skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Don't need to actually block EU downloads, just state that no open source software is certified for commercial usage in the EU. Any company that ignores that is now in violation of this law and that's their problem. The EU will need to decide if they want to allow their businesses to continue benefiting from open source software or fix this law.

The interesting question is really what happens when commercial software companies outside the EU that use open source libraries decide they don't want to deal with this headache _also_ start refusing to certify their software for use in the EU and stop doing business there.
Not your parent, and haven't worked directly in these areas, but this is my understanding.

"certification" is something that is done to a process that produces a software artifact.

So yes, in some sense it is "particular compiler version." The result of certification says "this compiler will do this when given this, and here is how we ensure that that is true, and here's the process for when that's not true, etc etc etc." Users can then use that specific compiler.

> I.e. basically leading to the same outcome in the end.

The difference is pretty important. Getting this certification does not require that the abstract concept of the Rust language is being specified in any specific way. It does require that a specific inputs to the compiler are described, and because compatibility with upstream Rust is desired, those specific inputs happen to map to inputs to rustc that are identical, but it is important to understand that this can happen completely independently of what the Rust Project decides is best for the language; this is a downstream project.

In theory, if the Rust project wanted a specification, starting with some of the work Ferrocene has done would be an option. But the qualification process doesn't require that.

> Or does this mean to not get the hopes up (right now) for using Rust in a ISO26262 certified project?

The opposite, this means you can use Rust in these places. Even though this work does not specify Rust.
I have a love/hate with this.

The big problem with defer/errdefer is that I have no way to mark a function as "This function always needs a defer after it and the compiler needs to yell at me if it doesn't exist."

It's also sometimes really hard to scope your defer/errdefer correctly. You may have to twist your code inside out because defer/errdefer ends at a block scope while your variable may not (via: "break :blk varname;").

This all bites so hard for things like reference counting. The bugs ... the bugs ... <mumbles huddled up in corner>
What type of phone integration would you need? Do you use an external provider like Aircall? If you don't, I know Close.com has a built-in phone functionality so maybe their solution could fit your need?

We definitely need to work on integrations soon!
MIT doesn't have athletic scholarships. But I'm pretty sure they weight athletics like they do many other non-academic activities (e.g. music).

ADDED: If you're national class in a sport, they'll probably try to figure out a way to admit you so long as you meet some set of qualifications which mean you probably won't flunk out. (MIT tries pretty hard to keep people from flunking out.)
Not what you meant, but the answer is because they are a profit center for the college.
Try the J source code, like https://github.com/jsoftware/jsource/blob/master/jsrc/v.c

F1(jttable){A z,zz;I r,wr;
F1PREFIP;ARGCHK1(w);
// We accept the pristine calculations from ravel
wr=AR(w); r=(RANKT)jt->ranks; r=wr<r?wr:r; // r=rank to use
// obsolete RZ(IRSIP1(w,0L,r-1<0?0:r-1,jtravel,z)); // perform ravel on items
RZ(IRSIP1(w,0L,r-((UI)r>0),jtravel,z)); // perform ravel on items
R r?z:IRSIP1(z,0L,0L,jtravel,zz); // If we are raveling atoms, do it one more time on atoms
} // ,."r y

Quoting https://corecursive.com/065-competitive-coding-with-conor-ho... :

> Yeah. I started a project a couple months ago. I’m slowly porting that code base, the J source code to C++ 20. And yeah, I think there should be a name for these types of code bases, because it’s not C, it’s like a macro variant of C, where it’s a CDSL, where 80% of your “library” is macros. I did a search, there’s 10,000 macros in the source code, and those macros are used like functions.
Lists/"awesome lists" and lists of lists are great.

https://github.com/jnv/lists
The Cyber Trust Mark is a voluntary IoT label coming in 2024. What does it mean?
You have nothing to apologize for, at least not to me. I just wanted to highlight what usually gets forgotten in these self-flagellating discussions - people like me who learn English as a second language to participate in the anglosphere have countries of our own, where our culture and language is the norm. English grants us access to an additional world.

That we have to do the bare minimum and learn English to access the anglosphere (or global scientific publishing, where if it wasn't English then it would be French or Latin or some other common language, and the issues would be the same) is not something you should spend an ounce of guilt, or even limited awareness, on.

And it is downright perverse that the fantastic scientific accomplishments, that drew the global scientific community to learn English to access them, get re-cast as "the world built for you", as some kind of unearned privilege.
Completely agreed. The best solution to eliminate government waste is to eliminate the part of the government creating the waste.
I submit that, given the obvious disdain the author has for the speech of ordinary people and what he considers "low" culture, "snob" is an entirely appropriate term.
No one can control the web unless every personal computing device on earth is closed source down to the hardware. Digital technology is a double edged sword. I agree that Google would definitely want complete control, but they just can’t do that. We’ll most likely rather see deglobalization of the web with trust shifting from FAANG to states.
I'm sure there's a country you could immigrate to where the political consensus is that no basic research of any sort should happen, but the country we're talking about has the opposite consensus. Put differently: is there an argument you could make here that would be persuasive to someone other than an ancap?
Using open source as a political weapon is much worse than this. Banning patches from Russian developers have already been seen. It is not the spirit most open source software developers would want to go, I'm sure. At least I would never lift a finger to patch anything that took part in something like you mentioned or as insane as sanctioning russian developers (or some other country/race/gender/etc.)

It is a slippery slope and in no time it would spread to banning Chinese patches and developers, with people getting riled up by people from .gov mails and next up Muslims and on and on.

Besides, show me one of those "all" you mentioned that has the right to do so. Do you think open source is American? It could just as well be they all ban the US. Just... don't.
It was a perennial problem in earlier times. Because of its essential nature, many empires had salt taxes, including the British in India up to at least the 1930s.
Lots of people end up with AgentForward on by default as a sort of "make it work" fix, and lots of people use `git+ssh` on untrusted servers. Here's an example:

https://abyssdomain.expert/@filippo/109659699817863532

TBF this is a vulnerable config either way; but RCE on the client shouldn't be possible.
6v6 and no role queue (depending on what part of 2019 they mean...). OW2 is a 5v5 game, there is a role queue and you choose to play tank, DPS or healer before finding a match and you're locked into that choice over the course of the match and the number of each role is fixed at 2 DPS, 2 support and 1 tank. In old OW1 you'd just queue and could pick any role at any time so your time could be 6 DPS or 3 DPS, two tanks and a support. And at launch of the game you could even have multiple of the same hero on a team in a match.
Can you elaborate on the difficulties and nuances surrounding syncing? I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Do you mean keeping indexes update to date when new documents are provided? or something else...
But they don't prevent infection nor transmission. What is the word to describe a proposed medical treatment that does not work?

Both the Covid vaccine and the vaccines you are saying had great results share this trait. You mentioned this negatively for the Covid vaccines. Why is it different for other ones?
The part of the game that suffered the hardest was competitive multiplayer.

OW1 mid-high tier competitive gameplay felt a constant explosion and your brain was engaged nearly 100% of the time. In OW2, the urgency level feels more like a game of counterstrike or League of Legends. Everything is muted and grey in terms of fast-paced arena shooter experience. More waiting, less fighting, more weird complex bullshit, fewer things happening per unit time, etc. Subtracting a player from each team certainly is a big part of this.

The community itself is crappier too. The "energy" left the room 3 years ago. The first year of OW1 competitive felt like a digital drug to me.
Cheap education!
good point, and that probably answers my question - if you wanted to go unlisted, there was a central authority that you could contact and petition to do so. You can't call the internet anti-doxxing hotline...
Ukraine seizes 150k SIM cards from bot farm
I cannot overstate how much I detest BDD and Cucumber.
I think there are a spectrum of social interactions.

There are negative social interactions, and they frequently leave me drained, or seeking solitude.

There are busy interactions where lots of people require my time and attention even though I have other things to do - they can also leave me drained.

There are also positive interactions, with friends or maybe places where people are gathered with a common interest that leave me buoyant and full of energy and enthusiasm.

Even online interactions might count as interactions, and fill my day with various effects on my energy.

Pet interactions are generally pretty positive. I often wonder if some people use pets as proxies for human interaction (may be healthy or unhealthy)
Eh, if you're doing anything in the background on an RPi, timing intensive operations like I2C or SPI get really buggy. Years ago, I had to add a retry function to basic, 3-byte I2C transactions on an RPi, because even something as simple as that was still getting bumped pretty often. These days, I'm more likely to just use a microcontroller for all of those operations, and then use an FTDI cable to let the micocontroller report its results up to the RPi. That's always been easier than setting up something like DMA on an RPi.

Granted, I write microcontroller firmware for a living these days, but I still use RPis and Arduinos for proof-of-concept work because of the simplicity of the toolchains.
Hey glad you find it useful. DevBoard just came out of stealth mode last week.
> But I'm sure they have a good reason for this.

CUDA and ROCM make this an intractable problem. Basically there is no way to sanely package everything users need, and the absolutely enormous, cude/rocm versioned pytorch packages with missing libs are already a compromise.

TBH the whole ecosystem is not meant to be for end user inference anyway.
This is a good example of why it is useful to have more than one person or team work on the same problem in parallel. Yes you duplicate effort but you often come up with better solutions especially if the teams regularly meet to compare notes.
Congrats on the launch.

My two cents:
I work in marketing and CRM for eCommerce lifestyle companies. When I evaluate a CRM I try to understand if it's for sales or eCommerce or both. I see in your docs that you mention that specific point of sales being dominant in CRM so that's a plus.

Then I look at if it natively or easily connects to the tools that the company uses. If I'm pointed to using Zapier for connections that's usually too costly because you're collecting a lot of emails and you can quickly get into millions of calls for low quality leads.

Another big miss I notice is not integrating with POS systems and only eCommerce so that quickly creates an issue with companies opening stores.

On the sales side there's usually less of a sales pipeline and more of a clienteling side where you've got sales people at store locations reaching out to customers to announce products or services or events. It's a lot less of stages because products are usually not all that high value.
Probably because anyone mentioning such a thing is met with outrage at suggestion that “scientists” are anything but humble truth seekers.
In Czech (but may be true for other Slavic languages, at least western ones):

* Josef - male form

* Josefa - female form

* Josefka - diminutive female form

so Iosevka to me looks like English spelling of Josefka

If you're curious, male diminutive forms of Josef are: Josífek, Jožin, Jožka, Pepa, Pepík and about 100 others.
In systems software I've often seen/done this on a micro scale, where you build the new system inside the old system, think feature flagging but something so fundamental that it's almost the whole thing.
Note: you are not vulnerable if you're not doing agent forwarding (-A).

Honestly, you probably should never do -A anyway; use -J (proxyjump) instead.

https://www.man7.org/linux/man-pages/man1/ssh.1.html

https://userify.com/docs/jumpbox
Thank you! Yeah, the first $ meant actually more to me than this specific milestone.
Exactly. I wonder how many people that are riding the async bandwagon have any actual experience building large systems that operate under some kind of reliability guarantee. It's a great way to pull a whole pile of unnecessary complexity into a codebase, lots of fun debugging hairy little problems and to solve interesting bugs with free footguns provided for all takers.

It's a kludge at best and it's quite annoying to see a first class project such as Rust be distracted like this.
> and no role queue

Yes exactly this.

A completely open-ended team comp that players dynamically rotate through during a game was the original intention. It was incredibly sophisticated gameplay and theory.

I guess it turned out that the average gamer was too much of a dumbass to learn this system, so it had to be watered down into a gameplay style you could copy from mobafire.com
Replace Salesforce and CRM with ServiceNow and ITSM and it's a similar story. They call it "Land and Expand". There's a reason they have a 99% or so renewal rate.
It's just a tool in the toolkit.

I dropped my entire comp-sci major when I realized I couldn't bear even the first of two required technical writing courses. It was wringing all of the joy out of something I loved.

Later, newswriting was... maybe not quite "fun", but I did enjoy the challenge of remaining creative within the form while keeping a demanding instructor happy.

Screenwriting was similar. It's not a form I really ~enjoy writing in, but I think learning to write from that perspective also leaves you with something good for the kit.
On what grounds?
The crop top?
The denim shorts?
The enhanced boobs?

Man, this discrimination is just disgusting.
I think the reason is more practical. Mastodon is distributed, user-controlled, and easily managed. You can just choose to simply not interact with privacy-adverse systems rather than being forced to use a single centralized system.
All the "project management" type stuff. It used to be just a request builder. Something easier to fiddle with than the command line for analysis. Now it's got a bunch of features and wants you to build projects? I stopped using it a long time ago.
Lynn Conway and the Chip Design Revolution – News – SparkFun Electronics
That's not possible with GPL etc. code. Especially since most repos are not even in the US and you can't change the license.
Great comment, I have been looking at doing something like this in my own case. You target a single customer / stakeholder, and suddenly stopping the world is less damaging because you're only stopping / slowing development for a smaller segment of your business. That also means you can time it to align with that segment's needs, trying to find a good stretch of downtime where you can get to work. (This would be impossible for the whole business). If you pick the right customer, you get a good blend of reduced scope (you don't have to solve EVERY problem) without being too narrow (you can't just work on the fun parts - you have to fully solve the problem for that stakeholder, forcing you to think through all of the boring stuff that will need to be figured out).
Why IRL streaming in Japan is 'not for the faint of heart'
Senate puts NASA on notice over Mars mission
> Our tool only does a small part of what big CRM players offer, but we focused on providing a great user experience on the basics, instead of spreading ourselves thin across a vast range of features and delivering them half-heartedly.

I like this approach. So much software feels completely half-assed and frustrating to use. Quality can be a real differentiator (it just has to be empathized enough).
Nice work! This looks very promising. The only thing I would add is the difference in packages seems a bit weird:

- Five seems low for projects in the first tier

- Projects are unlimited in the second tier, but environments are not? Is that a technical limitation?
There are plenty of academic opportunities at Harvard that are not available at state schools. Because they attract many of the top students in the world, they're able to offer highly accelerated or advanced courses that other schools can't.
I didn't even know they got aquired. It's been a long time since i used it.
That is putting the cart before the horse. Frameworks solve for a fundamental business problem well before ever approaching any technical problems. A front-end framework is an architecture in a box, a pre-designed composition. There are a couple of business reasons for that:

1) Provides a common externally defined abstraction, so that developers require less training and are more disposable.

2) Supplement skills of unskilled developers

The reason frameworks do not primarily solve for change detection, is because the browsers already provide that. Frameworks provide an additional solution riding on the browser's solution as an abstraction. Framework don't even really solve for a common set of standards either, because the browser provides that too. I really want to say that major frameworks provide for a more narrowly construed set of APIs and design approaches, but the APIs on modern frameworks are absolutely massive, so I cannot say that either.

So... frameworks are really just an abstraction to achieve a particular design approach, whether good or bad.
The less "like us" they are, they more justified we are in killing them. "Like us" is tied around shared culture and experience. If you asked me to choose between saving the life of an elf and the life of a human being, I'd choose the human damn near every time (barring cases where the human deserves death regardless of the dilemma).

"Shared experience" in this case is a basic history of doing stuff together, or in a sympathetically similar way. Dogs have been shaped to serve side-by-side with humans as companions, sharing in our experiences. So eating them is wrong. There are no humans that are less like us than than the animals we eat. Brain-dead humans are an example of just following taboo: We don't kill and eat other humans, because of the whole "we are more alike than we are different" thing, and incidentally extend the same courtesy to things that take complex explanations for not being us.

If we ran into other conscious, sapient species, we'd probably be hesitant about killing them due to the shared experience of sentience making them a lot more like us than a cow. But on the other hand, killing an alien would be a hell of a lot more permissible than killing a human.

And I apply the same kind of logic to people. My friends and family are significantly more valuable than random strangers. In a trolley scenario with one of my friends on one track and 3 strangers on another, I'd save my friend, every time, and I wouldn't trust anybody who would answer otherwise.
> To some extent you certainly need a standardized language

Because we're talking standards, precise wording is important. You do not need a standardized language in order to produce a qualified compiler.

> I don't think having rustc as the "defacto" standard is in any way acceptable to use it on an airplane.

This is true but not because it's a "defacto standard," it is because rustc does not fulfill the requirements to be qualified. Ferrocene, on the other hand, does.

> A compiler not complying with the standard is also not that problematic, as long as the deviation is known.

You're correct here, but that's directly in conflict with the "you need a standardized language," which is why I'd disagree with that portion of what you've said here.
Admissions rates for legacy students are much higher than for the general applicant pool, sometimes by an order of magnitude. But that raw comparison doesn’t shed much light on how much the legacy status actually helps, as opposed to the differences among legacy applicants and the general applicant pool.

Is there any data that shows how these students compare to other students who are comparable in terms of family income, high school type, GPA, SAT? I would assume that all of these variables could be significantly different for children of alumni (especially of elite institutions, where admissions is most competitive), so it would be helpful to know what these numbers look like after removing some obvious confounders.
Don't shadow. Just don't. We've got enough variable names in the universe. :)
In that example, the requirements of the accounting system are also very poorly defined since they've evolved over time without thorough documentation. An email system on the other hand has fairly rigid (but not perfect) requirements in the form of RFCs and other standards.

I think the same applies to rewrites--systems with very well-known/understood requirements will be easier to rewrite than systems with soft requirements that have evolved a lot over time.
Awesome guide!
I've never worked anywhere that _doesn't_ allow their engineers to run unsigned code. It's good practice for non-techs, but if your engineers need to be babysat like that, get better engineers.
Ok, I know this is a bit of a stretch, but bear with me: I think we are seeing something similar to the doping scandal that took down Lance Armstrong and many others a while back.

There was at least one year's Tour de France in which all but one participant were later found to have been doping. In other words, you didn't get to that level of that competitive activity, if you didn't cheat, because it wasn't possible to outperform people with such a significant advantage. It actually became a contest, not just of bicycling, but of doping, because getting away with it was quite difficult and it took years for the world of cycling to get good enough countermeasures to shift the advantage to non-doping.

Academic research has, for decades now, been a very competitive, high stakes endeavor. Many fields have more people trying to work in it, than there are spots (i.e. grants and endowed chairs) available. If you have twice as many aspirants as slots available, and "only" 25% of them cheat (in this case, fudge their data to get more interesting results), then you get something like 50% of your field filled with fraud.

Moreover, the closer they are to the top, the higher the likelihood that they are "doping".

I live in Austin, TX, and I remember when nearly all of Lance Armstrong's competitors had been busted, but he had not yet. I said to other people, "well, that's it then, he must have been doping. You can't win the Tour de France 7 years in a row against doping opponents, if you're clean. Either doping doesn't work, or he was doping."

I recall several people disagreeing, convinced that he was clean. He wasn't clean.