skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'd say (clarify?) that giving an answer to "What's the BEAM languages' FFI situation like?" is more complicated than actually using most of these options. Once you choose one, implementation ranges from "trivial" to "a little obscure".

Ports just wrap executables you can feed STDIN to and get STDOUT from in order to treat those streams as messages. You make one with one line of code, they behave just like any BEAM process. (you can message them, kill them, etc). If your goal is to use an existing DLL, this involves some C glue code, which looks like what you'd do if you wanted to be able to call the DLL functions in a bash script (take in STDIN, translate strings to appropriate types, call function, return strings to STDOUT).

The erl_interface option is using that library to replace the "translate to/from strings" task with "translate to/from BEAM types". Still a fair amount of glue code for "I want to call this DLL function", but I feel like it should be possible to codegen a lot of it. That might exist already, and if it doesn't it sounds like the kind of fun project I might pick up.

C nodes are using erl_interface to its fullest, defining a full blown BEAM node with one or more processes running on it in C. In practice, this means you can send messages to other BEAM processes, rather than going through an intermediary Port process. It's definitely the most involved option, but it's well documented (like everything else in OTP).

Port drivers free you from the concept of messages within the (even smaller) C code: You make a DLL (that links your target DLL) that provides some mapping information and some dispatch code, then in your BEAM language handle all the "send/receive messages" stuff associated with being a BEAM process. The BEAM node crashing if the library crashes is rightfully considered a significant issue, but it's worth noting that we only care about that so much because the BEAM spoils us with much better safety normally. In any other programming language, a crash in your linked library would probably be expected to cause your entire application to crash, whereas in BEAM land we can even mitigate this by putting our risky code on a different BEAM node, running on the same or different machine, to limit our blast radius.

NIFs allow you to present your C DLL function call as a normal, synchronous BEAM function call. They require the least C glue code, but if any of those calls take more than a millisecond or so you start getting into "thar be dragons" territory on the clean scheduler, or require the use of the dirty scheduler which slows everything else down.

Ultimately, the punchline to all this is that if you want to call an existing shared library from the BEAM, you're going to have to write some amount of C, ranging from "a couple lines per function you want to call" to "defining a small runtime that handles dispatch based on strings".
Messing Ads with Search result is just ridiculous of the stupidity of human i've seen.

In a decade, i never see any actual useful Ads results to worth it.

If you want to show ads, make a dedicated Ads page, and i'll go there to browse your Ads, right ?

I go to your search page to search, to save my time, not to waste my time to ignore those useless Ads.
> Although, the joke you tell your friends is that it only works if they open their mouth and stick out their tongue like a satellite dish.

I cannot wait to trick someone into doing this
It may be illogical from a strictly individual point of view. But from a broader societal view we'd all be better off if we did it and it is pro-social and pro-civic to be willing to sacrifice a little of your personal convenience to make a point like this. Nothing but nothing will get Boeing's attention like what is essentially an end-customer strike.

In general quite a lot of the chains wrapped around us that drive so many people to complain are really only kept there by raw personal selfish convenience. To be clear, I am absolutely not saying that they are not real as a result. They are perfectly real. But in many cases they are still really nothing more than personal convenience holding you. For instance, as I write this, almost all of the dangers of smart phones can be kept at bay just by refusing the conveniences. (Not quite all. But really quite a lot of them.)

We'd all be better off if there were more of us willing to take this kind of stand, and by that standard, it is Vulcan-grade logical.
In 2010, an Airbus A380 engine exploded. The fact that it landed safely was a miracle. [1] In 2017, an Airbus A380 lost an engine (literally, fell off the plane). [2] In 2018, a cockpit windshield blew out in an Airbus A319. [3]

Don't get me wrong, the culture at Boeing has changed (for the worse). The 737 Max is not without issues. It's horrific that hundreds have died due to both ignorance and deception on behalf of Boeing.

But Airbus isn't some sort of flawless golden goose either. Any time something like this happens, failure modes are identified and things will get safer.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_32

[2] https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/news/the-latest/photos-airb...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sichuan_Airlines_Flight_8633
> But where does the prejudice of "designers only care about visuals" come from?

This isn't prejudice, it's just observed factual reality in the world. The entire flat UI thing came about as a fashion, and had as its consequences the removal of affordances (scroll bars, buttons that were clearly buttons, etc.) You might not like that people question it, but it's nevertheless a thing that happened and is still happening.
> strange choice for the robot keyboard

There's probably a lot more Christians talking about Calvary than there are military historians talking about an obsolete horse unit. Although it does seem like if it's uncapitalized it's likely to be military horses and not geographical locations. I bet trying to optimize autocorrect is a fun challenge!
> Spirit AeroSystems which also makes components for Airbus

True, but the main Spirit Aerosystems factories making Airbus components are in the UK, except for "central section panels" of the A350, which are made in the USA.

The British factories used to be BAE and Bombardier factories, so it's very possible for there to be different working methods, culture etc.

https://www.spiritaero.com/company/programs/
I wish Apple would let you do it with old iPads. I know there are apps you can use but it’s a notably inferior experience to a dedicated frame.

I have a second generation (I think) iPad mini that can barely run most web sites and has an OS version too old for most apps. Would be a great boost to Apple’s claims for caring about the environment.
Depends what you measure. To keep things grounded in reality we can use measures involving “things about planes that airline customers universally consider bad”: the number of people killed by a model or the number of passenger items ejected from the plane during the flight.
I think being "20 years old" in this context is more about "20 years ago". Where are the successful young 20yo founders in 2024? Recent golden-child SBF is 31 and ran a failed crypto scam! It would be unhealthy to misinterpret "youth" and "economic golden age" as the same thing. It is purely a coincidence that they may coincide for some generations.
Everybody agrees that FAA is not what it used to be, these days the Boeing engineers are basically self-certifying their planes.

So what's irrational in not believing that 737 Max is safe?
> if you personally drove a new car off the lot and the door fell off you would not believe that quality were unchanged from your prior impression of that car company

As a layman, no. Were I looking for more than a Twitter level of analysis, it would be an indication for investigation. Not grounds for conclusion.

More directly, even as a layman, if I were to use that anecdote as grounds to condemn the state of car manufacturing in summa, that would be irrational.

> NTSB suspects 4 bolts were never screwed in

Source? Last I saw, they couldn't find the bolts. It takes lab work to ascertain whether they ever existed.
I encourage you to read the site guidelines about commenting - because of how you've written comments, asked "What does it mean to be flagged for it?", and wrote this comment I'm guessing you're not familiar with them. A large problem seems to be that you don't understand what you are seeing or how the site works, and are leaping to uninformed conclusions.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

If you have knowledge about the technology, I hope you will share it. You've posted three-ish comments that share only a tiny amount:

* This comment (and others in this thread), which contributes nothing to the discussion, degrades the dialog generally, and violates site guidelines.

* "Why?"

* A comment that leaps to a negative interpretation of someone else's comment and criticizes them, though also does provide some knowledge: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38923926
Do you know what current limitations of residential geothermal are? From looking at https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/geothermal-heat-pumps it looks like you'd need quite a bit of space, so basically single family homes with somewhat of a yard.

For bigger setups it would make more sense to capture the heat locally and distribute them to a whole neighborhood given how much deeper it would need to go.
What are you talking about, that's one of the most beautiful planes ever built.
Come on, Isn't Android, the mobile OS, optimized for always on devices?
I have mine! https://sancoderr.netlify.app/links/
It would probably take less capital/expertise to make a space rocket at this point then a airplane. There is so much red tape that unless you buy an existing airplane company you're probably never going to get sales. US gov has proven it will protect Boeing with massive tariffs if anyone besides Airbus threatens it, means you cannot sell to US companies. So you'd have to start with EU probably, and there is a fair number of established players already.
The beauty of being a regulator is that you have a lot of leeway when it comes to interpreting your rules. Apples disrespectful approach is certainly not going down well and even if it is intended play for time will cost them more than they gain.
I was watching a video, I believe this one (https://youtu.be/WhfK9jlZK1o?si=goQBueaF-5So3U0X) that seemed to make the case that due to the door design it is much less likely, if not impossible, for the presumed failure here to occur at cruising altitude because of the higher pressure differential.

There's a reason they tell you to always wear your seatbelt though, ranging from sudden turbulence/downdraft to sudden depressurization.
LoRA is very neat, been playing with Meshtastic lately a bit - only downside is how fucking chatty it is, which makes it very easy to perform direction finding / trilateration using something like a KrakenSDR (or just a normal SDR and a directional antenna).

At some point I’d like to mess with trying to do “burst” comms over LoRA, maybe meshtastic can be fiddled with to act in this manner - where it only actually sends RF traffic when it has something to say.
Have had the same experience with them. Every time I see the job title and read the description I think wow that's perfect for me but then it is just the same reject letter or crickets. If they're looking for way more experience they should just say so.
We can't figure out how the Egyptians built the pyramids (although there are theories), but we definitely know how to build pyramids. It's fairly easy if anyone wants to pay for one.
I've definitely gone off and studied the wrong thing and learned a bunch of stuff that wasn't on the test and done poorly on it as a result. Didn't stop me from getting a degree, but skipping ahead a few chapters and learning that instead and then failing a test on the chapters you skipped is what "learning too much" looks like.
I was looking to purchase this, I see it is on Steam and GOG but no Linux support.
I hope that is planned in the future!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontrolled_decompression

Look at causes of explosive decompression - look at the mass increase to add windows' struct infra to weight and mass to a plane, look at explosive bolts for emergencies

* Explosive decompression is the most dangerous, and can cause severe injuries or death. It is caused by a sudden and catastrophic failure of the pressure vessel, such as a window blowing out or a structural failure.

* Rapid decompression is less dangerous than explosive decompression, but can still cause serious injuries. It is caused by a more gradual loss of pressure, such as a door being left open or a seal failing.he cowling on the window failed. It was due to poor quality control for the extra mass around the window housings on plugs - the extra mass due to the pull and (IN ADDITION) the patsy ois on bolts.

They dont use explosive bolts in aircraft plugs, apparently, but yeah - this wasnt just bolts. Its a procedural impact, installation impact AND faulty materials QA in componentry.

My bet is on faulty adhesives or faulty QA on bolts.

I am pretty sure BOLTS in a plug door are a ruse UNLESS one can prove that window assembly procedures are either by the same company, the same process, or the same QA from multi-vendors.

Rule that out first.

An explosive decompression will not happen unless a single core seal will break....

Look T THE PASSENGER MANIFEST FOR THIS FLIGHT... look at MH370...

And if you want a mind F - look at Facebooks Husband who died in that flight to mexico....

If you look at the similarities, large numbers of high-tech company execs were taken out when those two crashed....

Who was on this manifest?

AI execs? Who lived.... So just give a list of professions of the passenger manifest. (Yes, aware no deaths - who could have? Who were to folks that missed that flight?)

If a singular bolt was faulty - it wouldnt have been an explosive decomp

It would have been a leak.

Explosive at 10K feet is FF attack level "first priority"

(PS they already ruled IN that they use differing contractors to produce certain parts such as plug doors.

How secure are those?
> Intel's 80386 processor was the first to include memory management hardware and thus be capable of running a full UNIX operating system

That's not correct. The 80286 had sufficient memory management hardware for full Unix. What it did not have was sufficient memory management hardware for reasonable demand paging, but it was fine for swapping systems.

AT&T USG has a port of System V Release 2 for 80286, for example. There was also Xenix, which has enough licensed code in it from AT&T that I'd count it as a Unix.

There was also System V Release 3 fro 80286, but I don't think that was ever released. When AT&T was developing SVR3 for their own 3B line of processors they wanted to also port it to Intel processors. They hired Interactive Systems Corporation (ISC) to do that, with the contract calling for porting to both 80286 and 80386.

I worked at ISC at the time and was on the 80286 port team. We did get it working, but where having problems getting the scheduler to behave reasonably under heavy load.

Somewhere in the middle of trying to figure out what the heck was going on with the scheduler, we and AT&T realized (1) 80386 was so much better than 80286 that a lot of 80286 Unix users would upgrade to 80386 systems, and (2) those that are happy with the 80286 Unix systems and not planning on leaving 80286 probably would not find upgrading from SVR2 to SVR3 to be worth the effort. It wasn't all that clear that there was much of a market for 80286 SVR3.

The 80286 port was then dropped. I was moved to work on the 80386 port and also to a newly formed team to add support for running 80286 SVR2 binaries on 80386 SVR3. That was a fun project. Kind of like Wine, but easier because (1) it was just going from SVR2 Unix to SVR3 Unix instead of Windows to Unix, and (2) we had full source code to SVR2 and SCR3 unlike the Wine developers who don't have Windows source.
I wouldn’t consider academics and technologists to be the “elite” in a societal sense. I’m talking about the people that go to Ivy League schools and make up positions in top companies and government organizations.

For example: the New York Times ran an editorial in the 90s about how the internet would have a similar effect to fax machines. They are an elite organization and didn’t care about the internet much then. Now, twenty five years later, they do care a lot about what’s on the internet.
To me the interesting part of an e-ink frame is that it wouldn't require any battery/cables (otherwise you might as well just get a regular digital frame)

I would love if there were a product where you just program the frame with a picture once by plugging it into your phone and using an app

Then you never worry about batteries/cables and you can always change the image later

To me that is the killer app
DeepFlow – open-source eBPF Distributed Tracing
> Nobody is saying that this isn’t a serious fuckup

TIL half the people commenting here are nobody :)
Amazon is trying to fix content casting with an open standard
For residential purposes it seems to only require a depth of <2m [1]. Is moving dirt here a main cost?

[1] https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/geothermal-heat-pumps
> it doesnt reduce peak need

Residential solar doesn't use batteries?
There's also a weird consolidation going on in what are traditionally mom-and-pop style "trade" industries. E.g., a significant portion of the individual contractor Co. vans you see driving around could be owned (or at least partially owned) by the same private equity outfit. Thus, prices and supply can be "managed" to the detriment of the consumer. I think it will be a few years or possibly a decade before state/local/federal governments catch on to what is happening here.
Let's agree to disagree then.

FWIW, people selling copies of Vinyls and cassettes on blank cassettes were no real threat to the distribution business of a music label. Even people copying CDs didn't harm them that much, because their reach and scale was always limited.

They only got engaged when the scale increased (mass-copying of content).

But when MP3 hit, every single upload was threatening their global distribution business, because suddenly someone was distributing for free.

> The widespread availability of master tape grade digital content was an enabler as well

The Quality of content didn't matter for the disruption of the business, a huge amount of popular music on Napster/LimeWire/AudioGalaxy/... was actually recorded from Radio,.

If cassettes were the peak media and pirated digital content would have been limited to recordings from cassettes, yet still distributed globally by every kid from everywhere on the planet who gets hold of ONE tape, the wheels would have been set in motion just the same.
Thanks! I'll give it a try. There's some various dictionaries I can recommend later, maybe in a GitHub issue.
Hey! What a cool collection of links.
It's a perfect HN rabbit hole!
If two people make opposite predictions, but only one is willing to bet on theirs, they shouldn't be treated the same.
While I'm sure this is great as a nerd project, I can't imagine giving someone this as a gift over, say, a $30 digital picture frame which is better and more functional in basically every way.
This is a really neat idea to explore any relational DB.
Some of the clever ways these LLMs are being used as a chat interface to information systems are really cool!
Fun and all but the data isn’t necessarily accurate, or it’s only checking for MAX-9, as I looked up a MAX-8 that just landed and it said it wasn’t (which is true, it wasn’t MY flight, so gotcha?:))

If this is an actual concern you have, look up the flight on your day of travel to see what equipment you will most likely have and react accordingly.

As a fan of the TV documentary “Air Disasters” I’m more afraid of the software and the people than the hardware, and my confidence in air travel has only risen after watching dozens of episodes.
I don't remember exactly when, but I remember some point a while back where Quora started incentivizing users to ask and answer questions, and users responded by creating tons of low-effort arithmetic questions (like, on the order of "what is two plus three"). I don't know offhand exactly what they did to stop it, but it was a half measure at best.

Once the dam broke and "stupid questions" were accepted, it was only a matter of time until it ended up right where Yahoo Answers used to be.
5 is the version, but has been the current version for 26 years by now. I should have said the first releases of V5 or whatever they are called.

That's not to say there hasn't been a version 6 at some point, but the most recent version is still 5.
Python is designed to be "boring" (in other words, straightforward and easy to understand). It is admittedly less so, now that it has gained many features since the 2.x days, but it is still part of its pedigree that it is supposed to be teachable as a beginner language.

It is still the only beginner language that is also an industrial-strength production language. You can learn Python as your first language and also make an entire career out of it. That can't really be said about the currently "hyped" languages, even though those are very fun and cool and interesting!
> Are you less safe on a 737 MAX than driving to the airport in a car?

I don't think that's a meaningful comparison. The 737 MAX problems are related to the airplane itself. The dangers of driving are mostly related to the performance of the drivers, not the cars themselves.
As a plane nerd my entire life, I have to say that in my humble opinion, there is no such thing as an ugly airplane.

And then I clicked through the link. Oh, wow.
No need to be confrontational, I'm not opposed to FDR/CVR streaming. I just dislike solutions to problems that have already been solved, and we were just pointing out that starlink does not bring anything to the table vs. ADS-B, radars, and inmarsat.
For millions of people living in poverty and homeless around the world and in the US itself, the capitalism system is a failure. Point. Now, you and lots of other people may be benefiting, but there is no point in saying it is a success when literally millions out there have been left out in the cold by this supposedly great system. This is true of any system that will let a large proportion of the planet living in misery for so long. There is no point in celebrating wealth for the few and misery for so many.
I don’t see a single comment chain in the top 10 that meets your description, yet for some reason your topic-detailed is on top.
Aviation is safe, the design and production of the 737 MAX is sloppier than most current aircrafts. Better compare to other aircrafts than to cars or bicycles. ;-)
Absolutely.

I'm usually careful to couch things in terms of "It has been my experience," etc.
It has a serious competitor? Airbus is equal if not higher in market share.
Not everything is a conspiracy. Sometimes users just prefer faster, better advertised, better supported software. To suggest Google is actively and wilfully interfering with <3% of browser market share is just so ridiculous, so foolish, it is actually amusing.
You really don’t seem to understand that one can observe things separately from passing judgment on them. It’s a basic principle of science. I don’t know why you seem to have such a hard time understanding this, but judging by your hostile remarks in every comment, you just want to argue.

And in case this isn’t already crystal clear (and apparently it isn’t for you): I like books. I like reading. I have studied the history of the printing press and the book much, much more you have, I assure you. I find the transition of technology fascinating and think the internet and video is a similar revolution to the printing press. That is what my comment is about, not your puerile attempt to make me seem like I don’t like reading.