skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm familiar with the misogyny problem (Andrew Tate etc), but I thought that CSAM was the one thing that got an immediate effective banhammer everywhere on the Internet. If you've got a real CSAM problem with TikTok it might be addressed by taking it to their CDN?

(even on HN, it's hard to get people to focus on the "is it harmful" question for social media rather than the "run by foreigners vs Americans" aspect)
First chapter questions:

(a) Identify (or write) a song that requires Θ(n3) time to sing the first n
verses.

(b) Identify (or write) a song that requires Θ(nlog n) time to sing the first
n verses.

(c) Identify (or write) a song that requires some other weird amount of
time to sing the first n verses.

Any ideas?
I think it's still a developing technique. I'm not following RAG super closely, but I keep myself somewhat updated through Sam Witteveen's videos on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@samwitteveenai

His channel might be a useful resource for you.
The minimum run time of a tread before it's potentially preempted when load is high is computed based on number of cores available giving more time when there are more cores since rescheduling latency is apparently longer with more cores.

And the function that does this uses the same value for 8 and more cores.

So the performance impact is likely <<1%.
It looks like nice tool. Shame it didn't work out in the end.
This is my experience as well (though it is uninstalled as of ~1 year ago).

You get what you look for on Tiktok.
Owning an operating system is the most powerful position in all of software. That's incentive enough
lol, downvoted for comedy or because it wasn't considered good comedy?

Bonus downvote for observing downvotes.
And lo there is another way an app can come into existence: through paying users. Which they don't. The users prefer to pay with their "exploitation" so we have today what we all (as a society) requested.
It is also a quote from Stalin.
If I've understood this article right (possibly not as it's not so clear):

* On single core machines the scheduler interval is quite fine grained to ensure responsiveness.

* As the number of cores grows, the scheduler interval increases (by default), presumably because there's greater cost to task switching across more cores and the greater number of cores inherently increases the responsiveness anyway.

* BUT – and this is the point of the article – above 8 cores, the scheduler interval remains constant rather than increasing further.

If I have read it right, then surely that's exactly what you want? If you have done enormously beefy server with hundreds of cores then you don't want a CPU bound task persisting for several seconds! You almost certainly have proportionally more tasks to run and need to keep that interval down. There's presumably also diminishing increases to the cost of switching across more cores (admittedly a logarithmically increasing interval, as mentioned in the article, world also cope with that). And, in any case, a huge server is more likely to have this sort of setting manually tuned.

If there is a bug here at all then it's a minor one, nothing like the title suggests.
Not the same thing. You can't add a custom repository in App Store or Google Play. They only ever install apps from Apple's and Google's servers. Getting your app published on those servers is obviously subject to their owners' whims. Meanwhile, you can just run

brew tap grishka/grishka

to add my personal repository to your homebrew configuration. Try doing that with mobile app stores. One might say that, ignoring some technical details, the functionality of package managers is a superset of the functionality of app stores.
Ask HN: How do you reach out to someone to confirm a response and network?
1. Which is the best platform to reach out(LinkedIn, Mail)?

2. How do you approach a professional(someone senior to you) and not get ignored?

3. Any networking tips you've gained through experience..
Finally, time for the Brain Fuck Scheduler to shine!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_Fuck_Scheduler
Paid marketing content isn’t really relevant. Jobs are being lost left and right due to the overall economy. The only valid takeaway is that BCG consultants are such low quality that a chat bot can improve their productivity. I’d avoid such consultants, but that’s already known.

Additionally, chatgpt is the running joke - full of mistakes and misinformation. Probably appealing to that market segment that’s easily gullible and falls for whatever the running conspiracy theory is popular at the time.
>It is the duty of the original account holder - not the app they work for - to check that their "substitute" meets the legal criteria to work.

>The system appears open to abuse.

No, the system appears designed for abuse.
At least two of these (85% efficiency and fast response time < 1 sec) are factually incorrect if presented as an advantage of flywheels over batteries, which do better on those metrics.
Tiktok and social media in general are polarising by nature. If I am aligned to any side, I'll get more videos of it and rage-inducing engagement magnet videos against other side. So you'll see right side being moving right and left being more left. So a right winger's feed will be full of Fox and Peterson. A central view doesn't get interacted with a lot so will be pushed out.
Does it really have that much more of an influence than if Trump had just started a WordPress blog?
I was wondering the other day what the alternative world would be like where every publicly posted video had to be reviewed by the BBFC censor board and assigned a rating. Like if you want to post your kid's first steps on Facebook, that would be a U rating, while car park fights would be R15.

(and of course how unworkable it would be to have the censor board be several percent of the population so they could keep up with the posting rate)
You’re describing behaviour with AMD’s Infinity Fabric, which groups cores into CCDs of 8 on 7000 series chips.

Essentially, a 16 core AMD CPU is actually two separate 8 core CPUs glued together with a link.

Intel does not have this limitation.
I'd respect Elon critics more if they frequently noted that they grade Elon more harshly due to his high level of influence, but I rarely see them do that.

Ultimately in a democracy, everyone is entitled to their opinion. There are lots of people who think the way Elon does, but most of them aren't as prominent about it as Elon is. Seems to me that in a healthy democracy, we shouldn't be particularly upset if an opinion that's common among the general population also has some representation among the elites. https://today.yougov.com/topics/economy/explore/public_figur...

Indeed, if this weren't the case, and elites had wildly different opinions than common people (and also more influence), you could make the case that we were living in a plutocracy or an oligarchy, not a democracy. So Elon's willingness to say aloud what many common people think privately is pushing us away from that plutocracy/oligarchy failure mode.

I think Elon has made major mistakes -- funding of OpenAI being the biggest, from the point of view of humanity's survival. But the hate he gets rarely seems well-justified or rational. Here's my theory for what's going on: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38046411
Gur rkpvfgrapr bs rapelcgvba qbrf abg punatr gur fvzcyr snpg gung jung gurl ner qbvat vf onq sbe frphevgl naq ubeevoyr sbe cevinpl.
The filings:
https://www.sec.gov/edgar/browse/?CIK=1849635&owner=exclude

Specifically the quarterly one here mentioned:
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1849635/0001...
Yup, Harry Mack is my boy ... I don't even use Omegle but am full aware of due to HMack ... RIP Omegle
OpenAI is building GPT-5 – and CEO claims it could be superintelligent
At first i thought, this is a big bug, but all the commits the author linked do not even back up his point. And the argumentation around is not following through. So basically we are looking at big claims with zero evidence.

Either the author is deranged or this was written by AI.
Exactly. The code is adjusting for responsiveness. With less cpus you need a smaller minimum slice. As you have more cpus you can increase the slice and still schedule the same number of processes per second.

E.g. 1 ms slice with 1 core = 1000 process switches per second. With 2 cores you can increase the slice to 2 ms and still maintain the same number of switches per second for the system, but reducing the switches per second on each core to 500. This reduces the overhead for the scheduler.

It seems like at around 8 times the slice efficiency starts to go the other way, so they’ve limited it. Seems reasonable, but scheduler math is crazy.

Note, that this has nothing to do with the scheduler assignments per core which have clearly been working or people would’ve noticed!
Pacific resistance doesn't mean at all you are not punching/criticizing upwards! Also the imaginary guy from Nazareth had very harsh words for the merchants in the temple... (he even (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻)
Engels pre-dates Stalin by a considerable period of time and we can assume Stalin has read Engels. Safe to say its Stalin just paraphrasing Engels.
SpaceX is by far the best organization in terms of rocket engine design, rocket design and rocket operations. Nobody else in the world comes even remotely close.

Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are already better by a long distance then any other rocket in the world. All other organizations world wide are trying to catch up to that.

You only really need huge rockets like this if you are launching some truly massive amount of stuff. This just wasn't a thing until today. The biggest ever was during the moon race, US Saturn V and Soviets N1. However the Saturn V was expensive and NASA wanted to have a reusable Shuttle instead, so they dropped it. The Soviets did the N1 but when they lost the moon race (and a few failures) they didn't want to pay for it anymore.

So really since the moon race, rockets of this scale just were not necessary. If you can't reuse the rocket, a rocket of this scale is just to expensive to be practical.

It took SpaceX making re-usability real and mega constellations to make it worth considering a rocket like Starship.

Just for reference, this thing is far more powerful then the Saturn V or N1. It has almost double the liftoff thrust. So really humanity has never operated this scale of rocket before.
the adware back then that could install itself into your browser was insane! hello adaware, avast, and malwarebytes.
I do believe what they do share is "contemporary Western values". I think both sides would agree with at least some form of the rule of law, freedom of religion, gender equality and support for liberal democracy. Don't you think they would look at most any form of governance pre-1850 and agree it's bad?
It also makes more sense for some novels than others. For a cyberpunk novel this example of unchecked capitalism would fit right in.
yeah? a xeon with 16 cores might have to be my next pc. pricey though.
I'm not well enough versed in the Linux kernel to comment on the post, but as a funny anecdote, 15 years ago, we were developing a system that relied heavily on using as many cores as possible simultaneously.

Performance was critical, and we had beefy developer machines (for the time), all with 8 cores. Development was done in C++, and as the project progressed the system performed very well, and more than exceeded our performance goals.

Fast forward a couple of years and it became time to put the thing into production on a massive 128 core Windows server. Much to our surprise the performance completely tanked when scaled to all 128 cores.

After much debugging, it turned out that the system spent most of its time context switching instead of doing actual work, and because we used atomic operations for message queue functionality (compare & swap), it effectively meant clearing the cache for every core working with/on that piece of heap memory, so every time a task passed a message to something else, it effectively reset the CPU cache, which would then have to be refetched from RAM. This was not (as big) a problem on the developer machines, as there were fewer cores and each task had more work queued up for it, but with 16 as many cores to work with, it simply ran out of tasks to do faster.

The "cure" was to limit the system to run on 8 cores just like the developer machines, and AFAIK it still runs in that way all these years later.
I didn't say we don't need coders. We need less average/bad ones and a very large amounts of coders that came after the 'coding makes $$$$' worldwide are not even average.

I won't say AI will not eventually make coding obsolete; even just 2 years ago I would've said we are 50-100 years away from that. No i'm not so sure. However, I am saying that I can replace many programmers with gpt right now, and I am. The prompting and reprompting is still both faster and cheaper than many humans.
I really like the format of this post; very direct and to the point, listing instructions one by one, all very tidy. I'm sure the process of getting to this point wasn't nearly as straightforward as the blog itself was!
Absolutely. The value is the engagement. Think of it as a comments section on steroids. Or maybe a “discussion room.”
ChatGPT might as well not exist - I'm not touching anything GAFAM-related.

Any worthy examples of open source neural networks, ideally not from companies based in rogue states like the US ?
Sorry missed that on the page. Added. And thanks for the awesome collection :)
Marbbble – Discover alternative solutions using domains, URLs, and keywords
I've indexed around 30k websites and counting.

The engine utilizes embeddings that I personally trained.

Feel free to share feedback or ask any questions!
After reading the article quickly, I'm not even sure there's a bug or not, the only thing that seems obviously wrong to me is the headline.

But that aside, I feel your pain around min() and max(). In my case, I feel the problem comes from language (I mean, the real life one): I speak Italian and in Italian the words for "at most" are "al massimo" (i.e. "at max") and the words for "at least" are "come minimo" (i.e. "as min") that is, the exact opposite of their mathematical meaning.
I've taken an habit of reviewing 3 times any piece of code where I write "min" or "max" for this reason.
macwright.com domain redirects to google.com for me.

Better source:
https://www.placemark.io/post/placemark-is-winding-down
> there is something valuable in the exhausting struggle

Why would or should there be, though?

People can find meaning in many things and you can create challenges or struggles for yourself to overcome in other ways, should you desire it.

This mindset sound like a coping mechanism people tell themselves to make the struggle somehow feel more tolerable.
Google's attachment to "low touch" approach to support is maniacal at this point. There's no use confronting them about it, they'll never change
Ableton Live 12
It would have been more of a bug to set this value to minimum 8 on a system with fewer than 8 cores.

I appears the author has misunderstood exactly what was its purpose, and that setting this scaling factor unbound beyond 8 cores would have detrimental effects even if there are more cores available.
Also worth noting that one can be strongly interested in politics (e.g. political scientist) and hold neutral policy views.

So the comment was aimed at the poster with strong enough political views that they felt the need to post in this forum that their support for the launch was affected by it - where as most folks would not.

In this case, it’s less about interest and more about behavior.
is Truth Social the most popular Mastodon instance?

Probably not, right

edit: it seems there is 607,000 monthly users on Truth Social, Mastodon.social has 270,000 monthly users according to their own website. So Truth Social wins. But I am not sure how are Truth Social numbers accurate
I have 2 Dell Inspiron 1525 from 2008, still kicking bottoms as DAW under Manjaro.
I used to have a a Dell Latitude d630 from 2007 running Debian fine in 2018 but I gave it away.
Compared to my 2008 macbook pro, that cost me 1400€ at the time, and suddenly died on me 4 years later for no obvious reason (this series was subject to a recall campaign due to its nvidia 8600 gpu, but I missed the elegibility window by a few months).
TBH though, my dad uses a 2009 macbookpro with W10 and it runs just fine with an SSD.

All in all, you never know, YMMV .
We're not dev hub, we're SaaS Company. Just testing the market of service industry now with the model we wish we had
Can the title in the HN post be changed? I agree it's totally misleading after reading the article.
Yeah, Smalltalk also works this way...mostly.

3 negated + 2 negated.

Alas, as with the post, this also breaks down when you have more than 2 arguments (or in Smalltalk parlance, 1 argument in addition to the message receiver), as those are handled by keyword arguments and you can't tell where the keywords for one message stop and the ones for the next one start. Let's say we have some nested arrays, which are accessed with at: in Smalltalk:

array at:4 at:2 at:1.

Alas, that doesn't get interpreted as 3 messages, but as the single message at:at:at:. As it kind of has to be as there is no way to disambiguate. Surprisingly, Smalltalk does have a way to chain messages and thus separate the keywords, the semicolon:

array at:4;
at:2;
at:1.

Alas, this sends the subsequent messages to the original receiver, so it is equivalent to:

array at:4.
array at:2.
array at:1.

(And so this example doesn't actually make sense, it's just a syntax example). So what you have to do is add parens:

((array at:4) at:2) at:1.

Hmm, not nice. For Objective-S (https://objective.st), I introduced the pipe for message chaining:

array at:4 | at:2 | at:1.

One way of looking at this is as a syntactic device that allows left-to-right typing without backtracking, which it is. And that is both nice to write and quite readable, IMNSHO.

A second way of looking at it is as a version of the pipe/filter architectural style, with each message expression being a filter, the results from the filter on the left piped into the filter on the right as the receiver. This is a little bit like |> in some FP languages. But really only a little bit, because in Objective-S this is not the whole story, but just a way of integrating messaging into the way the pipe/filter architectural style is supported at the language level.
Yes, I can't imagine trump engenders a were all in it together, and share the proceeds mentality.

And I don't imagine he hires based on actual competence either.
Probably a fair few, but it appears to be an echo chamber preaching to the converted. Not sure if it really had the desired effect they were going for...
Active Requst - Active task at a time.

In simple words, person working at a time. One request - One person working at a time. And so on
> Which it doesn’t always.

The problem is even if this is "known" upfront things always end up changing.

Unless the code is truly throw away code and not checked into source control.

I'm maybe guilty of being too harsh with this sometimes but the amount of times half-assed code has woken me up has trained me to be very critical of assumptions like this.
The output of an LLM is a distribution, and yes, if you’re just taking the first answer, that’s problematic.

However, it is a distribution, and than means the majority of solutions are not weird edge cases, they’re valid solutions.

Your job as a user is to generate multiple solutions and then review them and pick the one you like the most, and maybe modify it to work correctly if it has weird edge cases.

How do you do that?

Well, you can start by following a structured process where you define success criteria as a validator (eg. Tests, compiler, parser, linters) and fitness criteria as a scorer (code metrics like complexity, runtime, memory use, etc)… then:

1) define goal

2) generate multiple solution candidates

3) filter candidates by validator (does it compile? Pass tests? Etc)

4) score the solutions (is it pure? Is it efficient? Etc)

5) pick the best solution

6) manually review and tweak the solution

This structured and disciplined approach to software engineering works. Many of the steps (eg. 3, 4, 5) can be automated.

It generates meaningful quality code results.

You can use it with or without AI…

You don’t have to follow this approach, but my point is that you can; there is nothing fundamentally intractable able using a language model to generate code.

The problem that you’re critiquing is the trivial and naive approach of just hitting “generate” and blindly copying that into your code base.

…that’s stupid and dangerous, but it’s also a straw man.

Seriously; people writing code with these models aren’t doing that; when you read blogs and posts from people, eg. Building seriously using copilot you’ll see this pattern emerge repeatedly:

Generate multiple solutions. Tweak your prompt. Ask for small pure dependency free code blocks. Review the and test output.

It’s not a dystopian AI future, it’s just another tool.
If this was true, many of us would have noticed including myself. Who hasn't run `make -j 32` and then `make -j 64` to see if it is faster? Many times on a 64 cores machine I've seen that increasing the core count for large compile tasks makes scale as expected up to 64 cores, then a bit faster up to 128 threads (because the threads are bottlenecking on I/O so there is some CPU leftover), and then it gets slower again past 128+.

If capped to 8 it would be very clear
You’re missing the point of the article. ChatGPT in combination with a mediocre could solve your problem faster than the best junior dev has before
> What justifies the strength of your confidence?

Not OP but have a similar view. Behavior of TikTok isn't any different from other social media companies like FB and YouTube. The algos everywhere push higher engagement content and that is mostly dumb or polarising in nature. TikTok is in general averse to political content. It is full of misinformation but so is Youtube and Facebook. Short video is in general a worse format for nuanced content but great for engagement and AI. Now FB and Google have copied that.

We should look at harms of social media in collective and not trying to find some political scapegoats ignoring the root cause.
So you think human readers have magical powers to rate say a book that an AI can't replicate?
On Doing Maintenance / Cataloguing Your Work
Pricing seems strange. $20/user per month. But you'd need someone else to also pay so that you can collaborate. So $40/month minimum? Seems quite a barrier.
The concept is definitely interesting, and I think more beneficial on both the sides
Would you mind sharing the test?

I’m one of those noob programmers and it has helped me create products far beyond my technical capabilities
You can try to make your code aware of the situation and distribute the tasks accordingly.
IIRC that's what people do on NUMA systems.
90% of apps could just be websites, so developers also bear a lot of responsibility for jumping onto that bandwagon for little benefit
I would say rather like cigarettes
I'm annoyed that the author knows perfectly well what the code does, and yet he multiple times draws the clickbaity wrong conclusion that "the kernel has been hardcoded to use only 8 cores for 15 years" which is just patently wrong as the discussion is just about pre-emption timing and NOTHING about how many cores are used.
I used to work on a supercomputer with 128 cores on it that ran Linux (I actually seem to remember it had 256 cores, but someone said the kernel had a limit of 128). This was less than 15 years ago. There were surely many systems just like that one. Does that mean the kernel had been patched? But nobody thought to push that patch upstream?

Reading the other comments here it seems the title is stupid and wrong and my suspicion that this can't be right was correct.