skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think it’s a little more complex. Reflecting on a decade ago, my then relatively young PhD advisor, along with many colleagues, came from a myriad of backgrounds – applied math being a standout. And some of them ended up doing really remarkable work - almost everyone has used some work that came out of our lab.

So I think pigeonholing on CS is not a good idea. My stress on achievements was just to underscore this point.
Can you please share the channel with hyperrealistic paintings?
I had a das keyboard blank face for a few years and really liked it.

I ended up getting rid of it because my org’s password rules were annoying and I struggled to touch type symbols and numbers that weren’t in a word. And whenever I had “guests” it was uncomfortable to them and me so I would have to keep a guest keyboard anyway.
Conversely things like not being taught how to have proper relationships, being taught how to ask for help, or things (for men) toxic masculinity are potentially trauma inducing in social creatures as humans are.

The 'taking responsibility for ones own life' has a perverse failure mode where an individual is genuinely incapable of doing something, yet at the same time incapable of seeking help for the issue. These tend to lead to harmful downward spirals in those peoples lives.
https://archive.is/MqOwf
Why yes. This is undefined behavior:

int main(void)
{
char buf[256];
read(0, buf, sizeof buf);
}

The translation unit doesn't define a read function anywhere, and it's not in ISO C.

Suppose that we translate this unit and link it to make a program.

There are two possibilities: (1) the program fails to link due to the unresolved reference. (2) it actually links, producing an executable.

Under (2) the behavior is undefined.

The POSIX read is a documented extension that stands in the place of undefined behavior.

Libraries have to allow the ISO C program to define a function called read because the language doesn't reserve the identifier.

The GNU C library makes read a weak symbol, aliasing to __libc_read.

Internally, it calls __libc_read, so that it doesn't break if the application redefines read.

So ISO C undefined behavior is a big area. It contains documented extensions like <unistd.h> and read, well as null pointer dereferences, divisions by zero, out-of-bounds access, double free, ...

> I was not aware of this.

You might want to keep it to yourself though, if you don't want downvotes.
Yeah but it's said with confidence!

I think the main issue with the HN crowd, present company included, is that because they're good at learning they think they can quickly grasp the essentials for anything new.

Which is why there's like a revolving door of subjects that you suddenly get a lot of armchair experts about, going from currencies and investment banking to international conflict and politics, a short detour to amateur submarines, etc.
Traditional Chinese agriculture was absolutely relying on topsoil brought through flooding. In places where it was not directly available, workers manually hauled silt from ponds and floodplains.
That's common in the mainframe world. Unisys (ex Univac) still has its Dorado mainframes binary compatible with the Univac 1100 released in 1962.
This is a statistics problem, not a measurement problem. The problem is that there are different well understood formulas that must be applied depending on if a measurement is taken of a single sample in isolation, or if it is one measurement of many.

Illustrate the point, imagine a pass/fail AIDs test with 99% accuracy and 1% false positive. If you test one patient only and they are positive, You can conclude that is 99% likely to be correct. However, if you test a hundred different people and one of them comes up positive, you can no longer claim the 99% certainty for that patient. You know that you administered a hundred different tests to different people and would have to reduce your confidence accordingly because you expect one false positive. This second statistical approach is what is not happening with the asteroids, and why asteroids with a 3% chance of hitting Earth suspiciously get revised down to zero more than 97% of the time.

>If we made adjustments based on priors we'd have to discount all collisions down to 0 irrespective of the trajectories. Seems absurd, so there must be something else going on here

Not quite true. If you measure a million asteroids in the data from one says it has a trajectory towards Earth, you need to Discount that observation by the fact that you made 1 million different measurements. The outlier might still be close to zero statistically, but it did have a outlier data. This would be a reason to remeasure the asteroid multiple times. It is only through that process that the number will climb from zero, or stay at zero.

It's not that you're applying the prior that we have never observed Earth colliding asteroid. You're simply accounting for the fact that with the error bars on your measurement system, you expect one false positive in 1 million measurements.

My inference is that the 3% number we are talking about for this specific asteroid what's not calculated using the proper statistical treatment, and that's why it wasn't published in the first place.

This is also why it is similar to P hacking. If you run 20 experiments and analyze them as if they were the only experiment you did, you will get one of them that says a wrong result with 95% confidence, which is the common threshold for publishing outside of physics.
See also the HN discussion from a year ago on "Good conversations have lots of doorknobs": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32542260

The article discussed there sort of parallels this dichotomy, but applies it to conversational styles.
Windows 11 is soon getting a new feature called Dev Drive, which uses an entirely different FS (ReFS) and reduced malware scanning, specifically designed for source code.
Johnny Mnemonic was also successful with a much narrower audience than the Matrix, though.

(And brain as thumb drive and braismns as networked processing units are maybe not equivalently difficult concepts for audiences.)
In my experience linux, specifically Gtk Apps, have the best consistency.
It's the closest you can get to a fully styled system.
>Most notably, you can derive meaning from its nil-ness.

This is sophistry. If I try to "use" a nil pointer I get a crash. I have to carefully check that it's non-null even if error is null. You can "derive" the same "meaning" from Result[T, error] being an error instead of a T. You can "derive" the same "meaning" from Option[T] being empty. There is no special meaning that a null file gives me that I can't take from a Result containing an error.

There isn't some big philosophical difference that Go is taking a principled stance on, just a practical one: with those you get type safety, and if you do it wrong you get a compilation error. In the Go way if you do it wrong you get a runtime panic.

>that would not be idiomatic. That would just be a terrible API design and unkind to the users of your API.

That is the vast majority of the stdlib and the vast majority of all popular Go libraries. If idiomatic Go code is code where (T, error) means T is always a useful value even if error is non-nil, then there is vanishingly little idiomatic Go code in existence.

>as its intent is to create a dependence between two variables.

This is nonsense. To use your personal specific terminology, Either encodes a dependence between variables that already exists, it doesn't create it. That dependence exists in Go too, Go isn't a language where the fundamentals of programming change, it's the same in C where people write methods that take both a result and an error pointer.

Either is an option to use when there is a dependence. If there isn't a dependence, and both are always present, you can and should return (T, error) and not Either[T, error]. No one is trying to force Go to always use Either when (T,error) would be appropriate, just like you are not forced to in other languages. You just have choices in those languages you do not have in Go, and overwhelmingly people choose more appropriate types than (T, error) when given the choice.

responding to your edit: >Either is not a suitable representation of (T, error). They have very different semantics. There are data structures which can serve as a suitable representation of (T, error), but Either is not it.

It's odd that you acknowledge this, but then claim that I somehow claimed the opposite. Perhaps you should follow your own advice about reading. Either represents a subset of the four cases that (T, error) covers, and even in Go the two cases that Either covers are the only ones in the vast majority of usage. In Go, most, but not all (and no one is claiming all), uses of (T, error) would be better expressed as Either[T, error].

In fact, the different semantics is the entire point. The point is not to keep the semantics the same but change up the syntax. In Go (T, error) is used commonly, in idiomatic Go unless the stdlib is unidiomatic, to emulate the semantics of Either[T, error]. If (T, error) doesn't have the right semantics for your program - and rarely are all four cases considered - then a more appropriate type with matching semantics should be used instead.
Published manga artists in general often have a very strong command of anatomy.
Is that supposed to be a positive thing?
> if you run "foo", then $0 is an absolute path to the script.

That doesn't seem to be the case.

$ cat foo
echo $0
$ ./foo
./foo
$ export PATH=.:$PATH
$ foo
foo

I'm usually on zsh, but I get the same result even varying the shebang inside foo.
https://archive.is/BKzvP
But if you visit an old city in real life, the area within the city walls is often quite small...

Anyway, with advancements in technology I'm sure we'll see proper cities to scale. It may not all be accessible though.
The article doesn't suggest that the main criticism of OSI was its "one-man show" operation. That's just what the work hours in the tax filings show and is mentioned as an answer to "Who was behind OSI?"

> MongoDB is a source-available software license, but not an open source software license because it discriminates against how the software can be used

That's exactly what the OSI's definition of open source suggests. So, if we accept OSI as the arbiter of open source definition you're absolutely right. And that's something that needs to be fixed (we do need to consider discriminating against hostile competitors and giving developers the right to protect their open source projects from being hijacked by bad actors).

The point of the article is that the OSI's definition has not been updated for too long and the community deserves a definition relevant to the present time. Given the trajectory of technological advances, I would be really surprised if in 100 years from now people are still adhering to software guidelines published in 1997. I think sometime between now and 100 years from now we upgrade to better guidelines. Each individual and company will get there at their own pace.
Is this password-generator sufficient?
Wanted to create a very simple password generator. Is it sufficient, or there're some indispensable features missing?
lol this is a wild accusation you straw-manned his position from "community moderation is good" to "banning people from saying nigger is bad" when no one said that.

even for your complaints about PUBG, i've played a hundred games of PUBG and others where nothing like that ever happened, and when it did we just mute the guy and move on. acually the majority of games i played with mic'd teammates we used it to coordinate and play better as a team.
A lot of the soldiers are also just barely in their 20's. Many come from very impoverished areas of Russia where access to independent sources of information is very limited (no independent local media, western media hard to access without decent access to the internet) and education has long been eviscerated to serve the needs of the state. Their parents are also not likely to be good sources of information as they are similarly little-informed.

They might literally have never heard of Chernobyl even as a place until they were deployed there.

Much could be said about things that Russia is bad at, but disinformation, propaganda and revisionism are not those things. They're really good at those. And they've been good at those things for a really long time -- multiple generations.
Who said they thought theirs was better? They just stated their opinion.

That being said, who are you to say their interpretation of interpreting things is wrong? Etc etc.

Personally, I think it’s stupid too. Of course people recognize it as “A.” My dislike isn’t because it’s confusing, it’s because I think it’s pretentious and ugly.
It’s different because of roads and infrastructure.
> Greater yield doesn't mean greater yield in nutrition.

Yes, it does. "Nutrition" is mostly raw calories that you get from fat and carbs, with protein sprinkled on top. Modern plants are _more_ rich in protein than historical cultivars.

Vitamins are a non-issue, people in general receive more than enough of them.
Global Shield – New Nonprofit Working on Global Catastrophic Risk Reduction
But have you considered conflating community-moderated servers, with completely unmoderated ones, as many commenters here? Or implying the worst, most unmoderated servers were the only choice, and not a single server could be found where moderators banned people over constant racial slurs?

Because if you did so, then you'd find that handing over all control to multinational conglomerates has been a decided net improvement.

The only problem is toxicity and hate can still be found in real-life pubs and other establishments. Sure, much social interaction has moved online, where it can be sanitized by benevolent corporations, but not all. However, I am confident that as corporate chains replace locally-ran establishments, voice monitoring and a consistently enforced set of rules will stamp it out there as well, holding their patrons accountable for their words.
I think I remember reading a while back that System/360 binaries can still run on modern Z/architecture mainframes.
https://archive.is/zi1dI
I think it’s more guess versus know - if you don’t ask, you can only guess, you can’t know. If you ask, then you know. That’s all there is to it. You can pay all the attention you like and still get it wrong - but if you ask, you can’t get it wrong, because you’ll have been told what’s right.

If your goal is to get it right, then you need to ask, guessing isn’t good enough.
You don't get hardware support? I have had all kinds of hardware support (Dell, mostly Latitude and XPS) over the years and Linux was never an issue. We even run Gentoo and Void on some boxes (for the reason you state -- to keep things consistent over time) and they've never said anything about it.
New study warns against risks of ‘time-traveling pathogens’
Let me be clear about my claim: tailor made solutions to each problem will almost always be faster than generic solutions. Do you really disagree with that?

I disagree with it in the sense that I disagree with the statement "A human will always be able to write the same or better assembly than a C compiler, because humans can learn the compiler's tricks and make optimizations which the compiler is not allowed to make." It's a true statement, but it's so detached and irrelevant that it hardly matters.

Generic code has proven itself time and time again, even Go caved in and supported it.
The developer who put that in needs a raise.
Yes, but George Hotz went to CMU after already accomplishing more than many of us might accomplish in our entire careers. So the broader point on pigeonholing still stands.

I agree that for the average programmer, the CS degree still helps, but these outliers remind us that talent can blossom in many ways!
Incidentally, at the gym I go to, Young Sheldon is on one of the TV's when I'm there.

Just as terrible as the original from which it's a spin off. They actually had Jason Alexander and Ed Begley, Jr. on one of the episodes this week. I guess with enough money you can get almost anyone.
to be fair, if she had finished the job and cured cancer, she could buy a Premier League team* (*cuz academics == soccer)

There is a natural tendency to diminish money as a measure of anything good, but money really is the yardstick by which we jointly measure all things, trading off time with kids, family, travel, leisure against other priorities, and being rewarded by the rest of society for our contributions to what they want to spend money on, their tradeoffs.

Turns out that there are a bunch of very skilled highly educated people who want to spend their time researching cancer (which cure they could sell for a lot of money), compared to those who are most capable of and interested in, financially restructuring companies.

That hedge fund guy's donation to CMU is tax-deductible; we do that because everybody loves a philanthropist giving. His tax bracket is let's say 50%, so, where he would have owed $50 million to the government on that $100 million income, by giving it to CMU, they get the full $100 million and the guy owes no tax; of course leaving it to the rest of the tax payers to cover that $50 million in the state and federal budgets... but that's a good deal because a private elite university got more money? (And if hedgie donated appreciated securities rather than income, the bracketed tax savings get amplified that much more...)

There are plenty of places where "the market" chooses the wrong winners (by some important measures) but most of the complaints about the market don't go in that direction. Talk about how important money is, instead of socially devaluing it, then it would be easier to focus people's attention on cartel and monopoly pricing, negative externalities, etc.
https://archive.is/GOl76
Are there actually clear guidelines of what constitutes hate speech, or does it also include expressing opinions the mods don't like?
There is some irony to being caught off guard by someone suggesting it was stapled instead of taped. Is it an important aspect of the piece? Important enough to correct someone over.

There are other places to draw parallels from. Runway fashion shows nearly always show bizarre items no sane person would wear to the local grocery store. But they each, individually, make a new statement that draws some sort of reaction from the observers. It's the very essence of art.

Off the catwalk, scenes like Lady Gaga wearing a meat dress to an award program might offend some people, but you can't deny the originality and subsequent reaction. There were certainly people claiming it wasn't fashion or art.

Yet if someone aped it, it would be suddenly boring and passe, and people would totally recognize it as being derivative. And that sure sounds like art.
When I got a dog, it also fell on me to walk her. When we had a storm a while back, I realized that I only knew the dogs’ names and where they lived.

“Yeah, Fido’s house got tore up pretty bad”. Didn’t know the owner’s name :)
Really rolling the dice here... My speech has been less suppressed on XBL than here. And it was much more warranted when I was struck there than any sort of retribution/slowmod'd here.

Just offering that up for the free speech absolutionists (lol) here.
The problem is that systems evolve. What's IO bound today may be CPU bound tomorrow. And then you'll have to rethink and depending on what language you use you may even have the "what color is my function" problem.
hopefully, they're not using wget with the work around or they'd really be screwed
> The fear of perjury is an interesting twist, though.

Its a nice try, but the right not to testify against yourself is not a right not to testify in a situation in which you might be tempted to choose (perjury not being a crime you can connit accidentally) to commit a crime.
If the government wants to do something they should publish open source code that implements a sane authentication system, and then have no part of operating it whatsoever. If it's good and free people will use it voluntarily. If it isn't then you certainly don't want the same people implementing anything mandatory.
Ugh I know it’s good social strategy but I hate doing it so much. I just want to be left alone, and engaging with other casually indicates that I’m open to further interaction.
Implements a Turing-complete quantum computer simulator with Hadamard, π/8, and Controlled-Not gates.
Do you think I'm joking?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_Fields

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

There are many countries, and lots of history. Maybe you could point to an example of getting rid of wealthy people and the lot of everyone else improved?
Why are 1 and 2 more meaningful?
We stumbled onto "Landscape Artist of the Year"[0] some years ago.

While preferring more realistic art, just watching a random selection of people get their humanity on while under a deadline is the most fascinating and relaxing viewing imaginable.

My prejudice against impressionistic art didn't survive any real time with this series. One artist in the first couple of series fit my stereotype of the smug young jackwagon treating the whole thing like a joke.

Highly recommended.

[0] https://www.skyartsartistoftheyear.tv/landscape/
A carbon tax on investment income could be fairly cut pollution profits
A big nothing. If you don't want to get banned for yelling slurs, don't yell slurs? This isn't a big deal if you aren't a giant asshole.
> The data offer a detailed view of how top executives are incentivized, like how stock continues to comprise most of their compensation

Okay. We should blame the market for supporting the price, fungibility and liquidity of these compensation packages

Or not blame anyone at all

Rage bait.
It seems to make sense. One is harmful to the game experience and the other is harmful to people.
Also, need feedback around the UI. Is it too simple?
Oh, export product complexity, not financial complexity.

Japan is #1. Since Japan exports few raw materials, the value of Japanese exports comes from adding complexity.
By what definition? Also, I'm making a build system, which are pretty universally hated. And that's not to say I don't follow patterns that other build systems do; I do. In fact, a lot of software has bad UX by not acting as users assume they do. My software take those assumptions and works with them.

But that doesn't explain how the LLM can't get it wrong.

People talking about my software wrong will matter because LLM's predict the next word. If my documentation does not win the prediction war in a particular run, the LLM will get it wrong.

And people are already talking about my software, so claiming they aren't is wrong.
> is a step forward for Tesla CEO Elon Musk's plans to make its technology the U.S. charging standard.

No, the charging standard will still be CCS just with Tesla's plug on the end.
I don't see how this solves anything, Nim's backend is C, which means it should suffer from the same pitfalls. They probably clean it up and eliminate UB, but it should still exist.
My experience of community-moderated servers is that someone doing that will be banhammered quickly before they actually ruin the whole session, same with cheaters. The moderation on these larger platforms is shit because it's so slow, even if it does eventually come down. (same as real-world justice: when it's excruciatingly slow people lose faith in it and it arguably fails to do its job). The problem you mention is a problem of global matchmaking being the only option for playing the game and this kind of moderation is the cheapest option when you do it, so while microsoft moderating stuff is better than them not moderating things, the fact is they have removed the tools needed to do much better moderation in the push to remove community servers in the first place.