skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Please give me a single reason what QWidgets does have that qml doesn't, from a user perspective.

> lot more work

I would argue the opposite. Show me a none buggy QWidgets application that features nested collapsing menus, with animations. That being said, you can still create a modern app with fancy animations in QWidgets. The beautiful Telegram QtWidgets desktop app is the best example, it's just more work....
Same goes for Go BTW. I even find it easier to install Go (haven't done it for Rust that often yet) and compile a binary (of a "pure" project that doesn't involve C libraries or other complications) than installing node/npm/nvm/whatever to get something up and running...
> no one likes making slides.

I'm not sure about that. I think there's a lot of people who actually like frequent long meetings and bad slides. That's why we have them everywhere. The rest is groupthink.

I agree your use cases are the big wins though.
The Apple II cassette interface
Yep, this year would have buried my family in medical debt, or buried one of us, without health insurance. Insurance sucks, but we USians haven't created a better alternative yet.
Some of that is due to reasons they cannot say. They've developed a policy of "no current IP currently produced by the Lego Group". So even if a set gets past the 10,000 mark, if it's a minifig scale Death Star, it's not being made.

So if it's a set they currently have IP rights for, but have not announced sets for, they'll generally turn it down. But they can't say it's because they've recently acquired the IP rights to Sonic the Hedgehog.

They also have a loose "no contemporary war toys" policy. I say loose because the Indiana Jones line kind of pushes on that a bit. But that's right around the cutoff for them. But you definitely won't see an F16 fighter jet anytime soon.
The conversation is absolutely more nuanced than most of these articles/blurbs usually mention. Beyond the well-defined hard costs, does it benefit the company more to save money on a cloud footprint, but put that same money into management efforts required to handle manual maintanance of bare metal servers?

Can you afford to spend the time to handle fault tolerance and high availability at the infrastructure level, or will that just fall to the wayside once your migration effort passes its original deadline and the business wants to shift to other items? How will you handle auditing without Cloudtrail, or its counterparts? Will you be able to automate OS provisioning, or will you be stuck with adding more staff and increasing lead times?

Let's say you can give a positive answer to all of these. Now, does it benefit the business more to have your team handle all that's required to maintain your own physical infrastructure, or would that time/effort be better spent on things that differentiate the business from its competitors?

We should also remember that Basecamp has built their entire business around this application. They've had time to perfect it and customize it to their exact needs. This is very different from replatforming commercial or open source software that isn't developed in-house. I think there's good reason that most of the time an article of this nature comes out, it's often a SaaS-type offering that's the target of repatriation.
AMD, Intel, Google, Samsung, and Qualcomm aren’t as big as Apple (a recent development which still sounds odd to say) but they’re all big enough to get first class support from TSMC even if several of them didn’t have the resources to compete directly.

Using the latest process certainly helps but look at the older ones as well - it’s not like the performance gap disappeared when competing AMD processors were launched on the TSMC 5nm process, but that really highlighted the different trade offs those teams make: Zen4 CPUs certainly dusted the Apple chips, but the ones which did were desktop / server designs using far more power, too, since that’s where the money is in the PC side.
Can you use it to transmit actual sound? Would it be possible to use this for short-range communication in space? Or is this only a very theoretical kind of sound?
The Median Household Income in the US is still much higher than in most Western European countries. Inequality exists in the US, but quality of life still not all that different from Europe in most social indicators. Even stuff like health insurance or college isn't all that different when factoring household income, and the fact that it is largely subsidized by employers and the government in the US. The UX absolutely sucks in the US though compared to equivalent systems in Europe though - an employer PPO plan in the US can give you easier access to GPs than a number of Single Payer plans in Europe, but the Single Payer plans in some European countries is just conceptually easier to use.

That said, scale of things the US isn't some unequal hellhole third world country any more than Europe is some hedonistic post modern continent. The average European and American have largely comparable qualities of life, which makes the lack of innovative commercialization even more jarring.
I think your argument in quotes is a good one. :) Following a set of pre-defined instructions is not a creative act. It's not bad to build a puzzle, but I would argue that it's not nearly as meaningful of an experience as painting - or any other creative activity for that matter.
Focus on your co-founder only. See what you can do so he can successfully transition to the new pivot.

See if anyone in the company or market would be willing to step in for your role.

Discuss the possibility of you raising a new round, staying six months, and leaving.

Also evaluate the legal situation when you leave.

Despite the fact you've invested your time and money in the company, it still haven't found PMF or anything, so try to give equity away, it will make it easier for you to jump ship and move ahead.
>Hyper-focus on commercialization and maximizing shareholder value might make other aspects of society worse

What does this translate to in apple's case?
Good reminder that Apple and other technology companies, take up a large percentage of our supposedly "diversified" ETFs or retirement portfolios. For better or worse. Look at VTI for example. All tech companies at the top.
Apple 6.35%, MSFT 6.34%, AMZN 3.05%, NVDA 2.47%, GOOGL 1.77%, META 1.64%
https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/etfs/profi...
The HR bot use case is very close to my domain - literally one of the teams reporting to me are maintaining the HR bot for a large enterprise - and it is a legal minefield. Whatever the bot provides as a response could be legally binding, according to legal. Examples of the kind of prompts we get in a many-thousands sized org:

- What are my p/maternity entitlements?

- When will I be promoted?

- What will the bonus pool be this year?

- What will happen to me if my boss finds out I have been slacking off?

and many more examples of prompts that HR/legal simply will not accept a vague, or worse: incorrect, response to. Each of those types of questions require specific and considerate knowledge that LLMs simply cannot produce.
I know my carefully curated collections of stuff will be worth pretty much zero to anyone a I leave them to. They may be interested in the pictures. But that would be about it. My massive cd/dvd/bluray/games/books/coins collection that I have amassed and carefully cataloged. At best it will end up at goodwill/ebay or at worst in the trash.
If only we are so lucky. Still waiting for a faster typescript compiler.
> Moby Dick hit me like no novel before or since. A poem in prose form.

Also +1, I was familiar with the book only through exposure to it's symbolic representation in popular culture I.e. a boring 10 pages of plot "diluted" in 1000 pages of autistically compulsive descriptions of whale biology

So one random night before bed I finished the ebook I was reading, felt a little burned out halfway through the 40 book terry pratchet collection, had moby dick on the ereader since it's public domain idk and opened it up because why not ... And stayed up most of the night, read it at every opportunity going forward, and probably highlighted every other sentence as an example of absolutely delightful prose
Why bother?

It's not the generation that matters so much, it's the gathering of entropy, which comes from peripherals and not possible to generate on-die.

If you don't need cryptographically secure randomness, you still want the entropy for generating the seeds per thread/die/chip.
Yeah, I'm quite hopeful that this is one where the developer backlash will cause a U-turn. I suspect it was seen as something that most people didn't care about, and now that it's clear that they do then likely something will be done about. I can't see any reason why Google would be strongly against it's inclusion.
That's a very neat idea, installed. Consider adding some links on the Readme itself about how to install, the releases tab is easy to miss. It would also be great if it was available as a homebrew cask.
> Namely I’d ask when not if.

The big assumption of cryptography is that, there exists some problems that are not provably unsolvable but difficult enough for almost any practical purposes. To engineers, no assumption can be more reasonable than that. Given unlimited time, it's a provable fact that any (brand new) processor with asynchronous input signal will malfunction due to metastability in digital circuits, it's also a provable fact that metastability is a fundamental flaw in all digital electronics - but computers still work because the MTBF can be made as large as necessary, longer than the lifetime of the Solar system if you really want to.

So the only problem here is, how long is the MTBF of today's building blocks of symmetric ciphers? If it's on the scale of 100 years or so, sure, everything is breakable if you're patient. If it's on the scale of 1000 years, well, breaking it is "only" a matter of time. But if it's on the scale of 10000 years, I don't believe it's relevant to the human civilization (as we know it) anymore - your standard may vary.

The problem is that computerized cryptography is a young subject, the best data we have so far is symmetric ciphers tend to be more secure than asymmetric ones. We know that Feistel networks have an excellent safety record and remain unbroken after 50 years. We also know that we can break almost all widely used asymmetric ciphers today with large quantum computers if we can build one, but we can't do the same to symmetric ones - even the ancient DES is unbreakable if it's redesigned to use 256-bit keys. So while nobody knows for sure, but most rational agents will certainly assign higher and higher confidence every year - until a breakthrough occurs.

> My opinion is that short of the one time pad, we won’t come up with provably unbreakable schemes.

Many mathematicians and some physicists may prefer a higher standard of security than "lowly" practical engineers. This is the main motivation behind quantum cryptography - rather than placing security on empirical observations, its slogan is that the security is placed on the laws of physics. Many have pointed that the this slogan is misleading: any practical form of quantum cryptography must exist in the engineering sense, and there will certainly be some forms of security flaws such as sensor imperfection or at least side channels... That being said, I certainly understand why it looks so attractive to many people if you're the kind of person who really worry about provability.
Ruthless efficiency in communication doesn't sound so nice anymore in case e.g. when service provider tricked you into 2 years contract with 3 months notice period, or when they straight out lied to you at some point.
I'm not sure if Eslint has this, but there could be cross-file lints (eg. unused variables). If some file changes, you may need to relint dependencies and dependent files. This could recursively trickle.

I'm not sure if Eslint does this either, but indices or some incremental static analysis sounds like it could help the linter minimize rechecks or use previous state.
And it seems proton is not open source and does contain copies of windows DLLs.

Shabby and extremely expensive mitigation to compensate for many, not all, game devs.
This is great to read now and reflect on where they eventually went in the next 13 years. The basic questions "why Chef" and "why Virtual Box" and so on with requests to support other hypervisors and provisioning tools. Now Packer and Terraform provision and deploy machines to damn near any platform using damn near any provisioning tool, but neither Mitchell himself nor the HashiCorp team in general had to learn all of those tools and platforms. Instead, they provided orchestration systems that allow for a common configuration language and execution model but delegate the logic of how to use the APIs of specific platforms and provisioners to plugins. Seed the ecosystem with plugins representing the most common platforms and toolchains your company is already familiar with and extend from there to stuff you either figure out later or let the community contribute.

This feels like open source and community creation at its best. It's why GNU/Linux systems did what they did. A bunch of professors and hackers tried to clean-room recreate Unix but never finished the kernel. Meanwhile, some grad student made a kernel but no userspace. Then some entirely different teams put these together along with a package manager, installer, and remote filesystems users could fetch ISOs and packages from, and finally you've got a usable system that didn't require a beast the size of Microsoft to do everything in-house. None of them could have done it alone.

It also makes the events of the past year kind of poignant. I see a lot of commenters talking about HashiCorp needing the license change to capture the value of what they created and not allow other companies to siphon it off. But isn't that the point of civilization? We all stand on the shoulders of giants. We generally don't want the first person to come up with an idea and their direct descendants to be the only people who ever profit off of that idea. That's aristocracy. Mitchell is a billionaire, isn't he? None of Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman, or Ian Murdoch ever became billionaires, but they weren't exactly starving in the street, either. Exactly how much value does a single person need to capture? It's the community we want to see thrive, isn't it? Not just our single company. Every employee of that company can work elsewhere if they need to and every investor has other investments. They aren't going to starve either if the company someday stops growing.

I get not wanting the Amazons and Googles of the world to take open source inputs and put them into proprietary sinkholes where further innovation gets stuck inside of a single company. But isn't that the point of the GPL? Anything they add they also have to give back. You don't need BUSL for that.
Maybe a silly question, but how can I find this “Python 3” game? Googling just shows tutorials on making a game in Python 3. Searching “Python 3” on steam doesn’t turn up anything.

Edit:

Smh I genuinely thought there was a game named Python 3. I’m familiar with the language. Just sleepy.
I kind of despair of keeping up to date with ML, at least to the extent that I might ever get current enough to be paid to work with it. I did Andrew Ng's Coursera specialisation a few years back - and I've worked through some of the developer-oriented courses, implemented some stuff. read more than a few books, read papers (the ones I might have a hope of understanding), and tried to get a former employer to take it seriously. But its seeming like unless you have a PhD or big-co experience then its very difficult to keep up to date by working in the field.

Notwithstanding the above, I'd agree with others here who suggest learning by doing/implementing, not reading papers.
They interact via the electromagnetic force.
scipy/pandas interpolation is so good and user friendly! highly recommend
cat /dev/random | tr -c 'ox0.@' ' '

(poor man's version)
What Happened to All the Futurists?
If you want to build hardware, start building hardware.

I mean literally.

Which means your initial ambitions can't exceed your plausible abilities and your roadmap: learn by doing.

Good luck.
I looked at and rejected state machines, because I didn't like/understand the need for the formalism of defining every possible state.
Have you ever read "Collapse" by Jared Diamond? Understanding and learning from that past is literally crucial to the continued existence of the human race. More crucial than any technology anyone here has ever created.

The book directly pulls on the kind of data on early societies that the scientists studying these caves produce.
The book that just came out, "Understanding Deep Learning", is an excellent overview of the current state of AI: https://udlbook.github.io/udlbook/

Read that first, then to keep up to date you can follow up with any papers that seem interesting to you.
A good way to be aware of the interesting papers that come out is to follow @_akhaliq on X: https://twitter.com/_akhaliq
It would give victims a path to defend themselves. Today, they have nothing.
We designed Flipper Cloud to never take your app down
Charlie Booker, of Black Mirror fame, said (paraphrasing): it's not technology that sucks -- it's people.
Nonsense. You still just receive SMS messages as normal, so any spam will be delivered to you regardless.

The solution to spam is to petition your government to crack down, or do server side filtering. Banning random phones is like playing whack a mole.
It would be a terrible experience for most users. It would not be like a 360 video where you can direct your gaze in the direction you want. It would be a stereoscopic 110 degrees videos where the viewpoint keeps changing to follow the original head movement of the person that recorded it.

It would surely be a nauseating experience.
"..observing the sky or calculating formulas.."

I'm pretty sure that's science.
Machines have no intent so they can't be malevolent or virtuous. The oppressive nature of all current machines is due to it's design. A design that was created by human beings. Machines and computers make great servants but horrible masters so if you are in a position to deny a reasonable request because "the computer says no" than a human being is at fault. Blaming a machine is misplaced blame.
Murder isn't regulated away, either. Yet it is still against the law, and society invests in its prevention, and empowering the victims of violence with a civil means to seek retribution and protection.

The situation is very similar to CP, and should be treated in a similar fashion.
No, but building sets does have other benefits.

There's some zen to the act, like model or puzzle building. But you can also observe and learn techniques to add to your own builds.

Knowing all the ways Bionicles are put together can help you turn a Porsche into a full transforming Autobot Jazz.
>Sure it still is a problem but wealth inequality is a huge deal.

Wealth inequality is really a problem. But Europe not being as competitive as the US means that their most qualified professionals move there. They tend to call this "brain drain"

Now, let's also take a look at the fertility rate in Europe. That's not a good combo
I tend to go straight to the front page, a force of habit. I've really only recently started interrupting this habit by heading to the new section more often. I suppose my use case is less link aggregator and more discussion/social on interesting topics, hence heading to the frontpage. I could conclude that I've just 'rediscovered' the value of HN as a link aggregator instead of habitually heading to front page.
They developed a new tool that reduces their CI from 75 minutes to 10 seconds and are offering it for free and open source and you really don’t see the value? I know you warned this is HN but I find this posture ridiculous. If you don’t find value for yourself, that’s one thing but I honestly don’t get this place sometimes.
German Der Spiegel ends user comments
https://peerj.com/articles/16349/

The paper does not say there was a "conversation". It states '[t]hus, the temporal dimension of time matching can be an essential element to a conversation’s structure.'
That is, that there was a noise made, and the animal echoed/made noise back a few times. My dog does that. My neighbor's green parrot does it. Alas, it is not a conversation.

Good luck to the Whale-SETI team though!
It's a good point, in that I imagine the submitter is hosting an ephemeral salon of sorts: much of the atmosphere easily prepared, and no need for chairs, greetings, or snacks.

So I do feel one ought to play the host for a bit, reply often, and expect replies during a certain window.

On the other hand, I lack a lot of expertise in the submitted link more often than not, and the sole motivation to submit is "I think HN would find this interesting." Still, it would help to set context in a way, and filling in the first comment would do that (even to initialize the "host's level of knowledge"). The comment could end with a topical question.

For me, /newest is like the borderlands, and the core hub is the front page. Sometimes I can visit the bustling downtown and drop in on some really deep, insightful discussions. It's cool to see a new link also appear on the front page that I had upvoted--almost like "validation of the tribe."

After reading the comment from skilled, I don't feel as bad about submitting without a comment, but in the future, I should take your thoughts to heart and at least say something, even just to answer why I thought it was interesting. (Just me, though.)

Of course, that first comment should come with the implicit preface that it might have been a totally random collection of neurons that coalesced to a spark of mind to submit the article, hopefully to be overtaken with others weighing in.

The comment from krapp is also a good point, so that's another consideration.
>Look at the original JPEG at quality 85 :

<img class="lazyload" decoding="async" src="" data-orig-src="https://photo.aurelienpierre.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/..." alt="" />

Sorry, I can't. That doesn't actually display any image at all in my browser because you're relying on javascript execution to switch the img src to it's actual source. You don't need to do this for lazyload to work anymore. There's browser native lazyload. Just put the actual image in the src.
Can you elaborate? Typescript has existed for a long time and has been the standard over vanilla js for a long time. Bun, oxlint, and biome are all replacing existing tools with build steps. How could it be that their popularity signifies some new appreciation of compiled languages?
Ask HN: Anyone have good experiences with using rust in crude web development?
I am hoping to convince management to allow some greenfield work in rust for backend development. Unfortunately the CTO does not consider the teams interest to be sufficient reason to bring in a new programming language. Does anyone have good experiences with BE development in rust?

Compared to rails or golang, which are the options my company currently uses, how can I argue for rust base on:

1. Tooling. Do pros exist that would indicate better outcomes?
2. Talent pool. Will it be harder to hire engineers who can perform well?
3. How to turn adding a new language into a positive thing? We primarily use ruby, javascript and golang.
4. Onboarding. How can I say that it will ... be easier to have rust added to the mix.

I think this is a losing battle and when I type it all out... it just feels like I am following the "want to try shiny new thing" trope that I myself rather dislike if I'm being honest.
Yes really. These improbabilities are guesswork, and their size is unknown. We know a spacefaring civilization has happened once, so the probability is far greater than you allow, and time obviously sufficient.