skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Isn't that all of AI? I get the impression that not even the "experts" really understand what new techniques will get good results - they're guided by past successes, and have loose ideas about why past successes were successful, but can't really predict what else will work.

It seemed like the tremendous success of transformer architectures was a surprise to everyone, who had previously been throwing stuff at the wall and watching it not stick for multiple decades. And when you look at what a transformer is, you can see why QKV attention blocks might be useful to incorporate into machine learning models... but not why all the other things that seem like they might be useful weren't, or why a model made of only QKV attention blocks does so much better than, say, a model made of GRU blocks.
> you must make an accurate regular pentagon and this is not trivial with ancient geometric methods

Does it need anything else besides some kind of protractor and ruler?
> I was under the impression that internal instructions followed the load/store principle since I assume that the internal pipeline is a load/store pipeline?

Well... peterfirefly is making a very generalised statement that isn't really true.

As far as I'm aware, no out-of-order Intel processor can do a full read-modify-write in a single uOP. And if you go all the way back to the original P6 pipeline (Pentium Pro, Pentium II, Pentium III), it does appear to be a proper load-store arch. RMW instructions generate at least 4 uOPs

But the Pentium M and later can do a read + modify to register in a single fused uOP, and a RMW in just two fused uOPs. Fused uops kind of muddle the issue: they might issue to two or more execution units, but for the purposes of scheduling, they only take up a single slot.

So it's far from a proper load/store pipeline. And when you think about it, that makes sense, x86 isn't a load/store ISA so it would be wasteful to not have special accommodations for it.

-----

And then there is AMD. Zen and later are more or less identical to Intel's modern fused uOP scheme.

But their older cores had much more capable internal encoding which AMD called "macro-ops". And those macro-ops could do a full read-modify-write operation with a single op. Unlike Intel and the later Zen core, each integer execution unit needed to have both ALUs and AGUs, along with read/write ports to the data cache.

> I would love to learn more about that. Do you have any references?

Agner Fog is the best resource for this type of thing.

https://www.agner.org/optimize/

A combination of microarchitecture.pdf for details about the various pipelines and instruction_tables.pdf for what uops the various instructions breakdown into on the various pipelines.
It's already out of date since it's a whole 1 day old. SAP announced a "restructuring" of 8000 jobs today (https://www.reddit.com/r/Layoffs/comments/19e494c/sap_to_lay...).
>we pick a figure head like the CEO to be sacrificed

Isn't that the reason why they earn so much money because they "take" the risks?
Reminds me of this bit from Monkey Dust https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTos3CsvnLQ
Multiflow folded in early '90 but then in 1994 HP and Intel bet their futures on this? Convex (using HP PA-RISC no less, defeated Multiflow but HP still thought they could make it work? What was the nature of HP's misjudgement? They must have had a theory why Multiflow failed but they would succeed, no?

I recall there was new research coming out of University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign that breathed new hope into this but would be curious why HP+Intel pursued it if Multiflow failed. I do recall HP brought a compiler team to the table and per wikipedia they had a research team working on VLIW since 1989. HP has an internal bakeoff of RISC vs VLIW but did it not capture the compiler challenges or workloads properly?

Strategy wise, for a vendor (HP) looking to phase out their RISC investments while maintaining some degree of backwards compatibility and becoming first among equals of their RISC peers partnering with the market volume leader Intel it made great sense... but that only works if the technology pans out. Did HP management get seduced by a competitive strategic play and make a poor engineering/technical call? Or did the internal research team oversell itself even knowing about Multiflow? Or was it something else? Hindsight is 20/20 but what key assumption(s) went wrong that we can all learn from?
On the other hand, the aircraft taking off with a slide deployed is a 737, so maybe they were working mostly with off-the-shelf assets to complete one skit in an entire show of same, and saved the relatively time-consuming animation work for where they had to use it.

Presumably they assumed no one would be paying all that much attention to stuff like an aircraft out a terminal window in the background, which looks nothing much like Boeing or Airbus and would not much surprise me to learn was produced by a diffusion model.
> Or is it because lack of expertise and experience and because someone tries stuff blindly without understanding a bit in the hope they will nail it with enough fiddling?

So, 99% of software development?
8 years of awful, politicized English localizations in games and anime
PWAs need to take front and center.
Show HN: Digest – Create a personal newsletter with the content you consume
As a personal need I have been working on building this over the last year. Like others, I often found myself in the middle of work, but taking breaks to read Reddit, HN, watch YouTube videos, etc. Those short breaks often turned into doom scrolling, and before I knew it I had wasted hours throughout my day/week.

I felt that if I just had the content that I was already consuming bundled up and delivered to me in a daily newsletter, I'd no longer have the need to keep checking these sites throughout the day. This eventually evolved into adding sources that I was not wasting time on but were also important to me, like my daily meetings from Google Calendar, or yesterdays revenue from my Stripe account.

I'm still working on adding more sources, but would love to hear what you think.
Transformer models are universal, which isn't very surprising given they're made of things which are also universal when configured right, so they absolutely can learn the rules of logic.

Some say that reason requires consciousness, which I'm… frustrated by given the 50 common meanings of the word "consciousness"; but to merely use logic as your standard here?

Why, of all the things people could object to in an LLM, why is logic what people want to pick on? It's the weakest possible objection IMO.
Ask HN: Why can't we Chromecast from Firefox?
The closest I've seen is this extension:
https://github.com/hensm/fx_cast

If the answer is proprietary red tape from Google, is there a front runner for a casting protocol or dongle we can use?
https://archive.is/5e5zy
This is happening all across tech. Once again, the middle class is being hollowed out by a bunch of wealthy reptiles and we’re just sitting back and watching.
"RUR and the Vision of Artificial Life" by Karel Čapek, Jitka Čejková
Let's rephrase: If you have to solve a problem, you'd better hope that problem is an engineering problem rather than a science problem.
> There are ways to exploit this system, but it probably helps against a non-sophisticated attacker.

The LockPickingLawyer on youtube demonstrated that you can just unglue the commonly used tamper seals with a bit of alcohol and reapply them when it had time to evaporate. Someone watching his channel wanted to use a lock sealed with them as proof that LPL was picking locks off camera first and all he got was proof that the seals where useless.
This essay was quite good that I will even share it with my friends who are interested in writing.

I have a few points to add though.

> People don't read tutorials unless they need them. Average people, that is. Some people will be superfans and read everything, and that's great. Your average reader only wants solutions when something's broken, much like going to the doctor only when sick.

I believe that many people's tutorials are not getting much attention exactly due to this reason. Most of the time, people choose topics that have already been extensively covered by numerous other people on the internet; this not only creates competition but also makes their tutorials redundant.

When creating tutorials, either you need to do a better job than everyone else, or choose a topic that has not been widely covered yet, or add a unique style to your tutorials. Otherwise, you are not likely to success.

> Write clearly, keep it focused and short, avoid stories and anecdotes

Sure, but this isn't always the case. Stories and anecdotes often make your essays unique and reinforce the point you're trying to make. For example if you're telling your audience to stop using a certain practice and to adopt a better pattern, it's often best to illustrate your point with interesting stories and anecdotes.

> Longreads, on the other hand, are written for those dedicated followers---and to gain new ones. They're the articles you should share with everyone, and share again when it's been a while. They're what you should include in your email newsletter, what should be featured on your blog's RSS feed if you have one. They should get shared in any community where you think they'll get an audience.

It's smart to make a clear distinction between longreads and tutorial essays, particularly from a marketing perspective. I appreciate it a lot.

Based on my observations, most people who consistently follow me do so because they enjoy my writing style and the topics I discuss. Unless you are creating a systematic series of tutorials or content that you believe people actually need, it is your style that will attract followers.
If I say I will provide engineering services and I turn out to be a shitty worker who sits there doing nothing this is not “theft”. This is being a shitty worker. It is up to the company to fire you if they believe this to be the case.
> The video game industry (and the larger tech industry) say they over-hired in 2020 and 2021 to ride the increase in digital activity after social-distancing rules went into effect around the world.

Firstly, citation?

Secondly, what does this actually mean? More people using existing online services means infrastructure scalability, surely, not generally "we need to hire more people across the board"?

(edited to fix formatting)
IEA Electricity Report 2024
Not using SIMD at all as it seems. Thus relying on auto-vectorization of I'm not reading it indirectly.

https://github.com/scipy/scipy/blob/main/scipy/spatial/src/d...
A long thread here already:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39081861

I didn't skim it through to know whether the new translation is worth it.
Isn't the point of GPKG that you can bundle multiple named layers in one file?
The company has been run by spreadsheet mechanics and now the bill is coming due.
This sounds a lot like letting the monkeys bang away on typewriters while you sit back waiting for Shakespeare...

TFA seems to present reasonable advice. Yet lots of comments here don't seem to agree that "give experts necessary context and trust to build good products" is a decent strategy.
> These delays didn’t stop the hypetrain.

This is an understatement. From an older article "How the Itanium killed the Computer Industry" https://www.pcmag.com/archive/how-the-itanium-killed-the-com...

> In 1997 Intel was the king of the hill; in that year it first announced the Itanium or IA-64 processor. That same year, research company IDC predicted that the Itanium would take over the world, racking up $38 billion in sales in 2001.

> What we heard was that HP, IBM, Dell, and even Sun Microsystems would use these chips and discontinue anything else they were developing. This included Sun making noise about dropping the SPARC chip for this thing—sight unseen. I say "sight unseen" because it would be years before the chip was even prototyped. The entire industry just took Intel at its word that Itanium would work as advertised in a PowerPoint presentation.

And then the original article has an Intel leader saying "Everything was new. When you do that, you're going to stumble". Yeah, much as Intel stumbled with the Pentium IV and basically everything since Skylake in 2015 (which was late). Let's emphasize this: for near ten years now, Intel can't deliver on time and on target. Just last year, Sapphire Rapids after being late by two years shipped in 2023 March and needed to pause in June because of a bug. Meteor Lake was also two years late. In 2020 https://www.zdnet.com/article/intels-7nm-product-transition-...

> Intel's first 7nm product, a client CPU, is now expected to start shipping in late 2022 or early 2023, CEO Bob Swan said on a conference call Thursday.

> The yield of Intel's 7nm process is now trending approximately 12 months behind the company's internal target.

Well then the internal target must've been late 2021 and it came out late 2023.
Boeing seeks Ryanair support with checks after mid-air blowout
One 32x32 frame every 3 minutes? And only if you put everything right up against the screen, how terrifying.
As a PM, I believe what you're describing is the torrent of people who used to work as "project managers" and "business analysts" who've transitioned into Product for the higher pay, without appreciating any of the differences between the roles.

IMO, the fundamental role of a PM is to make the decisions nobody else wants to (and own the consequences of them). If my team is making progress and decisions are being made, I get the fuck out of the way.

I jokingly refer to myself as the "designated scapegoat", basically meaning it's my job to tank the risk for situations where everyone is nominally in agreement about something, but nobody wants to be the person to put their hand up and own the decision because of the risk if it backfires.
Only? I have heard of plenty of people not getting 1 internship offer after 1000 applications.
> Also, ever since the Gemini marketing video shenanigans, I don't really feel like trusting whatever Google's research says they have, if I can't test it myself.

The video was released by Google product marketing for a launch to customers, not research.

I'm still somewhat confused by this one. I understand the community has decided to be harsh on Google for that video to draw a line - fair, truth in advertising, etc. -, but at the same time, we all had an understanding of where that tech is at currently and the pace it progresses at. Did anyone watching it really assume it was realtime? Can we not differentiate between technical publications and marketing anymore? Do we have to vilify everyone in an R&D department for the sins of the product marketing wing?
> I'd shy away from features which require crazy parser shenanigans like[...] RegEx literals

Note to aspiring language designers: you don't have to shy away; you can 80/20 your way there even in extremely early versions of your language if you rule that, for now, all regular expression literals must be parenthesized (so just tell authors to write e.g. `(/re/)` rather than `/re/`). With this requirement in place, it's about as easy to support them the lexer as it is to support other multi-character operators like `&&` or `>=`.

I call this trick the "eggex hack"—at least I would, except that chubot also chose the "eggex" terminology in Oil shell to describe a completely different concept for reasons that I don't understand.
I read up on the syntax a few years ago and, by learning only a few of the symbols, it actually starts to make a lot of sense and seemed like a nice shorthand.

I then promptly forgot everything and find the syntax very annoying again nowadays... seriously, it's weird remembering having knowledge but not having the knowledge itself anymore
Seriously? Ryanair? Are they just trolling at this point?
A convincing explanation I saw is that usually all doors are loosely attached by the subcontractor, since Boeing needs to remove them to build the interior. Then puts them back to specs.

A miscommunication probably happened where the plug doors were not tightened to specs same as every other doors, but Boeing didn't touch them (or checked) for their usual interior setup.
Last of the Moon Men
> For one thing, it allows you to move the taskbar again.

But but... think of their support costs if people accidentally move the taskbar!

They have to remove your options or they'll starve!
United Airlines is thinking about ditching Boeing's next jet
This reminds me of a talk Tim Berners-Lee did in 2002 (at the 10th Python conference):

https://www.w3.org/2002/Talks/0206-python/ ("Webizing Python")

I wasn't there but I remember hearing that this wasn't well received by the participants.

Also, TBL references a post by Aaron Swartz at the end of his slides: https://web.archive.org/web/20050208021219/logicerror.com/we... (also titled "Webizing Python")
Never has global climate changed this quickly, as far as we can tell. Usually changes this big take tens of thousands of years, and they're handled fine-ish. A couple of times it has happened over centuries and that resulted in mass extinction. Over decades? Unprecedented.
You have a good point and lock poisoning had the same reasoning, but wasn't really popular [1]. (In hindsight the poisoning itself was a great idea but should have been decoupled from locks.) Compared to other languages with similar constructs, Rust panic is probably regarded as less fatal because an incorrect but safe Rust code tends to have a limited reach.

Ah, and it should be also noted that some non-fatal signals were also delivered only via panic. The best-known example is a memory allocation failure, which is recoverable in Rust but needed unwinding for a long time. Nowadays you have an unsafe but non-unwinding alternative.

[1] https://blog.rust-lang.org/2020/12/11/lock-poisoning-survey....
> unless you want to say that engineer CEOs are intrinsically better/not susceptible to bad culture etc

Yes, that's what we are all saying.
A new release of zlib emerges
I see this a lot as well, and I think we really ought to call it out more often. It should be clear whether a GitHub publication enables downstream use or contribution.
> Coming to think of it, at some point I may have implemented a single button wake (like the article) by creating a JuiceSSH profile to run my WOL bash function then exit as a snippet, and then making an Android widget on the homescreen to connect with that profile.

I have something like that as a termux shortcut and it works nicely ( https://wiki.termux.com/wiki/Termux:Widget ). Pretty simple, too; just stick the ssh one-liner in a script in ~/.shortcuts/ and it works.
That's ignoring the difference between fixed costs and marginal costs.

When the program grows, the fix costs stop to matter.
Yeah, technically it's a pretty cool concept, but 'privacy risk' is way ahead of the real world.
Sensory and motor systems have critical or sensitive periods early in life and then the neural network is pruned and the critical period closes. This is why second language acquisition is much easier at younger ages. There are some drugs that may reopen the critical period although not much can be done about the pruning. So basically all the early neural circuits for interpreting sounds are not organized correctly and it's unclear if they can be post critical period.
Is delivery critical or just get it close enough to tissue in ROI?

Are we aiming to modify specific cells/layers? And what happens to adjacent tissue that is 'accidentally' modified?

Do you have any literature recommendations on the state of the art in Gene Therapy 'delivery' mechanisms/apparatus?
And how does that negate Boeing's maintenance woes?
This seems to be common practice at Airbus.

I recently did a public tour of one of Airbus' major assembly lines. I remember the tour guide telling us, that their customers (the airlines) either have their own QA people on the line when their planes get assembled, or pay another company to do it for them.
You are welcome :)

There are more materials in my blog, including 4 articles from October 2023: https://ashvardanian.com/archives/

Benchmarks are quite easy to reproduce, especially in Python. The numbers for AWS Graviton 3, Apple M2 and Intel Sapphire Rapids CPUs can be found here: https://ashvardanian.com/posts/simsimd-faster-scipy/
Then show the evidence. This feels like a testable hypothesis.
One-minute love letter to building software
They’re not customers, they’re the product.
Pretty much everyone in the first world will be the least affected compared to those in other places...
From what I read, people got their credentials breached on some other websites. Hackers then somehow used those same credentials to log in to 23andMe.

I see that 23andMe could’ve forced MFA, or have a better brute force protection for sure but seems like 23andMe themselves didn’t breach any passwords at least.
> The hackers initially got access to around 14,000 accounts using previously compromised login credentials, but they then used a feature of 23andMe to gain access to almost half of the company's user base, or about 7 million accounts

I mean for the 14,000 accounts accessed with compromised login credentials, yes that's logical that it's their fault.

But what kind of feature would allow attackers to then get access to 7 million accounts from 14,000 compromised accounts? The article doesn't say and I can't imagine any feature that would allow that without being an egregious breach of security.
Your first search result made the news.

"mounting the pavement" temporarily isn't the same as driving on it for multiple metres.
"Python is not a suitable platform to build on for reproducible research"
Overpass is great!

Published a ShowHN about Atlas.co yesterday, but I also just want to mention that we have a Overpass Turbo OSM integration that enables you to query data directly in a map and then download it as geojson, kml or shp (obv you can also style it and use it in analysis). Might be useful for some
There is an interview with Raymond Chen where he is trying to defend the
reason why they crippled the taskbar with Windows 11 [1].

Watching that I was just thinking NO NO NO - it worked fine for the last
25 years and there can be absolutely no reason why they had to destroy
the taskbar now.

He deserves every headache he gets with these support requests.

Or to quote this comment of the linked article:

> There wouldn’t be as much of a need if the windows shell team was
smarter [...] In fact I actively encourage, support, and celebrate
efforts like this. Make their life hell and delay them. If they spend
more time on investigating issues like this, they’ll have less time to
f*k something else up.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDicLHBvQQM
Becoming You: Are you the same person you were when you were a child?
I've noticed this within accents of the same language. My own English accent has a very mild separation between the i and e vowels in, e.g., bitter and better. To my ear they sound wildly different, but many native speakers from other places and more English-as-a-second-language speakers can really struggle to tell apart what I'm saying, to the point that it's usually easier for me to switch languages to the local one to distinguish the words if the context is ambiguous. Oddly, despite noticing shifts in my accent having lived abroad for some time now, this is something that hasn't budged.

Similarly in my (learnt as an adult) second language, there are a couple of vowel sounds that aren't in English and I usually have to really focus to hear them, and to pronounce them correctly.
One day when I will be able to install it on my local machine and close down the firewall to air gap it from the internet - I'm in. To pay for the app or monthly subscription - you name it. But, as long as I'm required to send my financial data to who knows who, who knows where - hard pass for me, thank you very much.
Just make it conditional: if you use DRM, then the customer also benefits:)