skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Temporal Graph Benchmark for Machine Learning on Temporal Graphs
It does. It’s supposed to realign itself twice a year
It's your own test, I don't need see why you need to respond in this manner.

> Running 3000 processes is a few orders of magnitude less than running 1000000

I didn't decide on the limit, my OS did. So they must think it's unreasonable.

> Running on MacOS, but I've run this in Linux.

Well your test works fine on linux. MacOS is not designed to run large multi-process server loads. Linux has specifically optimized forking and context switching for processes.

> Why do you think you know every use case?

Why do you think you can't handle most cases by using processes? The goal isn't for a tool to handle every use case, it's to handle a specified set of use cases well.

Python itself doesn't work for every use case.

Looks like we are safe to ignore overhead of launching processes for programs with fewer than 3000 threads.

> Thank you obviousman.

I wanted to compare context switch, you decided to measure something else. I am pleasantly surprised anyway.
chroma can help here https://github.com/chroma-core/chroma
First-principles study on the electronic structure of Pb10−xCux(PO4)6O (x=0, 1)
Yes, we can do this for some dams, but not enough to move the needle. Hoover Dam’s generating power is quite tiny relative to the total storage needs, and if you add up all the other viable dams, you’ll find that it doesn’t add up to a lot.

To put it in context: Columbia River basin produces 40% of US hydroelectricity. Out of 14 dams on Columbia River, 12 of them produce (each individually) more electricity than Hoover Dam, most by a factor of 3x or more. Very little of it can be turned into storage as of today, what does not get used must be spilled.

This is not to say that using dams for energy storage is a bad idea, it’s not. It just will not work well in practice with most of currently existing dams, at least without huge retrofits and/or screwing over downstream water consumers and upstream reservoir users.
Thank you for the feedback. Did you by any chance manage to connect the first 2 cells? Once you do that, it will reveal a lot more content, with a more "regular" home page that you can scroll down.
This Recipe Does Not Exist
I don't really like talking about it anymore, I am 6 years sober and still dealing with related issues every day, but yes I feel like I can't talk openly about it. Skepticism is exactly how I would describe it. It's not strictly stigma, like is the case for most people who talk about drug addiction. It's most often a reaction of surprise, disbelief, and then resentment, like I'm a sleeper agent for reefer madness propaganda that they've just uncovered. Normally when you admit to a previous drug addiction that's had lasting impacts on you, the "bad result" is "Wow, I can't believe you're a druggie". With cannabis it's more like "Wow, I don't believe that that happened actually, weed is safe girl, it cures cancer". It is what it is.
Another thing you don't know is no one else does not even NASA.
None of the exposed I have seen mention anything about NRC specific regulations. It's just bad management processes dictating sloppy first attempts at design, leading to literally unconstructable designs, followed by even worse management processes for getting feedback and changes, or any sort of streamlining to allow agile response.

Imagine a huge waterfall design, with the architects being part of a completely different company than the implementers, and months long turn around to get clarification on any aspect or to get the designers to sign off on the necessary changes for anything to happen.

People are not afraid to criticize the NRC, it falls out of people's mouth so easily. But if they are actually afraid of the NRC, why are they so willing to provide critique, but unwilling to suggest the exact things that are the problem?

More likely you have a bunch of substandard folks unwilling to take any sort of responsibility for their actions or for management and instead blame a third party.

Suppose that any one of these companies spent a tiny tiny fraction of their money of proposing changes to regulations that would allow them to build effectively? Why don't we see any sort of proposals like that?

As for nuscale, this is a perfect example of using the NRC as a scapegoat and being unwilling to look at the true source of their problems:

https://www.power-eng.com/nuclear/report-claims-serious-prob...

I am still waiting for some sort of example of the NRC layering on something unnecessary, after six years of begging people making the claim to produce one shred of evidence.
Accidentally discovered its effectiveness when configured with LLMs, just applied with new technology. And it’s just one configuration example.

But in general many configurations are possible, but also you need to refine the personas a great deal to get it to work well.
> The Nature rejection was because of the Ranga Dias affair, and it wasn't an outright rejection but a requirement that the paper be submitted to a local journal and peer reviewed by local scientists before it would be considered.

There is no way this is true. Nature only publishes original papers, which means publication in another journal - why would it have to be "local"? - would preclude their ability to publish.
That's a fair point, well made.
In that case --- yeah, we just have to wait and hope for better solutions/materials for our screens!
Would it be possible to produce carbon black from atmospheric CO₂?
GGP is 30% more area for a fraction of the population. Open grass in Manhattan would get absolutely destroyed in days.
> I noticed that I'd be sitting on the couch watching TV or chatting with my wife in the evening, and I'd have this innate urge to get up, go to the garage and go smoke

One of the longer lasting effects of quitting tobacco was the urge at random times to get up and go outside. I knew I didn't smoke any more, I wasn't craving a cigarette, but it had been part of my behaviour for so long, that I just get up and go outside sometimes, that it lingered as a sort of tic for a while.
I get the impression the capacitor has no physical polarity, but polarity is assigned by charging it.
I wouldn't oppose Bayesian statistics to Falsificationism but to Frequentism.
Yeah - employers in these industries seem to be acting like there's a plentiful supply of young adult males from which to pick and choose. They need to look at a few demographic tables and charts.

1. https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/15-24...
serious question: how can you trust Amazon to provide non-tainted medication?

they sell used razors as new. they sell counterfeit devices. they sell used pet drinking fountains as new.
Yeah, the other replies were pretty convincing about that point.
This was the original attitude amongst the older pot smokers I know. They were in search of the buzz's quality rather than its intensity.
One on One Question Guide/Generator
This tool offers a variety of questions tailored to guide meaningful conversations with team members.
Pectin, ceullose, silk and wool. All of those will be degraded when left out. Man-made plastics will not. That's why we love them and that's why we fear them.
It’s going to be in everything if it’s what they say it is. Landfills are going to be full of lead.
Delighted to see work continue on jq, which I use for altogether way too many things.

I ask this as a fan of both the project and the new pick() feature: are there any other functions in jq whose interpretation of their arguments is "non-regular" in the sense the PR author means [here][1]?

More concretely, the expression `.a, .b.c, .x` means something very different outside a pick call. It represents a uncollected stream of more than one value, rather than a reduction of an object into a subset of itself.

The syntax inside a pick call is (I believe) impossible to implement in jq; it has to be a builtin. There's no way to get "regular jq" to extract the path expressions as strings with which to set an object's keys.

Ultimately I do think like the addition, but I recognize the tradeoff of "pure" consistency for syntactical brevity. I'd be curious to hear from the maintainers A) whether I'm off-base about the pathexp syntax limitation and B) if there's some philosophy or design principle guiding why and when they might decide to add specialized interpretations of pathexps.

[1]: https://github.com/jqlang/jq/pull/2656#issuecomment-16228220...
Isomers are structurally different. Allotropes refer to variations of the same element.

You're looking at the word "polymorph": "(chemistry, geology) Any substance or mineral that forms different types of crystal."
Yeah, gloves are off for something so performance sensitive, and that also has to be backwards compatible with eons of older Windows versions. Who cares if it's not more intuitive.

That said, certainly there should be some decent documentation with working examples. I assume there are not hence the author's arduous trip down shonky lane.
"Millions" sounds like a huge number until you remember that Avogadro's number is six hundred thousand million million million.

A cup of milk is on the order of a mole of particles (+/- 90%), so that's only slightly more than one part in a trillion.
Those countries have costs of labor far far below Western countries. There are also huge questions about corruption and actual work performed. For example, Sourh Korea, the least corrupt country there with the highest cost of labor, put executives in jail for their fraud on safety certifications.

My personal hypothesis is that nuclear is only kind of affordable for a very narrow band of technological advancement, where labor is still cheap enough but tech capability has not advanced too much. After your technological capacities advance far enough, labor is better spent on other tech than building massive cathedrals.

As for China, try comparing nuclear builds to a single quarter of solar or storage output. It's a big country, and China's investment in nuclear is proof that even in a country known for excellent skills in managing massive construction projects, it's not really giving renewables a run for their money.
I can't help feeling this is a very pyrric victory, if thats how they want to cast it. A land seeded with mines and dragon's teeth is basically economically useless. So, at a cost of wasting territory, they get to maintain a tenuous grasp on other lands, which are demonstrably under or non-producing because of the heinous costs of maintaining the hold on them.

"It became necessary to destroy the town to save it." to mis-quote from the Vietnam war.

(this does not really address the legality in anyones eyes of the (re)occupation of Crimea. It's about the utility, the degree of "victory" implicit in the current situation)
> Construction companies do not have the profit margin

Then there's a lot of construction happening that does not need to happen.

Steins Law: if something cannot go on, it will stop.

Looks like we're opting for the unplanned sudden stop instead of the planned gradual stop.
I programmed in PET basic in 1977/78 on my PET 2001 computer with a tape drive. Oh, the memories! And trying to explain to my mom and dad what the large thing on my desk was, and what could you do with it. Dad would bring up Colossus:The Forbin Project (the 1970 movie, which I saw a few years before buying my PET used for $832 in NYC).
Unless it can be used to source Materiel, it's simply boiling the ocean dry for lottery tokens.
The problem is that this stuff is severely nonlinear, and for the raw formula there are not that many degrees of freedom to try. If you get a structure, there is no guarantee it's stable, or accessible by our synthetic techniques.

Obtaining the training data is also likely to be tricky.
Direct link: https://twitter.com/Andercot/status/1686215574177841152#m
Marijuana can be challenging to stop, but so can a lot of other things. Daily vitamins come to mind. I used to take a daily combination proposed by my psychiatrist. The days when I didn't, I used to feel like a zombie, was moody and had horrible sleep.

The idea that changing a habitual chemical input that has effects on the brain should be painless is a bit unreasonable. I feel the headline is clickbaity but the core fact remains. Changing habits is hard. Especially when that change results in lost sleep or mood swings. That said, I've seen an opiate addict spend a month rapidly detoxing and weed is a piece of cake by comparison.
Results of a simulation: the "in mice" of the superconductor debate.
I'd go a step further and say this is how you should write all of your code because realistically every single function/class is its own little API.
I'm convinced at least 50% of thedailywtf is made up. But maybe that's just something I tell myself so I can sleep better.
> Euclid is one of the first space-based telescopes designed after the discovery of dark energy....

I guess you can 'discover' a hypothesis.

>scientists hope it will provide critical data to shed light on such mysterious subjects

It might even help measure the speed of light from critical data!
> There is no such thing as a labour shortage - EVER

What about during WWII in the United States? A large number of people had to leave their jobs because they were drafted for the war.
I mean, from the circumstances it seems quite evident they believe in what they're saying. Fyi they've been working on this material since 1999
> For example, Render supports Docker containers, but they are tied to a single region only. This is probably enough for hobby projects, but it's a show stopper for commercial deployments.

The vast, vast majority of commercial deployments are single region, as evidenced by the occasional failure of us-east1.
I do not think water features are mutually exclusive with accessability.
Today I learned the phrase “gish gallop”, which is both really useful and really fun to say.
I'm not sure why that would be of interest in this situation TBH, we're talking about the definition of a word, not a prediction of something that may or may not happen.
These are not “results”, this is a theoretical simulation of the model. The Chinese paper failed to reproduce the material.
Unlocking the Benefits of Video Conferencing in the Digital Era
Discover the transformative impact of AI in video conferencing, streamlining virtual meetings for enhanced efficiency and productivity. Sachin Dev Duggal's observations highlight the significance of these technological advancements.
This. Beavers have no agenda other than the instinct to build a dam where one is needed. I'd reroute roads if necessary
Showing love when under the influence of THC is not hard. Relearning how to without it is pretty hard. Conversely, you're so much more present as a parent when sober - even if that means you're more serious.

I love your comment and encouragement.
Translation: it’s vitally important that you be able to say the N-word or post depictions of child/adult maximally intense love (let’s not use terms like CSAM; that’s mean) on X.

Also, pay fealty to Musk with a tithe every afternoon at 4:20 PM; that Neuralink Zyklon-B supply ain’t gonna pay for itself.
I must have got it confused with another client then. Wasn't there another lightweight one made by Element-the-company that reuses the react SDK?
>If your dev environment is meant to be multiplatform

Why would this be the case?

Dev environments should concentrate on a single platform as much as possible.
> It is not just pay rate. Where I can match pay rates, I cannot match lifestyle.

Acceptance of that lifestyle is partially contingent on the pay. I am sure that plenty of people would be willing to spend long stretches away from home at work if they were being paid $1m.
Yes, you're right, I should have used a more complex example for an isomer.
Not an expert but it just happen that my lab is full of DFT folks so I heard a lot about those everyweek. As people above already answered the questions, I gonna talk some extras.

1. Computation cost is large. 1 compute task for a small scale ~100 atoms last about 3 days to 1 week on supercomputer.

2. Search space is hugh. For each composition you can have different atomic (or crystal) structure. And here we are talking doping which means introduce impurities into the molecule. Chemical characteristics differs depending on which atom you swap for the impurity. Sometimes you may want to try all places.

3. Depends on initial values. Sometimes the initial value is just bad that the result is totally unusable, then you have tweak a little bit and throw back to supercomputer. This cycle might happen few times for 1 specific formula and structure.

4. Not 100% accurate. Often the resulting numbers are off by a few % or more which is hugh, compare to experimental results. Reason is that the simulation is not full scale, approximation is here and there to reduce computational cost.
I started to write summaries for all articles everywhere I post. No need for people to waste their time if they are not interested in the topic.

This also keeps my traffic stats clean: people that comes are the ones that are interested in the content. The number are smaller, but closer to what my real readership looks like. Since I have no ads, I don't aim for volume, so I rather know the truth.
I really wouldn't go that far. Oscar nominations are industry nominated movies. There's no real bar of quality aside from what the committee deems worthwhile. The committee famously doesn't care about animated movies, so the generally the only animated films that wins Oscars are Disney films, despite strong international presence.
Is the definition of a bad candidate simply someone who doesn't interview well?

Just wondering if you have any data that supports the idea that those people would not perform well in a role, or just that it's very hard to tell anything about them in an interview!
Ah no they called the working prototype LK-99 so if it works it is if it does not then it is not. Instead of what you are saying that it works so is not LK-99.
It’s sort of an amazing time. All the things we projected were 30 years out 40 years later and manifesting. The degree of skepticism is high, as should be, but the things we knew were achievable just hard to discover are rapidly unfolding. What falls next?

(N.b., I know I’m displaying unreasonable hubris and it’s still more likely than not an illusion or fabrication, but it certainly feels a lot of long term investments are rapidly coming to a head - AI, space, cancer treatments, aging research, EV, even flying cars and fusion - what a great time to be alive)
When they have a walking stones over them they are. The picture from TFA literally shows people jumping from stone to stone, with path and benches on EITHER side, and near as I can tell from the photo there is no obvious bypass.

This is the photo: https://i0.wp.com/cabel.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/tokyo...

I don't really see any way that wouldn't be an ADA violation.
This seems like an unethical thing to say. I had forgotten that everyone was just ignoring that the llm's showed emotions because they didn't believe it should really be capable.
Yes, this is the annoying thing about that story. They were definitely trying very hard, and they likely had some effect, but ultimately they just didn't have that much influence, likely significantly under a 0.1% swing. The whole Comey thing was significantly more influential and I believe the consensus is that even that wouldn't have changed the results.

Of course, nations still have a right to sovereignty and to be upset when another nation interferes in their internal affairs. I really hope the American public remembers how it felt going forward.
I may have missed some follow-ups, but wasn't the original team Korean?
Because the regulatory environment is inhospitable to new plants?
> One of its major faults is one must roll the die and do whatever you land on says.

Monopoly was based on “The Landord’s Game” and was never meant to teach economic decision making.

It was meant to promote Georgism and demonstrate the power of landlords, for which that “fault” is a feature.
Not just materials science though. I’m a longtime reader of Derek Lowe’s In the Pipeline blog, and he often emphasizes the trickiness of lab work and lab techniques. But the model we have of science from elementary and high school doesn’t give us room for the random, ephemeral things that come into play in actual experimental work. Our model is methods equal result, every time, even though jiggling your foot a little bit to get the feeling back may have somehow made your small molecule production have less binding affinity or something. And yes, eventually you figure that out and stop jiggling your foot but two years have passed.
If only they had a technical writer in their team
> And the dissenting opinion will be able to do the same.

if they have the money

> Twelve year old kids

pfft
> Tokyo Disneyland also has beautiful integrated water features that were totally incomprehensible to my American litigious-society self. Wait, there’s no railing here? How is this even possible?!

Americans need to be conscious of this when venturing into the wider world. We hosted an American colleague, Vince, here in NZ. One weekend he and his wife visited a local wildlife park.

They walked around the perimeter, and came across an apparent hole in the chain link fencing.

He recounted "through the hole, I could see a lion just sitting there. It looked like it could have leaped through the hole and eaten us. Of course, I knew it couldn't, or that park would have been sued into oblivion. But I couldn't figure out how they were making it safe".

Travel advisory for US people - don't assume that other countries operate the same way as the US and instead assume it's entirely possible you will be eaten by a lion (or fall into a stream as in this story).
If you're interviewing with me I definitely read the resume. Not all places are the same though.

Occasional mild confusion in a good candidate is worth stumping the bad ones often. I do feel slightly bad, and I admit it's slightly rude, but it works and the interview process is what it is.

By the end of the interview, the rough start is hopefully forgotten. If you ever get this question upfront again hopefully you understand why and roll with it.
sounds like that's an obvious loophole to get around the protection then if they did allow same domain only

edit: no I'm wrong, it's early here and I've not had coffee
SpaceX only recovers rockets with a reusable launch profile. They're not recovering the ones that crash into the sea like this, and I think they gave up on making the F9's second stage recoverable in favor of making a new, better launch vehicle. It's pretty much business as usual, in the grand scheme of things a few tons of metal going into the ocean is NBD.
Steve Yegge discusses this in his "The Five Essential Phone-Screen Questions" blog post[0] from 2004 and states that his team-member (at Amazon) produced the list of phone-numbers in an hour:

Here are some facts for you to ponder:

1. Our Contact Reduction team really did have exactly this problem in 2003. This isn't a made-up example.

2. Someone on our team produced the list within an hour, and the list supported more than just the 2 formats above.

3. About 25% to 35% of all software development engineer candidates, independent of experience level, cannot solve this problem, even given the entire interview hour and lots of hints.

[0] https://sites.google.com/site/steveyegge2/five-essential-pho...
But fb is full of bots