skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Ctrl-f is often overriden for a reason, though. On modern shitty React sites content outside the viewport may not be loaded into the DOM, so the browser find won't even work. It is quite frustrating the scroll past some text, ctrl-f for it and get "no results".
How many millions of people post on Reddit?

Reddit is just made of everyone, and it turns out that everyone is a bunch of jerks.
At my job, it speeds up clean builds 3x on the CI server, but a portion of those gains are lost to code breaking frequently due to unity.
> However the fact it is not writing code to do this from its machine would still demonstrate a weakness.

You can tell it it's allowed to create its own tools and it will. I did this and asked it to write a poem about the top stories on the BBC, so it said it needed to get the headlines but couldn't so wrote a tool to do it, then called it and used the output to write a poem.
Firefox Money: Investigating the Finances of Mozilla
A missed hard deadline. I.e. one set by a customer or stakeholder. At this point, the project can only be salvaged, but it will never be considered a success unless it is otherwise flawless and provides a wow factor of some other sort
Ask HN: What projects are trying to reinvent core software infrastructure?
In Lazygit Turns Five[0], the author mentions Jujutsu[1], which seems to be an effort to create a Git v2 that addresses some of the awkward edges of the initial implementation. I'm really interested in learning about similar efforts in other domains (i.e. video/audio transcoding, operating systems, programming languages, etc). Specifically, I'm curious about efforts that are roughly <= 5 years old and were initially started as individual projects. One example that (mostly) fits this category for me is Zig[2].

[0] https://jesseduffield.com/Lazygit-5-Years-On/
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx_LGilOuE4
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zig_(programming_language)
Last week I committed a change of a type name from "TimeThing" (always just a tentative placeholder) to "TimeDomainSwapper" precisely because I finally (?) understood what is was.
“I have recently taken to asking candidates who interview with me for research positions whether it is possible to hear the shape of a drum. This seemingly innocuous problem was posed by mathematician Mark Kac in 196612 and stumped the mathematical community for several decades.

The quick answer I am often given is, "Yes, of course hearing a drum's shape is possible. All that is needed is a sufficiently large dataset of sounds associated with drumhead shapes (for supervised learning) or indeed even without association to the shapes (for unsupervised learning) and use of an effective training algorithm and validation methodology. Once a model has been trained on the data, it will infer the shape of a drum from any recorded spectrum it is given."

This answer is wrong, and it is the reason Kac's famous question merits being revisited in the context of today's AI to solve complex problems. In the 1990s, mathematicians finally proved that it is, in fact, not possible to hear the shape of a drum, or at least not uniquely.9 This is because drumheads exist of different shapes that produce exactly the same sound, or in mathematical terms, are isospectral.”

That seems entirely unfair. The question is if you hear the shape of a drum. The actual answer is yes. But he says this answer is wrong, because you can’t uniquely hear the shape of the drum.

I’m trying to decide if this goalpost moving is a better metaphor for this full piece, or for much of the analysis of AI in general.
> See, that’s the problem with bullshit. It takes substantially more effort to counter and clean up the bullshit than it takes to spread it. This is what is dangerous, making claims or insinuating things out of ignorance or malice.

You're spending effort just name calling instead, though. Countering through insinuation (you think that? That's what populists think!) or arguing from adverse consequences are just terrible alternatives. I would spend that effort finding out how to logically counter instead of using these tactics.

> That’s a strawman.

No; I think your definition was just easy to falsify. You need a better definition. If you want to demonstrate why my example was a straw man, feel free to do so, but I don't think the phrase even applies here.

> Arguing that A should be axed while ignoring, either out of ignorance or malice, that it enables B hides the full picture

This is the straw man. You're making up that I argued something should be axed, because that is an easy argument to counter than what I actually said. That is the definition of a straw man argument.
Call it the Moolenaar Award, maybe?
Restricting demand is inhumane. Increase supply.
It means what I wrote it means - there's no inherent reason why any content creator should be entitled to rent for a text they wrote or image they put together for their whole lifetime. A carpenter selling his work of art doesn't get rent for 70 years. Neither does a painter. Or a software developer based on the code they commited. What makes a writer or a singer (in reality, for MOST content that would be a publisher megacorporation) so special, that they deserve rent until end of life for a piece of text they wrote?

Let me reiterate, VAST, VAST majority of all cultural works aren't owned by authors themselves, but their publishers which don't pass on most of the rent they collect. Huge piece of this is owned by rent-seeking megacorporations collecting rent for things they did not create and which royalty agreements have passed long since.

Make copyright 20 years - most profits from content are made in first 5 years. 15 extra on top to be fair. After that, the artists will just actually have to create something new to earn money - just like everyone else in the world.
step 1: acquire girlfriend
step 2: do the needful
> I can't count the number of times I wish I could drop out of insert mode in normal web browser text boxes.

You can, if you really want to:

https://github.com/glacambre/firenvim
I use vim almost every single day, and use vim-dialect in every other editor I use. I'm thankful for its existence and to Bram for developing it.
Yes, very hard. I feel like I knew him - kind of silly given I've never met him and I don't think have even crossed emails with him. Yet I've used his work for decades and I think it's fair to say that there's a lot of him in Vim in a very real way. Wish I'd sent him a note to say thanks. GNU Bram.
Well, since I'm still quite young, I can look forward to getting all of my internal plumbing replaced for my 65th birthday...
It's easy to say that, but "surely it must be possible to connect an llm in such a way that it becomes intelligent" (tell me if I'm misinterpreting) is not a demonstration of anything. It's basically restating the view from the 50s that with computers having been invented, an intelligent computer is a short way off.
Dialect can include pronunciation, vocabulary, word choice, grammar, semantics, and other ways of speaking where accent refers only to ways of pronunciation. Academics almost always go with "dialect" for "different ways of speaking" unless they're specifically meaning only pronunciation. And sometimes not even then.

The differences covered here do seem to be mostly accent (though some might consider sound changes to be more than accent), but calling it dialect allows for broader consideration if warranted.
My A770 16GB originally intended for OpenVINO and OneAPI was repurposed into a workstation dedicated to AV1/VP9 encoding.

Slow developments are fine with me; it's a beautiful card.
I lived in bear country, and still live relatively close and visit all the time. I think it's just generally safe to assume if someone says brown bear, it's a grizzly. Like the old saying doesn't work as well like

If it's black, fight back

If it's ursus arctos horribilis, lay down

If it's white, goodnight.
Being confused does make some sense IMO. Good readers are able to articulate the elements from a book that spoke to them, and roughly how. I don't know if I am a good reader (likely not) but I can do it. Interested in feedback from other such people. I don't intend to argue with them however, just wanna hear what is it that drew them in and kept them in.
The protocol in linked study appears to be similar to the melanoma therapy I underwent at NIH, except for the CAR-T part.

The study I was part of was published in a few papers, including: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6295669/
> However, the fact that Linus Torvalds, who is in charge of a critical piece of our infrastructure made of 15 million lines of code (the Linux kernel), does not use a debugger tells us something about debuggers

It _may_ tell us something about debuggers. Probably that they are not as useful when it comes to OS kernels.

Just as well, it _may_ tell us something about Linus Torvalds. Probably what tools he is more proficient with, or likes more.

> Debuggers were conceived in an era where we worked on moderately small projects, with simple processors (no thread, no out-of-order execution), simple compilers, relatively small problems and no formal testing.

Unix was conceived in another era too, but modern Unices are totally different and have been adapted to modern times. So have debuggers. When I debug a Java program in IntelliJ I can stop and run threads as I like; OOO execution is transparent; so is both high-level compilation (javac) and low-level JIT compilation by the JVM.

> in order to catch bugs, we often need to be able to run with sufficiently large and representative data sets. When we’re at this point, the debugger is usually a crude tool to use

You'd typically use a debugger to understand why one of the tests with your large dataset fails, after you have already noticed that there is a bug. You don't use a debugger to notice that a bug exists at all.

This article really has a point, but it's buried under crude logic, and the elephant in the room is that "debuggers vs. tests" is a false dichotomy.
Discussed two days ago, 296 points and 78 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36985197
We got black bar. It just needed to propagate through the thousands and thousands of edge nodes powering HN.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPM_J1839%E2%88%9210
How many families die per year hit by someone drunk on that sweet sweet corn syrup? How many people are assaulted physically and sexually? How many traumatized mentally? How many killed in a syrup stupor?

Sure, you can eat yourself to death. That affects you, and those who love you.

Alcohol can affect people who have nothing at all to do with the drinker, as well as affect their families, for generations to come.

I hope that you are trolling because if not you are so clueless that it amazes me someone could be so sheltered from reality, though I’m also happy that you don’t know either, it sucks.
One of many things I hate on crappy modern web is messing with history (API). You click a interesting-looking link somewhere (like HN), go to page. You scroll down, either reading or just skimming, and every funcking header (or even something less important) add entry to you history. To get back to original site you have to click back like a million times.

Fuck everyone who does that.
I invite everyone to have a look at compiling LibreOffice [0].

Doing a full compile, has been known to bring even the most powerful machines to their knees.

They’ve employed a lot of the referenced article’s suggestions and it still is a massive code-base to compile.

[0]: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/BuildingOnLi...
Debuggers would be great if they had more speeds than 0 or infinity.

Also, I find debugging JS to be really difficult these days because the ability to set breakpoints and inspect state just doesn't work half the time in Chrome.

What I really want is a "debugger" statement I can turn on/off, at least then it'll break where I want it to.
No. The FresnoBee is a legitimate news organization and the story has been reported on by other news orgs.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/officials-believe-fresn...
> Don't forget that in the end the state has a monopoly on violence.

People have a monopoly on casting votes.
Yea, honestly these types of numbers really aren't surprising, but usually when you profile a build and dig into why the build perf was so bad to begin with, you generally find stuff like template abuse, bad header organization, and countless other untold sins that were better off fixed anyways.
had to go refresh my memory on the 8089; here's a manual in case anyone else is curious. Its fun.

http://bitsavers.org/pdf/intel/ISIS_II/9800938-01_8089_Assem...
The author uses the example of Kepler and Newton to claim that NN based AI can’t generalize like humans can, so it can’t become a AGI.

Was Urek, the first caveman able to generalize a physical theory of orbital motion when he looked up at the sky? It took humans millions of tries and hundreds of thousands of generations to come up with Kepler. Why does he give up on NNs so quickly?
Though while I'm on Bram's team in the editor wars, it seems like we chose different sides in the camera wars. RIP and thanks for the program I probably use the most. :x
It would be nice to be able to create an account that isn't linked to such large corporations. The future seems to be that these players will become gatekeepers, even for things that have nothing to do with them. Piss Google Off? Lose access to your DDNS account.
> Past behavior is the best predictor we have of future behavior

This kind of thinking needs to just go away. It's silly and doesn't allow for growth and change
I only use a debugger when it's well integrated with my IDE/editor, which is, uh, almost every case there days.

I think debugger vs print is more an ergonomic problem. Yes I can write print and if/else instead of using debugger and conditional breakpoint... but it's often much slower, and I need to be careful to not commit them into production code.

> Doing “something else” means (1) rethinking your code so that it is easier to maintain or less buggy (2) adding smarter tests so that, in the future, bugs are readily identified effortlessly.

I fail to see how debugger prevents me from doing this. To me it's mostly a different way to print/if. It would be very weird if using print prevents me from writing maintainable code.
The problem with debuggers is that some programmers find them absolutely necessary to their workflow and they don't get that some of us simply don't.

I use debuggers sparingly, I think they can help in some cases but most of the time I feel much better reading code and traces. Especially when debugging difficult async code.

Being condescending with coders who have different habits than yours is the issue.

There is no "one true way" of doing things, even in our beloved craft.
Same. I find it hard to makes sense of why anyone would claim that computers can innovate visually but not with language. It would make more sense if someone at least felt that they both could, or both couldn't.
It reminds me a bit of The Assassin's Guild in Terry Pratchett's Discworld series. They didn't murder or assassinate anyone; they "inhumed" them - as in the opposite of exhume them.
The problem here is that if the idea of using debuggers becomes an unfashionable niche then the next language won’t provide one at all.

Given how great Java/C#/JS debuggers are, one could hope that every new language will ship with a working debugger, that it would be table stakes.

But there’s a whole generation of working programmers that started their careers in Go and were told debuggers are lame all along, so it’s hard to blame them for not using one.
I think you’re correct. It still hits me wrong. Work is life for only specific subgroup of workers including upper management.

The tone of the entire essay is ripe for parody.
The author used a very specific definition of a debugger: interactive line-by-line execution. So this would not include dumping an array using a debugger, adding watchpoints in a debugger, generating stack traces in a debugger, among other features. So a better title would be, "I do not step my code in a debugger."

> I think that my blog post is clear on what I mean by “debugger” which is interactive line-by-line execution. I specifically say that I use tools that are called debuggers. But I do not use them as debuggers.
Fundamentally what do we need to survive?

Water, food, clothing, a place to call home, dignitary.

Replacing is a strong word. There are many people who live Tech agnostic lives.

When I leave Seattle and SF, most strangers I talk to haven’t even heard of GPT.

This is HN so we’re biased towards specific problems.

However access to quality food, water, electricity, internet, shelter, sanitation, opportunity still remains a problem for a large chunk of the population.

And LLMs which are fundamentally next prediction algorithms don’t make a huge difference to someone’s survival ability.
I find this take odd. To me, debugging with breakpoints is just a more powerful and flexible version of thinking about where to put printfs. You still have to think carefully about where to put the breakpoints, too.

If I sprinkle a couple of prints and my hypothesis about what state I need to see is wrong, then I have to do another build and run cycle to get more information. If I'm stopped at a breakpoint I can dynamically and interactively root around without having to go through the whole scenario again.

Maybe this is just a different mode of using the debugger than what's being argued against. I will say that stepping through is really only fruitful in my experience when there's an extremely narrow region of code that I've identified as causing the problem.
FWIW, I took “GPUs are deterministic” to mean they are deterministic in all possible intended use cases. This is not strictly true, since the whole point of using them is massive parallelism, which brings along non-determinism, for reasons that others have noted. Of course it’s possible to choose to forego that, but what is the point of a GPU in that case?
One of the first things I do when starting work on a new codebase is to step through every single line of code (especially the framework bits). I'm usually the first one to discover silent misconfigurations that have been there for years.

That being said, once I fully understand the entire stack and how we're using it. I can abuse the hell out of it and make it do anything I want it to do; even beyond anything the original authors ever considered.

Most people only take the time to get surface-level knowledge of the entire stack, and either re-implement something they can get for free, or don't take full advantage of what the stack gives them.

That being said, getting that knowledge without a debugger is nearly impossible.
I guess this is what happens when a member of the Oligopoly called Canadian telecommunications tries to actually...compete with others?
> We already know that no theory is complete and perfect, so we can say the same thing about any theory.

If you mean this as an appeal to Gödel’s incompleteness results, the things those show can’t happen aren’t the same kinds of things that a “fully complete theory of physics” would have to satisfy.

That’s not to say that I expect that we will ever (in this world) have a complete description of the physics of this world,

But I’m quite confident that Gödel’s incompleteness theorems do not pose a fundamental barrier to the laws of physics of a world being perfectly known by entities in that world.
I hate to contradict such an authority as Louis Armstrong, but as a general matter, he was wrong.

There are plenty of people who consider themselves to play jazz, but are told by others that they do not.

There are even a few people who don't consider themselves to play jazz, but are told by others that they do.

The nature of "what jazz is" is (and likely always will be) an ongoing debate, just like its corrollary "what is jazz".

If Louis had lived until the 2000s, I suspect he might have rephrased this: "If you care about what jazz is, you'll probably never know; you're not much likelier to know even if you don't care".
Yes, but the real people that don’t want us to solve the race issues are the ones that keep pointing out our race base differences whenever they get the opportunity. That doesn’t mean I condone silent complicity in the act of hate, but rather seek to promote vocal Complicity in the spirit of unity. In today’s day and age, it’s pretty clear that red and blue is a bigger differentiator than white and black
Not sure if that's a useful definition of 'harm'. It's like pointing out that most substances are poisonous. Can't just ignore the dose or context when it comes to medicine.
I saw some sort of collapse at a medical school. Loads of people went to help. At the time we wondered how that went, with half trained students on the loose.
>However, the fact that Linus Torvalds, who is in charge of a critical piece of our infrastructure made of 15 million lines of code (the Linux kernel), does not use a debugger tells us something about debuggers

It tells us that its possible to program without a debugger It tells us absolutely nothing about the utility of doing so because anecdotal preference cannot possibly reveal this.

> Will your debugger scale to hundreds of processors and terabytes of data, with trillions of closely related instructions? I’d rather not take the risk.

Almost nothing almost anyone is working on needs to work on TB of data across hundreds of processors to reveal a logic error or in fact at all.

The article could profitably be shortened to "I feel like debuggers are a bad investment of my time because I would prefer to spend that time revising and writing tests because my mental model of the tech I work with is sufficiently good that I rarely need to poke the code manually and I have confused my own preference and circumstances with universal truth because that's what humans do"
I think this is a relatively weak argument, because in colloquial English “the shape” sort of implies uniqueness in the question?
Governments are encouraging monopolies and oligopolies in media, discouraging independent media, and even discouraging foreign media in general. They are leaning heavily on alliances with multi-billionaires in order to do things in partnership that governments have been explicitly prevented from doing themselves. It is in the interest of both the governments and the massive media corporations to eliminate smaller or foreign competition, making the relationship ideal.
> Who knows what will happen if we plug it into a body with senses, limbs, and reproductive capabilities

I would imagine that its layers will be far too occupied by parsing constant flows of sensory information to transform corpuses of text and prompt into speedy and polite text replies, never mind acquire the urge to reproduce by reasoning from first principles about the text.

Test's quite unfair the other way round too. Most humans don't get to parse the entire canon of Western thought and Reddit before being asked to pattern match human conversation, never mind before having any semblance of agency...

Maybe we're just... different.
It strikes me as something of a language flaw that without pimpl any addition/removal/ modification of private member functions, or even renaming of private member variables triggers full recompilation of every source file that needs to use a particular class. I understand that changes to the size of the object should do so (even if it's just new private member variables), but if it can be determined by the rules of the language that a particular change to a class definition can't possibly affect other compilation units that happen to use that class, then why can't the compiler automatically determine no recompilation is necessary e.g. by calculating and storing a hash of everything about a class that can potentially have an external effect and comparing that value rather than relying on timestamps...
That's a great anecdote!