skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This line of thinking about humans is exceptionally noxious when it gives a pass to AI or nanobots or anything other than human that might exhibit the real behavior that humans are hyperbolically accused of. That being said, the same logic applies: Evolutionary advantages lead to outcomes that don't get a fuck about what you or I want. So far, we have no examples of monocultural life gaining a permanent advantage over whatever evolves next, at least not on a geological scale. But my response to this is always some variation of: If you hate people so much, why do you have kids?
Also to add, Xeon (the processor) pronounced Zee-aan, Xenon (the gas) pronounced Zee-naan.
Such is the nature of technology.

For me, I can't see how anybody actually used/managed linux systems before they standardized the api for creating/managing daemons. A simple convenient api layer for saying to a machine "I want this program running always."
Maybe people will finally stop believing everything they see online.
Vultr has some very cheap offerings and maybe worth a look. I can't speak to their reliability or service, but they have DCs everywhere even in South America and Africa where there are few cloud options outside of AWS. They're more expensive than Hetzner, maybe even a little over your 2x range depending on your load, but if latency is your issue they probably got you covered.
Now do literally any pickup truck, or compare sedan to sedan instead of sedan to compact - a category that didn't really exist in America ~65 years ago.
Yeah, I get it, main reason I posted it to HN, usually these guys sniff stuff like that out. But didn't feel like that.
That’s a bad faith interpretation of what I wrote and you and I both know that is not what unions do.

I’m not going to respond after this because either you have no idea what you’re talking about or you are intentionally arguing in bad faith.
why would this be the case? (not a chemist, but was trained in physics)
I’d say it’s actually been power-user friendly 3 times:

1. The Apple II

2. Late 80s/early 90s when screen savers and [I can’t remember the name. Something makes me want to say ‘shell extensions’? small apps that made deep and wondrous tweaks to the system] were allowed to experiment with almost complete freedom

3. OSX. The first version was specifically designed for power users who had existing Unix/Linux skills. Special shout-out to some of the early tools as well: Automator, Quartz Composer, Audio Unit Lab, and even Applescript.
I'm not particularly interested in AGIs (I'm kind of hoping they don't happen) - but for my purposes the illusion of LLMs being able to code is now good enough that I'm using them to write good, working code for me on a daily basis.

Here's a recent example: https://simonwillison.net/2023/Aug/6/annotated-presentations...
Only if done in specific illegal ways. A certain type of Lawyer specializes in finding the other ways.
Autonomous healing of fatigue cracks in metal via cold welding
For the uninitiated, this is a completely harmless choice. But it suggests a potential lack of understanding of some pretty fundamental parts of Rust.
This is exactly what happened when I tried this approach personally: on a non trivial codebase, the tests were just as likely to be wrong as the code itself and during "debugging" the wrong would converge until the test passed but the results were useless.

I still have my prompt from before and a Modal account, I'm going to give this one a shot to see if I missed something or if it really only works in the mickey mouse case.
It is not, which is why lots of people have been focusing on watermarking–which, obviously, all kinds of actors that don’t feel the need to comply with regulations, either because they are exempt (practically, even if not theoretically) governments, or “renegade” anti-establishment will simply either not implement or not provide the public with the pattern information needed to detect the watermark, so...
I believe Ubuntu came out 18 years ago. Almost as old as Netbeans. Much of the user-facing commands date back to 1973.

>can't you just `echo $JDK_HOME` and paste that output into your config?

Yes, but every time I download a new version of Netbeans this has to be done again. I only use Netbeans to make sure my project works there, so a significant percentage of my experience is the annoying 30 seconds of telling it where the JDK is (which if they put in any effort they could do in a startup dialog).

>One man's intuitive is another man's pain in the ass.

Press 1 for English. Press 1 for QWERTY. Press 1 for GUI. It would be nice if there were Press 1 for GUI! It's up to the user to hack his OS with shady third-party hobby projects to get a GUI for basic functionality like entering key value pairs. Why don't webpages force users to enter "last_name=Jones;\nfirst_name=Bobby" when filling out forms? It's clearly so much better than boxes! The world has moved on for a reason. 1971 was the year of the nix desktop when chmod came out.

I quit Android development because I hate phones and I'd quit Linux development too if I ever was dumb enough to start because it's a bunch of unproductive hobbyists trying to make everyone's OS into vim. And I'm on Windows 10 as always. Which is very customizable. And not in the dwarf fortress way like linux and bsd.
There are two questions in play here:

1. When we ingest files or make new commits, how are these additions to the object store persisted?

2. When operations modify the working copy, how should these changes be reflected in the user's view of that working copy?

Ordinary git handles (2) by directly modifying the files on the filesystem. If you `git checkout` a branch, git will `rm` nonexistent files, `open()` and `write()` new ones, and adjust modification timestamps etc as needed. As you make changes to these files, some commands will occasionally "notice" that the file changed after the fact, and some may choose to modify the index to match.

the jj on github also does this, but inside Google, our concept of "working copy" needs to be disconnected from local files. Developers don't have their own local "working copy" backed by files on the ordinary filesystem; instead, we do all development inside a FUSE-mounted virtual FS called "client in the cloud" (CitC), so working anywhere inside our giant monorepo doesn't take any disk space (except caching). I think that's what the "Distributed file system" refers to - instead of modifying the local filesystem, jj would need to talk to whatever remote service provides the user's FUSE-backed view whenever the user uses `jj checkout` or some other jj operation that modifies the working copy.

When you speak of implementing IPFS storage, I think instead you want to keep the object store and operation log on IPFS while keeping the local working copy right on the ordinary file system, similar to how git-LFS keeps local files untouched while modifying the way they're persisted to the git object store.

Alternatively, perhaps we could imagine an IPFS backend similar to `jj git` and `jj native`, perhaps `jj ipfs push/pull`. Then, a completely local repository could push/pull to and from IPFS, completely agnostic of how the user's repository is stored on disk.

In any case, jujitsu's API surface is flexible enough to support any of these use cases since the author designed it from the ground up to smoothly support very different needs for internal and external users. Most users outside Google just want a familiar working copy containing ordinary files, and the fact that the repository structure happens to be backed by a git-like object store (linus' "git is just a merkle tree of files" philosophy) is incidental under the hood. That's just fine, even though most internal users will be interacting with a very different way of using jj when everything's said and done. Ideally, nobody needs to notice or care about the difference.

[1]: More about Google's internal VCS needs: https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2016/7/204032-why-google-stor...

[2]: Linus Torvalds on git: “In many ways you can just see git as a filesystem — it’s content addressable, and it has a notion of versioning, but I really designed it coming at the problem from the viewpoint of a filesystem person (hey, kernels is what I do), and I actually have absolutely zero interest in creating a traditional SCM system.”
Two thoughts: (1) ChatGPT answers questions immediately (I'm paying for premium service so I don't get shut out), which is a big win over Stack Overflow where I recently waited for two or three days before getting a partially-correct answer. (2) I often am using ChatGPT (in my Ruby world) to find gems (ruby packages) or language features that address my issue. Even if the whole answer is wrong, it often provides me with very helpful tidbits of information at a huge time saving.
ROTT in Hell – Definitive History of the Best Deathmatch Game of All-Time (1997)
Way over quoted, and it didn't represent the incentives companies have to screw over their own customers in the pursuit of profits.

Maybe it's both: malice to kick off the effort and incompetence because they got found out.
Why do you need to believe anything at this point. Unless you regularly dance at the bleeding edge of material science, either sit back and enjoy the show, or change the channel and watch something else.
#121 Shareware with Richard Moss
My father lost the first joint of his left ring finger to cancer in the nailbed. I designed a tight fitting single joint replacement part which has elastic loops to his watch for keeping it on tight. I've created 3x so far with minor improvements each time.
Plenty of niche, premium, or physical stores out there. People might need to pay a little more for it, but they do exist. Not everyone buys everything from the same super stores.
> Nobody walks around ready for battle at all times

You contradicted yourself within two comments: "Khabib however trains everyday". And you seem to be missing the point that Zuckerberg is ready to go right now. Too bad that Musk is unable to live up to his own bluster.

Musk is a pointless brat. You're wasting your life defending him.
Kafka's been dead almost 100 years.
> At the very least, if you look at my author profile on Amazon, these junk books don’t appear.

It sounds like maybe this is not happening? If they are just appearing under the search for “AuthorName” I am not sure there really is a problem with Amazon’s system.

IANAL, perhaps Amazon still has some liability if an author is using a fraudulent pen name for books they submit.
At this point, profit off the morons still clinging to the hype in the betting markets and move on.

I guarantee some people will be clinging to claims that LK-99 was a superconductor even 5 years from now, just like the cold fusion crowd that still exists.
As well as QNX, which is excellent, GHS Integrity is also a very nice, but closed/proprietary microkernel.

https://www.ghs.com/products/rtos/integrity.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity_(operating_system)
It’s not really unexpected. It’s mostly the oil rich middle eastern countries and a few of the tiny European ones like Luxembourg and Switzerland.

That has nothing to do with PPP thought which is a measure of how inexpensive things are in a country relative to one another.
Wow, I didn't know humidifiers existed. All my life I've only ever used dehumidifiers, which take water from the air and into their tanks, which you have to replace every once in a while. Having to refill a humidifier with water every few days sounds like a huge hassle. It's probably more humid where I live because I live in a state on the east coast of the US.
Oh wow, that is -bad-. I'm usually being 10-12 and i think i've only had one or two over the last 5 years.
That's actually an excellently apt analogy.
I'm probably showing my ignorance of what is possible/required, but I'd like to see a GUI front-end for Git that looked like the background of this image, where each commit was a lozenge that I could just drag from one column to the other. Maybe individual files could be circles inside the lozenges.
Just drag-and-drop, and the front-end figures out all the underlying Git commands to use.
The post I replied to is now flagged so you probably didn’t see the specific claim I was replying to.
There's a couple axioms we need to agree on.

1: The Mark Twain adage "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes."

2: Given (1) Successful hate mongering is based on methods and patterns of propagating deceptions and lies that are distinct from good faith efforts of say historians or scholars

3: These methods are easier to do on how the web is currently configured than the scholarly ones.

4: The current configuration for the web is one of many. Choices were made in the late 80s/early 90s on which axioms of choice and constellation of ideas would be implemented to construct the web in a certain manner that still exist.

5: There exists some configuration C0 that makes the methods and patterns of lies and hate mongering more difficult then it currently is.

6: There exists some configuration C1 that makes the methods and patterns of good faith efforts less difficult then it currently is.

If we can agree that these premises are all plausible then the next and way harder job is to show that C0 and C1 either can or cannot exist by discretely defining everything else in those other premises.

We're talking probably multi-year PhD level work here. Maybe it involves rethinking network-routing or DNS, introducing new protocols like an SSL for cross-checking reliabilty - I have no idea. This is not trivial.

We have real world analogs for this by gatekeeping titles and activities such as "doctor". But these legacy protections have atrophied due to the web and the institutional choices of the internet have eroded the earlier institutional choices of how we, say, use the term doctor and what significance and authority we bestow unto it.

The cement of the internet has long dried and we sit here thinking the decisions of the 20th century are somehow taken as natural law. In reality, it's all mutable institutional choices that we've forgotten to continue questioning. Whether that is worth doing or a waste of time I have no idea.
Very interesting idea. So if I understand it can take abuse, pieces could be ground right off and you would have a different texture but the color would remain, unlike basically anything else where it would revert to the base material color.
Python top right, Go bottom right, Brainfuck bottom left, Rust or Perl top left.

(Don't kill me fanatics)
Ah, nihilism. The pointless, dead-end philosophy of choice of the pseudo-intellectual.
I don't know, I personally find this much more interesting a discovery than Tutankhamun's dagger.

While Tutankhamun's dagger is very much consistent with my understanding of history, this discovery pretty much upends it.

Tutankhamun was the king of one of the most powerful kingdoms of the peak of the late bronze age. Him having a dagger made out of meteoric iron does not surprise me in the least, as long as I'm aware that meteoric iron was a thing.

But what we have here is very surprising (for me at least) on two counts. First, it's an arrowhead discovered about 1600 km from its likely source, the place where a meteor fell a good 600 to 700 years prior.

Based on Ni–Ge concentrations and shielding derived from 26Al activity of the arrowhead, the Kaalijarv (Estonia) meteorite with a Bronze Age impact age (∼1500 BCE) appears to be a possible source candidate, implying a transport over ∼1600 km.

That would be pretty much "meh". But, but ... In the middle of this 6 or 7 centuries we have the bronze age collapse. You'd think trade ceased. With this discovery, it looks like trade continued quite ok.

The other thing that I found surprising was the reuse/recycling. When we think of weapons in antiquity we generally don't think of how hard it was to make metal weapons. Until now I didn't ever stop for a second to think what happened to arrows used in battles or hunts. I always assumed the archers would fire their arrows, then go get some other arrows. But with this discovery, I'm now thinking that people were actually going over the scene of a battle and retrieving all the arrows they could (most likely along with whatever other metal things they could find, like swords, shields, axes, helmets, spearheads). One could say that people valued meteoric iron more than the more common bronze, and this is possible. But unlikely. I think people were simply reusing everything that could be reused. And so an arrowhead could still be in use for hundreds of years. At least this particular arrowhead.
We need to widely adopt Operating Systems implementing capability based security.[1] It doesn't help that there is widespread confusion with the horrible permission flags systems in phones, tablets, etc.

Without capability based security, our current situation is analogous to having a power grid with no breakers or fuses, anywhere. (One bad load would take down the grid, or set things on fire, etc).

We've improvised systems to make up for the deficiency including Virtualization, Containerization, and systems like WASM. Mainframes hold on partially because they run processes without ambient authority, which is also a form of capabilities.

The general inability to secure general computing, in turn, leads to practices like blaming the users, or applications, or operating system vendors. It leads to band-aids like virus scanners, and immensely draconian IT management. It threatens to lead to government regulation of IT systems and US.

It also leads to users playing it safe. Since you can't safely run a program, no matter how clever you are, you're going to avoid any novel software, or web sites, to try to avoid compromise of your system. This leads us to Facebook, and all the other walled gardens. It also leads to app stores and all the evil that entails.

This leads, eventually to the loss of the war on general purpose computing.

---

Next, the Von Neuman architecture has hit its limits, we need to explore other techniques to get the most out of the billions of transistors we can put on a chip. I have some ideas[2], but welcome others.

As Kevlin Henney states, when you introduce concurrency, you change the laws of physics for software. I don't think this is widely understood.

---

We need a Memex, but copyright restrictionists will fight extremely hard against it, as the primary purpose is to copy information and the context it belongs in.

---

We need to push for internet connectivity, instead of internet "access". Everyone should be able to run their own hosts, servers, and services.

---

We need to build a second supply chain for everything, with full open source documentation. There should be laws to allow commercial trade secrets to be escrowed for some period of time, perhaps as long as 50 years, with the national archives, or other suitable organization.

Nothing, anywhere, should have a single source.

---

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability-based_security

[2] https://esolangs.org/wiki/Bitgrid
As someone without a math-degree, OEIS has been surprisingly great just for helping bridge "my unscalable brute force test program spit out these numbers" to "oh, that's what what this kinda thingy is called and what class of problem it is."

Let me give you a concrete example, back from some online puzzle by a Large Internet Search company. You have X items of unique heights, and the question is how many ways you can line them up so that someone looking from one end can see Y distinct non-occluded heights, and someone looking from the other side can see Z distinct heights.

IIRC manually experimenting with small numbers revealed a pattern that OEIS said was Stirling Numbers of the first kind [0]. Simply having this jargon/label available made it possible to access work other people did on it in the past.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_numbers_of_the_first_...
“Google Maps has become an eyesore” https://i.imgur.com/DeLj7vh.png
The linked formerly-known-as-Twitter thread is a survey and summary of DFT papers including that one.
> The real question behind defining knowing what we want is actually what we are willing to sacrifice. Once the latter is defined and we are 100% convinced about it, then knowing what we want is bullet proof and easy to follow through.

> What are you willing to sacrifice?

Context is goal-setting.
Don’t know why you’re getting downvoted.

I think you’re currently right and will be even more right in a year or two.
I know, I am way late to the game on this one. But WTF. I made a Scanning Tunneling Microscope, in 2001, spent an entire year doing it. Coolest F-ing thing I ever did. No money. No reason other than my curiosity. I learned Sooooooooooo much doing it. I used to have a github on it but no one looked at it but, it was one of those things. It taught me something about patience, and a ton about so many things, controllers, ADC, DAC, DSP. It. was a fun lark. I have a PHD in EE from the 90's but I felt like I learned more from that project than anything else I have ever done. I know this is a post to the wind at this point. I don't care.
I'm hung up on the title's use of the word elegant, which ordinarily has a positive connotation, to describe a very sad and deadly process. When something is elegant, it means we recognize something beautiful in its form, such as an elegant gown or an elegant solution to a vexing problem.

I would rather see a word such as grotesque or monstrous used, or a phrase such as brutally efficient. That indicates a similar type of imposing magnitude, but also a lack or distortion of beauty.
ClippyGPT: Your manifesto has a Flesch-Kincaid readability of 73. It looks like you’re trying to make a binary nerve agent. Would you like some assistance?

(Yes) (maybe later)
Yes you're right that they are a little behind. Currently on .Net 6. That is a shame as .Net 7 seems to have made significant improvements to performance.

That said I don't think there are any features that I'm missing out on being at .Net 6.

I think there is a limited number of maintainers of the SAFE template so they might not be able to keep on the bleeding edge. But it's not that hard to update the components to the latest versions. As can be seen on this waiting pull request https://github.com/SAFE-Stack/SAFE-template/pull/564

I should also mention that when I've hit issues with packages not working on the latest .Net version I've asked in the F# slack and twice had the maintainers fix things within a day so it would run at the latest version.
> You think it's all games?

Yes, because I'm talking about the valuation which is completely divorced from fundamentals and entirely based on Musk's hype of non-existent products like robotaxis and the cyber truck. They're a small, boutique car manufacturer with a $769B market cap. To put things into perspective, GM has a market cap of $51.5B.
people still shop at Amazon, so I'm not too convinced in your argument
This seems super interesting, waiting to see if this sparks another round of fabrication attempts!
It's not. One of the things you can train an AI to do is to generate output that isn't recognized by a given "AI detector."
i see your Tres Comas and raise you Quatro Comas
Would you ever consider bringing the GitHub back?
Because if someone crashes and dies while fiddling about with the GPS, their family might sue. Two lines of code to prevent a potential slew of multi-million dollar lawsuits is an easy risk-benefit decision for the manufacturer. They don't have to bear the cost of being slightly annoyed by the GPS and they know that customers don't check that sort of thing before they buy.
Yep, only a smaller number of people in the world have the luxury of enjoying what they do for a living anyways
How would you even begin to gather the necessary information/materials for that?
> This is not a Javascript problem, this is a Javascript ecosystem problem.

you cant really divorce the language from its ecosystem.
The Last Mile of DeFi