those who kept toiling just keep toiling, and overtake you, because.you're not used to pushing through.

I think it's important to learn early enough that things are usually hard when you get far enough into them, and that it's OK, it's not a brick wall, it just takes some effort to keep advancing.
It is on the PS VR1. And my family would love to play it on our system. Such that I can't believe it is "nobody."

Fair if you want to posit that VR is a niche market. But.... honestly, so is the entire Xbox market.
In safe Rust, that is. For unsafe Rust, I don't know exactly which bets are off but it's more than none.
This is an interesting post. Can you explain the two different scenarios with examples?
A forest
If you use SFINAE that alone is reason to move to C++20, to get concepts instead.
Learn calculus because it is beautiful.

Newton had discovered the law of gravitation, but didn’t publish it for a long time because he couldn’t justify how the gravitational effect of a sphere could be the same as if all its mass was concentrated at a point in the center. He had to invent calculus to prove it. Isn’t that amazing?

I know the author is using calculus as an example of a hard thing, but if someone is genuinely following their curiosity, then things do not seem hard. Personally I wouldn’t want to work on hard things just to prove to myself that I can do hard things. I’m happy being lazy.
The SI definition of a second, available at https://www.bipm.org/documents/20126/41483022/SI-Brochure-9...., section 2.3.1, does not reference our particular planet, nor any particular means of measurement, nor does it have to.

In principle this frequency can be measured in any inertial frame. Seconds are not defined on Earth specifically.
Honestly it’s gotten a lot easier; modern terminal applications have decent mouse support, including NeoVim and tmux.

I feel like software engineers are more or less used to leaving the WYSIWYG world; virtually all of use have dealt with HTML+CSS via the use of plain text editors. Once you’re used to that paradigm, I don’t think that it’s too much of a stretch to just a command to compile to PDF.

Just to be a little clear, I run all this inside vanilla macOS. I live in the terminal 90+% of the time but I am not a complete Luddite!
I’m pretty sure those are rebranded NUCs, so don’t wait too long.
Depends what your usb device is, all told. I have a USB C amp for audio that really is quite nice.
I agree. Layers of legacy typedefs in the Win32 API always catch me off guard. Any large source base with lots of typedefs, it can be tricky to printf() without issue.
I would personally prefer to pay for a service with my money as opposed to my information and ads being shoved in my face. Unfortunately many services don't even give an option to pay with money, so I've been trying to find alternatives, for example I've been starting to migrate away from Gmail to Protonmail. I understand things cost money, so let me pay you for your services. I just despise ads with a passion.
I've thought the exact same thing recently, after getting some mini PCs from a mate who does used IT equipment for dirt cheap.

The unfortunate reality, at least in Australia, is that fast internet with the same level of uptime as what you'd get in a datacenter costs more than just renting a server on Digital Ocean.

Perhaps there's a market out there for small cloud providers who could amortise this expensive internet cost among dozens or hundreds of servers, but for a one-off you're either going to need to deal with the unreliability and low upload speeds of home internet or just cough at the trough to get a cloud instance.
Yes, but with limited support. Macs were the only practical option for home video editing back then. iMac DV was released in 1999 with FW400, and iMovie was released at the same time. Media editing seemed like the central use case of Macs through the 2000s.
> I hate the framing of problems or domains as hard

The easiness or difficulty of a domain or discipline is always in relation to some individual context; and that context includes variables that the learner controls. To the impatient, disinterested or undisciplined, I imagine calculus, learning the kanji, or playing the oboe all seem hard. But to the extent I can marshal patience, curiosity and discipline, the difficult domain becomes just a series of small steps integrated over time. I’m a musician and when a student complains about how hard a piece is, I ask if they can play the first note, then the second. If so, then it’s not hard. Because the process to acquire the whole thing is right there. Yes there are interpretive elements and techniques to be acquired along the way. But nothing is hard unless you are in a great hurry or you don’t really want to do the thing.
Because Sony is a tiny company, right?

Half the reason that Microsoft has been buying game studios is because Sony has been buying game studios. Sony has even bought a game studio that Microsoft already bought and sold.

Among others, Sony's bought: Psygnosis (Lemmings), Incognito (Twisted Metal), Zipper Interactive (SOCOM), Sigil (Everquest), Evolution (WRC, Motorstorm), Bungie (Destiny), Polyphony (Gran Turismo), Santa Monica (God of War), Bend (Days Gone, Syphon Filter), Naughty Dog (Crash Bandicoot, Jak and Daxter, Uncharted, The Last of Us), Guerilla (Killzone, Horizon), Media Molecule (Little Big Planet), Sucker Punch (Ghost of Tsushima), Insomniac (Spyro, Ratchet & Clank, Spider-Man)... they basically have built their entire "first party" game catalog off of the companies they've acquired.
It's almost like no one finished reading the post (emphasis added).

> I don’t particularly care what grades my kids get once they start school. But I do care that they consistently prove to themselves they can do hard things. If Calculus is how they want to do it, fine, but there are many, many more options.

Separately, as someone just recently learning calculus as an adult now I'm digging the obliviousness of the "math is just inherently easy" folks. I get where y'all are coming from but there's a deep lack of empathy there. Go teach some people something (anything) and learn that other people's brains don't necessarily contain your knowledge.
In a world that incentives attention so much, that demands a weird kind of self-discipline of constant global awareness, of perpetual mobilization, an attitude like this can show extreme intelligence, resilience, and independence. Like, people are literally bombarded by scams and fake news every day. Every other app you download is either ripping you off or vying to. Every other commercial you watch is either trying to get you to gamble your money, buy antidepressants, or sue those who sold you antidepressants. We cannot even, at large, decide on fundamental questions of human rights and basic dignity! How can we even pretend to have this conviction? That a line is crossed in the blissful joy of being ignorant of Excel? That being on television should be something more lofty, more honored, than such an attitude?

"Stupidity" can be a much more properly virtuous mode of life than others that value knowledge only for knowledge's sake.
You have to pay to play. Otherwise you get cables made on the cheap by Chinese manufacturers who cut corners
Why don't you care if it's a worse one?
Seeing as climate change is making the ocean acidic, making it alkaline would be a good thing.
It's a SYSOPS manual!
There are multiple responses to the above parent noting how readable the above line of code is and yet how it might go wrong.

The first pitfall of using english as a programming language that occurs to me (as a totally Cobol ignorant person):

* Human languages tend to be nebulous around the edges and fluid, often with single word taking up multiple meanings and same function done by multiple words. There are multiple ways to express the same concept. This allows for the language to change and evolve with the times.

* OTOH programming languages need to be specific and exact for the computer to be able to interpret it and ensure it functions as expected across devices and over time.

This means to make English function as a programming language, we will have to take the existing language, whittle down most of the senses and many words, assign one function to one word and use a very trimmed down and reduced version of English.

Now you will have to know two forms of English
* The human one
* The computer-compatible one

Worse, our human version of the language can often trip up our computer-compatible one. I imagine even debugging would be harder, because when you look into the code, the brain would see perfectly good english and not register any issue with punctuation or tokens as expected by the interpreter.

Consider the below version.

MULTIPLY TAXRATE FROM STATE(43) WITH BALANCE GIVING SALES-TAX-AMOUNT.

I have made 3 changes here, which might or might not work with COBOL (I am Cobol ignorant ;) ).
But if a person tries to find the changes or debug, it would difficult for the human brain to register what is wrong as this is perfectly good english.
Call of Duty will be available for Switch under Microsoft. Halo and God of War are platform exclusives. But so are Tears of the Kingdom and various Mario titles. Elden Ring is the only game listed that's not available for Switch but is on both others.

Even then, there are a ton of games that are available across all platforms, including some AAA ones:
Mortal Kombat 11
The Witcher 3
Assassins's Creed (multiple)
Skyrim
Resident Evil (multiple)
Monster Hunter Rise
Overwatch 2
etc...
(Update: uh, std::format returns std::string. Won't use.)

What type would you prefer?
They're gonna be even more upset when they realize that about 50% of the people who end up playing the game do so through Gamepass.
Hey, this is great advice. Maybe it is as simple as "just lie about your destination and don't give up any additional information." I don't think that's as easy as you make it sound, but at least it's a clear strategy.

On the other hand, I think a lot of the difficulty in situations like this comes from not knowing that this is about the "skiplag" issue (or not knowing if it's only about that issue). I think there's also a likely scenario where the airline starts investigating you for one thing and just sort of throws the book of accusations at you when they don't like how the skiplag interrogation is going.

My first comment was more about that: the private actor interrogating people without clear rules or limits.
> otherwise we're just going to see everything good disappear behind trade secret

We will see that anyway. All the code I work on commercially is copyrighted and yet a trade secret. Existence of copyright (with the exception of copyleft, but that's subversion) didn't help software to be open sourced.

IMHO allowing models to be copyrighted is basically 18th century enclosures again.
Dinosaurs never really went away, they just Moore's Law'd themselves.
Heh, guess you never watched enough cyberpunk to know the dystopia corpos would make.
Because:

- humans can ask back questions to clarify any ambiguity; computers don't have the capacity to understand ambiguity, let alone asking for clarification.

- computers are trusted to work w/o failure almost 100% of the time. humans err (to be human is to err, anyway), so we'd never put a human in charge of critical things we use computers for.
> I find that unlikely

Nvidia wants to have a word with you about gaming.

> but that is where things become less certain.

And this is another reason.
Isn't this a feature of a monarchy, not a bug? Now compare other countries with monarchies.
A lovely extrapolation! All of it.

I wish I could not only upvote, but add a massive underline to that last sentence.
Youtuber Peter Dibble has an excellent documentary about the plane's move from Long Beach to the Evergreen Aviation and Space Museum in McMinnville, Oregon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBPJhRCqXjA
It’s my personal intern.
Huh. I just matched them based on visual similarity ages ago and was apparently very wrong. I'm sorry, and I wish I could edit my earlier comment. :(
Feels like they could have waited at least 10 days to publish this to see how CPI and Q2 earnings are going....
>cooling

I bought the Intel Euclid (basically a Realsense with integrated compute) and out of the box it had a fan curve that would cause it to thermal throttle within 5 minutes, which would also cause the wifi to drop out.

On a regular consumer device you pick a tradeoff that will make it quieter, but really the only thing anyone used the Euclid for was robotics, where if you're using the CPU at all it's to run SLAM or object recognition nets, in which case you need 100% of the performance 100% of the time...
Let's all agree that judge need to be investigated. I am NOT surprise if there is some kind of conclict of interest not disclose by the judge.
> after we manage to wipe ourselves out.

Our species is formed from planet scale disasters/events, literally evolving us to have the ability to form our world around us, with absolutely incredible excess in ability. There may eventually be less of us, but humans are definitely not going anywhere. "Wipe ourselves out" and "extinct" is always ridiculous hyperbole.

I'm not a climate denier or any other silly label. I'm a logical realist who thinks hyperbole/clickbait have no place in serious discussion.
Because "computers aren't human"
He truly is a fun read. Is a shame, as I don't care for a lot of the quotes he adds; they seem to just detract from his skill at prose.