skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I wasn't talking about solitude, but focus: you can focus in a quiet room with other people sitting and doing their stuff, but it is not possible in a room with people moving around, with people speaking, with intense external noises like construction works nearby, ...
I wondered what makes these 'molecular jackhammers' attack only cancer cells. The trick is that they are dye molecules, which can be engineered to attach to a specific biomolecule.
Failing that it is probably worth listening-to/reading Matt Taibbi:

https://twitterfiles.substack.com/p/the-censorship-industria...

https://public.substack.com/p/censorship-leaders-accuse-us-o...
> And then you use your embedded knowledge to assign meaning to the number: the CPU is ARM, so 1 instruction/cycle is a good approximation (it could be more due to dual-issue or less due to jumps). So you have like 1000 instructions. Each function call in language like C or C++ might be a 5-20 instructions overhead, and you probably want to read that pin at least 10 times to detect both transitions. The tightest loop is also going to be a dozen instructions or less (read gpio, mask, compare, maybe jump out, increase, compare timeout, loop)

Nit: That's definitely the wrong approach though IMO.

So you want to accomplish two things:

1. Clock recovery -- Figuring out the timing of a signal

2. Decoding -- Figuring out what that signal means

These are two separate steps and should be done separately, be it in code or hardware. Though advanced protocols combine both into a single step, the older protocols (UART / Floppy / etc. etc.) had these two concepts separated into two different steps.

You won't have 2us between bits: but instead 2.01us or 1.99us between bits, etc. etc. Clock-recovery mechanisms means that even in the face of worst-case timing differences, your code remains resilient.

Decoding is the step you've done here, but it should be done after clock-recovery.

-------------

Traditional clock recovery methods are phase-locked-loops (in hardware), or various XOR-loops (in software) to try and figure out the timing of the clock from the 0-1 and 1-0 transitions.

----

The traditional UART (ex: 9600 baud or 115200 baud) is ~16-ticks per bit. (IE: a 9600 baud UART needs to look at the signal 153600 times per second. A 115200 baud UART needs to look at the signal 1843200 times per second). The 16-times per bit helps you "center your aim" for the transition. You then typically aim at the center-3 timeslots (ex: count number 7, 8, and 9) for when to send and/or read the signal.

--------

That being said, your analysis for "how many instructions you have per timeslice to read the data" is correct. I just feel like adding that the clock-recovery portion needs to be definitely addressed.
It's a response to Rust. Rust is significantly better than C++, and most importantly it's the first language that could actually replace C++ for the things C++ is generally used for.

I guess the C++ community is coming to terms with not being the top dog of "zero-cost abstraction" languages anymore.

Really I think it's too late for C++. They had literal decades to fix very basic flaws, and they just haven't done it.

Accidental octal literals. Case fall-through. Missing `return`s. Accidental string literal addition. The whole module system mess.

They focused way too much on adding complex features and not at all on fixing footguns. As a result C++ is painful and dangerous. Too late to fix IMO.
I now assume they’re “mining” gold.
Mamba state-space LLM inference
That isn't what's happening here. The plugin being enabled doesn't do anything except prompt you to activate it. Nothing is shipped off, no 'ai' even runs until you hit 'activate'.
Again, I am not asking for anything, just relaying feedback.

Hopefully someone can help you out.
Weird that they won't preapprove neighborhoods of single-family homes. 12-per-acre homes are all over the place in denser US cities.
"The average American" could easily be interpreted as the median.
And they also have to do a few small things for 5 years. That’s it?

In other words, google won
Scientific knowledge, like all knowledge, is fallible. All we can hope to do is correct errors and generate better explanations.

There is no "ultimate truth" or airtight reliable outlook at which we can stop and say we know everything there is to know -- that would be a dogmatic assertion, and it is false.
https://hnreplies.com does the email notifications.
If it's a feature people want, why does it need to be bundled? Won't people seek it out if it's so amazing?

That's a rhetorical question. I know the reason. If they don't bundle it, engagement will be low because people simply don't want it. At best, it's an advertisement in my IDE. At worst it's something that can send my code to an external party.
> Seems exactly the same. There are just far more gatekeepers when it comes to carriers.

According to this logic, everything in human civilization could be considered 'federated', just that many have a very large number of 'gatekeepers'.
The autopilot is adaptive cruise control + lane keeping. It’s abundantly clear and on top of this plenty of other cars have both features. The only difference is that the wheel is kept more steady.

Why would you make the manufacturer liable for this?
I only included the last one (pplx-7b-online) because it's "online", it looked up the answer from riddles.com.
The UK government has a track record of embarking on huge IT procurement projects that are dismal failures which prove to be more expensive than doing nothing at all. See the Covid app for example. They even lost Covid case data by storing it in an excel spreadsheet for pity's sake.

How can anyone seriously see this as being anything other another massively costly mistake? Maybe someone like Infosys will make consultancy money off the back of it I guess.
Why is paying into a social safety net considered “free money” but usury is not? Why is it that when rich people as for money it’s a “loan” but when poor people ask for money it’s a “handout”. Free money is never free, money isn’t even real. You live in a society and if you want people to be there for you when you are down, you have a duty to return the favour.
I'm sure these Tory politicians accused of enabling stealing from the tax-payer (and in Johnson's case of needlessly choosing to allow COVID to spread in a way he knew would cause thousands of excess deaths), will be eager to mandate cross-platform open messaging systems so all their messages can be well preserved in the future!
If there was a fuel emergency the pilot would have declared a fuel emergency. This was more him getting pissy for having to wait. Big jets normally have enough extra fuel to circle for hours without a problem.
> Some places use the same security questions when you phone support.

Fascinating. This is something I never encountered, so it never occurred to me that this might be done.
I would like to add:

- structured bindings

- auto parameters in lambdas

- init statements in if and switch clauses

- template argument deduction for constructors
The other reply to my comment proves that my question wasn't a provocation, but a successful intuition of some people's beliefs in this thread.

Further, the US' lack of universal healthcare shows that it's a societally acceptable stance to not give aid to ill people just because they are ill. I'm not trying to provoke anyone, I'm trying to clarify their belief within a set of beliefs that are socially acceptable.
Dude I'm on week 5 of this book rn, the morning pages really are quite something.

The artist dates were harder to incorporate at first but I think I got the hang of it.
It sounds like the dev was very satisfied with parallax, but I don't recall ever using it. I think it just felt weird after already getting used to the default.
> If your public method requires extensive mocking but the core logic you need to protect is isolated in a private method that requires little mocking, the most effective use of developer resources may be to just test your private method.

When I did unit tests in C++, I found a simpler (and better) solution: Shrink the class by splitting it up into multiple classes. Often the logic in the private methods could be grouped into 1-3 concepts, and it was quite logical to create classes for each of them, give them public methods, and then have an instantiation of that class as a private member.

Now all you need to do is write unit tests for those new classes.

Really, it led to code that was easier to read - the benefit was not just "easier to test". Not a single colleague (most of whom did not write unit tests) complained.

I've yet to run into a case where it was hard to test private behavior via only public methods that couldn't be solved this way.
Trying to read lodash can (to put it mildly) be difficult. Lots of code reuse.

This is probably missing checking for a bunch of corner cases, but this is the general idea:

// quick & dirty Object.groupBy
function groupBy(iterable, callbackFn) {
const out = {}
for(const [key, value] in Object.entries(iterable)) {
const name = callbackFn(value, key)
(out[name] || (out[name] = [])).push(value)
}
return out
}

I literally wrote something very like this yesterday (after checking & finding it only got added to Node 21, and deciding not to pull in a dependency).

Edit: had keyBy impl in here, fixed! Thanks commenters!
Vigilante justice has been tried many times. It doesn't work well either.
From what I can find XACE doesn't actually work all that well. e.g. [1] mentions "X Applications expect full access to X server and die when denied any access".

It's rather vague and kind of hard to find more detailed information.

I also agree with the sibling comment from tedunangst that most people just don't worry all that much about keyloggers, nor should they IMHO because it's not really a common attack vector.

[1]: https://fedorapeople.org/~dwalsh/SELinux/Presentations/sandb...
> If [the word "recall"] bothers you, contact your congressional representatives

I'm not a US citizen, so I have no congressional representatives.

This use of the word is just wrong, I don't care about the legal use precedence.

The word "recall" means "to call back, to return". And Tesla is not returning any vehicles.

They're being forced to make a software update. You can make it sound worse if you like.

But it's not a recall in any sense of returning anything anywhere.
Next Beeper Mini fix requires users to have a Mac
How effective is the LLM when used this way, compared to normally?
> 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.

Yeah, it's a fiction. An useful one, but still a sort of spherical cow in a vacuum scenario. It doesn't exactly describe real hardware.

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

Because it's a fiction. You can have slowdowns with bigger tasks on real hardware, like if you run out of L1 cache.

> Not necessarily. Modern systems have pools with independent per-core queues and clever ways of distributing work to them with minimal overhead.

True, but that's Java and this is Python. I may be wrong, but since the GIL removal is very new still, I don't expect Python to have nearly the same level of efficiency in this regard.

But I could be wrong somewhere, of course.
Basically, a monk.

"Hey we gave $750/ month to these homeless guys- yes the ones dressed in those brown rags and with that strange haircut- they were so thankful."
This is what I do for my own projects, but it's not a viable thing to do with my work projects since I don't set the style.
Sometimes we skip the congealing step and just establish a government-protected but privately-operated monopoly for a regional utility as a matter of course, and this is after decades of failure on the parts of most if not all of these monopolies when compared to similar-sized government-run utilities. Something has got to give
The entire point is that you don‘t have to constantly center the car in the lane as well as having it perfectly centered.

How is that wrong?
The housing shortage is larger than you think
I do really like Wayland personally, for my usage it is now a really solid experience. No more weird graphical glitches and really smooth gaming experience. The side project pipewire is just amazing.
I really hope that protocols for accessibility will get the attention it deserves though
The home office horrendously botched the Windrush issue - possibly maliciously - but a key factor is that Britain has historically had an unusually laissez-faire approach to immigration, residence and proof of identity. Windrush couldn't have happened in France or Germany, because they require people to register their residence and have an ID card or passport. It's really quite unusual to be able to move to a country, rent a house, get a job and use public services, all without identity documents or any real proof of your right to live in that country. We have only comparatively recently introduced a requirement to perform identity checks on prospective tenants or employees and it's still relatively straightforward to access most public services without any real proof of your identity.

There are obvious risks and downsides to identity cards and other kinds of national databases, but Windrush highlighted the downsides of not having them; Britain's decentralised and ad-hoc approach to identity allowed a lot of people to slip into a kind of legal limbo.
Should we then destroy all legal documents, for example The Magna Carta?

Museums aren't just a store of "art", museums are a way to preserve our heritage, preferably in its original form.
Being stupid is not a crime. America doesn't have enough prisons were it otherwise.
The primary use case is, according to the article, looting the public treasury for prestige and ease.
Not impossible to do both, but very few tools are built where simulation comes for "free". At least not free and real-time as of now. Maybe one day.

But I agree with you. You'd ideally reserve key moments for full control and leave simulation for the background polish (assuming your work isn't bound by a physically realistic world).
I meant per month.

Yes, that is indeed the average salary for a programmer in my area, that's the low end.
I think they show that parsing is not needed, it's a limited idealization. Why is parsing a goal?
I think `out` should be typed as a map to an array in this case; each iteration should be appending to the corresponding array instead of overwriting the entire entry.
I know this is a joke and an objectively terrible practice in many ways - but I still do this on many personal projects and the productivity boost feels amazing.

Sure, it doesn't scale and there a a host of problems with it. But I still long for the days.
Not so, unsafe code still has restrictions in Rust due to pointer provenance. You can override these restrictions but it's very much an explicit operation, the default is that pointers with incompatible provenance will not alias. This is how Rust models its equivalent to TBAA, and the concept is spreading to C/C++ as well.
>> And I think those have been ruled out by Bell's Theorem, or at least implies other very counterintuitive things have to be true instead.

Non locality seems less weird to me than any of the other interpretations of quantum mechanics. But I feel like I'm in a small minority with this. Besides, what we think about it isn't really relevant.
Hobby operating system development and dabbling in embedded / low level programming. Right now I am aiding an effort to port a DOS clone into RISC-V and ARM, we have to make 16 bit apps run on the 32 bit mode of a 64 bit ARM processor, it's a lot of fun.
Sandboxing would be nice, but very little gets sandboxed right now, so it's hard to classify it as a real need.

And the sandboxes that do get used aren't very vulnerable to X11 attacks. If you're running firefox the web process sandbox doesn't have X11 access, and by the time the rendering process gets chain-exploited it can access your files directly without needing to go through X11.
> If you have strict rules form the get go while you’re a nobody in the relevant market, then you’re free to maintain those strict rules even if you all of a sudden became a big player (although you can’t become more strict). This is in part because the assumption is that if your rules would’ve been too strict, then you would’ve never been able to become a dominant market player, because nobody would’ve wanted to deal with you.

My head hurts.
On the other hand, the issue is of grave concern vis-a-vis being on the precipice between democracy & tyranny... Maybe it's not the solution said people think it is.
Fly bys, showing off, and ferrying VIPs over the hoi polloi stuck in traffic will not be done by drones (well, maybe the flybys for the lesser people)
How many are there actually? Sorry I'm new to this particular space.
> So this controller, knowing the plane was near a fuel emergency, gave the pilots the option to either crash their plane with 240 people on board, or to divert to Oakland. This is tough for me to wrap my head around.

They weren't even close to a fuel emergency (about to become unable land with less than the 45 minute reserve fuel amount), considering they didn't even declare minimum fuel, which is the stage before emergency (enough to fly to your alternate and land there without going below reserve).

IMO the only mistake by the controller was giving them a 10 minute delay (which I didn't hear in the video, maybe it was skipped?) instead of telling them about an indefinite delay (which was in the video) without having a plan to actually slot them in. Bay Area airspace is incredibly crowded and you have traffic pipelined in all over the place, so it's pretty difficult for the controllers to increase separation for one flight without causing a cascading traffic jam.

> I don't want to blame this one controller for what is obviously a pattern of systematic failures at SFO, but I'm going to seriously consider flying into Oakland or San Jose next time if this is the attitude of the controllers there.

Considering NorCal Approach controls the sequencing for SFO, SJC, and OAK, I don't think that's going to do what you think it does.
Far more work. I wrote the X wm I'm currently using in a couple of weeks and it's a few hundred lines of code. You can get a working X WM in a few dozen lines or tens of thousands. Mine is ca. 700 at this point (floating+tiling).

I considered wlroots but the complexity is far higher and Im not in a rush to move to Wayland.
Humans are fundamentally incapable of babysitting repeptitive boring tasks that require interaction only in failure cases.

Read this repeatedly until you've answered your question.
The posting on HN may be a few months old but I still get redirected, not a post that was submitted in the past 8 hours. Or am I misunderstanding?
> The controller clears the Lufthansa jet to make a visual approach, and the Lufthansa pilot advises “due to company procedures, we are unable visual approach at nighttime”

> The controller then advises that “if that’s the case, then it will be extended delays”
I think you're just describing human nature. We can look back and see how incomplete theories about the world led to horrible acts, or to averting our eyes from those acts because we thought it was justified, or because we thought there was no better way, or out of fear.

Yet there's the prevalent sense of "this time we're getting it right".
I don't see how you can either believe or not believe, in a unit test. A unit test is what it is. It's a real thing. It exists. Use it, or don't.

How this topic can sometimes be about belief is beyond me. It's like if a person found a screw driver and says, I now believe in screw drivers.

The topic of how people believe in unit tests, to me is proof that the world is screwed. We're all screwed and everything is a screw driver.
try writing the test first
to me, using sigils for scoping rules is a completely different idea from using sigils to declare types
Your specific gripes seem reasonable (I suspect design-by-committee plays a big part), but:

> I really wish the std would drop this pretense and focus on C++'s strong point: Continue being the fastest systems language possible.

You've essentially described C, not C++. C++ has a different philosophy and makes different trade-offs.

C++ is at least still pretty committed to the you only pay for what you use principle. As far as I know RTTI is the only real exception (corrections welcome), but even RTTI can be disabled in many compilers.

Some of your gripes with the standard library can be addressed with libraries, perhaps from the Boost project.
I wouldn't call 15% "way heavier". If it's close enough that the people in the car can make up the difference then it's close enough.

Also, why compare the Cybertruck Cyberbeast to a Tacoma, the low end of a Tacoma at that? It's more comparable to a Tundra or F150. You are trying to be disingenuous with that comparison.

Now that makes me look at your math for the cars. High end to high end is less. So, just a quick check of your numbers show you're trying to twist stuff on both conclusions.
I do. I have most of my old passports (all of them since I was an adult). My wife also has all of hers (she might even have a childhood one).

You are supposed to send them back on replacement, but both countries with whom I maintain passports return them to you in an "unusable" state (mutilated).
Tell that to the current depression epidemic. The fact of the matter is people are sick and technology is to blame.
I also find vcpkg extremely fragile.

Not in that pinning versions or the APIs or the actual contents of the packages we rely on, so much that every time we update a (rather small) set of dependencies there's nearly always some weirdness around vcpkg itself or the builds.

Just the last week we updated to a newer tag and building openssl failed setting up the nasm build dependency, claiming it already existed.

Which it did - there was a "nasm" folder in the tools directory it was trying to install it in, from the last time it was installed presumably and somehow got it's internal state messed up. But this caused a fatal error. I eventually worked around it by deleting the nasm directory from every build machine and letting it reinstall exactly the same package again.

But the time before there was also a "random" build error, claiming that xz wasn't installed, despite the log showing it was just installed as a dependency in the line above. I guess this was fixed upstream, as the "workaround" was to use a tag from a month or so previous, but now seems to be fixed.

Perhaps I'm using it wrong, perhaps you should "always" completely blast away the global vcpkg folder (and any vcpkg stuff cached in build directories from it's cmake integration) every time you touch it. But it's still time and effort for something that probably should be seamless.
I thought that was going to be awesome because of the name. So disappointed lol.

For those who don’t know this name, even if you’ve seen it, here is an great discussion about it:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/30/roadshow-gasp-clearin...

> No. During a flashing red, a driver may proceed if the pedestrian/bicycle rider has cleared their lanes of travel.

(And people are deeply confused about this: https://www.reddit.com/r/phoenix/comments/brqwbc/reminder_fl...)

> Drivers should always use caution while passing a HAWK signal as a pedestrian or bicyclist may fail to push the activation button and begin to cross.

How? What? Who designs things like this?
An equally likely outcome:

"What is your mother's maiden name?"

"Oh, some random collection of letters and numbers... I think there was an a and a d in it?"

"Ah, okay, what info or money do you want?"
> We block VPNs to prevent spam and abuse. If you are using a VPN, please disable it to access Perplexity.