skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
No. JDK9/JDK11's adoption issues were due to --add-opens/--add-exports and the JDK developers hostile approach towards reflection.

It's an obsession over "pure" code that has no basis in reality. I'm sorry: Applets don't exist anymore, this obsession is outdated and futile. There is no rational justification behind breaking compatibility with almost every large Java project in existence to the extent that https://java.com still downloads Java 8.
I believe GP means “open” in the sense of having a high degree of trade with the rest of the world.

The US economy has more of a closed loop in that it consumes much of what it produces.

China on the other hand imports most essential commodities and pays for them with the proceeds of exports.
I'm a software engineer with 5 years at a FANG company. In the entirety of your time at Google did you ever identify a high performing contractor and make your mission to make them a full-time employee?
Strange seeing not just my state, but my hometown, rising on HN. Sad, too.

Related: For those interested in point-and-click / text-based games, check out the game NORCO, which is about the city Norco (named for the refinery that graces its skyline), a suburb of New Orleans. It's actually an extremely accurate representation of the socioeconomics of the area (which is painful to admit), and has some truly gorgeous pixel art.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norco_(video_game)
Have you thought about having an "eject" command? For example, Create React App had an eject command to go from the self-contained version to a full customisable Webpack app.
It looks like it could also be an anglicized version of the modern Swedish word for submarine, which appears to be Ubåt [0]. In the US we definitely usually associate the word U-boat with the Germans, but I'm not sure how else one would anglicize Ubåt.

[0] https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ub%C3%A5t
While there is a large public appetite for breaking up monopolies, it really does seem that antitrust policy has sadly become something of a bygone era.

A decent authority on the subject is Matt Stoller's book Goliath [1], which lays out the history of US monopolies and how they formed the bedrock for these modern tech companies. Their strategic dominance is no mistake. He argues that our era of monopoly power goes back to the resentment of New Deal reform, which began percolating in the economics department of University of Chicago in the 1960s and, in the 70s, entered public policy.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Goliath-100-Year-Between-Monopoly-Dem...
Kill people with drones. With an error rate that would be unacceptable without the careful PR that will arrive at around the same time.
Definitely a big shift in perspective from the old days when a company was "family" and you had a pension and an expectation to stick with the company for the long haul. Nowadays it's unhealthy to treat a company that way, since that "culture of loyalty" was just a short lived thing around the time boomers worked.
Putin delayed his invasion because COVID-19 was rampaging through the world at that time, and Russia had no access to an effective vaccine while being well...Russia, so it went about as well as you'd expect for their military readiness.

Disease killed more people on the frontlines in WW1 then weapons did, and it is the foolish military planner who doesn't try to avoid it (the Russian lines are currently dealing with an outbreak of Cholera in parts, which is another problem partly as a result of training quality - effective military's drill field hygiene practices because it's a direct contributor to combat effectiveness).

EDIT: i.e. when there's a novel respiratory virus about, nothing will destroy your military faster then massing for an invasion in one place.
I keep seeing references to this recent “uncomfortable culture” at Google. Can someone from Google (past or present) explain what this is?
Is there also a Swedish version of the ball? In that case I have a possible explanation.

When the ball was copied, they may have worked from images. You need more than one image because the ball is round.

Could the copycat have used an English version for one of the sides, and Swedish for the other? By looking at the images and letters around the Y, they actually make more sense in Swedish

The poster may have made a mistake by interpreting the "W" for "worm". If the Swedish theory is right, it is actually an "M" as worm is translated to "mask" in Swedish. They also seem unaware that a picature of the nail can also be translated as "nagel".

E - Elefant

N - Nagel

M - Mask / Metmask

K - Känguru

To me it looks like that side fits the Swedish words perfectly. The "Q" (queen) is copied from a different picture that comes from the English version

Edit: One of the comments on Stack exchange seems to suggest the same theory. The symbols seem to be a mix of at least two different sources.

Edit 2: Corrected the translation of worm
Do you truly think “supporting” veterans by giving them a chatbot instead of a mental health provider is a good thing??

I personally can’t see it being an effective or efficient use of taxpayer dollars.
Then the secondary party would have lower tax level.
[edit] snark
Sponsorblock is good enough on pretty much every channel I watch, including skipping intro/outros, might want to check that out.
Why not? Their economy is growing (despite being the most sanctioned nation on earth and cut off from SWIFT) and they are integrating with several other regional players. They are energy and food self-sufficient, have a relatively large and well educated population, launch payloads into space on the regular, export complex things like nuclear reactors. On the military side, they are one of the only that could sink an entire carrier battle group or an entire city in a flash.
In modern terminology, AI = machine learning model. The hand coded GOFAI from the past is just called software.
[1] I don't know how that's the republican's fault. Again, it's the constitution.

[2] This is entirely incorrect. Garry Wills, A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government, Simon and Schuster, 1999, p. 252. ("Until recently, the Second Amendment was a little-visited area of the Constitution. A two thousand-page commentary on the Constitution put out by the Library of Congress in 1973 has copious annotation for most clauses, but less than a page and a half for the Second Amendment.")

The Tommy guns and explosives used during the gangster wars of the prohibition were almost entirely legally obtained (some were imported from Ireland in exchange for liquor). As a lawyer, what you are saying is literally the opposite of the truth. Until the 1980s, gun rights were understood to be a state's rights issue, and most limitations on the federal level (like in the Dredd Scott decision) were based around the rights of black former slaves to own guns.

[3] There is only a contradiction if you assume that the supreme court only exists to prevent the death of people and the unborn, rather than to enforce the constitution. If there was a constitutional amendment that said that every citizen had to go and kill a Mexican every Wednesday afternoon, it would be the job of the supreme court to enforce that constitutional provision until it was repealed.

The Supreme Court doesn't exist to impose your political views, it exists to impose the constitution. The constitution often produces outcomes that are not in synergy with each other or a broader overall purpose. That is the problem of the legislature and the constitution, not the court.
Coming to Grips with Apple's Seemingly Unshakable Sense of Entitlement
In theory all our weapons are defensive. Hence the name "Defense Department". We will know to start worrying when GPTChat starts chatting about protecting its 'precious bodily fluids';)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY
I believe StackOverflow randomizes the order of answers, you should link or otherwise reference the one you mean, rather then specify its position.
And even a great track by MF DOOM talking about exactly that[0].

It ended up pervading the culture deeply enough, we get elderly people on the news non-chalantly quoting it[1].

0. https://youtu.be/gQtKJbptcns

1. https://youtu.be/0KIhEbellKI
I don't think guessing things implied not to be mentioned leads to a meaningful conversation. There's a reason I never mentioned where I'm from or where my father's family was from - it's because it would create bias that right now you are trying to artificially induce by this guess. And no, they were very much shot and dropped dead... in the end.
Preposterous, sir! I have it on good authority from the marriage equality bros that slippery slopes are just fear-mongering. Why would schoolteachers all of a sudden be transing kids just because some tiny, tiny proportion of adults are getting visiting rights at hospitals? Moore's Law--also slippery slopism. As if computers will magically get faster next year just because they did the last n years!
Is hydrogen a social construct? Is pi a social construct? Is the sun a social construct?

I'm not completely sure about the answer to those questions, but they all derive meaning in a different way than money does. I think calling money a social construct just highlights that as far as mutually agreed upon meaning being focused on an abstract concept goes, money is pretty high on the list of having lots of meaning and being very abstract.
> it makes no sense to either love or be angry at “Google”

Someone decided to handle this situation that way, so one has a perfect right to be angry at them, and generalize that as "being angry at Google".

The author takes it with philosophy and pragmatism, that's admirable and I'm certainly not one to tell them how they should feel. But other factors indicate that his situation was also prone for that positiveness (feeling like a relief because of golden handcuffs, long tenure in a stock-distributing tech company + director level meaning that there's likely no concerns regarding money, side career already underway, maybe a relief to have some change).

Others might not be in the same situation, and are now jobless in in slow economy, with tenuous savings, rent or mortgage coming up. They might feel outright furious for a layoff that they have neither control on, nor were a reason for, and that shows no face to take responsibility - and they're completely entitled to feel that way, if that helps them cope. I'd say it makes sense to me, and don't feel bad for being angry if that's how you feel.
He mentions that the culture changed a year ago which is when they started doing things like requiring 3 days in, actually checking employee in/out times, etc. IIRC for a long time it was 3 days required but it was on the honor system. Though I'm not even sure someone like him or fitz would need to follow that.

My friends who are still at g seemed pretty miserable in 2023. I haven't heard from them this month though, didn't realize another layoff round hit. It's absolutely off my wishlist of companies nowadays.
But that's not how science publication works (and I say this as a scientist). When someone makes a creative work they may (or may not) want to get paid for it, and copyright helps in this regard. Scientists don't get paid for their articles -- the only people who make money off of scientific publications are the publishers. This was needed in the days when dead tree journals were the only way to get scientific papers distributed, but this isn't true any more. And even if you are talking about peer review, it is important to understand that the reviewers aren't employed by the journals -- they are unpaid volunteers. It is really unclear what if anything journal publishers contribute to the scientific ecosystem at this point.
No, although this answer is awesome and very well researched, it cannot match the famous answer to the question about parsing HTML using regular expressions :-) : https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1732348/regex-match-open....

BTW, I got curious about the highest scored answer and this meta answer explains how to find it: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/266570. The highest scored answer is this one: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11227809/why-is-processi... (of course this is related to teh size of the community)
CDPATH is kind of flawed. It wants to be a mapping feature.

So that is to say, when I type "cd foo", I want foo to be "cd alias" for some "/path/to/foo" or possibly even "/path/to/bar". I know where I want to go; I don't need a search to find it!

Fortunately, there is a way to get that with CDPATH. You can make some directory, say /home/yourself/.cdfarm.

Inside .cdfarm/, you have symlinks to various directories

foo -> /path/to/foo
bar -> /path/to/elsewhere/bar

and you put this .cdfarm into your CDPATH:

CDPATH=:~/.cdfarm

and that's it, all other management is via ~/.cdfarm.

Unfortunately, the symlinks appear in the PWD, unless you use "cd -P"; for that you can "alias cd='cd -P".

Even if you use -P, when Bash's cd resolves something via CDPATH, it prints the target path name with the /home/yourself/.cdpath/... in it, as it appears before -P resolution. That's not necessarily a bad thing; it reminds you of how you are getting to where you are.
Oh wow. I started Flying Saucer 20 years ago. I’m amazed it’s still in use.
What deductive system are they using to verify the proofs? I'm asking because the conventions of olympiad geometry are slightly different from those of the rest of mathematics (you can make informal "general position" arguments; you can pooh-pooh issues of sign and betweenness; you can apply theorems to unstated limiting cases; etc.), and it is far from obvious to me how this logic can be formalized without causing contradictions.
I got this - I loved the idea of it. But my younger kid was on the edge of the age for it and outgrew it quickly. So now a friend's kid is enjoying it.
The other side of it is probably not wanting to bond and spend 30 minutes getting cared about. That might feel like a luxury, but to each their own.
https://archive.is/LPFBk
I don’t see any new info from this article. I thought the author would buy one to see if it’s real and investigate a little deeper. Everything stated was already publicly available info.
Ok plain text has its advantages, agreed. But bottom posting is just going to lead to confusion in the normy world.
What are you on about? So condescending...

I'm just saying that you can link certain zones to specific outcomes. If we move into a new zone we haven't crossed the boundary (which feels final and irreversible), we are in a new zone with new consequences. We can leave that zone as well and change the outcome.

Obviously I'm in favour of fixing the problems but I'm not the majority of elected officials or their climate denying donors. You need to frame it in a way that they can act on it hence the choice.
> It sometimes needs to be told on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis, because otherwise it might also reflow ASCII art diagrams and such

Yes exactly, there is no "one right way" to do it because you never know if a newline is a "hard enter" or just a "reflow to the next line". Every default will break something.

This is why you need some (minimal) markup, no matter what you do text-only email is broken for some use cases.
Applying formal reasoning to defend a self-admitted heuristic is a special kind of silly.

Besides, your heuristic sucks. Just because it formally sucks due to being an ad-hom doesn't mean it can't informally suck on other dimensions, like mindless deference to authority. Logic has nothing to say about that, but when considering bias it's something you should probably try harder to keep in mind.
Someone did perform work for it. Those shares were sold by the original creator and employees of the company in order to raise money for the company or to fund their own living expenses. The person that purchased those shares only did so with the expectation that they could later sell them for a higher price.

By taxing those earnings you reduce the demand for the shares which then reduces the amount of money the original workers can raise by selling shares.

The secondary market provides incentive to invest in companies.

Why is it that people of certain political persuasions always seem incapable of thinking through second and third order effects?
The problem is that in niche tools / gear / whatever, the message 'you must do it this way' plays to the curiosity and concerns of new users looking to get into something.

A cottage industry of people have thus sprung up around providing this content, and recommendation algorithms and search results wind up being dominated by this content.

For a new user who's just heard about something, the path is often straight to this content, which then leads some to bouncing off of it because it seems too daunting.
Looks really cool, aside from the lack of Android support or a managed cloud option.

My big issue with Obsidian is just performance. Android likes to kill the background process and you're waiting 10 seconds or more just to be able to write a 5 word shopping list entry.

I eventually switched to Google Keep, with always listening assistant turned on.
If you come to Hacker News for niceness and kindness, you'll be disappointed. Everyone here is direct to the point of acerbic, argumentative to the point of combative, and somewhat rude. It's a performative erudition that masks recklessness [0].

If you want a reprieve from toxicity, go offline and speak to people in real life.

[0]: https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-silicon-valley/th...
Shout out to OP for ModelFusion. Probably one of the better ways to use LLMs instead of just integrating the OAI API and reinventing the rest of the wheel.

Handles lots of corner cases and lets you swap in other models easily.

https://github.com/lgrammel/modelfusion
The legal definition of a monopoly has been refined over multiple decades of case law, I would argue that you can’t have a meaningful discussion about whether a company is or isn’t a monopoly without framing it in that context. And yes while it’s reasonable to disagree with the details of the law, it’s another thing entirely to make up some arbitrary criteria in your head and then declare some company is a monopoly based on your imaginary criteria.
`If you don't deliver, you will be cut, period.`

That's not what's happening at Google.

I understand the intensity of your position on it in light of that being assumed.

Beyond that, I'm wondering if you have any examples of the `unseemly whining by some of the most mature, intelligent, and professionally successful individuals that needs to die in a fire.`?

Generally people seem upset by it turning into a post-modern extremist firing: you show up to work one morning, you're locked out of your laptop, you can't badge into the building, you get an email to your personal email address on file, and that's it.
I’ve disputed that fact before. It depends what part of your data is generated from GPT4 if I have high quality code and I’m using gpt4 to synthetically generate variations on how some could ask for the code to be written it’s entirely possible because of the high quality code for the model to be better. It’s not all or nothing if you’re mixing synthetic data with quality sources.

In this case even though parts of the dataset are synthetic the bound is on the code not necessarily the 50 ways I got gpt4 to say “write me a script to do x” or modeled other interactions with that code data source.
At this point, the battle for only sending plaintext has been decisively lost.

What I'd much rather fight for, now: please always send a valid text/plain part, that includes the full content, including things like the verification code for email verification, or the URLs for anything you expect the user to follow.

Some services send emails that have a text/plain part, but the text/plain part has things like "click here to ..." and the URL to click on is not present.
Do you know of completion for the cd command that works with CDPATH? So that when you type "cd prefix[Tab]" it will give completions from CDPATH?
> US mil leaders have completely failed in Iraq, Afganistan, Syria, Ukraine, Israel, Yemen, and soon Finland.

Uh, no.

Afghanistan is the only one of those where this claim makes sense.
Rust is _a_ safe language, but if you're interacting with a lot of low-level hardware, you end up with a lot of unsafe {} code and manual analysis that takes away some of the advantages.

I see Rust as a C++ replacement more than a C replacement. I'm not sure if object oriented languages (well, "struct with functions" in Rust's case) with vtables and dynamic allocation and the like are a good match for that kind of code. Rust, as a language, simply can't deal with running out of memory; all allocations are assumed to succeed, which is a dangerous assumption, especially in low-level code like this.

Unfortunately, we don't really have a common C replacement with Rust-like safety guarantees. I'm hoping Zig will be able to provide some safety to the C ecosystem, but it's still a ways away from 1.0.

> UEFI/BIOS is not a bootloader

You're right, I meant "bootstrapping system". I'm sure there's better terminology here but the word escapes me at the moment.
Some selected nitpicks with what you have said.

> The least we can do is

Putting it like that implies that there's a direction we should all be moving in. Presumably you have determined what this direction is and have determined that it is right for humanity.

Others may disagree.

> agree that money is a societal construct, and

Money is a simple technology that has gained wide... currency, but that doesn't mean it's an airy concept that can pop out of existence at any moment. It represents energy, effort, ingenuity, work.

> if money grows all by itself

You ever done a day's work? You ever start a business, make an investment, borrow or lend money? Nothing related to money happens by itself, except decay.

> then the gains should be fully taxed and

Again with the direction that you have determined that we should all go towards. Maybe not everybody wants a government with absolute power?

> given back to society.

Huge leap of faith here to suggest that taxes = giving back to society. The government certainly represent a good chunk of society in the form of numberless bureaucrats (some of whom are needed and useful) employed, and of the voters who are happy with the government. But there's a significant conflict of interest here; not one government has ever distributed its budgets perfectly. There's always the desire to increase headcount, to allocate more power to itself, to further its own goals.
As long-time a 'practitioner' of machine learning models I strongly disagree, the preferred form for model modification is by retraining the model with a tweak to the parameters or the training algorithm or the model structure or data selection or length of training.

You can get some effects by fine tuning, and in that case it may be preferable as it's cheaper, but in general if I want to have a different or better model, that involves retraining.
archive.org: https://web.archive.org/web/20240116022603/https://www.popul...

also, originally published in 2023
Why would I have a less silly model than these specific climate scientists? Because I'm saying that its shortcomings make it more hurtful than helpful? A moviegoer criticizing a documentary doesn't need to have made a better documentary himself.
Apple Set to Collect $73M in Legal Fees from Epic Games
How much bandwidth are we talking about? 1 Mbps? 10 Mbps? I read most of the fact sheet but it doesn’t seem to provide an answer other than “10x state of the art radio”.

Anyway, this is very cool. And it’s an important change if we live in the dark forest solution of the Fermi paradox. :)
Quite a number of studies suggest that chatbots are an effective tool for mental health support. Doesn’t need to be either or, but one could imagine scenarios where it may be more effective than a human mental health professional, e.g., 24/7 availability.
> It kind of looks like a yew-handled axe

OK, I'll ask: What is it about this rather poorly drawn axe makes it look like it's yew handled?