skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
it's both.
I need to be able (and I am, on my parents' old fiat) to tune without leaving the eyes from the street. This means I can dedicate at most 5% of my brain and the touch feeling of one-maybe two-digit
> Humans are diverse.
How is it future proof? Knobs work fine on 30 year old cars and can be 3d printed or ordered. I've never had a daily driver touch screen last longer than 5 years, personally.

It's planned obsolescence. Every part of the car should be good for 20 years. 20 years ago, we were using Moto Razrs and it would be 4 more years until iPhone changed how we think of touchscreens. These junk touchscreen cars from this era will not make it without extremely expensive repair
> which is more expensive

Is it? What are you basing it on?

> It requires many more tunnels

Does it? What are you basing this on? Even if more tunnels, is the total volume less, are they simpler and cheaper to create because they are smaller?

> I've seen off-ramps fully back up to the highway lane.

Backups happen in subways, like all traffic systems. It's something you manage, not eliminate

You of course skip the questions about context and the right solution for a city. They had open proposals and review periods and ended up going with the Boring tunnel system. They evaluated in detail and made the choice. If you want to understand their choice, they made it all public

The big thing Boring company did was develop their own tunneling machine that is much better than the others out there. This is how they can tunnel faster and cheaper than anyone else, currently.

Maybe Vegas made a mistake betting on a new way, but maybe they made a really good call. We'll have to wait and see. When you invest in large scale transportation systems, you plan for many, many decades. These point in time numbers while the system is still being built aren't evidence for success or failure.
So, are there any schools measured who already did ban smartphones? Did they fare better? Where's the control group?

I can accept the assertions about smartphones, being massive attention grabbing devices. I know before I neuter all the "engagements", it chimes every minute.

However, we're also seeing massive inflation for quite some time. Food costs are up, stability of living has been down for some time. How much of other variables are also contributing or overriding smartphone usage?

(And blocking cell signals is a quick meeting with the FCC, if using active methods.)
Some airlines went to free WiFi (limited to streaming local content) and bring-your-own-tablet instead of screens in seatbacks. I’m not sure how that’s worked out, but my sense is it didn’t solve everything.

What if car dashboards were BYOD? A standardized API and connector, and you could have a choice of aftermarket UI -- screens, buttons, knobs, whatever. You could get used to it and bring it with you for rentals or to your new car.
I used to be in marketing (but now developer) and not really (of course depends on the specific role). Sure, parts of marketing is meetings and discussions stuff but so is software development (need to discuss requirements, architecture, etc) - the rest of the job is deep work and execution on ideas (just like coding).
Ah, the "two-stick FPS? this will never work" game.
>* What I liked in Chess was the calculation, so something like Fischer Chess (Chess960) was fun but did you know people actually made theory even for that?*

I'm sure there's been theory developed for Fisher Random (960) but memorizing that seems like a bigger PITA than for standard chess, because there's literally 960 starting positions to memorize the theory for, as opposed to one. Plus, if you play 960 online, you will not have a choice as to your starting position, it will be completely random. "Oh, I memorized a bunch of theory for starting position 521 and 859, but now I'm faced with position 157, so shit I'm out of luck" said nobody ever.

I do love 960, I play Crazyhouse960 the most as it's very fluid, requires little opening prep as it's randomized, and there's no endgame to solve for. It's just pure tactics and in-the-moment thinking.
Yeah, that makes sense and it's partly covered by what I was saying, i.e. because the iPhones have become more expensive and hence, by definition, more valuable to both those owning them and to potential thieves, Apple has had to implement these locking policies which have caused the problem the author of the article had.

I can understand how come fewer iPhones would get stolen now compared to previous times, but I do think that that the level of "implicit" targeting by thieves has indeed increased which has made Apple also increase the level of locking.

In a way this situation is similar to thieves stealing from poor people house's compared to stealing from wealthy people's houses. Meaning that, even going by percentages, I'm sure that poor people's houses are broken in by thieves a lot more compared to wealthy people houses, and that is, mostly, because wealthy people's houses are a lot more better protected (because there's much more valuable stuff to steal from there compared to poor people's houses).

But that extra protection comes with its one intrinsic/hidden costs for those enjoying said protection, for example one cannot freely "choose" where to own a wealthy house, you're restricted by the "good" and "safe" areas, in effect limiting your freedom of choice (which is a cost in itself). There's also the "inner" phycological cost of realising that your own protection depends on a system outside of your control, a house's security system in the case I mentioned or a big US corporation in the case of the author here, that's also a hidden cost. And there are many other such costs.

All this is part of the many paradoxes related to security and defence, really interesting topic by itself.
> It's like meeting a friend's girlfriend and then asking her out later behind your back.

Trying to understand this sentence. 1. Who is asking who out behind whose back now? 2. I gather you think it's not her choice to go out or not if she wants to, since she is your property now?
Oof; yeah. So, Texas has a primary and then election system: candidates are selected for the ballot in the primary, and then voted on in the general election. The probability that a candidate will win the general election having won the primary is north of 95%. That means the "real" election is the primary. The turn out for the primary is the highest turnout in my district (Williams; US HD 25), which is ~25% in a contentious year, but usually 10–15%. The race is usually split 3-ways, with Williams just barely getting 50%. That means, the most competitive district in Texas chooses their rep with ~12% (high! or ~5-7%, norm) of the voting age population.

Most US representatives from Texas are elected with far fewer; many Democratic gerrymanders mean that as little as 1% of the population is choosing the representative.

As always, I advocate for some form of random election (sortition) — it'd be way more representative — and it'd be harder for people to mess with the election: we'd literally have more representative representatives and more robust elections. (I'd also require risk limiting audits, paper trails, and non-identifying ballot checking.)
Good? Or is a company only supposed to benefit the founders in that way?
You can do pair programming/debugging great remotely with VSCode or Visual Studio live share.
>The GC basically doesn't do anything if there isn't memory pressure

It will run every 2 minutes, if it hasn't run otherwise

https://github.com/golang/go/blob/9b4b3e5acca2dabe107fa2c3ed...
Smartphone usage was banned in almost all schools until around 2013.
Untrue, the top car accident factor at 38% of all car accidents in the UK is "Driver or rider not looking properly" - how many of these are drivers interacting with the built-in touchscreen isn't clear, but it's definitely part of it.
I've been working remotely for most of my career and I intend to keep doing so, but if a "decent" virtual whiteboard can do that, I've yet to see it. FigJam, Miro, etc. all seem to be technically fine but unable to come up with flows that are as clearly obvious for collaboration as "two people standing there at a whiteboard". I can use all these tools quite effectively (I've got a LucidChart tab open right now) for solo use or semi-independently with close colleagues on the same board, but attempting to add other people creates chaos and a mess over the conference bridge because the affordances are so different from what people want out of rapid, high-bandwidth low-worrying-about-the-color-of-the-rectangle idea swapping.

Though I disagree with them and with you--I downvoted that post for its writer being a jerk, not for being subjectively wrong. "If you think virtual whiteboards maybe aren't very good you should give somebody else your remote job" is "man, shut up" territory.
Good that you brought up English, which is also frequently argued to actually be a Romance language and where it is much more ambiguous. Since it actually acquired a massive amount of latin loan words directly and via medieval or modern French. Sometimes the same word twice or thrice.

The classification as Romance vs. Germanic is based on two important observations:

I. Even considering the Germanic influence, French and its close relatives are still more similar to each other and to the other Romance languages. If I see a page of French text, my knowledge of German is almost useless, but my Italian gets me very far. This classification can be made objectively by using Swadesh lists[0] or related tools.

II. We can trace its historical development very well and it seems to organically emerge from the vulgar Latin of late antiquity.

Of course the association with Latin was deliberate, but this happened much earlier when the Romans conquered, colonized, and eventually romanized Gaul. Because of this, there was simply never a need for loaning words from Latin on a large scale. Later, the Franks were just a new management that placed itself on top of the existing culture.

[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swadesh_list
I have two cars. One is a 2005 Micra with no touch screen. Doing things like changing the clock is a right pain. The other is a 2021 Skoda with a touch screen, I can change the clock far more easily. The Skoda also does things like monitoring tyre pressure and warning if I get a puncture, and some other things deep in the menu I use once or twice a year (I find changing settings to km/h instead of mph is handy when going to europe)

The car with a touch screen has buttons to select between volume, radio and carplay and works fine. Cruise/Limit is a button on the steering wheel, and there's a roller for volume, changing tracks, etc.

Heating/aircon/defroster is a dial/physical buttons in both cars, same with things like hazzard lights, internal lights etc. Handbrake is a real handle, not a random button you hope is working.

There is no need to touch the touchscreen while driving, but having a map there is quite handy, certainly better than a phone in a cradle on the dashboard.

Just because a car has a touch screen doesn't mean you need to use it to operate basic functions. The problem isn't the screen, it's the lack of buttons for operational functions.
I wish the rubber band effect could be disabled. When scrolling, I always have to wait a second for the bouncing effect to stop before I can tap on things. It happens in every app.
> mandatory certification (enforced by patents/other IP protections)

> The hacker in me hates the idea

If the hacker in you really hates this, then why insist on enforcing via means that restrict both vendor and user freedom (IP) instead of regulatory enforcement that exclusively targets vendors & leaves hackers free to hack?
Decentralization is about enabling builders - users get the indirect benefits which follow.

What you have done is justified 'everything under the sun' so long as it technically operates in a free market. But the ability for users to switch does not guarantee that the incentives to compete are at all healthy or robust.

You are correct when you say centralization affects users indirectly and they will simply use services which are most immediately convenient. But competition is not giving users much benefit because every centralized service has a monopoly on their instantiation - it's not like you can make a few tweaks and give everyone a moderately better experience - you have to start from scratch and make yet another siloed and extractive platform for any and every improvement. And then if you do they can easily copy you back before you build a fraction of their momentum.

X isn't going to let you improve the experience and just take users; they're going to say: "Have fun building up user trust and security infrastructure - also you're never getting our users." That's the difference between a protocol and a platform. The reason companies build platforms is because they need to fund infrastructure and opsec at scale so they effectively need to build monopoly protocols i.e. 'platforms.'

So "switching is easy" is meaningless. Building successful competing platforms is, by design, very difficult; it takes large investments and huge risks and a lot of rebuilding what's already been done just for the sake of catching up to platforms who have obvious incentives and built-in methods to discourage competition via their tight, centralized structure. Even if the platform is better, it will probably fail relative to its predecessor.

Decentralization most directly helps builders. If the basic requirements of a service are sufficiently decentralized security, networking, front-ends, then a builder who wants to compete via small (or any sized) improvements *does not need to rebuild the entire service.* Small builders who would otherwise not have access to startup capital, risk tolerance, or excessive build-hours would be equally able to compete because their decentralized access to the basic requirements cannot be locked behind an extractive economic scheme.

Imagine every talented programmer making open source software could leverage it atop secure, robust and interoperable networks. And they could earn money from it.

There is a massive difference between being a passive proponent of the free market and a maximalist for market competition. Your justification for the state of the field is a passive retreat to free-market capitalism. Users certainly have the ability to choose, but there are all sorts of schemes and situations in a free market where competition is choked. Honest proponents of decentralization are maximizers of opportunities for competition - they recognize that the free market is a gradient and not some binary quality which automatically imbues every operation inside it with good accountability.
I can do those all without taking my eyes off the road. Not sure what you mean?
> Not at all

The arrogance required to tell someone that their experience is false is something I have trouble wrapping my head around.
The name of the conference may give you a subtle clue as to why that is...
If the pastor initiated a loud campaign openly castigating the previous pastor for his egregious acts of infidelity, and proclaimed that under his stewardship of the church he would foster a renewed culture of unmitigated faithfulness, then, after taking over the church, immediately started leveraging his position of authority to sleep with a variety parishioners, I think most people would react strongly to that brazen level of hypocrisy.
And best if connecting the system to CarPlay is straightforward. We have a Jeep rental while car is getting repaired. It took looking up online and digging through several levels of ui to get the system to connect to the phone. While this is generally a once every year or two, for fleet sales, it is painful.
Doesn't change that we have no statistical data for "deaths caused by touchscreens." The nearest offered in the federal numbers that I can find is distracted driving which accounts for roughly 4,000 (which is an estimate) of the ~43,000 that occur in the United States, or ballpark 10%. But that 4,000 estimate includes things like cell phone distraction, your kid screaming in the back seat, or just straight up people not paying attention to the road. And, worth devils' avodacoing here, many newer infotainment systems include things like CarPlay and Android Auto which can if anything mitigate the distracting factor of shitty OEM interfaces.

I don't know how bad they actually are, I know there's been a drumbeat in media recently about how bad they are with no real data I've ever seen to back it up, and I know that I've, at this point, driven more miles with aftermarket touch screen interfaces than I have without and I have yet to be involved in even a minor accident, let alone a fatal one.
For what it's worth, my father is a civil engineering professor and has been complaining that students have been getting dumber for 30ish years at this point. That predates smartphones and laptops weren't a common occurrence in lecture halls yet.

The gradient of the graphs in the article is pretty worrying though and I'm sure that phones/social media definitely have some effect.
None of the fancy infotainment systems I observed the last time I went car shopping were likely to use it. They were based on third party frameworks and tools -- e.g. Android -- that weren't or couldn't possibly be built following this standard.

In general, systems that are safety critical or adjacent to such systems should use formal methods. On many newer vehicles, like the Tesla Cybertruck, the infotainment system also doubles as the instrument display, which makes it safety adjacent. As such, it should also use formal methods. Model checking, based on satisfiability, is a relatively low bar to achieve.

MISRA is a decent idiomatic framework that brings one closer to safe coding practices. However, it's not foolproof. Formal methods in theory _is_, but in practice it is not. Defense in depth is useful for designing and writing software. A good idiomatic style, unit testing, and formal methods each provide complementary checks.

So, my recommendation would be to choose a good idiomatic style -- and despite its relative complexity, MISRA is a good idiomatic style from a safety perspective. Then, build a good automated testing culture. Incorporate model checking, especially through any execution path that is safety critical. Finally, architect the system so that failures in things that don't matter (video, audio, "games", or navigation) don't impact things that do matter (instrument display or communication with critical systems).
The video references the fact that the game was originally intended to be a multi disc release and this was a tech demo / test of the disc swap feature.
I never saw headphones mask voice adequately without playing music or other sound. Or wearable all day without discomfort.
Show HN: A quick tool I wrote to time commands
If you actually have a great new idea, you can put it in the next model of car. Updating cars shouldn't go beyond navigation data.
You are absolutely right, tbh. People make this into too much of a binary choice.

I've had cars with terrible physical controls and cars with really well thought out touchscreen controls combined with a lot of automation.

It isn't obvious that fumbling with buttons below the wheel, near my knee is better than the screen right in front of me. I can't even find them by touch easily, because they've made so many of them, including for nearly useless functions.
That's not it. I updated the article with an experiment of processing 5 items at a time. The fast function doing 5 images at a time is slower than the slow function doing 1 image at a time (24*5 > 90).

If your theory was correct, we would expect the optimal number of threads for the fast function processing 5 images at a time to be similar to that of the slow function processing 1 image at a time.

In fact, the optimal threads in this case (5 images at a time) was 20 for slow function, 10 for fast function, so essentially the same as the original setup.
You can just push a software update and completely change the functionality/looks of it. With the physical buttons, they have to be linked to a certain functionality at the manufacturing stage.
Devil's avocado? Sorry, couldn't resist that one.
I’m on the edge of concluding that the iPhone was actually a bad thing and that the mobile revolution is on balance bad for humanity.

* There is something addictive about this form factor plus the touch interface, especially when combined with the way apps have designed to maximize the effect. This is by far the worst thing about this platform.

* They are “too” easy to use. Before the iPhone and iOS (and a bit later Android) people were becoming “computer literate.” Remember that phrase? They were learning to actually use information technology. Mobile halted that process.

* It’s a medium for consumption, not production. Input with them is slow and cumbersome and best suited for short sound bites like tweets or TikTok videos.

* They bias media toward short interaction and therefore shallow content. You can't express complex ideas that way.

* They constantly interrupt and combined with short form interaction and addiction are destructive to attention.

* They were built from the ground up to be walled gardens that crush experimentation and innovation.

* They are surveillance machines, and lend themselves to significantly more intrusive surveillance than most other tech except maybe cars… and cars are just trying to ape the mobile surveillance model.

* The ecosystem is toxic and built around exploiting the user through addiction, surveillance, and impulsive purchasing.

* Since they are so constrained, they supercharged the trend of all compute moving to the cloud where you own nothing and have no privacy.

The phrase “cigarettes of the mind” seems to fit.

All the useful things my phone does could be done with a much simpler device providing a map, a way to text and read email, and a browser. Most everything else is superfluous and a large amount of it is actively harmful, especially to young people and those not tech savvy enough to avoid the predatory aspects of the system.

If you could order Uber or Lyft through a browser I would be tempted to get one of those hipster minimal phones. There’s no technical reason you couldn’t. They just want you to use the app to maximize tracking.
> Sorry, couldn't help it.

The SV motto
I often go in so that if necessary, I can pop in and code on their computers a bit if my teammates get stuck somewhere. Yes it’s like babysitting but it takes so much longer to walk them through & explaining how to fix it over chat
The work was done by IBM in 1975. You need lots of space to keep the noise down and you need offices with doors that close.

Why are we still having this discussion fifty years later?
> Meanwhile.. all the animals and sometimes children at my house are more valuable than any of my information, at least, to me.

I expected loved ones to be excluded from the definition of property in this context, being a discussion about theft and not more violent things like kidnapping.

> Are people actually trying to steal your information

I do not know everyone’s intentions, I just know what my loss potential is. I do not keep many paper records, so getting into my digital files will give up all of my information as well as TOTP and SMS 2FA codes that serve as proof of my identity.

Once someone can prove they are me, then it is an uphill battle for me to prove someone else was being me, and even doing that does not always help.
Contra-opinion: music significantly improves my concentration, but it has to be instrumental or classical otherwise brain gets distracted processing the lyrics.
Apparently you haven't watched people leave the rental area at the airport.
Our car, Renault Megane e-Tech, uses Google, which I find works quite well. My SO has trouble finding the right words, and more often than not, the car does what she wants.

Though I found it struggles with non-native names, when I try to make calls. But starting navigation, turning off seat heating etc works very well.