skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Hmm, that's sad. I guess the difference with Typed Racket is that the Racket devs and researchers behind it were all completely sold on the idea from day one, which resulted in a quick progress in annotating the whole of the stdlib. Without that, you'd need to annotate everything you require (import) yourself, which would be a massive pain. Another difference might be the module system of Racket, which is pretty unique. IIRC Clojure modules are just namespaces, similar to CL, right? In Racket, the module system along with the extensive support for contracts, allowed TR to be much more strict with types, while still interfacing well with untyped code. In effect, Racket as a whole is gradually typed, but within the bounds of TR modules there's a sound, fully static type system.

It's a shame. I thought Clojure, as the only Lisp currently used in the industry, would benefit from the great work of Racket folks the most. After all, static typing in your pet project is much less important (or even desirable) than in a production-quality software made by a team of devs under time constraints. It's strange to see JavaScript and Python getting (widely used) gradual type systems before Clojure when the foundational work on gradual type systems was done in Lisps (Scheme and Racket).
You forgot Ticketbastard's scalping business. They are (were?) directly involved with scalpers operating a "platform" for them:

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/20/649666928/ticketmaster-has-it...
Do you know that antilock brakes slow down you faster comparing to car with locked wheels?
Would be incorrect to consider the example where there is no superposition like a special case of the island with no entanglement? Because you should be able to classically simulate superposed states as long as these are not entangled so states with no superposition should be a particular subset.
Related: Jonathan Blow’s talk Preventing the Collapse of Civilization

https://youtu.be/ZSRHeXYDLko?si=zR7Lq2jSxexWUCra
Oh, it actually got released. There was some hype years ago, but I thought it got cancelled.

But I think Star Citizen switched over to Lumberyard from CryEngine. Though it stands to be seen, if this game will ever be released.
Abstractions are only relevant when they are leaky. People alive today were flipping toggle switches to load individual machine codes into memory. Some of them literally knew what every single transistor in the machine was designed to do.

Programmers at the time went from thinking these kit computers are toys to watching all the old ideas like virtual memory, cache, pipelining, networking, and multiple cores get reintroduced as the anemic transistor budget exploded. None of it was particularly novel, but the slow introduction of older ideas was a great way to learn all this stuff from the ground up.
You're reading too much into the morallity. Furthermore how is it a fallacy?
The whitepaper in the Github repository elaborates further on the mitigations point, as follows:

> We will award this point for any clear, but potentially incomplete, description of multiple mitigations associated with the model’s risks. Alternatively, we will award this point if the developer reports that it does not mitigate risk.

This seems to suggest that to get awarded the point without actively engaging in mitigations, you may still need to pay lip service to the framing, that is, acknowledge that there is risk and you are not mitigating it.
1.) Can you just admit that your original claims are debunked by wikipedia?
2.) Of course 1.8 Million years matter in Evolution. Please make you familiar with the Wikipedia article instead being a pseudo sceptical.
do developers own the business and will benefit the most of the upside?
Side question: what kinds of codebases were those? What products were built on top of decades-old Fortran code? I'm curious.
It is all things. Encapsulate all things. Think fractals, hopf and always remember the turbo encabulator.

The original machine had a base-plate of prefabulated aluminite, surmounted by a malleable logarithmic casing in such a way that the two main spurving bearings were in a direct line with the pentametric fan. The latter consisted simply of six hydrocoptic marzlevanes, so fitted to the ambifacient lunar waneshaft that side fumbling was effectively prevented. The main winding was of the normal lotus-o-delta type placed in panendermic semi-bovoid slots in the stator, every seventh conductor being connected by a non-reversible tremie pipe to the differential girdlespring on the "up" end of the grammeters.

— John Hellins Quick, "The turbo-encabulator in industry", Students' Quarterly Journal, Vol. 15, Iss. 58, p. 22 (December 1944)
Thanks for the examples. I agree that these examples are too restrictive for small operators and maybe overall unnecessary.

I am also however aware of how much the average person has benefitted from EU regulation such as retail warranty laws and data roaming expense laws.

I think it would be a good thing for some of these laws to only start applying once a business has grown to a certain size. In practice I think it usually is not enforced too harshly for small operators but nevertheless it should be explicit.
The "less entertainment" and "more broke things" is probably the critical piece of the environment.

This makes valuable anyone with long attention spans and immunity to boredom.

For me, it has taken some habit forming (and habit prevention), but I have learned so much in the past 10 years since giving up gaming and social media. HN is an occasional vice though...
My understanding is that COVID happened and schedules slipped, and as a result they decided to licence some IP blocks from Synopsys (like a DDR4/5 PHY and a PCIe 5.0 PHY). Synopsys likes including control MCUs in their IP (yes, their DDR PHY has a MCU in it) which are intended to run a binary blob provided by them, and for which they will not give you the source code. For those curious, it's the same DDR PHY blob needed for memory bringup used by the i.MX8M and products based on it (e.g. Librem 5).

Basically IBM facing delays chose to use the IP of Synopsys rather than make their own DDR5 and PCIe5 IP as they usually would (the fact they traditionally made all their own stuff is one of the reasons they were in the position to open 100% of the firmware of POWER9 in the first place), and dropped the ball on making sure that would meet the 100% open source firmware requirements of Raptor's customers. IBM walled themself into a corner here, as they're now dependent on Synopsys IP and it's not like they can persuade Synopsys to open their ahem precious IP.

See my article (it was a hypothetical but has now been confirmed): https://www.devever.net/~hl/omi

(Of course the DDR PHY is on the OMI chip not the CPU, but with only one supplier of the required OMI chips this is a moot point. The PCIe5 PHY is on the CPU though and also needs a blob.)
> Questioning everything gets results, not friends.

I'd argue that it depends how it's done. I used to work with a brilliant Data Scientist who had a PhD in AI. She asked so many questions — often about fundamentals — that it was like working with the Riddler. She generated a ton of insight as a result and identified missteps before they happened. Despite questioning everything she was arguably the most liked person at the company because of how she approached it. It didn't feel like being grilled, but rather that she was super interested in people and what they were working on.

My point is that questioning everything can get results and friends if done correctly.
I'm aware of that, but it's supported by a total of 4 terminals.
The OP is talking about business, so having something done in 2 days versus 4 days is always better. Ignoring everything else, less time is less money.
There was a point in the history of aviation where anyone who could fly a plane was also capable of constructing and designing one. I wonder if there were similar concerns at that time about a future where someone could be in a cockpit of a plane without truly understanding how the machine works from first principles?

Today that type of concern would seem absurd, and we've gotten used to the idea that flying a plane and building it are separate skillsets and jobs. After all, we are comfortable with aviation engineers designing the aircraft without knowing how to mine the bauxite, smelt it to aluminium, and machine it into aircraft parts.

As comforting as it is to have an overview of how to trace a complete path from logic gate to web request, it isn't necessary. The decrease in the number of engineers with that overview isn't a cause for alarm, or a problem to be solved. It is just a sign that "tech" has matured, and it is stratifying into a set of interlocking disciplines. The same happened with every other subject in human history, and we've been just fine...
I am grateful that I grew up in the 8-bit era of home computers where you had only the barest bones of an OS (until I discovered CP/M and shareware).
> the “traditionalist view” of monetary policy: the belief that the only way to tame inflation is by causing a recession. This view so thoroughly dominates the economics profession that it is often considered something closer to a law of nature

This belief dominates the journalist profession, not the economics profession

> Higher interest rates make it more expensive for consumers to buy a home or car and for businesses to make investments, which, in turn, is supposed to reduce hiring, blunt wage growth, and depress spending. The entire point is to cool prices by grinding the economy to a halt

That's a very consumer point of view and not relevant to the economy at large. Raising interest rates result in a smaller money supply than not raising interest rates. That in turn reduces inflation. This is Econ 101

> Volcker went down in history as the hero who saved the economy. The economics establishment drew a clear lesson: The cure for inflation is a recession

No, silly journalists drew that conclusion. Economists knew exactly why raising rates reduced inflation. This author is very confused
Dev teams have choices though. They can choose to use existing 3rd party code, services, etc, to accelerate development or not. They can choose some amount of non-functional requirements. They can choose the amount of "future proofing", abstraction, etc. And on and on...many choices that would drive timelines, trade speed for quality, longevity, maintainability, or cost, and so on.
my biggest problem is that i need to juggle marketing branding development reseller relations etc all as a solo founder and as a result only one task ever gets enough attention with the rest suffering. so i have realized that there is no way around hiring and thus fundraising.
A sci-fi semi-solution is to hope that all the relevant information is embodied in these LLMs being built.

A funny possible history is everyone forgetting what’s necessary and then having the relevant information they need accidentally blocked by an AI system they have no idea how to build or fix (maybe because of terms like master/slave going against elite values).
Why are you asking me to defend a position that I have explicitly disclaimed?
I’ve seen this situation play out, where the PIP was termination with X days notice. Because the manager knew, and employee should have known, the manager didn’t really work with the employee or review their work because why bother, nothing will change (outside of something exceptional happening).

Somewhat similar thing happened on the final review, but without pointing to hard data of the fact. The decision of course remained final, the manager got a light, informal water cooler “hey be more careful of optics” chat, and that was it.

Notably when the former employee tried to go a competitor, former company killed that.
I get the point, and with irresponsible parties (as is fairly widespread in most companies) there's a real risk here.

However the analogy of a meteorologist seems poor as that job is focused on predicting the weather - the typical dev is focused on operating in that weather and comparatively inexperienced in predicting with great accuracy.

What's frustrating as a stakeholder is ludicrous estimates, which don't even start with the work time, let alone end up with a realistic duration. This is particularly true (and frustrating) at the micro task level, an area I'm often requiring items that take at most 30 minute to complete and are usually things I could do in less time if only I had access... You get a weeks long estimate back, even when it's incurring a serious cost in production and falls in the drop everything category (which obviously one wants to avoid but does come up). I get that none of those 30 minute tasks will take 30 minute alone as there's testing and documentation to add but the more bs level the estimate, the more it damages the trust relationship.
You can count cars now with commercial satellite photography. (I'm not trying to articulate any point about the thread topic; I just think this is neat).

https://www.planet.com/pulse/tasking-dashboard-50cm-12x-revi... ("Planet Announces 50 cm SkySat Imagery")

I love how the RGB Bayer (?) grid turns moving cars into tiny rainbows! You can identify the lane directions by which way the colors go.
i've always taken this to explain why americans are so obsessed by 'dont tred on me' freedom -- they have so little of it where its actually experienced: at the daily, local, level
I admire his courage to open this discussion in the currently heated up space... Very much needed to have more people participate and facilitate similar discussions.
Ballistic missiles follow a ballistic trajectory so missile doesn't go 90
I think a point of reference would be to try the same prompts on a stock image library, and see what you get by comparison. Taking the 'indian person' prompt on pexels for example gives: https://www.pexels.com/search/indian%20person/

I see men, women, children, weddings, parties, offices, bedrooms, streets. It's quite diverse. I'll also be a stereotype of a sort, but it's clearly wider and more representative of an aspirational indian scene.
A boy who cried risk
It’s been a while but isn’t GCD an OS global queue rather than local to the process?
I agree ! This creates a situation where the SQL query does not represent the domain knowledge, but makes assumptions about it and cannot be understood without it. And while this will always be true for the more unusual parts of the domain, it is quite disappointing to be unable to properly represent as simple a concept as "what is a customer?" in SQL.

It's the same as a language forcing you to use `c & ~0x20` because it doesn't have a `Char.toUpper(c)` function. The code works (under the right assumptions) and produces the same result, but it does not convey the concept of converting a letter to uppercase.

What makes it so frustrating is that the DDL portion of SQL spends significant effort on representing such concepts in the database schema ! I can create a Customers table, with its primary key, and its foreign keys into and from other tables, and so on. I can represent "these are all the customers" in DDL, I can represent "every sale must be associated to a customer", and so on. But after the first join, I'm no longer using the Customers table, I'm using a new in-memory relation with no primary or foreign keys, and the concept that "this is the customers table, but with extra fields" is something I need to keep track of in my head, instead of in the language.
O3DE seems to live in its own bubble. GameFromScratch covers it from time to time and has always had trouble getting the advertised features to work, not to mention they completely blew the first impression because when it was announced there was no installer and that took many many months to be done (just to leave a half-functional engine until they fixed it later on).

Also it just fails every vibe check: AI art in the homepage and they had some drama by publishing a quote saying that they were "the only real open source game engine"[1] (which has been retracted since)

1. https://youtu.be/5PAuR-pEz1w?t=128
In addition, any actual conversation wouldn't just require devs that can talk in business terms but also business people that can talk in development terms. Otherwise the only territory that can be usefully covered by both parties are the business requirements and the outcome will almost always be biased towards that.
I would add to this a bit in that

1. Given that "select " is considered something to avoid except when necessary in edge cases

2. And "select 1" will accomplish the same goal

Anyone reading the "select " version of the code will have to stop and consider whether it is using "select " for a reason, because "select 1" would be the normal choice. Using "select " is assumed to be conveying some intent (that isn't there) _because_ it's not the expected way to do it.

I kind of see it like

if (thisField == thatField) ...

vs

if ( (( true || false )) && ( 11 == 11 ) && thisField == thatField ) ...

Sure, they do the same thing... but you have to stop and look at the second one to make sure you're understanding what it does and if there's some reason its weird.
> If there is a supreme authority that can compel you to apply laws to your citizens without their explicit approval, then, the state becomes just a shell.

We are all empty shells then, given that the state can apply laws to us without our explicit approval.

Just like you are free to do whatever you want as an individual, as long as you are willing to face the consequences that may be forced upon you by society. So too are the EU member states free to do whatever they want, subject to consequences imposed by the other members.

> In essence this setup of the EU will lead the the formation of the "United states of Europe". That may be well and good for you but shouldn't the people be asked their opinions about it?

The EU consists of mostly functioning democratic societies. Those societies decide. That doesn't mean every single person within must agree. Such is life as part of a society.

Will you move on to claim that the EU is undemocratic now? Because there are "unelected" officials? And this differs from the democratic governments of individual nations how exactly? Because you cannot vote on the representatives from a different EU country, just like you cannot vote on provincial representatives from other provinces in your national government?
Please don't generalise or you wipe out the occasional good that does exist.
Not to be confused with pegging.
I missed Mailbox, so I built it
I used to think that the historical development of a subject can not possibly be the best way to learn a new topic because it is so path dependent and random. But with experience I have seen that there are very few instances where educators mixed up the historical timeline of a subject and made it more easily absorbable. It still baffles me that this is even the case for abstract fields like math
There are a lot of managers who would never fire someone for what I’ll call “routine underperformance” (to distinguish from harassment, job abandonment, etc.)

If a company thinks some non-trivial percentage of the employee population is likely to be underperforming to the extent they should be fired, they probably should implement a URA target (or “rank and yank” or similar).

I’m with you in disliking such policies, but if you want forced turnover of those ranked low-performing, you have to make it a hard policy, because human managers dislike firing low-performing employees who seem like they’re trying.
That is how American tech monopolies like to paint what the EU does. Lol
This is from 2017 and the picture changed drastically in 2018-2023.
Only if player tasks are independent. For example, If both are trying to mine a ressource(assuming a shared world) and you do it parallel you might end up with the wrong person winning the mining race condition.
> The only magic wand in software development is to simplify requirements. The requirements are always wrong: too broad, too vague, based on invalid assumptions

I think it's less simplification and more precision and completeness. Obviously if you have simpler requirements they more complete and precise, but the requirement might not actually be simplifiable. In which case what you want is better specification.

"They write the right stuff" about the shuttle software group is basically a story about doing that: https://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff
"Molch" translates to "newt" or "salamander"
I think binaries are refcounted and shared in Erlang? I'm not sure if this happens between schedulers/cores, though. They're also obviously immutable, so might not be what you mean by "sharing memory atomically".

Other than Erlang, Pony[1] might be an interesting choice. It allows sharing memory, even mutable memory, but it tracks the sharing in the type system. It's been a long time since I looked at it, and it definitely had a bunch of rough edges, but I really liked where the things were going. I hope it got even better since.

[1] https://www.ponylang.io/
That is messed up. Sounds like a terrible environment. Do they really have no decency ?
Hey, thanks for the reply. From what I read, I think you think that language use is some kind of coding with words where you have a deterministic relation between input and output. You seem to treat the semantic content of a statement as if it is somehow static, objective, and oberservable. I don't think it is and I'm in good company on that matter.

That being said, that's just my reading of your comment and I could be wrong, which is kind of my argument here. If I'm right lawyers don't care about your notion, they use language for something different than mere information encoding. Therefore they need tools that support their use case. MS Word (or word processors in general) might not be the best tool for that job, but it is good enough. Integrating a well trained ChatGPT into MS Word will help lawyers much more than any structured entry form ever could.

BTW, the LaTeX quip was intended to make light of the idea of separating content and style, which goes way back. Consider TeX' age. Your reaction tells me, you think LaTeX is a styling tool, which in a sense it is, and that's what it is about, which it is not. Hordes of scientists (and type-setting professionals) argue in favor of LaTeX (or other type-setting systems) because you just write the content in plain text. LaTeX takes care of the style. TeX files are also just markup and easily git'able. It does make life easier, but it is not as important as some people make it out to be.
E-Paper Weather Display for Invisible Computers
Nice work! What are some differences between this project and Katalon Recorder? Katalon Recorder is also a chrome extension, allows recording of actions, and export to Python.
Maybe we'll begin to see streamers offering their content on better alternative platforms like PeerTube instances now ? Twitch is really a pain with their ads and bloated ui.
To some extend, but there’s tasks that I could do in 30m in a company with 15 employees that I have still not accomplished after 2 months in our 15k employee enterprise.
Yup its good to know
But unless that 3rd party code, and those services, have already been discovered, evaluated, and learned by that particular dev team, integrating them might take more time than building something from scratch that meets the specific requirements at hand.

And if it's built in-house, that means that in addition to being much more tailored to the organization's needs, it can be much more easily changed as those needs evolve.

This doesn't mean that I think it's always better to roll your own, of course; there are lots of instances where that counts as "reinventing the wheel." But it's absolutely not as simple as "just use something that's already out there and it will be faster and work just as well."
It does seem like, because of all the national laws requiring big tech companies to pay news organizations merely for linking them, that big tech companies are increasingly getting out of the news business. And I don't blame them.