skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You should anyway...

If you don't, you sooner or later get presented with unexpected 'transaction aborted due to deadlock' errors in prod. Better have someone who's already been through that then, at the very least.
> I'm looking forward to using the integration, personally.

That's all right and perfectly valid.

What is not is what is described in the linked issue.
Author here:

I created this because I found myself peeping inside type declaration files too often, and the only way to do that was by installing the package first.

tsdocs.dev helps you check the API surface of a good number of JS libraries and their past versions — usually a quick search away.

There's something powerful about speed and being able to answer questions in seconds that usually take minutes.

edit: The server might be overloaded with requests as we prime up our caches, but do visit back after HN's done hugging us to death.

You can show your support and help cover a part of server costs if this (or bundlephobia.com) saved you time.

https://github.com/sponsors/pastelsky
This doesn’t follow, at least not without a lot more analysis. The biggest tech companies have tens of thousands of engineers make anything from low 6-figures to low 7-figures. That’s a huge salary burden that dwarfs exec compensation. Systematically paying more could easily outstrip revenues if leadership is wrong about predicting the future, which would lead to either salary cuts or layoffs, neither of which is well received. And are you saying engineers deserve most of the value because they wrote the code? What about other functions, what do they deserve? These aren’t easy questions to answer. But the reality is we don’t have to because hiring is a market. You get paid what you negotiate. This is the same for execs as it is for worker bees, the only difference is the value of your skills according to whoever is holding the purse strings.
There is a discontinuity between the books because he started writing it as SF, realised it was a mistake, and then switched to pure fantasy.

Like many of his books this series is misunderstood, I think deliberately. A lot of people (including Brian Aldis, and BBC continuity announcers) think the first book is anti-science because the two baddies are scientists. In fact the one who invents the new kind of spacecraft is a physicist (which is necessary) but the other (the worse one) is "something in the City" (i.e. a banker, broker, or possibly businessman depending on whether usage had shifted at the time he wrote it) and later becomes a politician.

It is true that Lewis did not seem to have a high opinion of sociologists - the sociologist in the That Hideous Strength is gullible because of the nature of his "glib" subject unlike people who study humanities and hard sciences!

> Sometimes you can't beat the devil in a battle of wits, sometimes you just gotta beat him to death.

I like that too. It gives it a lot of visceral impact.
I've seen websites that automate all article creation from social media posts where they don't even check if the title generated makes sense.
I thought Perelandra was bizarre, almost hallucinogenic towards the end. And the bit with the devil could be read as “He’s right, so I have to resort to physical violence to win.” I found it funny, but a strange take for an author known for making intellectual arguments for Christianity.
> you can’t manufacture 3 years of experience with platform X

Why would you have to? You get the experience by working with the technology, just like everyone else. The older worker and the younger worker both need to have X amount of experience.

I don't see how this aspect is related to age at all.

> How did you get your first job for each new platform that you learned? Let me guess—you knew somebody. (Am I wrong?)

You're wrong. Connections are important for getting any new position, but connections aren't what got me "in" on a new platform. I've learned new platforms either (usually) on my own, or because working with the platform became part of a job I already had.
Nags about updates which you can ignore, just like every other plugin.
Thank you for sharing your experience - I'll def pass that info along.
How about first open after upgrade?

If you upgrade from a older version, it open your previous project with the plugin enabled without asking.
Of course. Its in our solar system. Although it is very far away, if we get on to it, we can plan it at a huge cost.
2620 can't come soon enough [1].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0czFnIvKOJY
>It is a little sad to see so many be so dismissive of unit tests.

You're preaching to the choir. The overwhelming majority of people worship unit tests like dogma. There's almost no point in saying the above. It's like saying it's a little sad to see some people who are so dismissive about eating and breathing to stay alive.

Your next part is the one that's interesting. Mocking 80 percent of a system to get unit tests to work. I've seen so much of this from developers who don't even realize the pointlessness of what theyre doing that it's nuts. They worship test so much that they can't see the nuance and the downside.

Take this article. This article is literally presenting evidence for why unit tests are bad. He literally created an error that would not have existed in the first place we're it not for his tests. Yet he has to spin it in such a strange way to make it support the existing dogma of test test test.
I just want to run make and not slow down Firefox or maybe some other things I'm doing. This simple alias I've had for over 20 years works, on all (Unix-y) systems. Why make everything a hypercomplex story?
None of your examples have anything to do with fascism.

You sound like Putin saying Ukrainians are Nazi because they vote for the west, reject his occupation and fight for their land. What?!
This was one of my main complaints when I tried it, perhaps I’ll give it another shot with that setting. The suggestions automatically appearing made it feel like having a conversation with one of those people who is always jumping to finish your sentences for you, but guessing wrong as to what you were about to say.
I'm coming around to just ignoring the Atlantic. Their opinions have a rambling and stream of consciousness flow because they attempt to make something big out of something very small. Amplification of problems can be important, however when it's done in this style, you still have lots of disconnected problems and overall garbage as output.
Apple to Halt Sales of Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 in the U.S.
I liken open offices to a situation where I'm balancing a pile of plates in both hands and hundreds of other people are in the kitchen and can trip me or shove me at will, causing a mental stack crash.
It goes like that:

I thought that the question "Why?" asked about this particular fragment of GP's comment:

> I don’t think I have ever starred anything on Github. (...)

Not to the particular situation of fixes for likes. Therefore the answer:

> because I don't give out fake likes.

was thought to be an answer to question: "Why haven't you ever starred anything on Github?". With this in mind I just wanted to say that likes do not have to be fake. You can like what you like. It may be a bit off the general topic of fixes for likes, but not off the more general topic of Github likes.

In this particular case I don't know what I would do. Probably if I really needed it I would just comply. If I already would have liked it or was close to it I would probably also just do it. In other cases when I would have thought about this as a courtesy I would drop it.

I have a bunch of repositories liked. I use it as a bookmark and a signal of interest for maintainers. As much as one would want to claim Github stars are not meaningless Internet points. A search engine will promote more starred repositories more, more people in general will think about using the thing. It is not a perfect measure of course, but it is not meaningless signal. It may often not mean much, but most of the time it is more meaningful than not. For my particular interests I often seek out repositories that have not the most stars, but also not the least.
Building a Rust-based DiskANN on top of LMDB
Can you clarify what "true randomness" means out side of the context of human agency and perception?

Can you also give an example where "true randomness" would differ from the randomness I describe on the actions a human would take? That is to say, if a my internal model of the world tells me a coin landing on heads is 50/50 how does "true randomness" or not of the resulting coin toss impact how I should gamble on coin tosses?

imho the idea of "randomness" separate from our own internal state of belief is a nonsensical concept, but would appreciate examples to the contrary.
This comment uses 'X' as a variable, which I found confusing to parse given the recent rebranding of Twitter to X
>Especially at lower levels, chess is a game of short term patterns, not long term strategy.

That’s actually wrong. Short-term patterns will improve your chess short-term but you’ll hit the plateau pretty fast. They don’t teach you to play better at chess. It’s like copypasting some code from the Internet without fully understanding how it works.

In chess, it’s absolutely necessary to have a long-term plan: especially at lower levels, your ultimate goal should be attacking the king most of the time.

Use the engine smartly. Because it will tell you what move is objectively the best. It won’t tell you what move is best at your level. At different levels the best moves are different.

It’s important to train tactics but not with puzzles. Puzzles model situations that are out of context. It’s like training your swimming movements without hitting the water. It may be not harmful, but not particularly useful. Instead, you should get “puzzles” in your live games within the context, seeing the bigger picture.

Of course, you should play games. How can you expect to get better at playing chess without actually playing chess? Moreover, playing games and getting feedback on them should be the bulk of your training. Learning happens by trial and error.

Without dissecting this article any further, there is a battle-tested approach on how to get better at chess at any level and age:

- Be a kid. Don't overthink it. It's just a game after all. Feel it.

- Play as many games as possible. You can quickly get enough volume with bullet and blitz.

- Get feedback. You're able to give yourself decent feedback most of the time. Quickly analyze your games yourself or check them with someone, who can tell you what mistakes you have made at your level. Only afterward compare your thoughts to engine suggestions. Pay attention to the moves that drop the evaluation by more than (1, 2, 3, 4) points, depending on your level.

Of course, these are not hard and fast rules. But this is a solid foundation for the success.

P.S. My FIDE rating is 2423.
Popup asking?
Sounds exactly like what Flatpak/Portals are doing.

Batteries included?
That is the reason why X11 is/was shipped alongside Wayland for some time. It will be dropped and XWayland remains for compatibility reasons. And Wayland has already some batteries X11 doesn’t, better scaling support. Security through Portals/Flatpak. We’re in 2023, screensharing works for some time now ;)

We don’t get stuck in legacy hell like Windows. And we don’t cut off compatibility like Apple. Bumpy ride but prospects are good.

Next thing? A new virtual console for userspace? Something like KMSCON?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kmscon

I don’t want delete the good old thing. I want see them alive and improving :).
Without the usual “it must become worse before it becomes better”.
Have you looked into it? I believe writing a wlroots compositor to be in the general ballpark of as difficult as writing an Xorg window manager—which is, beyond the type of project I’m likely to take up in my spare time, but at least doable by mere mortals.
You can delay it forever until nobody maintains X11 anymore, or the ones who join/remain start breaking things there too. X11R6 is about 30 years old now. I think that's enough time for them to demand a rewrite.
I barely even try to run micro benchmarks on my work laptop, and I’m the guy who introduced them. It’s just so random.

Pretty much I’m looking for a slowdown that’s more than 25% and anything less could just be noise. When you’re reaching for 5% improvements, that means you have to let the CI system tell you, and production response times are the final arbiter of truth.
I hope we’ve moved past that. And even some of the baboons opted out.
What Are the Changes to Section 174, and Do They Affect the R&D Tax Credit?
Well, you're choosing the least popular (non-systemd) approach, and also skipping elogind. This stuff JustWorks on systemd based systems, so your blaim is inaccurate.

At LEAST read the docs for your distro:

https://docs.voidlinux.org/config/session-management.html
Here in the UK you can buy a mattress in IKEA for between £99 and £799.
https://www.ikea.com/gb/en/cat/spring-mattresses-24828/
> I don't think it is really unresolved

Well, you are currently participating in a thread that discusses this very question so there's that... and such threads are regular on HN.

I meant just that. People discuss it. What you want to say is that you have a strong opinion about it, that's OK and still possible with open questions
>Nothing unexpected there. Amdahl's Law in its glory.

That's not Amdahl's Law. Amdahl's Law describes the expected total speedup from a speedup to a segment of the program. It is usually used in the context of adding parallelism but is more general than that. It does not assume parallelism has any overhead.

Amdahl's Law predicts performance will approach a limit with added cores, but still predicts that each core will improve performance.

>A fast running function finishes fast, and coordinating the job's execution over many cores requires doing work every time something finishes. If you split your job into chunks in the microsecond time range, then you'll be handling lots and lots of tiny minutia.

Not necessarily. Modern systems have pools with independent per-core queues and clever ways of distributing work to them with minimal overhead. Work-stealing pools don't have any overhead from synchronization except when a core runs out of work, so each core just runs a `for` loop most of the time. I have seen a simple (pseudocode) `list.parallelMap(foo)` give a linear speedup on a modern JVM even on a large host with a `foo` that takes <100ns.

Trying to manually batch work risks one thread running faster than the others and then idling when it runs out of work. This is common on modern hardware with heterogeneous cores and dynamic frequency scaling.

If the tasks require their own coördination or the runtime isn't smart, then manual batching may be needed. I wouldn't assume Python does the right thing.
X isn't dead, nor is it dying.

Elon Musk took away a bunch of people's status, people who thought they were important somebodies because some nerds in an office met them in person and/or they paid some money to get a verification mark.

That's what happened. It's the election of Donald Trump all over again. One of the few people who actually understood what happened in the 2016 election - and was able to articulate it - was a guy who I actually cannot stand politically, but who happened to be 100% right - Thaddeus Russell. That election was about the common people finally getting one over on the elites, and the elites freaked the fuck out about it.

Well same fucking thing about Twitter / X. A bunch of journalists - a profession generally and historically associated with the lower and middle class - have been / are being absorbed into the elite social classes of America, and they had a special widdle mark that gave them abilities the rest of the hoi polloi didn't have... and Elon Musk came around and he didn't just take it away from them - he did something worse. Same for the academics. Same for the so-called "thought leaders".

He gave it to the common people. He put the elites and the commoners on equal footing... and they freaked the fuck out about it.

X is not dying. It just isn't lorded over by the elites any longer. And they can't fucking stand it.

Good.

The Internet was supposed to be The Great Leveler anyway. We weren't supposed to have gigantic centralized platforms where only approved speech from the Party is allowed. The sooner the rest of these enormous social media platforms either die or radically change, the better.

X didn't die, isn't dying, and won't die. The people you - whoever you is reading this - just don't post there any longer because Elon took away their toys and they can't stand it.

And yes, the "you" in the above refers to me too... a lot of the people I followed on X no longer post there. Their loss, not mine. Nothing changed except everyone is allowed to use the megaphone now.
> Ideally there is a mapping ...

The complexity and interdependence of dimensions within embeddings make it practically impossible to ascribe specific, human-understandable meanings to individual elements or dimensions.

This research actually adds to that complexity. Rather than making the meaning of individual dimensions more understandable, it shows that the embedding space has a strange, layered structure.

It suggests a peculiar, almost nonsensical organization of concepts at different distances from the central point of typical token embeddings, which doesn't make it easier to pinpoint what each dimension means.

It emphasizes that embeddings capture information in a distributed and highly contextual manner. The fact that embeddings for "nokens" can lead to arbitrary or bizarre categorizations when taken out of the typical token zone underscores that embedding dimensions don't have straightforward, easily interpretable meanings.
oooooh say more! i might use this for a personal project
> Thailand

> USB-powered handwarmers

This combination is just weird. So weird, that the only place I can think this then applies, is... Thailand.
That seems like a minor bug at most? And if the plugin remains enabled, but doesn't do anything, what's the actual issue here?

Rephrased: what's the problem with waiting until the next point release of the affected product before assuming malicious intent?
https://cursor.sh is trying to make the actually useful AI coding assistant, where it has access to your whole project for context
Yeah, humans have a major need of purpose.
I have been waiting for Google to release a decent translation model, but it seems they will only offer a cheap one. DeepL has been besting Google Translate for years. Why? I think Google has aversion to making large models public.
Why would one assume this one will ship on time when the other projects from the company are either years late or cancelled?

Intel foundry announced sometime around March 2021. https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/23/22347250/intel-new-factor.... Anything actually come of that yet?

edit: found a claim for $300M in revenue from defence firms, https://www.investopedia.com/intel-shares-pop-after-foundry-.... Can totally see US chips for US defence keeping Intel sort-of alive indefinitely.
With barrel plugs the likelyhood that one of your devices will have one that fits into another is basically zero too.
transaction in the way everyone else here is using it is referring to the primitive provided by the database which gives certain guarantees (depending on isolation level) wrt reads and writes.

Even in the context of "transaction" the business activity, they are an extremely useful tool for building up exactly the kind of sequencing and dependency guarantees you refer to.
I just feel like he went "over the top." Is the kid taking modern medicine? There are things that seem like they were better back then, and things that seem like they're better now. I guess I just don't get the all-or-nothing philosophy. Why not pick and choose the best parts of each time period?
A fully evolved type system (e.g. Coq) overlaps with unit testing. But the vast majority of languages people actually use have only partial type systems that require unit tests to stand in where the type system is lacking.

In practice, when you write those tests for where the type system is lacking, you end up also incidentally testing where there is type system coverage, so there likely isn't much for industry to talk about.
> The association between him and me in the public mind has already gone quite as deep as I wish

Perhaps he is talking about The Screwtape Letters[0]? I find that book to be awesome stuff. It is definitely Christian moralism, which I could do without, but it is mainly guidance on basic self-appraisal; regardless of the religious (or non-religious) context.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Screwtape_Letters
IIRC the issue with Applied Cryptography was that while it was the best resource for learning the math behind different crypto systems work and how to implement different algorithms it gave almost no guidance about how to actually use them in the real world. Which led to a lot of people deploying insecure systems based on just reading AC.

My understanding is that Cryptography Engineering and Practical Cryptography address this and focus on using crypto in the real world rather than mathematics and theory.
"Death of Twitter" why are people so deluded and so eager for Twitter to fail? You were a big fan of the previous regime's censorship?
https://archive.is/ucToK
Nothing works perfectly on X11.

WTF is this revisionism. There’s a reason nearly everyone in the Linux community has been trying to create an X11 alternative.

Because X11 is really terrible at doing many things.

Sure Wayland doesn’t do everything X11 does. Yet. It’s also decades younger and doesn’t have decades worth of patches and workarounds making things work.

Finally Wayland does things that X11 simply cannot do, and unlike Wayland where some of the things it “cannot” (more often chooses not to by design) do can be offloaded to other parts of the system, the same is not true of X11.