skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> but surely he knows that he can’t manage the infotainment system as a passenger.

If he's spent a lot of time in Jamaica he may have a "well somebody needs to fix this" attitude - which can also come from having a military background.

I live in a large state (3x size of Texas) with a small population (bit over 2 million) and people here pitch in in to fix stuff fairly often (bridges out, floods, fires, push trains aside to free trapped legs).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YORxs9E2Ex0

What's missing here is the nature of the interaction, was it amiable, why did Delta staff circle round on him when he started writing a complaint, why was he complaining in any case (was it because his help was refused, or because he was complaining it was broken).

EDIT: In my earlier comment s/ASAF/USAF/ <doh>
It’s not a flaw from Elsevier’s perspective to discourage authors from releasing free pre-prints.
If one was well-versed in memory management and how the stack would blow up in production one would not have to repeat them here.

Also, if you have to justify cleverness, it’s not clever. Don’t defend the style by grandstanding on “functional is better” or “you don’t know func bro”, how about ask why I feel the imperative style is more legible? Why would this not be the best way to write this? Where can I write this way? Or even “I find this style to be legible to me, but I’m curious about why you think it’s not”.
On-die ECC is not ECC memory. On-die ECC only corrects certain errors (e.g. not transport errors), and is absolutely necessary with DDR5 else such errors would be intolerably frequent.

True DDR5 ECC memory exists, and is not hard to find—just look for “server” RAM.
> Current Science is mostly cargo cult.

Such statements are mostly cargo cult.

Experiments with known results are finicky.

See: "Electron Band Structure In Germanium, My Ass"
https://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~kovar/hall.html

Experiments with unknown results are ridiculously finicky.

You would be stunned at the number of experiments that got lucky and hinge on things like "how strongly stoppered the bottle is" (this normally manifests as "give it to grad student so-and-so as he somehow always makes it work even though the rest of you suck"). Unless you actively attempt to replicate an experiment you simply will not trip over this.

This isn't to say that there isn't real fraud--there is. However, even when everybody is fully aboveboard and cooperating, replication is ridiculously hard.

This isn't limited to science. Any company that tries to replicate a manufacturing line trips over this, too. Suddenly, a whole bunch of variables that you didn't even conceive of affect your results.

Go to an injection molding conference and prepare to laugh until you cry over how uncontrolled everything is.
I'm not a Common Lisp expert, but so far, I dislike the LOOP macro specifically because of its complex syntax compared to other Lisp macros and constructs.

The DO macro is complex, but I'm pretty sure Emacs will write something like this at the bottom of your screen if you have ElDoc enabled. (I'm not at my computer right now, so this is just me writing from memory).

(do ((var init step)...) (condition value) &body)

You're right that this isn't as good as actual autocomplete like in IDEs, though.
Can you tell me the dates of the protests where you heard students chanting "Jews should be killed"?
What data do you have to support that?

Because I certainly don't get that impression at all, and it doesn't seem like anyone else in this thread does either, so do you have some polling, or maybe NLP analysis of comments? Of course you're entitled to your impressions, but so are the rest of us.
2023 wasn't the best for me, but I did manage to do the one thing I really said I would. I finally released publicly my first side project after years of just working on ideas or focusing on work-stuff.

Even better, the "launch" went great [1] and gave me the necessary boost to keep at it!

It took lots of late and endless nights, much experimenting and tinkering, but I kept reminding myself to keep it minimal and just have it work.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38155544
Previewing the new HEY Calendar [video]
Eighthed - @dang is so responsive with emails too.
It depends upon what you mean by "a one-dimensional array".

In the C or Fortran sense, it's easy to work with individual elements of the array, but not so much the array as a whole.

(in the example above, both y and x;y;z are values in the monoid, conceptually at the same level, like "f" and "foo" are both strings despite one being length-1, and like 5 and 60 are both numbers despite one being prime)

In more recent, but still algol-like, languages, it's possible to work with slices of arrays as well as individual elements, but often these slices are views backed by physical arrays, so slices and arrays are similar but still not equivalent.

In array languages (the APL family), there is very little difference, as it is perfectly natural to treat entire arrays (or parts of them) as values and prepend or append them to each other.

(pedantry: these languages go well beyond the 1D model and allow N-dimensional cubical structures; after they started to allow ragged structures as well they came much closer to the tree-orientation of LISP-likes)

As stated earlier, I think of whiteboard pens (snapping top to bottom, resulting in something equally snappable), or the bytestreams that flow through Unix pipes, where there is always a before and an after but nesting isn't part of the basic deal.

I believe many things in CS are best treated (involved fewer arbitrary decisions) as monoids and semilattices and interactions between these structures, but because of tradition we try to attack them with lists and sets, then wind up mired in accidental complexity trying to remove layers of nesting that would never have occurred had we started with simpler representations. (eg if you feel the need to invent a "programmable semicolon" to ensure that all your lists get flattened as-you-go or the need to make "samefringe" break free of normal stack discipline, you may well make great strides in implementing Haskell or Go, but you may also be doing work which could have been completely avoided [ok, at least abstracted away] by a different choice of representation)

Finally, note that this whole digression was due to the (in my view "accidental") problem of unquote-splicing: using monoids (a) removes the need for two unquote forms, but (b) doesn't prevent anyone from expressing their computed SGML fragments via a monoid of tree values; a "forest" if you will.
Completely at odds with the techno-optimist manifesto which requires complete transparency in all transactions.
Findpapers
WASM runs in v8 on Chrome. If you have to implement the bytecode for one, it should work for both. Chrome used to have semantic tail calls for JS implemented too.

FF runs WASM on Spidermonkey. If the security model is broken by JS, there's not a great reason to believe it won't also be broken for the same JIT when running WASM.
Another happy N100 mini PC user. Mine's about 7W when idle, including a couple of spinning USB drives. The most I could get it to pull was about 14W. Really remarkable little systems for a very good price.
>Presuming the allegations are true, I find it interesting that it went unaddressed for so long.

Multiple German politicians have been forced to resign decades after their dissertations, with similar accusations. It seems like it is a case of rising to a point of public renown that then leads to greater public scrutiny. In some cases, I wonder if it a fake-it-until-you-make-it situation that upon making it, causes the house of cards to collapse.
The same ai tools that ironically aid in plagiarism and inability to give credit to their sources.
I wasn’t even going to dive into the allocations and garbage this style brings but it’s orders of magnitude slower, with more garbage created, disposed of, than a simple if statement. I’m glad you opened the can of worms. There are times when this doesn’t matter. Reading a config json, or performing your startup bootstrap, but if this was executed during a request or during a frame then you’re going to have a bad time.
Implicit tail-call elimination outside the context of tail-recursive algorithms causes behavior that is surprising to programmers working in languages where stack traces are used for debugging (i.e. it removes frames from the stack and obscures the path of execution).
> The college system in the US works well.

> > From an educational standpoint, this is arguable, as most students are forced to take classes unrelated to their area of study simply to fill out a the credit requirements.

The point of this is to help round out an education. I started and finished my college career as a science student, but in the middle I switched to humanities. I witnessed an extraordinary difference in the ability to clearly articulate ideas between those areas which really highlighted for me the value in requiring a curriculum beyond just a student’s chosen major.
As an academic, the real surprise for me is how thin her publication record is. At my institution someone with only 11 papers would be considered early career, not president material. (I do realize that different fields have different metrics of success.)
Lift is caused by the change in momentum of the air deflected by the wing, and is proportional to the velocity, while the energy required to move the air is proportional to the square of the velocity. For a given amount of lift, a larger wing moves more air, but gives it a smaller change in velocity, so requires less energy.

i.e. large slow wings are more efficient than small, fast wings; large slow propellors are more efficient than small, fast propellors. Two large flapping wings are more efficient than four small, fast propellers.
Does Turnitin not meet your standards?
Advocates celebrate new towing industry rules to curb turf wars in ON, Canada
I bought a QNAP about a decade ago under the same assumption, but my experiences [0] there means I'm unlikely to buy a SOHO-level storage appliance ever again.

The tl;dr of my rant was around shortcomings in NFS permission configuration, and a failure of the iSCSI feature (the appliance crashed when you sent it data).

Further, these appliances invariably use vanilla RAM sticks, so you're exposed to gentle memory-based file corruption you probably won't notice for years.

So I'd argue the hardware is 'better equipped', and I'd also argue the software as shipped matches the marketing promises accompanying same.

Things have doubtless changed - I'm sure those bugs are long gone now - but unless you're looking at an ECC appliance, I'd say you're better off building your own white box.

[0] https://jeddi.org/b/brief-rant-on-trying-to-use-iscsi-on-a-q...
Given how difficult it is to know what’s true in some of these fields and what’s fiction, that might be a pretty good rate. I think the bigger question is why is fraud and sloppy work so important? Maybe the incentive structure of academia is the actual problem and the peer review system is an imperfect, but perhaps effective, control? What’s the alternative to peer review?
>I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. When you multiply two fp32 values, and the result is rounded, the answer is not exact, even if the inputs were.

I'm not talking about two fp32 values. I'm not talking about multiplying. I'm talking about repeating a value. If a wire was once 2.1234 volts, I turn it off, can i replicate the 2.1234 volts again exactly? No. There's noise. Repeating is NOT multiplying.

>If you repeat the process and produce the same rounded number, it’s still not exact and never will be. I didn’t claim analog circuits produce exact numbers, you’re not understanding me and constructing straw men.

Dude, you wrote this verbatim: "Oh my, no. Exact number is a term that makes a statement about precision and error, and repeatable is not." You said that "exact" has nothing to do with repeatable. I am Responding to an INCORRECT statement you made. Stay on topic.

>Disagree.

Sure find me an alternative example. I don't mean what I said "exactly", I mean in it in the sense that the overwhelming majority of cases analog isn't practical. I'm sure there's some obscure niche examples where it's preferrable but the case against it is so overwhelming you're going to having a hard time finding one.

Either way you haven't given me a legit example of an analog computer in a legit practical application.
The post upthread proposed changing that, yes?
One could conceivably enjoy attending CMU without lionizing Andrew {Carnegie or Mellon},
It was (and probably still is) quite common to hire a cracker to remove the DRM from industrial equipment software to prevent any downtime it causes; of course that's not a life-support application, and the motive was that downtime for such machinery is often very costly.

Of course with the recent Polish train debacle (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38788360) stories of DRM schemes where incomplete defeat causes subtly worse behaviour (rather common in games), and the ability to engineer a system with plausible deniability in mind, like some of Apple's hardware-locking attempts, one does wonder whether medical devices may have such logic bombs too.
It looks like an interesting list and I've bookmarked it to read some of the articles myself; thanks for sharing!
Trackpoint is brilliant, you can leave your fingers on the home row. I don't see how anybody could use a trackpad after using a trackpoint for a couple days, which is all it takes to get used to one.
? Your comments aren't clear which is why they are being downvoted.
"The language is quite strict in its use of spaces and indentation."

Not this again. Please stop.

Code structure should be explicitly denoted with brackets or whatever. Code formatting is cosmetic, can be applied automatically, and serves as a 'double-entry book-keeping' type check on the structure coded in characters - ie you can easily spot structure errors by pretty-printing.
honestly that has made me double think the definition of friendship. they say you know people in hardships. well, I got to know some of my supposed friends when they went on the job market this year and were acting like jerks. after they got jobs, they turned back to normal. but I don't think of them the same as before anymore.
Another one (smaller scale though): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq3ZHvEaHrk (via https://metalhead.club/@media_dept@mastodon.social/111677284...)
It isn't just her plagiarism.

She has a very thin scholarly record. https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2022/12/16/the-president-ha...

That this this thin record which she has, is apparently partially contaminated
This is the magic of broadcast media oligopolies.

There was a co-presence signal, but it had a 12-24 hour delay. It was called "the water cooler." You quickly learned what everyone else was watching and if you had picked the wrong network for that timeslots.
I find myself checking HN on parties, incl. this NY event with lots of people. but there is always time to check HN.

HNY, all HN!
This was actually a fun little game.
It opens a tiny window into what a whole pile of HN types seem to deal with.
Especially interesting for those of us not directly in computer development.
Everything old is new again:

https://dustyoldthing.com/great-depression-hobo-code/
Traditionally tech workers and lawyers have been careers with incredibly low union membership. Very much an example of the "labor aristocracy" that companies and the government seem to be proletarianizing at their own risk.
You are very agressive, I agree that times has changed but there could he a peaceful transition, killing people and talking about civilization seems like a contradiction. I am only based on your comment.
Sorry for the slow reply, this is very helpful - thank you.
Oh my God, they were called newspapers and magazines, and this industry killed them.
I'm with you. What I realized is when you take the lead and throw a party or happy hour at a bar or something, your social status increases as well. Most people are followers, few are leaders. If you feel lonely because you don't get invited to parties or events, it might be that they don't think of you as a fellow-follower. It could be that you're actually the leader type and could benefit from that.
I did a little 'war-driving", mostly just to feel part of the scene. At that point I'd never met anyone, knowingly, who used Linux. I was running Slackware, installed on 7 or 8 diskettes, on a Pentium-S ThinkPad. I only found the APs, never cracked them.

I have once seen warchalk showing an open wifi point (in a city in the UK).

This would be pre-2005 fwiw.
Please see the comments at 7:30 and then look the guy up. He founded Google’s quantum lab.
Xero Shoes: Steven Sashen and Lena Phoenix
GitHub repositories with links to academic papers ... (2022)
End to end: for your typical web app/stack:

Browser test: front end -> api -> db, full transaction life cycle inter coverage of the whole interface (crud operations).

Mobile: same as browser...

API tests: test client -> api -> db, full transaction lifecycle, should give coverage to the backend. It isn't the job of a browser test to hit every variant of every endpoint however, they should all be exercised from the front end.

You should be calling out to as many actual running services durning E2E testing, the system should behave in this environment the same way it will in production. NO mocks no synthetics, "full" data paths.

Unit testing:

Validation screams for "unit test". Does your "email" field allow for + encoding? Do you have frontend CC validation (does the card number hash) vs back end where it "auths" the card (auth is outside the scope of a unit). None of these sorts of test should need a mock. We're not faking another part of our stack (those should be end to end tests). Does that mean you should NEVE mock, and have "full" unit tests, no. But they should be sparse, for those things that have to be hard to understand or are complex (business "logic").

The bonus is you also have a wet blanket for scaling issues (if you do it right). Need to refactor or re-platform a service/endpoint? The tests are agnostic from the code, and you should have a "thin" set of unit tests to port!
I also have my steam deck on my tailnet via `services.tailscale.enable = true` on NixOS.

I might have to do a comparison of NixOS and bazzite since bazzite has me curious.
What exactly did she plagiarize and where? Politics doesn't influence the severity of plagiarism.

> When my peers are found responsible for multiple instances of inadequate citation, they are often suspended for an academic year.

It would also help if the author or someone could give examples of specific instances and their punishments including this one (with the student anonymous and assignment vague enough that it's not identifying).

---

Accidental plagiarism is real plagiarism, but in practice, not a big deal. Even a few instances like "two sentences from the acknowledgement section of her dissertation", over a 100+ page dissertation and 11 journal entries, seem OK to me. I'm in academia, still I probably don't know very much, but my understanding is that individual violations like this often end up with lost points, not even a 0 on the assignment. The author mentions that repeat violations carry harsher penalties, but doesn't mention that the next violation is usually made after the student has been cited for the previous one.

On the other hand, just because someone went out of their way to hunt down an instance of plagiarism, doesn't mean it should be downplayed. If she ever intentionally plagiarized, then I agree with the author. Or even if she only accidentally plagiarized, but it was several egregious instances like paragraphs copied verbatim, I'm also inclined to agree (then she's not malicious, but incompetent).
>”Man, why do you gotta call me out like this?”

Because you lose the stack trace most of the time. Only God and you know where the Uncaught PromiseRejection happened. It’s just really hard to debug when things go south. This drives me bonkers with the AWS sdk.
> The issue is that many more papers should be retracted.

The reality is we don't know. Should it be more than 8 out of 10,000? Almost certainly, since quite a lot of papers barely get any attention after publication.

But should the number be 10 out of 10,000? 20 out of 10,000? 100 out of 10,000? We don't know.

And boring papers without any interesting conclusions published just for CV reasons also don't really matter, and the 10,000 figure is also wrong, and we also don't really know what the correct value for that figure is.
Here’s a really in 2017 in which white nationalists didn’t chant “non-whites should be killed”.

All they chanted was “you will not replace us”.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-40911744

In Harvard’s case, nobody chanted “kill all Jews”. All they chanted was “from the river to the sea”.
I was directly addressing the «saturate» part of the statement, not memory becoming the bottleneck. Since builds are inherently parallel nowadays, saturating the memory bandwidth is very easy since each CPU core runs a scheduled compiler process (in the 1:1 core to process mapping scenario), and all CPU cores suddenly start competing for memory access. This is true for all architectures and designs where memory is shared. The same reasoning does not apply to NUMA architectures but those are nearly entirely non-existant apart from certain fringe cases.

Linking, in fact, whilst benefitting from faster/wider memory is less likely to result in the saturation unless the linker is heavily and efficiently multithreaded. For insance, GNU ld is single threaded, gold is multi-threaded but Ian Taylor has reported very small performance gains from the use of multithreading in gold, and mold takes the full advantage of the concurrent processing. clang's lld is somewhere in between.

In M1/M2/M3 Max/Ultra, the math is a bit different. Each performance core is practically capped at the ~100Gb/sec memory transfer speed. Then the cores are organised into core clusters of n P and m E cores, and each core cluster is capped at the ~240Gb/sec speed. The accumulative memory transfer is ~400Gb/sec (800Gb/sec for the Ultra setup) for the entire SoC, but that is also shared with GPU, ANE and other compute acceleration cores/engines. Since each core cluster has multiple cores, a large parallel compilation process can saturate the memory bandwidth easily.

Code optimisation and type inference in strongly statically typed languages with polymorphic types (Haskell, Rust, ML and others) are very memory intensive, esp. at scale. There are multiple types of optimisation and most of them are of either the constraint solving or NP completeness type, but the code inlining coupled with the inter-procedural optimisations require very large amounts of memory on large codebases, and there are other memory bound optimisation techniques as well. Type inference for polymorphic types in the Hindley–Milner type system is also memory intensive due to having to maintain a large depth (== memory) in order to be able to successfully deduce the type. So it is not entirely unfathomable that «~8 bytes per cycle/core between L2 and the RAM on average» is rather modest for a highly optimising modern compiler.

In fact, I am of the opinion that the inadequate computing hardware coupled with the severe memory bandwidth and capacity constraints was a major technical contributing factor that led to the demise of the Itanium ISA (coupled with less advanced code optimisers of the day).