skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I certainly didn't mean my comment to be snarky. However, I do want to be realistic. There's an exception for every guideline. Maybe yours is that exception. I worked at a company like you described, where we had a few tens of thousands of users, but were actively in talks with a partner that would have given us international press, and who would have taken us to about 20 million concurrent users a month later. (Imagine a beer company telling their customers to use our app to interact with the Super Bowl broadcast. That sort of thing.) We spent a lot of time talking about horizontal scaling because that was the whole point of the company. Maybe yours is like that, too.

But the vast majority of small companies are not like that. They acquire one customer, then another, and another, and grow N<=50% per year, with tons of headroom on default app configurations. For those companies, worrying about explosive, global scaling instead of, you know, building their business, is time they can't get back.
There is Gemini and it seems to be filling in that niche. Plenty of sites there you can explore.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_(protocol)

Just go to these places and from there you can find many more sites from people who are on sdf.

gemini://gem.sdf.org/

gemini://sdf.org/
The performance of the planning algorithm (which is a path-finding algorithm essentially, which can be costly).
I like the look of it. But I also like the look of the AirTruk, so ...
its not the "smart stuff" that is the problem (although that stuff is annoying and rarely helpful). I bought a house that had a samsung fridge built within the last 10 years. The fridge had a "defect" [1] where the defroster would leak water over the thermostat, which would then freeze, and most of the fridge would go warm because the thermostat thought it was below freezing. the appliance tech said this is a known defect and they sell aftermarket kits to fully thaw the thermostat. Furthermore, the icemaker would leak water that froze it in position (no, the defrost cycle wouldn't help), requiring an enormous amount of force to break out to unclog it and get ice again. Samsung is _absolutely_ , _positively_, _JUNK_.

[1] my personal conspiracy theory is they manufacture these defects on purpose to scare you into buying expensive warranties and slowly nudge you to buy a new fridge in 6 years.
Ok, you're unbanned.
A relative claim of "most" assumes a survey of "damage to human knowledge" not evident in the link. Maybe some points of human history were stuck in local minima, scholastic periods where all things were considered known and new observations fit to existing theory in ever more Byzantine epicycles. Maybe not, but its hard to tell from this vantage.
Anyone who would turn away from a MAX at the gate when they already bought the ticket, IF the relevant authorities (both US and elsewhere) say its safe enough, is probably not acting completely rationally but more on a gut feeling. That's fine. But it shouldn't be seen as some kind of demonstration of virtue or safe behavior (Especially if you get back in the car and out on the highway which is probably more likely to kill you)
The engineers at Bell also thought that blind bolts you couldn’t inspect in dailies should be wired.
“Too much plodding coziness” — I mean, you're not wrong! The coziness (and the literal plodding) are kinda the point.
What Goes Up Must Come Down: The Reality of Celebratory Gunfire
It could, but for wider use and more capability, Internet would be the default choice.

Also, I live on a small property compared to those in my area (a few acres), and my WiFi doesn’t cover most of it. So a LAN notification wouldn’t work when I am out gardening.
> or an investigation to assess actual loss.

Which sounds like a poor taste joke given what led to this (poor investigation or lack thereof)
Prior to the IBM PC, a personal computer was called a "personal computer", not a "PC". I assumed that IBM came up with the "PC" name, but after a few minutes of research, it seems that IBM called their system the "IBM Personal Computer" in the original ads and documentation, rather than the "PC". As far as I can tell, PC Magazine created the name "PC". At first, the magazine referred to the IBM "PC" (with quotation marks around PC), which suggests that this wasn't standard usage. I'm a bit surprised by the idea that the "PC" name was invented by the magazine, and I'm not 100% sure of this, but maybe someone can confirm or deny. It wouldn't be the first time a magazine has created the terminology; "electronics" apparently comes from the magazine, not vice versa.
I'm guessing your original comment meant to imply that we all have agency to deal with stress: sorry if I misread that.

I also tend to find the idea that we can "control our attitude and perspective" is sometimes used to blame others or self-guilt ourselves for outcomes that are truly outside ones own rational control. The extreme example of this is the belief in manifestation: we can pay for courses to learn how to remove "blocks" so somehow the cancer is ones own fault for not thinking right.

I agree with you that we need to take responsibility for what we can change. I believe we can learn new mindsets or Jiu-Jitsu our minds into grooves that work better. I also think that doing that is extremely difficult and that also that there is much that remains beyond our control (internally or externally). Also the territory of self-help has many traps and deceptions - a hard road to find.
I think Git is a fine anti-benchmark.

#1 it does fine on

#2 fails because it uses jargon that's internal Git state, staging, index, etc.

#3 mostly does ok but doesn't provide useful undos for stuff like shallow copying

#4 `git checkout` exists. It fails this.

#5 doesn't do good error prevention

#6 https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/git_2x.png exists for a reason.

#7 Git is great at this.

#8 No. It's CLI is huge and byzantine.

#9 Git has gotten better at this, but it's not good at it.

#10 There is a lot of help, docs and tutorial on the web, and with Git.

So in my book Git is like 3-5, that's a failure.

If you want a great CLI tool, Cargo is a stellar example. Git is a failure.
Eh, for varying definitions of control.

Which species, in your opinion, controls the Earth?
Partly, yes, but do note he is still very much involved with the faster-cpython project via Microsoft. Google faster cpython and van rossum to find some interviews and talks. You can also check out the faster-cpython project on github to read more.
Shenzhen has some restrictions and mechanics I don't like.

- circuit board is too small and jumper wires are only vertical.
- assembly lines per chip is too limited.
- I don't like the plus/minus mechanic for conditions.
- not enough microcontroller varients. I often wanted a microcontroller with 3 simple IO pins instead of the XBus pins.
Both use cases could be done with simple speakers.
The need for competent IT will only increase, especially in the US. There are so many systems that need upgrades and improvements that it is scary. Some may say that AI will do this, but by the time AI is capable of doing this then all labor of any kind is deprecated as a concept and we'll have transitioned to a different type of economic system anyway. So don't be afraid, there's a lot of work coming.

There are hundreds of billions of lines of code that haven't been meaningfully upgraded or maintained and those systems are still profitable and useful and cool to work on. Even though there may be economic downturns when it's harder to find work, and I was affected by this in the last two years so I understand what it's like, the long term trend until labor is irrelevant is that we'll always need IT and software engineers and software developers. The good ones will continue to earn a really great wage because it's difficult to become a really good one and a lot of other shops will want your great devs. It does not matter where you're located on earth - if you're great, a better shop will take you.
I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just sharing an honest opinion and criticizing a widespread behavior that I've noticed. I've stopped following people because the "housekeeping" posts just kept coming. There's so much focus on digital structures, on the means by which they express themselves or engage their audience, on the colophon, that they forget to make a point or write about anything else.

I'm worn down by this kind of chatter, by the hyper-focus on the platforms and the tools instead of the message. It's the same thing with designer portfolio pages. They can't get off the treadmill and they're constantly tweaking their portfolio instead of settling on a good layout and letting their work speak for itself.

There's this endless frenetic energy that pushes people to search for phrases, labels, names, categories, definitions that allow them to rationalize their behavior and justify how they're spending time online.

Listen, I'm the OCD type and I'm guilty of this sort of thing, too. And every now and then I find myself obsessing over tools in a way that's unproductive and I have to stop and pull myself out of that headspace. There's an instant feedback loop to editing themes, messing with fonts, publishing a blog post (that no one will read) and so it's easy to keep going. And it's easy to waste a fuck load of time doing this sort non-work.

Anyway, I feel like I'm watching the progression of a most chronic illness that keeps people tinkering in an anxious state of mind, and that makes me sad. It seems unhealthy to me, but you can do whatever you want!
This is really good. It reminds me of sudoku.
Related:

The Book of Shaders (2015) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32117536 - July 2022 (22 comments)

The Book of Shaders - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23497924 - June 2020 (26 comments)

The Book of Shaders - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15599935 - Nov 2017 (37 comments)

The Book of Shaders - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11457322 - April 2016 (15 comments)

The Book of Shaders - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9215582 - March 2015 (40 comments)
You can board with some crutches and they probably shift you away from the emergency exit seat right away.

They tend to be sold at a premium these days due to slightly more legroom.
> I understand this is really the core of your complaint

If you think that it is the core of my complaint, then you did not understood at all.

This element is just there to say that it's easy to not understand the situation of the scientists and to conclude that it's just because they are stupid or they are not doing the things right.

You were the one talking about "poor practices induced by the corrupt incentives of academia", but this is just incompatible with the reality: in region where the "publish or perish" has no impact (and these regions exist, only people who know academia superficially don't realize that), we still see the same software development "mispractice". This is why I'm talking about ego: it is so easy for you to just rationalize different practice as "being somehow forced to do a bad job".

> we agree that reproducibility is important

I don't think you understand what I call "reproducibility". In science, reproducibility means FROM SCRATCH! You know the result, and you rebuild your own experiment. If you copy the experiment of the first author, you will copy the experimental error too.

Reproducibility is one of the reason some of the thing you pretend is a good practice is in fact not ideal in the context of science (as I've said, I myself push for sharing a clean code, but it is just that some of the important goal for usual software development don't exist in the same way in the scientific development context).

> but you don't understand software engineering as a practice

I understand very well why the good practice are indeed very important in the context of the usual software development. Again, you are just rationalising: you see m not agreeing with you, so you invent that I don't understand why good practices are used. It's again an easy way to not challenge what you consider as obvious.

> Good engineering is absolutely not about "blindly applying tradition".

Exactly. People who are jumping on the conclusion "if the scientists are not using these practice, then they are doing a bad job" are bad engineers.

You keep talking about good engineering practice as if these practices are always the correct way to go. Except it is not the case. As given in some example, wasting time on a "clean" architecture on something that the author is smart enough to know that it has a high probability to disappear in one week is not a "good practice". Yet, you are still talking to me as if this practice is "obviously good". It is very good for usual software development, when you have a large set of users and you want to maintain the software for years. But it makes no sense when the software is for the author of the software only and that everyone agrees it would be better to write a proper implementation of the final conclusion rather than to mix the goal and build a robust tool before exploring.

So, yes, you are blindly following the tradition: you just refuse to even consider that maybe what you have adopted in your mind as "good" may not be the best in a different context.
The function of the mainstream media (particularly in the UK) is not to inform the public but to keep them in line. It's worth remembering that Rupert Murdoch owns 4 newspapers and a TV channel.
Excellent.

I love how shaders have progressed from "a clever hack to do fancier things in the hardware" to "a general-purpose parallel computing coprocessor." Particularly fun is how best practice these days is to do as much as you can in the shader. Where is the object's position? In this texture. Okay sure but where's its velocity? In that texture, so we can just update the position by re-rendering the first texture. Okay, but we need to accelerate these objects... Cool, pass me an acceleration texture.
Don't stop with big banks. Break up anything and everything that's big. Big business capitalism is a threat to liberal democracy and the free market.
The thing about arbitrage is that it generally implies you know something nobody else knows or are otherwise in a different situation than they are. Otherwise everybody would do it, bid up the price, and there would be no more arbitrage opportunity.

Which is basically what happened. When the earliest companies figured out that you could do a lot of computer things remotely, they would hire some quality staff in e.g. India, pay them a little more than they'd usually get in India but a lot less than they would in the US, and that was great. Then everybody wanted to do that... but there isn't an unlimited supply of qualified staff.

So the competent staff started demanding more money, because they could, until they got paid enough that the savings was only just offsetting the inconvenience of different timezones and laws etc. But the current CEO still remembers that case study they read in business school from 1985 about how great outsourcing is at saving money, from before the arbitrage opportunity was eliminated by everybody trying to do it.
I feel really okay with this, but I'm not okay with is that there isn't language to talk transparently about it. Facebook does the same thing (or did, because I haven't used Facebook in a long time), if you copy link to image, you can just forward that, even if the post is private.

This is pretty inherent in image sharing, though. You can just download the image, or if the website limits that you can take a screenshot (let's not get into the debate about DRM and assume that it doesn't work).

Where should you draw the line? Time limited link sharing? Login based doesn't work because you can't share with Grandma - she doesn't know how to login.

We need words and descriptions of these basic patterns, and better ways to Intuit which is in use.
The web has been distinct & unique & closer to "the language of the gods" for being much better, more pro-user than the old industrial-computing compiled ways. Many webdevs got their start from view-source (and many would have been lost to computing if we were just another compiled blackbox). The aliveness of the web contrasts to the dead programming variety. The erosion of this aliveness & legibility has been mourned, and should be. It is worth fighting for the user.

I don't think your argument has merit, that merits can be ignored because this is how computers always used to be. Wasm's return to the dark times of industrialized blackbox computing will cut off the best users from the joy of being closer to the machine that they had on the web, and that return to darkness is a sad plight for mankind, even if that's how it always used to be. I treasure the light of the open alive web, and hope somehow it can survive this voyage into shadow.
One notable thing about the Google search homepage is how fast it is. It's gob smackingly quick. It responds to the initial key press under in under 200ms with 10 suggestions that include text and pictures, and keeps doing it. My round trip time to www.google.com is around 20ms, so at least 100ms of that time is swallowed by the internet.

You don't get that sort of speed without heavy optimisation. In fact I'd be amazed if www.google.com isn't the most heavily optimised page on the internet. So it's not at all surprising to me that they optimise based on what browser is asking.
Modern capitalism was not invented by the British. It was invented by Italian people and Catholic religious orders. The British adopted the system and amplified it, just like the Industrialisation that came from the Netherlands.

The British made most of their capital(that financed industrialisation) from slavery trade and piracy in the Atlantic. It made huge profits and industrialisation paid off giving multiples of the inputs for the first time in History.

That also financed the "colonising of half of the world". But this colonisation came very late.

>dispensing with Catholicism early and inventing modern capitalism came precisely because our society was so hierarchical.

I am reading a book that argues that Europe's success comes from all the competence of different powers fighting each other and none of them taking over the others.
The Muslims and later the Ottoman empire tried to take over Europe.
The Spanish or Napoleon tried to take over Europe and UK, but they could not, because the others joined against them. Napoleon tried to conquer Russia. Then the British tried to take over as well. Austria, Bismarck and Hitler tried to conquer Europe. Then the Soviet Union.

Even the Roman Empire could not take over the British islands and Germany.

This is different from China, where different groups take over of everything. Centralisation and stagnation happens as a consequence.
And, depending on the country, shares are taxed the same as bonuses with very steep tax rates (50-60+%).
I'd argue that's actually besides the point. Before WebAssembly there were plenty of good ways to write web apps in a language other than JavaScript. Some for example integrate it into the language tooling (like ClojureScript which I have used and have fond memories of), some simply directly used asm.js (which I have also used).

So if the only use case of WebAssembly is to enable that, it is an utterly unexciting piece of incremental improvement.

Everything that's exciting about WebAssembly comes from where it can be used besides replacing JavaScript in a browser. It's a point I've repeatedly argued on this forum since two years ago (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30156799 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38138739)
You have no evidence to support this assertion. I know this because there is no objective "browser quality" standard. It is as least as likely that Google aggressively advertising it on every single page load of every single web presence gained traction for chrome.
If administrator can change entries and audit logs, there is no real way to prove the data has or has not been tampered with.
I always assumed it was about slowing cars from 35 to 25mph as hardly anybody sticks to the speed limit.

Llywodraeth Cymru (Welsh Government) claims that a public health study suggests its new 20mph limits will see, annually, a 40 per cent reduction in collisions, between six and ten lives saved, and anything from 1,200 to 2,000 people avoiding injury as a result.

Scale that up across the country and you are looking at way more than "4 or 5 lives".
Interesting to hear that - I'm still at the level of German where I wouldn't know what I'm missing. For clarification: are you saying that:

- the English Wiktionary has fewer English words than the German Wiktionary has German words, or

- the English Wiktionary has fewer German words than the German Wiktionary does?
The whole article talks about the mongols, not "early nomadic empires".

The whole article does not mention what made the mongols the "architects of modernity" or how are "scholars now argu[ing]" that mongols were architects.

Yes, nomads did do lots of empire building. The arab empires were largely an offshot of nomadic upbringing and went to conquer. The mongols were largely an offshot of nomadic upbringing and went to conquer. The turks (aka ottomans) were largely an offshoot of nomadic upbringing and went to conquer.

And I am pretty sure in europe, there is some trace of nomdic upbringing that gave rise to early empires, especially the scandinavian vandals and vikings and saxons.

They didn't architect. They set the house structures for which empires needed to set the groundworks (conquering, pillaging, conforming). And the house structures are the preambles for modern constitutions and societies.
In your opinion peeps,
is this still relevant with the advent of LLM?
I didn't say python can handle <=1K, I was saying >=1K. I feel confident that I am orders of magnitude off the real limit you'd meet.

The specifics of that aside, any unprepared application is going to buckle at a sudden mega-surge of users. The solution remains largely the same, regardless of technology: Make sure everything that can be cached is cached, scale the hardware vertically until it stops helping, optimize your code, scale horizontally until you run out of money. I imagine the DB will be the actual bottleneck, most of the time.

There are other reasons to not choose python for greenfield application, but performance should rarely be one IMO.
Ask HN: Do you send free trial abandonment emails?
Every day I get a few folks that sign up for an account with a free trial, and do... absolutely nothing.

I want to send an automatic "No really, what were you expecting from OnlineOrNot?" email to these folks that did absolutely nothing.

Is this a thing other folks do, and if so, how long before you consider a free trial abandoned?
I'm not sure. All I know is that there are some hurdles to get past. One of them is that several DOM APIs were created specifically for JavaScript, which is...really disheartening.
Books of this nature don't need to be completed to be useful and high quality.