skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Both fields embrace a sort of masochism and active desire to keep knowledge impenetrable b/c it acts as a mechanism to feed out the dummies.

Did you go to a top university? And did you study physics in grad school? I find this statement amusing given how easy the undergrad curriculum was compared to grad school physics.

In my undergrad, physics was challenging only in that you needed a good command of the mathematics. If you had that, the actual instruction (and textbooks) were of average difficulty.

But again, experience may vary from university to university. Certainly I can see professors who could have made it much tougher if they wanted to.

As for the rest of your comments in this thread: Sorry, but to me this is another HN thread where people insist it can be taught better, and teachers are being irresponsible in not finding such approaches, but with very little actual proof that it can be as good as imagined. It's not like you have concrete examples of better pedagogy to pointed out.
I would really love to make a ferrofluid visualizer but instead of being part of the signal path, it’s a desk knick-knack with a microphone and wall power… Hmm
Also, Rust has lifetimes which are erased prior to monomorphisation—so specializing based on them is unsound. Any `comptime` equivalent in Rust would have to limit the access of `comptime` blocks to lifetime information in some way.
would be funny explaining to the markets that the company is doing a double blind experiment with layoffs.
What if Sysvel and Avanci are (legally) found to be in the right and actually have legitimate patents, and refuse to add their patents to the AOM patent pool? (Why would they agree to that anyway? surely individually licensing AV1 patents would be much more profitable?)

Do you think we should just make do with H.264 for another 20 years, or do you think there ought to be a legal solution to the patent mess we're in?
The further I got into maths (not very far mind you, but I think I at least did a few differential equations,) the more it felt that maths really was just a bag of tricks, moreso at the advanced end.

* Keep deriving circular functions until they cancel out.
* Completing the square
* Use the quadratic formula to solve degree-2 polynomials ... No formula for degree-5 or higher.
* Use the Laplace transform here... for reasons...
The whole point of a hierarchy is division of labor - managers are supposed to be looking at the big picture and monitoring resources so that they can direct their subordinates more efficiently than the subordinates could self organize. Of course there needs to be two way communication, the people down in the trenches are inevitably going to have a much better grasp on the details than the general 100 miles away. But assuming you have told management all the information they need from you, setting priorities correctly is managements entire reason for existence. It is not and should not be the responsibility of every employee to monitor all information and identify whether an ask should or should not be given its current level of priority. You should be confident that when your boss tells you to do something that it is for good reason even if you don't quite see what that reason is. If, on the other hand, you have to do your boss' job for them, then it's better for both the company and you to just cut out the middle man.
I'm 92. I received my first phone call when I was a kid. There's still time.
Where does the H200 fit in if the B100 is coming out the same year with 2x the performance? Is the H200 just cheaper than the B100?
Presumably clean room implementation takes the same amount of effort as production of specification, so it doesn't save effort of invention.
Eternal cloudflare captcha loop. I’ve never actually seen one of these in the wild. I hit the “I’m not a robot” checkbox, half second later the page reloads with the same checkbox.
I'll check out the book but your description that "sciences are actively hindered from being in the position to solve humanity's big problems" sounds accurate to me. I suspect you think that's a problem whereas I tend to think it's not.

Solutions to problems involve trade offs. Trade offs come down to questions about values. This is not he purview of Science. That's politics.
> - I have a hard time figuring out which features I need to add from a crate and which ones exist in a crate.

The documentation for the crate should make clear that a feature should be enabled for their APIs, the list of all features would always be in the Cargo.toml. Recent rustc will tell you when you call method that is configured out, and which feature you need to enable.

> - I have a hard time figuring out if something doesn't work because a trait is missing and it's not just unclear that it is missing but also where it can be found.

If the compiler doesn't clearly tell you that a trait is missing, please file a ticket with a repro case. A trick for finding where any item is defined, if you know the name already, is to use the name in some way. The compiler will then fail to find it in scope and do a global search. If it finds it then, it will tell you the appropriate import path.
I think it's much more loving to get your spouse a big, beautiful, shiny mutual fund.
And as the housing market moves 20%+ in a year in some places all you've done is kick the can down the road to figuring out a value of X that is high enough that no forced turnover of property happens so you're not violating the principles of property ownership. But also low enough that there's still a threat of exactly that happening.

Ultimately all this does is accelerate the accumulation of wealth for folks that already have the capital to profit off this system while forcing people out of their property. No thank you.
They trained it to recognize nine predefined shapes?

Come on, if you're going to train a model, make it a generic smoother/DWIM for drawing shapes!

You will also get more "analog"/never-identical shapes, which will feel much more stylish in the way drums feel warmer than drum samples even when played by an expert at hitting the notes identically and on time.
> That's OK; he'll end up in a better neighborhood, just like the rest of us.

He may well not. From the other things he's written, he left tech for writing, and it absolutely wasn't for the money.
> The system acts an an informal IQ test

Undergrad textbooks in Physics may be somewhat challenging. But the graduate texts (at least in theoretical Physics) tend to be MUCH harder, especially if your undergrad degree didn't include several courses of abstract algebra and topology.

Ideally, physicists should have Geometric Algebra (Clifford Algebra) as part of their undergraduate classes. But at least when I went to Uni, there was no space in the undergrad tracks for this level of math.
Rhetoric and Reality [pdf]
Maybe California is running the bus line that services hundreds of these factories along Highway 58.
I expressed myself poorly.
Of course if it can be done from the UI I would just click around.

Unfortunately not all place have that in place.

A good example of what I meant is Amazon chat bot.

They can trigger refund / re-ship and the like.
And if it’s too much money they bring a human customer service.
Ask HN: Working at Cloudflare
Hello HN!

I am really excited about a recent job opening I saw at Cloudflare:

https://boards.greenhouse.io/cloudflare/jobs/5369817?gh_jid=5369817

and I was hoping to get more information about what its like working at Cloudflare, if anyone has any information about this role, or if anyone would like to connect about this. I'd be very interested in learning more!

My email is in my profile.
Tech is full of the softest people on earth. Unbelievable. Some people abandon their entire community to come to America for the privilege of working 80 hours a week washing dishes.
> React components cannot do this — full stop.

Render your react components on the server and send them over the wire as plain html. no client side javascript required — full stop.
That tens of millions is supposed to be each, isn't it?

It describes the one individual getting the most, but I don't know how it falls down through the hierarchy.
I've heard of cashiers getting comission, so it's not outlandish. Additionally, it could act as an incentive to scan things quickly and efficiently.

Not a whole lot of margin at the supermarket for comissions though.
a lot of disagreement,

pluggable llms is not something most people look in a product - its rare case of enterprises that are afraid of everything atm, also finetuning should be considered for costs not really range (i have not seen examples of finetuning that couldnt be achieved via prompting in llms, if someone has any, would be great to hear)

selfdriving cars are actually going for e2e systems now, there is still infra/architecture and perhaps even different models that comm with each other, but regardless system behaves as e2e solution that learns internal hierarchies of all the signals/tokens

large supersmart llms is where the game is currently at, they will get smaller, faster and more efficient we already are on this curve - if you're building llms i think you will fall behind

outer leafs of your org fueled by ai - while yes, this model is good for already established companies yet its also super important to think "ai first", ai much like any prev technology can be attached to legacy solutions making them better or can be shaped into a completely new unimaginable before solution... i wouldnt give vanilla advice that discourages the latter
No, you learn through reverse engineering the software. It's easier than reading a patent, and patents don't reflect reality anyway. No one reads patents.
Americans being into hierarchy is a bizarre opinion. Are you confusing it with asian countries?
> But only senior people could have windows

I once worked at a company where almost the opposite was true, or at least they prided themselves on not factoring that in and in moving desks several times a year. Managers and senior people tended to be near the center of a very crowded office space, away from the windows, I suppose to be closer to the "action". Newer or less important folks tended to be near the windows.
I think finally we will be able to demonstrate that the deep Java-OOP style abstractions were bullshit at most software shops. Unless you are leveraging that stuff to make your code more testable, maintainable, and performant then just leave it alone.

I think the issue is that middle-aged architects get that "flow" feeling while doing their design work. They should keep that shit in their home woodworking shop and leave it out of the code base!
Yeah, it was a bit weird to me that I couldn’t find anything like this either, which is why I made it. Seems like all the visualization tools out there go from the database tables directly, but that defeats the cross-database portability of SQLAlchemy which is one of its best features: it works equally well without any changes on SQLite, Postgres, etc.
The inability to write suggestive or violent scenes or even have a simple fight between characters makes it difficult to do any interesting role play. The frustrating thing is that it feels like it could easily be done, but the creators are bound by some puritanical sense of moral obligation. I hate this!
This is a surface-level argument that could be applied to literally every industry if you trivialize the product produced.

For example: NASA spends billions on research and development just to be able to push a rocket upwards into space? How much of that will be cut out when we just go straight to AI-generated plans and schematics?

It only makes “a lot of sense” if you’re willing to compromise your standards and eliminate labor no matter the consequences.
DNA is a form of code, but it doesn't encode programs. Instead, like an STL or STEP file it encodes HARDWARE designs.

While you could think of it as encoding infrastructure AND code (as in IaS) you'd need to go beyond that to include the hardware for computing AND physical function (like a whole car + computer) in that conception, which is not what IaS means.

The hardware side of DNA is easy to overlook since we don't yet have the necessesary (CAD) design tools to easily understand the shape and mechanics of proteins just from reading a DNA sequence like we do for macroscale 3D models. But there are hard technological reasons for this.

DNA encodes information, but instead of binary organized into 8-64 bit bytes (10010110) it uses four base pairs (ATCG) organized into 3 letter codons, each of which represents one amino acid.

The cell assembles chains of amino acids which are then placed in an "oven" where the string of molecules folds back on itself to assemble a complicated and functional 3D shape.

When we say complicated, we really do mean complicated. Even the fastest modern super computers are unable to determine the shape of these protein based only on the DNA sequence input. Further, we are unable to simulate the way that a folded protein will interact with other molecules reliably.

Fortunately these kinds of problem will someday be easily solved by quantum computers, but for now we are stuck with approximations of questionable accuracy.

But there are very computer code-like elements to how cells work. Unfortunately it is all spaghetti code. One section of DNA often codes for proteins which bind to one or more other sections of DNA either increasing or decreasing the activity production of the proteins from those locations.

Additionally, some DNA sections code not for protein but RNA strings which are used mechanically by themselves or as part of proteins like CRISPER. RNA is always created as an intermediate step between DNA and Protein, but in this case it is used directly as fRNA (functional RNA). RNA can even fold on itself and act similar to proteins though it is much more fragile.

The many interactions between protein, DNA and RNA perform a kind of computation but it is very obfuscated.

The following are generalized interactions that take place in a cell (perhaps analogous to machine instructions) written in a kind of pseudocode, to help illustrate the recursive functions involved.

DNA + Protein = RNA;

RNA + Protein = Protein;

Protein = Protein++;

Protein = Protein--;

Protein = RNA++;

Protein = RNA--;

RNA = RNA++;

RNA = RNA-+;

RNA = Protein++;

RNA = Protein--;

Protein + RNA = DNA;

Any protein or fRNA can have multiple functions in a cell and affect the production other proteins and fRNAs by interacting with DNA or RNA or with other Proteins involved in the production chain. In addition to this, proteins and fRNA also physically move around other proteins and molecules and make up the structure and machinery of a cell.

Untangling it all is close to impossible currently. There is several billion years worth of tech debt and zero documentation.
> have to do your best on Apple devices.

No, you have to do best within the limits that Apple imposes, whether technical, business, legal, whatever.

If other platforms do not have these limits, there's no point in ignoring the additional capabilities and artificially limiting your product. If Apple wants them on their platform too, they are free to lift these limits.
The problem is that I don't get to be the driver, I'm in the back seat watching the driver climb over the front seat.
Doesn't this create some nasty coupling since your web components look like a div but can actually require an arbitrarily complex HTML schema underneath? Can I write that down somewhere?
Trying to do that calculus is just asking to make yourself unhappy.

Ask a fair salary, do what you can, act in good faith.

Success often follows being the person remembered as being helpful or useful.
> poor person who inherits a nice house but can't pay the inheritance tax

I don't see the problem. Sell the house, use the remaining cash to buy a smaller house. The whole point of the inheritance tax is that you're not entitled to the whole amount of the inheritance.
My feeling as an old-time "web developer" who has been bullied into becoming a "back-end dev" is: thank you, I think I know quite well the basics of standard front-end technologies, but suddenly some people started yelling at me "you're a grandpa, now you can't send HTML from the server anymore, it's lame, you have to send to the browser a JS app that will manipulate the DOM live instead". This new (in 2015) approach has flooded our brains with a deluge of libs, frameworks, tools, concepts, problems, etc. which are a lot more than 5% of the effort of bootstrapping a React app, let alone optimizing it and maintaining it. I know people who's main job is creating React apps and who are overwhelmed with the complexity of the stack. If you don't hire someone dedicated, the rest of your product (domain rules, database optimization, infrastructure, devops, etc.) will suffer.
Most people who publicly opine on the Blake vs. SHA2 debate seem to be relatively uninformed on the realities of each one. SHA2 and the Blakes are both usually considered to be secure.

The performance arguments most people make are also outdated or specious: the original comparisons of Blake vs SHA2 performance on CPUs were largely done before Intel and AMD had special SHA2 instructions.
I think you're right. Within the DoD, you see a dichotomy between uniformed military service members and federal civilians. The people in uniform (especially officers, especially between years 5 to 15 of their careers) exist in a brutal up-or-out promotion system. The civilians, on the other hand, are known to be impossible to fire and can remain in their positions for life (it's hyperbole, but there's some truth to it). In general, I think you can see it in the degree to which they "[treat] their superiors like infallible god-emperors."
> they can render before JavaScript. React components cannot do this — full stop

Not a full stop; SSR means they could render before client-side JS.

The example is a bit too simple to make the author's point IMO. A web component that handles changes to state would be a better comparison, and make for a better argument.
I'm of the opinion it was his idea, he convinced the board it would be a change with some pushback but he'd get it across the line. He has a history of these changes (he worked at EA Games previously) while the board do not have a history of these changes. Thus I'm prepared to give the board the benefit of the doubt here and it was the board alone who could oust the CEO which they did so there are some small redeeming qualities here.
Dice? That's if you're talking about rolling the dice. Is it really used for these types of "dies"?
McDonald's, Chipotle increases prices after California raises fast-food min wage
The flip side is we've had some very serious, legit security researchers test our application as a result of our reputation for paying out bounties.
The major problem was the retroactive aspect and the very short amount of notice.

Part of choosing your engine is selecting the appropriate licensing costs for your games business model. After spending 2+ years working on your product, the business model completely changes, without the ability to opt out. It also affected already released games, and wasn't even a rev share, it would cost money just for downloads.

This also occured 4 years after Unity publically stated that developers should be able to stay on the version of terms of service they already agreed to.

If a company wants to have that business model, go for it - but don't bait and switch, don't go against your word, or else you've torched all trust between you and your customers
I agree, but:

> Patents don’t even appear to be serving their intended purpose

I think there's a lot of misunderstanding of what their intended purpose actually is. The point of patents is to foster innovation -- not, as many think, to provide a financial benefit for innovation. Those may sound similar, but there are two very important differences: one, it assumes that financial benefit automatically promotes innovative things, and two, it assumes that financial benefit is the only motivation behind creating the patent system.

The former is a really complicated topic, and I'm not sure how much reputable, peer-reviewed research has gone into evaluating it. But the idea that financial incentives are the reason why the patent system was created is simply not accurate.

The patent system was created as a compromise: when you invent something, a patent gives you exclusive rights over it, yes. But in exchange, critically, you must publish, in detail, the exact workings of the invention. In other words, the public good intended by creating the patent system was the free exchange of ideas, even if your ability to actually use those ideas was limited by licensing fees.

Today, we live in a world where (I think it's pretty clear) patents are not the most effective tool available to promote the free exchange of ideas. I mean, you can learn a whole lot more about how something works by turning to youtube than by reading its patents. So half of the bargain is gone, irrelevant. But we've gotten so used to them that I haven't heard any real, substantive, serious discussion in political circles about what that means for the patent system as a whole.
Here in the UK tech workers are clustered around parts of London. You can count on your fingers how many own a property, let alone have a family. You see full grown adults living with housemates and their only financial asset is a macbook pro and an iphone, with occasional holidays in cheap countries.

Remote work allowed some to buy property but are struggling after being ordered to return to work. Those with kids basically leave children in nursers to be raised by the state.

How lucky do you think they are? And how lucky are you knowing you have nothing to your name but a jira case and a manager to remind you of your place?
Google Photos' AI Magic Editor won't change pictures of ID receipts faces bodies
Boards don't make decisions, the executives do.
OpenBSD: Clang(1)/LLVM updated to version 16
SRE Confessions
Check out MrmoTarius' work for Blender.

https://mrmotarius.itch.io/mrmocrt
Swedish tidal kite, 1.2MW Dragon 12 tests ready for operation
Indeed, thank you for the correction.
> who doesn't enjoy the comraderie you can form with people that you spend 40 hours a week with.

I'd much rather spend that time with people I chose. Some you of you borderline sound like you're suffering from Stockholm syndrome
I think that very much depends on how you define "computer". the brain is doing computations, so I think it's safe to think of it as a computer. it's just a completely alien computer to what we build ourselves
I dont like emojis, If you've read 1984 you know they are just modern newspeak. Speak with your words for god´s sake.
24 hours of lemons has a similar rule. As far as I know the race organizers have only ever taken the option to purchase a car once. A friend of mine raced lemons for years and said the biggest offenders were people who put way too much money into fox body mustangs, but it was a non issue since those guys inevitably crashed before the race is over.
> Even Google, a company that purported to be about worker freedom to harvest productivity if top workers, has retreated to this position.

If you take the approach of "watch what they do, not what they say", Google is one of the clearest examples of pro-RTO: they invest in so many perks because they want to make the panopticon feel comfy.

There are other companies that don't give you a darn thing and just dangle the loss of one's job as a threat (Amazon), but I think top performers are more swayed by the "free food" approach than the "let's have a big public dashboard with the entire team's attendance" approach (again, Amazon).
"for some people"

It is wild to think that there are still people loyal to Google. Just use their primary product - search - and tell me how anyone can not froth at the mouth in anger over the complete and total capitulation to the ad team? Seriously, fuck these guys and if you work for them, you're part of the problem.