skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I appreciate the context, but this just adds so many more questions. How are you integrating hardware clocks into the Postgres transaction model? Is this just postgres wire compatible like Cockroach or Yugabyte, or have you modified Postgres MVCC implementation to not use the standard TID. Does this support all of postgres at the Transaction coordinator ?

Super exciting announcement, and I am really looking forwards to learning more!
It's now a long term, well paced project. I kinda admire these :) kudos
> I don't know a single person that has ever fallen victim to a virus or malware on linux, and I've been using it almost exclusively for the past 20 years. If it was a threat vector, it clearly wasn't a very big issue.

Yes, well, the ground is being prepared to turn desktop Linux into a Android/Windows like app system (/ wasteland) where users mostly download third party proprietary apps and devs push updates directly to users with minimal oversight.

In this brave new world, you will definitely appreciate app isolation.
Others may not vocalise the issues, to which I believe happens to more people than those who do vocalise the matter, doesn't mean it's works well. It works at best.
You should have stayed in the EEA or EFTA then. The UK was one of the founding members of the EEA. Tatcher was quite against the EU and the Euro anyway.
At Notion we run ~100 Postgres instances and we’re pretty far off from being Fortune 500, although we have many Fortune 500 clients. We could have used this Aurora thing instead of doing sharding in the application ourselves: https://www.notion.so/blog/sharding-postgres-at-notion
I sure hope so. Wayland still doesn't support an important use case for me so it would suck if I couldn't use X11.
Right now, there's a big gap in nvidia's product offering: nvidia is happy to let their gaming/affordable cards languish, to stop them competing with the server products at 4x the price.

And the ML community isn't very motivated to port their code from nvidia to amd because the nvidia tax isn't too bad.

If AMD could take one of their existing 24GB consumer cards and quadruple the RAM, though? Open source ML efforts would have support within days.

And nvidia couldn't respond to undercut them without also undercutting their cash cow server GPUs.
>> "a pathological level of lies and hype from a person who has real achievements to boast about, if he could just control the need to promise the sun and stars"

> Can these things be separated? Can someone be reasonable and realistic and also achieve huge things?

Yes, of course they can. "Achieving huge things" does not require "a pathological level of lies and hype." As evidenced by every person who wasn't a twisted salesman who ever achieved something.
I've only experienced him polite and responsive. That said, maintaining Keras must have been an unhealthy amount of work for one person, and I think OSS developers in that situation deserve the benefit of doubt that being brusque or ignoring issues is not a character flaw, but a defense mechanism to keep their sanity.
They already serve informational purpose at best, the site belongs to a tld with certain restrictions, but why tld restrictions should be expressed in the domain name?
My biggest complaint about Monoprice is they've jacked up their prices over the past several years to switch over to the "free" shipping paradigm. Cables used to be less than a third of the current prices. Now they've tacked that one-unit shipping cost onto each unit even when you're buying more than one. I get that the market is heavily attracted towards lazily clicking "buy it now" on one or two things, but I really wish vendors would figure out a way of reconciling "free" shipping with the efficiency of batch ordering through significant quantity/order size discounts and whatnot. Maybe Monoprice will eventually get there with their business account type, but I haven't seen signs of that yet.

As for the original article, cool protocol dissection. But I can't fathom needing to care about HDCP versions. If your video source makes you deal with hostile anti-features, get a new video source.
AWS infrastructure is complaint, Twitter isn't.

Apples to orangutans.
I am not so sure about the Dichronauts universe - he threw another -1 into the metric but particles still trace out world lines. That seems more like a wired geometry than two time dimensions but that is beyond me to properly judge, whether another -1 in the metric makes a proper second time dimension or whether you would want particles to trace out world surfaces instead of world lines or something completely different.

In other words, you are saying humans can't imagine a universe that contradicts our logic. I agree. And that is a "no" answer to the question you posed in the GGP post to this one. Whether universes that contradict our logic could "exist", even if we can't imagine them, is a different question from the one you asked in that post.

I mean I could just say let us deny ∀x(x=x) and run with it, see what happens. It really depends on how one understands the word imagine in this context, I could postulate this but I can not really make sense of a thing not being equal to itself.

And if we can't even consistently think about such a thing, what's the point?

I agree with you that mathematics is pretty much divorced from reality, that mathematics makes up axioms and inspects to consequences of them, and also that some mathematical structures are useful to model aspects of the universe. Some were even specifically invented to model certain aspects of the universe, they were inspired by reality.

But at the bottom of mathematics there is somewhere the logic that underpins everything and one can ask the same questions about its relation with reality. Did we arbitrarily pick the axioms of logic or did we pick them because they make sense in our universe? Or are they universal and there can not be any universe that defies our logic? The question is essentially the following. While we - or at least some people - think that mathematics is quite independent of the real world in general, might this be less true than we think because we accidentally introduced aspects of our universe into it by building on top of a logic that reflects how our universe works? Or the other way around, are there other versions of mathematics build on top of other versions of logic that seem illogical to us but only because our universe instilled us with a certain logic.
Your point stands, but it is/was implied, how I took it at least.
Except they don't. They are ZigBee-Devices - which means they connect to your Local Hub, no matter what manufacturer. Now, what the Hub does is something else, but NOT controlled by IKEA . Also, the IKEA the Hub does not need any Internet Connection at all to work.

Also, it seems like they did their homework.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371121017_Security_...

I am all for shitting on BigCo when they do something bad. But when someone does something right, it's just fair to point that out too.
Totally fair. I'm with you.
Umberto Eco wrote a little (229p) volume titled How to Write a Thesis in 1977. In the introduction to the revised 1985 edition, Eco describes the book as one that "focuses on the spirit, mentality, and research methods required to write a good thesis, rather than on its content".

It's a bit longer than Ashby's paper, and some of the internet age may look disdainfully on his advice for index cards, paper notes, and photocopies, but the intent behind them and the general method translates easily to the digital age, and thankfully we have tools like Zotero to drastically reduce some of the busywork.
It's reassuring since, having not habitually read papers, I've always wondered how (in)efficiently I read compared to readers of a professional sort.
We talk about how we use AI to augment our human reviewers as we deal with the massive scale of content created on LinkedIn and served to our 1 billion plus members. Do read and share your thoughts.
The issue is that there is no “mind uploading.” The human mind is dependent on the human body and any so-called uploads are really just clever copies, elaborate imitations. This is a problem with positivism, not with a particular technology.

I’m sure these copies will happen in the future, but I don’t think this concept of identity will withstand real scrutiny. What’s more likely in my opinion is a reapplied focus on the body / extended cognition and a discarding of the mind-body dualism model that enables thought experiments like mind uploading to be conceivable. Or, as Vitalik mentioned, more of an enhanced human model that builds upon the body instead of discarding it.
If he didn't use the 1080p TV and only had the 4K, then 1 of the following would happen:

1 black screen

2 1080p playback

3 4K playback

if he got (2), he wouldn't be able to tell if the problem was with (HDCP+4K) or just (4K). Proving that it works in 1080p on a TV that doesn't even know what 4K is establishes the baseline and eliminates the ambiguity.
Last time I had kernel panics was because I had hardware issues. I doubt Orion is causing this.
> What is the incentive to self host when embedding YouTube videos is free and easy?

If your videos include any of the verboten topics, then Youtube is not free and easy. Also they can change those topics at any time on a whim, and start retroactively removing/striking/banning. They'll drop a ban-hammer on you for multiple "violations". For example, imagine you wanted to discuss Covid 19 in any non-CDC approved way during 2020/2021? If you mentioned the Lab Leak Theory back when it was politically incorrect, or questioned the efficacy of cloth masks, your content was removed and you were given a strike. Your entire presence could be deleted, and by the time it turns out you were right (or at least possibly right), you're already disappeared.

(ftr I am sympathetic to YT because I do think there needs to be some moderation. It's a hard problem and I don't have all the answers)
You can't nullify this, though. Without SFMTA enforcing construction parking, people will just park there and slow/stop construction for you.
Theia an Open, Flexible and Extensible Cloud and Desktop IDE Platform
It's a very cool app. It would be great to tap on a plane and see its source and destination airports. My kids always ask where I think a plane is going and it would be great to have a way to easily tell them!
With the context of learning Modern C++, and the author's association with nVidia and CUDA, I share this anecdote: Partially if it helps anyone directly, and partially as an opportunity for someone experienced with C++ to poke holes at it.

I've had great success using ChatGPTv4 to help me write modern C++ that works with CUDA, using prompts like these. (I have not attempted to get it to write parallelized code given loops/serial code as an input):

> Please convert this Rust code to modern C++, compatible with the latest version of the nvcc CUDA compiler: ```rust ```

It will output a compilable/working result, and explain each of the language differences in question. It will make sure to use `std::*` instead of the more rigid C-derived equivalents when able, and take advantage of looping over array pointers etc, vice i++ loops. `auto` var types etc.
> could be considered fully defined since there is no optimization the compiler can do based on it being undefined

UB means the compiler is free to perform whatever optimizations it wants. Are you really saying that no optimizations are allowed once the compiler notices UB?

Michael Chastain (GDB developer, one of the few people with commit rights to the root of Google's monorepo) told me about the worst bug he ever helped a Googler debug, eventually boiling it down to:

static const double y = 1.0;
static const double x = 2 * y;
printf("Before\n");
if (x > 0.0) {
printf("x\n");
} else {
printf("Not x\n"):
}
printf("After\n");

It was printing "Before\nAfter\n", with nothing in-between.

It turns out that the value of x depended upon the initialization order of statically-scoped doubles. There was no malicious optimization in GCC that got rid of both branches, but both branches got optimized away through a series of intermediate steps where the compiler basically split the control flow graph into something equivalent to:

static const double y = 1.0;
static const double x = 2 * y;
printf("Before\n");
if (x > 0.0) {
printf("x\n");
}
if (!(x > 0.0)) {
printf("Not x\n"):
}
printf("After\n");

GCC determined that x was statically determinied and UB. In both places an optimization pass determined that the fastest choice for if(UB) is to branch over the code in question. Since it's UB, the compiler wasn't required to pick some self-consistent value for x. It's free to optimize away all if(UB) blocks to if(false) blocks.

(Note that this particular case of UB is specific to floating point types and would not occur with integer types. I believe the intention of the spec is to avoid the requirement for floating point hardware to behave identically, including the state bits that affect rounding etc., to behave identically on the machine where the compiler is run and on the machine where the program is run. My naive hot take would be that this should be ID, not UB, but I'm sure the standards committee put a lot more thought into this than I have.)

It wasn't some malicious or two-clever optimization. It was the emergent behavior of a series of optimizations, each one correct.

Anyway, long story short, once the compiler notices UB, all optimizations are on the table. You seem to be implying that compilers need to be conservative when they detect UB. Compilers are generally recklessly aggressive in optimizing when they detect UB.
What exactly do you mean by a "dimmer"? Everything I have in my home that dims lights is mains-powered, so battery isn't a concern.

I have 45 Zigbee devices in my home, 33 of which are battery-powered. Those are door contact sensors, PIR motion sensors, climate sensors, and a few button remotes to control lighting. They're mostly from Sonoff and Aqara, with a few unbranded Aliexpress devices that identify themselves as TUYATEC, and a couple from Third Reality. In almost every case, the battery life has been extraordinarily good -- well over a year. The only exception is the Sonoff SNZB-04 contact sensor, which seems to need battery changes about every six months. Probably not coincidentally, it's the only sensor that uses CR2032 batteries, rather than AA or AAA. I would happily replace with a slightly larger sensor to get both longer battery life and less e-waste through the ability to use a standard rechargeable AA/AAA battery.
Completely agree with you that Kagi e-mail will be unnecessary, even though I trust them on privacy. There are already great e-mail providers, such as Fastmail. But it makes some sense for them to go for e-mail, since they're already hitting Google on search. They're basically going after Google where it's possible: search, web browser, e-mail. They can't go after Google on maps or video streaming, so they do what they can. I'd much rather they innovate and get ready for the future of the internet after AI has destroyed traditional discovery.
I noted that - IMHO one of the big advantages to "modern" c++ is the focus on the lifetime of objects with smart pointers rather than the mechanics of heap allocation and pointers. Pushing that down to chapter 19 as "Advanced Topics" seems like a mistake. Arguably the same with std::array vs object[] - the first should "probably" be the default now for teaching new programmers, so covered first (or at least highlighted when discussing array[]-style variables)

I also note a number of the possibly-ambiguous c-style casts in examples, despite already having mentioned the explicit versions (static_cast and the like).

Plus there seems to be a fair bit of system & machine dependent stuff mentioned like it's /always/ true - like stack being at a "higher" address space than the heap and code sections, or the stack growing down. It also says that the Data section is "slower" than the stack which... isn't true? If they're spilled out of registers, they're likely functionally identical? Or at least for small microbenchmarks depend on specific implementation details, like how the pointer to the object is calculated and dereferenced.... And object size and cache interactions... And a million other things...

And that's just the first few chapters I looked at :P
Hugging Face: https://huggingface.co
I work for one of their big competitors, and all my conversations with customers tend to follow the same string; "NVIDIA is milking us dry, we want an alternative, but all the alternatives require significant redesign in languages and tools people are unfamiliar with and we can't afford that overhead". It tends to be very cut and dry.

Until university labs get people working in open frameworks and not CUDA, every student joining the industry will default to NVIDIA GPUs until they're forced otherwise. The few people I've managed to convert have been forced by supply constraints, not any desire to innovate or save themselves money. As long as NVIDIA can keep the market satiated with a critical mass of compute, they'll sit on their throne for a long ol' while.
laughs in quakeworld
Combine GPTs with private knowledge for actually useful AIs
I just put a maximum Postgres table size I’m willing to manage in my employment contract. By the time we’re measuring in Terabytes I’m out of there.
In the current scenario with companies cost-cutting, I would say money is 30% or 40%.
The previous poster didn't say "Wayland wasn't meant to replace X", they said "Wayland was never meant to support everything X did". These are very different things.

You're responding to something that was never claimed. "It's nonsense that Wayland doesn't support everything X11 did" and "Wayland doesn't support this for these reasons" is pretty contradictory.
I've had the same headphones for 20 years and the mouse for 5. I had the mouse before that since 2001.

I doubt all this crap is going to be functional 2 years down the line.
Gosh, there's so much wrong here.

> weird slow proprietary

They're often not weird, a simple single task runner with a few libraries to handle common tasks and cryptographic operations. Very simple, lightweight, and they generally share a common high level architecture (there's not much variation in an RTOS)

They're often not slow, they're minimalist OSes - barely qualifying as an OS if at all - designed to run a single task, with time guarantees, and to get out of the way. In fact, if it's a single task you need to run, they're faster than any general purpose OS - by design!

They're often not proprietary - a handful of RTOS with huge market penetration used in billions of devices (and now ThreadX) - are open source and have permissive licenses. What IS often proprietary about them are BSPs, but that's a whole separate issue. Yes, there are a lot of proprietary ones out there, but as a blanket statement, it's simply not true.

> readers run antiquated Android

Many use a stripped down version of AOSP, which has become a de facto standard BSP, yes. But many, many others do not (usually a flavor of embedded linux, or an RTOS).

> about some HP printer running buggy custom OS

It was a Xerox printer, and it was because he was frustrated from adding existing job management and notification features he had written to the new printer.
Can SDL2 render proper client side decorations on Wayland by now that look identical with the rest of the system? Last I checked it couldn't because libdecor couldn't. But googling again it looks like libdecor has special GTK support since quite recently, so maybe the problem has actually been solved (I would be surprised though, because nothing else in the Wayland ecosystem seems to "just work").
ShoppingIL by Google
Steel bodied cars are not a new design.
yeah, I see tons of models on aliexpress but the software support isn't there yet. an IKEA version would be great.
Leaks are persistent, weather is not. Either present the raw data and interpret it yourself, or gate any alert on potential precipitation in your area.
Well, if Stencil is a Web Component framework using native Web Component technologies and strategies, transferring from Lit to Stencil will probably be a lot easier than from React to Angular or something.

And there are actually not that many things specific to Lit, and it's only things that would need to be solved in some kind of (opinionated) way anyway. But I think Lit does it in an elegant, intuitive and flexible way. You might like it or you might not.

I don't know Stencil, but looks nice. But their main npm package [0] is 47.8 MB, whereas Lit [1] is only 105 KB. So I would say that there are a lot more things specific in Stencil then there are in Lit. Which would probably make it harder to move from Stencil to Lit, than it is to move from Lit to Stencil.

[0]: https://www.npmjs.com/package/@stencil/core

[1]: https://www.npmjs.com/package/lit
Late comment because I can't edit my post: I've discovered a serious defect with this rule—it incorrectly blocks old, archived HN threads which had 0 comments. That's because you can't write new comments on threads beyond a certain age, so this rule will apply to them if they don't already have comments. (Neither the string [discuss] nor [<N> comments] will appear—it doesn't default to "0 comments", it defaults to empty-string). This is an edge case that applies, for example, if you're browsing on Algolia search and are trying to click through to a submission's URL—that UX takes you into the empty HN thread first, which immediately hides the URL.

Leaving this warning for future archive delvers (hello there!)
So far all of David Grusch's claims are a total nothingburger. All secondhand hearsay with no actual evidence.
Hey Francois, congrats to you and the team on the launch! I've generally chosen Pytorch over Tensorflow for my day to day, but now that Keras is framework agnostic I'm excited to revisit it.

One thing I'm wondering about is if it's possible (or necessary?) to use Keras in concert with Pytorch Lightning. In some ways, Lightning evolved to be "Keras for Pytorch," so what is the path forward in a world where both exist as options for Pytorch users—do they interoperate or are they competitors/alternatives to each other?
number of games made does not correlate with game-making skills. They aren't coupled, anyway. It is probably much more correlated with game design skills, but that's not the context, here.

Their skill in honing the game and becoming a respected game development company are what are in question, and while not an AAA studio, they are recognized as a company that knows how to highly optimize their game.

They deserve as much respect as any other game developer, in my mind. Their approach is different than other game studios, and that alone is testament to their abilities to both make a game and run a business. They're doing things their own way, focusing on the one game (at least as far as we know) and they are still simply "killing it" and I mean that in the very best way.
This is egregiously false. ML models are math and code. They are not tissue; there are no neurons in an ML model. None. The analogy is false. And it is used here to make you think that ML models are more human than they are, or more superhuman. There is no "bigger AI waiting to get out". Shoggoth anyone? These are scare tactics from hyperventilating EAs (both Scott and the Anthropic team).
I don't need to fork it, we've got lots of nice alternatives, most of which are older and better debugged.