skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Congratulations, you just rediscovered the pains that led to agile.

The key insight is that it is incredibly hard to capture a system that has the flexibility of handling every past, present, and future edge case while providing consistency for the happy path and preventing "bad" things from being done.

XP and the proto-agilists said, as such, that it was futile to try and capture the whole problem because it turns into contract negotiation and pitting stakeholders against each other. Further, they found out that what stakeholders said and what they really needed ended up being not-quite-right and it wasn't exposed until people actually used the software.

(Why? Because the stakeholders are representing a team, and sometimes they themselves are playing a game of telephone. And sometimes they describe a problem in a way that doesn't capture the real problem.)

So, the idea was to have the business representative in the same room. The problem was that those representatives still had to do their jobs, so they ended up burning out and quitting.

And that's how we got all of these product owners lying around - because we just punted the problem and went back to business analysts and gave them a slightly different mission. And that's why people talk about "dark agile." But I think it's easy to understand why the misalignment exists but very very hard to fix.

For internal development, I think the real answer is that the development team and any analyists should be required to do the job as if they were an intern. If there are multiple stakeholders, they have to do all of the jobs, at least for a few weeks, and meet the people who they are building for. Then, they can at least understand the full complexity and why all of these contradictory requirements exist.
https://blog.jessfraz.com/post/docker-containers-on-the-desk... is the one I remember, a bit old but still useful to see how she does it.

Seems super painful and indirected for a nebulous gain to me, but find your joy however you want I guess
> GPT-3 is about a thousand times less complex than a human

Also note that it takes the 'brute force' approach to architecture by using a transformer model, basically learning a connection graph from scratch. If you want that to scale to human complexity in function, you're probably going to have to overshoot in size by an order of magnitude.
Given what they have been doing in Rwanda with blood delivery, yeah, I do think they have something going here. The tech is 'mostly' proven to me. The question is one of scale and usage.
Even if Go allowed both capture-by-value and capture-by-reference, this issue would have arisen when using capture-by-reference.

For example, in the following C++:

auto v = std::vector<int>{1, 2, 3};
auto prints = std::vector<std::function<void()>>();
auto incrs = std::vector<std::function<void()>>();
for (auto x : v) {
prints.push_back([&x]()->void {std::cout<<x<<", "; })
incrs.push_back([&x]()->void {++x;});
}
for (auto f : incrs) {
f();
}
for (auto f : prints) {
f();
} //expected to print 2, 3, 4; actually prints 6, 6, 6

I would also note that this problem very much arises in functional languages - it exists in the same way in Common Lisp and Scheme, and I believe it very much applies to OCaml as well (though I'm not sure how their loops work).

Tried it out, OCaml does the expected thing:

open List
let funs = ref [ ] ;;
for i = 1 to 3 do
funs := (fun () -> print_int i) :: !funs
done ;;

List.iter (fun f -> f()) !funs ;; //prints 321
The fact that the frameworks are converging on the same idea should suggest that it is necessary complexity in the framework for any sufficiently complex app.
Tech saying "I'll become farmer" to escape tech is very amusing, especially how data-driven the large scale farming is, and how small scale farming is getting priced out by large scale farming.

I'm not a farmer, but I did some tech for farming and you would be surprised how tech driven it is. Agriculture was probably the first industry that used satellite imagery outside of military on the large scale.

If someone is Silicon Valley web app developer and went farming, they actually could be going deeper into tech than escape it.
Why isn't other people's convenience the most important thing in the world? Utilitarian: there are many of them, there is only one of me. Egalitarian: I don't want to me inconvenienced by accepting an alternative pronunciation of my name, so I insist on THEM being inconvenienced? Self-interest: I have some business with them, the less distractions we have getting to it the sooner/better it will get done.

I had plenty of experience with people intentionally calling me mean nicknames in my native language. There is zero overlap between this situation and someone who just wants to have a useful interaction.
Sysadmin and spouse admit to part in 'massive' pirated Avaya licenses scam
Sorry to hear that, and I agree completely.
The PowerBook G4 Titanium still looks great next to today's MacBook Air
Thank you, the second question I have raised today. I have also asked if access is granted to individuals or roles.

You can imagine that things are quite archaic..

regarding site recovery, that is sadly out of scope of our inspection..
Yes, exactly. You can flip the argument on its head and it works symmetrically. So why was it OK for executives to get huge salary increases over the last decade but not workers, since it's based on the same moral ("fairness") calculus?

It's not. The moral ground has been ceded. Now it's just about "I got mine".
Sure, and in the face of a world where yogurt cured cancer, it would be irresponsible not to produce as much Chobani as possible. AGI is a sci-fi story molded into an investment pitch.
It's been 26 years. I figure that's long enough. =)
There is a certain self-centeredness present in many people that bothers me and that this piece displays in spades.

It usually goes something like this.

"I am A Very Smart Person. I do not understand the point of Thing X. Therefore, Thing X must be useless and anyone that cares about Thing X must be an imbecile."

The core issue here is that the only thing this kind of argument does is portray the person making the argument as incapable of even conceiving the idea that there can be other points of view and other ways of interacting with the world than their own. In this case, to the point that after making a fully subjective argument, the author claims that their point is "objective" seemingly due to lack of self-awareness.

I am aware that the author is autistic and that autism usually comes with a certain difficulty when it comes to putting oneself into other peoples' shoes and a certain lack of self-awareness, but the self-aggrandizing tone of this little essay is simply very tiring.
Are there plans for a true native driver (not JS)? That's kind of a dealbreaker in the same groups that are looking for offline first.
The market approach is different from the soup kitchen model. The opportunity to pay, the ability to make your own choices in produce, and the experience of using something like a grocery store are things that help people feel dignified. That sense of human dignity can matter a great deal, especially to those clinging to it by their fingernails.
Give it a rest. What they really mean is a group of scientists who are known to publish together. They’re just using the word mafia inappropriately/jokingly.
Nappr is like Airbnb, but for on-demand napping instead of multi-day stay
Western government have had high-profile negative media coverage in the past because they weren’t keeping track of returnees from Syria, my guess is they are being more diligent in response to that.

Regardless of the morality it is unusual and you aren’t really supposed to go to Rojava.
So what if China has 7nm chips now, there's no Huawei it can make them at scale
What I'm taking with is that the US isn't responsible enough to distribute its own food.
React is honestly how I used to write my code in jQuery too, for some pages that had a lot of state. Basically, just like in game dev, I had a render() function that I'd call at the end of the file that would re-render everything. The pattern itself is very easy to understand, re-rendering efficiently is the hard part, but for React users today, that's an implementation detail.

Hooks are also very interesting, they're basically functions that run at specific times, or that is to say, they're `f(...parameters, state)`. They hold state inside the function, sort of like a closure.
Oh my ex and some acquaintances were bitching about it in 1999.

I recall a guy with good transcription skills starting a long thread on… must have been slashdot? About how it was faster for him to transcribe the numbers again than to verify the OCR was correct, but he couldn’t tell his boss that and what should he do?

There’s also a famous case where the compression algorithm in a copy/fax machine had a bug in a predefined dictionary that resulted in changing digits to other digits when making copies or faxes. Because they weren’t just compressing, they were trying to use a specialized OCR to do aggressive compression. I believe it was spitting out perfectly formed zeroes where another digit was in the original. Yikes.
> ... do they have an ARM architecture license?

I wonder if this would have any ties to the Arm China saga [0]

[0] https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Caixin/In-Depth-How-SoftBa...
These updates lean heavily towards how Vue approaches setting reactivity.

Is there any slam-dunk case for using Svelte over Vue?
Show HN: 'Start a Startup' Adventure Game by WhimsyAI
Yeah, I hate my ISP. I am certain they sell every bit of data they can. Ergo, I use a VPN most of the time.
I could not agree more. There is a huge push to make both side of the rendering “the same”. Next.js is pushing it really hard for their edge level rehydration.

I get it, it gives you flexibility to hydrate the view as close to the user, as late as possible. That sounds cool, but I wonder how many folks really use it and how much you pay for not clearly defining where and when each bit is happening.
Sure, but the person I responded to was suggesting that Rails was deliberately holding onto memory to re-use it.

That's absolutely not something Rails does, but it is something that some managed languages and some (most?) allocators do.
I'm so upset I loved this thing
Scientists suggest possible solution to space-induced bone loss
It's great to see people moving in this direction, but I'm disappointed that everybody has decided to reimplement basically the same thing independently.

Mobx was ahead of the game here (though, granted, it too draws on Knockout.js). You can use Mobx to declaratively describe reactive state, much like this. But it isn't integrated into any framework - you can use it in vanilla JavaScript with no other runtime or compilation required. You define models with Mobx, then on top of that there's mobx-react, which ties your model into React's update APIs (essentially making render() automatically observe values, and making relevant changes trigger a re-render), or there's mobx-vue, or mobx-svelte, or mobx-preact, etc etc. Decoupling this is super helpful - for example I'm using mobx to model raw state, computed state & reactions to changes in server side Node.js, no problem.

Meanwhile, recreating the same reactive concepts independently in each library instead makes all the resulting code incompatible, so even your pure JS state models are coupled to your UI framework - e.g. createCounter in this post has to import & use $state from Svelte. That makes it far harder to change frameworks in future, hard to share code between apps using different frameworks (plausibly even different versions of the same framework), etc etc.

I'd love to see a native common standard for this, similar to how promises were eventually standarized and suddenly everything had a compatible model for handling async future results (I could swear I've seen initial discussion on exactly that already, but I can't find it anywhere now sadly).
Clarifying that the non-pipe is a Belgian non-pipe and not a French non-pipe reminds me of the joke with Sartre:

Jean-Paul Sartre was sitting in a cafe when a waitress approached him: "Can I get you something to drink, Monsieur Sartre?" Sartre replied, "Yes, I'd like a cup of coffee with sugar, but no cream". The waitress left, but returned a few minutes later and said, "I'm sorry, Monsieur Sartre, we are all out of cream -- how about with no milk?"
Permazen is a library that runs in-process, there is no network protocol, so it expects to be close to your data. When you use flatMap then yes that's compiled for a for loop under the hood, and reads on the objects trigger KV reads. There are ways to use hinting and pre-fetching and such if latency starts getting higher, say if you use FoundationDB (which does have a protocol). But in most KV stores even those over the network, there is a local cache and you can pre-read keys close to each other in keyspace.

I guess by easy/hard, I am considering experience to be 99% of that. If you transform XML by using XSLT then that's great, but most devs won't know what to make of that, because they lack the experience. I haven't used XSLT since, I think, 2001, and if I had to use it today I'd need to relearn it from scratch. That's not hard hard, it's just time consuming, and I'd rather write perhaps slightly more verbose or less pretty code in a language that me+team already use than (re)learn a DSL in that case.
Two way data binding and signals are such bad ideas when dealing with large real-world apps. I feel they only make sense in small code snippets that are cool to tweet.

For me they're a dealbreaker when considering a new framework.
thanks for the kind words! We want to stick with SQL - having done a few extensions to make it easier to work with time series data such as SAMPLE BY, LATEST ON, etc. Window functions that the product has been lacking for some time are next to bridge the gap vs other more mature platforms while offering something very new and unique on the performance side, especially ingestion related.
Wow, thanks everyone... it seems I've misunderstood this all these years.
Yes, I must say that I love BMW's approach. Everyone else just takes a frame and hangs off of it all the protection — just a massive increase in redundant weight and decrease in performance.

Far better to take BMW's approach, upgrade the materials so that the protection is structural; each component serves both purposes.
I would point to the problem that chatbots fail not at having a “spark” but at things ordinary computer software does well. The other day somebody pointed out in an HN conversation that I had gotten the 1984 Superbowl confused with the 1986 Superbowl.

That’s a very human mistake, I’m sure somebody can tell you who played in every Superbowl and what the score was but people do misremember things frequently and we don’t call it a hallucination. (which is a defect in perception)

“Superhuman intelligence” is easy to realize for sports statistics if you do the ontology and data entry work and put the data in a relational or related database.

The thing is that chatbots get 90% accuracy for cases where you can get 99.99% accuracy (sometimes the data entry is wrong) with conventional technology. There is a kind of faith that we can go to 10^17 or 10^30 parameters or something and at some point perfect performance will “emerge” but no I think it is more like it will approach some asymptote, say 95% and you will try harder and harder and it will like pushing a bubble around other a rug. It’s a common situation in failing technology projects, quite well documented in

https://www.amazon.com/Friends-High-Places-Livingston-1990-1...

but boy people are seduced by those situations and have a hard time recognizing that they are in them.

In a certain sense chatbots already have superhuman powers of seduction that, I think, come from not having a “self” which makes mirroring easier to attain. People wouldn’t ordinarily be impressed by a computer program that can sort a list of numbers 90% correctly but give it the ability to apologize and many people will think it is really sincere and think it is really promising, it just needs a few trillion more transistors. (See the story Trurl’s Machine in Stanislaw Lem’s excellent Cyberiad except that machine is belligerent and not agreeable)

Now an obvious path is to have the chatbot turn a question into a SQL query and then feed the results into conversation and that’s a great idea and an active research area, but I’d point out the dialogues between Achilles and the Tortoise in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach

which people mistakenly think is about symbolic A.I. but that is really about the problems of solving problems where the correct solution has a logical aspect. Even though logic isn’t everything, the formulation of most problems (like “Who won the soccer game at Cornell last night?”) is fundamentally logical and leads you straight to paradoxes that can have you forever pushing a bubble under the rug and thinking “just one more” little hack will fix it…
"If the person's different activities _actually_ resulted in a significant difference of time the car has been sitting, it's likely the owner themselves would be able to easily deduce what could really be the issue."

Oh, I wouldn't even remotely bet on that. Even in my professional sphere of programming I've been caught by what I call "cognitively available" theories of what the problem is that turn out to be entirely wrong in the end, because the real problem is something I wasn't even remotely considering before hand, and possibly even would have dismissed if it had crossed my mind.

If you don't even know what "vapor lock" is, and I assure you this will describe the majority of car owners, why would you think "time in store" is the difference?

What is cognitively available to this person is that they buy different sorts of ice cream and that causes the problem. It puts the spotlight of cognition on that factor to the exclusion of other things. Even the engineer trying to solve the problem was probably slowed in his investigation by such an appealingly available issue being proposed first; again, I've certainly experienced this in my own professional sphere where someone proposes some explanation that ultimately turned out to be completely spurious, and it takes actual effort to get both myself and my team off of that line of thought.
I also use it professionally, for both web apps and HPC algorithms.

Are there some things faster to write in python? Sure. But I find the mental overhead is significantly less (for me) in Rust, and overall dev time is about equal, since I typically hit far fewer bugs and spend less time reading docs in Rust. I can't remember the last time I hit a footgun in Rust. Seems I hit one every week in python.

We recently migrated a ~10k SLOC Django JSON API server to axum/sqlx (Rust). I couldn't be happier - faster to ship new features, faster to refactor, fewer bugs, and response times got about 10x quicker.
What do you mean by "many?" While I like Relay, I've almost never seen Relay used in the wild. It's sad as it's quite an elegant concept; just as you define your props for your React component, you define your "props" coming from the server as well, through the GraphQL notation. I've been looking at ways to combine both concepts so that there is no client- or server-side state at all, it's all just state, from a cache that determines whether to refetch from the server or to keep the state local.
Um, because I'm human?

What a bizarre question. Like... what?
Found Elon Musk's throwaway account.
While it's cool that this works at all, I wish we would stop using MNIST as a benchmark given how trivial it is.
What are Autonomous Systems and why they matter (a lot) for your security
Is this the new 500 mile story (or the second-place replacement?)

I don't know whether this is true or not, but either way: incredible. Love this, and love the company for actually sending someone on company time (!??!?!?!?) to check it out. <3 :'))))
> Moral of the story: even insane-looking problems are sometimes real.

To me the moral of the story (and my experience) is: user's problems are usually real, but don't trust their ability to diagnose the actual cause.
If you're growing the herbs in planters, it pays to use a custom potting mix that is 1 part peat moss, 1 part compost, and 1 part vermiculite. It eliminates most risk of heavy metals and provides a very light and fluffy medium with lots of aeration and water retention.
I agree with this statement if my data structures map cleanly to Rust's preferred single-ownership, which most problems in my domain do.

Sometimes I do run across problems that are difficult to express in Rust without resorting to interior mutability, and it can slow me down to figure out the best way to model my data.
I'm sure you've tried a bunch, so my comments might be talking into the void.

I had a similar issue that turned out to be a slightly loose battery connection. While the battery clamp was making contact with the battery terminal, I didn't tighten it enough and it made poor contact.

Is it correlated to temperature at all? If it is, I wouldn't be shocked if something, like a relay, is building up heat and increasing resistance to the point of operating incorrectly. A short nap might give that component enough time to cool off.
I haven't experienced an HTTPS error on a legitimate site that I would input any personal information into in years.

I couldn't imagine clicking past one of those warnings to login to my bank or even amazon.
> That's a safeguarding measure that is very specific to certain jobs.

Safeguarding from what exactly? If they're innocent until proven guilty, there shouldn't be any safeguarding necessary. By your earlier argument, saying "you can't work with kids anymore" is rushing to judgement.
My wife's car right now is low on windshield wiper fluid. It warns us at a particular spot while we are driving. Not a particular distance from home, a specific geolocation. First thoughts were that it was the amount of time as she went to something and came back. But it does the on screen and audible warning at that location every time, no matter what was driven before that, whether it was 5 minutes, 5 miles, an hour, or 60 miles. The only additional clue is that exact same spot is a dead zone for most phones/carriers.

We got the wiper fluid filled, so the mystery is in remission, but I'm wondering if all warnings will pop up right then. I'm guessing it has something to do with the telemetry of the car being nudged in that spot, waking up and saying something.
If it was surrounded by a crowd of engineers, surely someone would have tested the battery?
Fake WinRAR exploit PoC drops VenomRAT malware
There are logging libraries that include syntactically scoped timers, such as mulog (https://github.com/BrunoBonacci/mulog). While a great library, we preferred timbre (https://github.com/taoensso/timbre) and rolled our own logging timer macro that interoperates with it. More convenient to have such niceties in a Lisp of course. Since we also have OpenTelemetry available, it would also be easy to wrap traces around code form boundaries as well. Thanks OP for the idea!
> I disagree with this approach

That is not actually relevant to the point.

> So, how can you even try to defend this design

I'm doing no such thing, I'm pointing out that your reasoning is faulty: dogfooding does not help when the behaviour is logical and obvious to the designer-cum-user, and same with reviewing.
But your browser tells you when your location is being used? It’s not like Google can secretly use your location without your browser alerting you to it?