skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Disclaimer: I’m extremely newbie in front end, probably less than 6 months of experience combined in the last 6 years.

I can’t stress enough how easy it is using Tailwind, it just works! I don’t care about the long ass lines because for how I’m used to format html pages, I’d have to go to a new line anyway, it’s just that now I can understand what’s happening in react components without too many troubles.

Another plus is that by checking other people’s html code, I can immediately see their tailwind tags, without searching through files for css definitions, I see how they change their stuff there and I can immediately learn how to replicate their patterns.
Imagine how fruitful saving time is, especially when using framework like nextjs, you can literally launch a prototype in few days of work with these technologies.

Don’t get me wrong, I know that you’re not going to build the next Facebook or Microsoft with Tailwind and Nextjs, they have their drawbacks, but their impact on the critical path from the idea to a working MVP can’t be ignored.
Ask HN: Why are there no search suggestions on YouTube for the name "Peter"?
I've noticed a strange thing on youtube where it doesn't find any search suggestions for the name "Peter".

When typing the name, youtube queries this uri:

https://suggestqueries-clients6.youtube.com/complete/search?client=youtube&q=..

Normally there is a list of results returned in place of the empty array below:

```[
"peter",
[],
{
"j": ..,
"k": ..,
"q": ..
}
]```

I've tried on different vpns, different browsers, different devices, different internet connections, incognito, tor etc...

Is this unique for me and is just an example of how well they "fingerprint" users, or does everyone see this result?
Streaming wars are over and Netflix won
According to Wikipedia, Google's datacenters use a total of 500MW globally (which is very efficient to be honest). On the other hand, a standard Top10 supercomputer uses around 5MW (a ballpark figure), Assuming that Amazon also uses that amount of power, We're looking at 1250MW of power used by top computing centers around the world. This number is probably higher as we add cloudflare, OVH, and other countless data centers. Bitcoin is not added because, well, we're talking computing.

I think ~5W is a good approximation for mean power draw of smartphones. I don't know the duty cycle approximation, so I'll assume that number is 2.5W with 50% duty cycle.

This boils down to 500 million smartphones, approximately.

Of you think in terms of gaming PCs and consoles, 400W is a good approximation of the fleet. Again, if we think 50% duty cycle (at 200W), we have 1.562.500 PCs.

So I think, the data centers spend the same amount of power as the rest of the infrastructure, at best. Again, a bigger sample will again tilt the power towards data centers, I assume.
> But people buy them because of the restriction that you don't like

You will need a source that people buy them because of the restriction.

> you're imposing your own standard

No, our EU society has done so, through our elected parliament.

> I doubt most users give one single thought to rooting their phone

This subject has nothing to do with rooting a phone.
It's a fairly limited set of rules that are mostly consistent, extensively documented, and easy to remember. But yeah, a little bit of effort is required when dealing with a styling language with over 300 properties.

Without Tailwind, you'll have to come up with a unique, declarative, distinctive name for each and every element you're piling styles upon. At first it's a button, then there's buttons that should look like links, and then clickable icons. They share some properties, but not others, and before you know it, you've invented an ad-hoc description language in CSS classes that nobody except you can understand right away. With Tailwind, you may have sequences of tokens that seem confusing at first, but at least it's the same -- few -- sequences in every single Tailwind project under the sun.

No side effects, no blurry concerns, no more specificity issues. If you don't appreciate that, you haven't seen large enough projects yet.
Fair points. It sounds like perhaps your position is more against their opaque and inconsistent application of their policies than the policies themselves which I can agree with.
I spend so little time relatively on my own machine’s terminal and even when I do I don’t want it to be totally different from the boxes I SSH into every day. That context switch would be frustrating. Nor do I have the desire to push for something like this to be installed on our fleet of servers.

Do the people who use this (along with terminal emulators that require you install things on the host to get the full power) just not use other machines and/or install stuff like this on them? Just seems odd to me personally but I’m interested in how others use it. Do you only use your own computer/terminal so it’s not an issue?
Apple Music is the perfect representation of what Apple has become in my opinion. iTunes was a hugely influential, useful and well-made software. Apple Music is a poor imitation of its predecessor and somehow manages to be worse in every metric possible: performance, interface, user experience and even feature set.

All that to access a shitty streaming service that is lackluster on so many levels.
Starting by the fact they remove much more of the catalog than Spotify does and they even removed access to tracks I bought on the iTunes Store, which is completely bonkers to me.

After 4 years on Apple Music, I just went back to Spotify, because not only are they significant benefits (don't lose everything if you want to cancel sub and works way better in more platforms) but the app itself is just better. It also starts streaming much faster on any connection, and even though I did like the Apple Music discovery playlist, Spotify is better at this game in many ways.

In the end Apple Music perfectly illustrates the questionnable success of today's Apple stuff because they have a cult following buying anything they do even though they are not particularly features nor price competitive.

By the way, the Spotify app lets you use your mobile as a remote for any running instance on your network, inside the same app, with the same playlist/track saving capabilities. But for some reason, Apple, who control the whole technology stack is stuck with a half assed remote app from iTunes vestige that cannot control Apple Music playlisting (only able to browse and play) and their overloaded (extremely busy full of useless crap irrelevant to the user) mobile app cannot do anything useful.

I really don't understand how people can reason about with today's Apple prices, because they are clearly stuck in another era and sell subpar shitty products...
* Slow to evolve

As in: it took years to get something thats even remotely comparable to framework components. Tooling can move fast and course correct, the standards have to get things right the first time.
If that was true they would have had more than time to actually ship a Lenovo Linux with Thinkpads.

Yet in most regions it isn't even an option on the business store.
Sometimes it's tactically crucial that the promotion is a check, and in these cases you might need a knight.

Making a knight to avoid stalemate is actually extremely rare, because very often a knight isn't enough to win. Making a rook is more common there, but even that's rare.
I’m not ignoring it. I’m saying one is great and one sucks, but they both scaffold upon the same legal principle so decry the latter at your peril.
> a MUCH bigger problem on the internet than in real life

THIS, sadly. And a large-enough quantitative difference becomes a serious qualitative difference.
I am curious if anyone knowd "manual" techniques to induce and maintain lucid dreaming?
I wonder if the redacted versions are available in higher resolution.

I think the downscaled version could potentially be deciphered if the exact font is identified.
Comparing GPT-4, 3.5, and offline LLMs for generating Anki flashcards
> Single exit, though, means no "break", or "continue" for loops, and no early returns from functions.

Sounds like pretty standard functional programming a la Standard ML or Haskell, or am I missing something?
"This post is for paid subscribers"

I assume it's related to "No One's Name Was Changed at Ellis Island" at Marginal Revolution, discussed here last week at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39042349 or a New York Public Library posting "The Myth of Name Changes at Ellis Island" from 2013, posted to HN 6 years ago twice, like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16083552 .
HTML itself is beautiful. Show me a better way to express varied words and images with an eye for creative layout and design the way great books play with this content.

Every design system build on top of HTML is just an abstraction that adds layers of complexity whilst reducing the inherent flexibility of HTML. It's much like the years when every SPA framework rebuilt the concept of a back-button and page history, or standard HTML form inputs. All were shittier versions of what the browser provided (even if imperfectly at times).
A higher than usual dose of melatonin does it for me.
How does it compare to cuda in terms of versatility and compatibility? most AI frameworks are built around cuda (pytorch, etc..) which is why nvidia has a monopoly now, I fail to see AMD breaking through, but one can hope. Do you see a light at the end of the tunnel?
This would make the game less elegant, in my view. There are too many endgames that are just trivially winning if you make stalemate a win for the stalemating player.

Stalemate mostly just makes the game more interesting when otherwise the position would be completely uninteresting.
If you need to adopt the HTML to fit a certain style, you're doing it wrong. HTML should be a semantic markup, it shouldn't change much when you need to change the styling/CSS. So you don't really go "back-and-forth" to architecture CSS, you just write your CSS. But maybe it's a Tailwind thing that you need to add additional elements to HTML just to be able to style it correctly, I'm not sure. It's like saying you shouldn't have JSON files (and embed the data inside the business logic) as you need to change the JSON file when you need to change the logic of the app. In short, you adopt your CSS architecture to your semantic markup, not the other way around.
I think it depends entirely on what your goals are. If you think diversity is gonna improve the browser engines, then yeah, Apple isn't gonna be much help with that.

However, if your goal is to prevent Google from having complete and total unilateral control of the web standards, simply the existence of WebKit as a prominent browser engine is enough. Its quality pretty much doesn't matter in this regard. This is pretty much my perspective.
I'm just saying coding in C costs significant more human hours, literally.
> Virtual Box, is good for those that don't want to pay for stuff on local computers.

Be careful using it in corporate environments.

I used VirtualBox at home regularly - old games that won't run on modern operating systems anymore. Being free, it worked reasonably well for that.

At work I had to troubleshoot an issue with some software I couldn't side load on my usual machine as the installer complained of a newer version also installed, removing the newer version would've taken a long time and broke some of my existing projects. So I quickly installed VirtualBox, being 'free', to virtualise another copy of Windows for troubleshooting.

Long story short something else came up, I couldn't get to the troubleshooting stuff so I never got around to setting up a virtual machine after installing VirtualBox.

About a week later I got an email from one of our sysadmins asking whether I was still using VirtualBox. Querying why (out of curiosity, explaining my situation), apparently Oracle reached out, sniffing round for licensing fees, because they noticed I downloaded VirtualBox from their website. I didn't fill out any forms or gave Oracle my details. Work, I'm 95% sure, doesn't use Oracle products at all.

I promptly removed VirtualBox after that. On my personal machine too.
As a non-web developer with a couple of relatively sophisticated side projects, I've never understood the appeal of Tailwind. It somehow manages to be hideous, verbose, and absolute gibberish all at the same time. If I wanted that, I'd write everything straight into the style tag. I can't understand why Tailwind would be any easier to maintain (and I'm sorry, but you will never convince me that I need a javascript precompiler for my damn stylesheets).
It's easy to imagine that assembly code that's written with readability and maintainability in mind is less efficient than a readable and maintainable C program compiled with optimizations. But in any case, the difference between any compiled language and assembly is much smaller than any interpreted language and any compiled language.
"Our goal is zero injuries."

This I would sign, too.

"Goal and intention ... there is no risk of permanent injury."

This not. If you design proper and guide the small children enough, you can achieve no permanent injuries with some luck (for a specific playground over some time), but you cannot rule it out, that eventually something very bad might happen and this would just give parents false security.

I have seen this actually quite often. Young parents who assume, that the playground is totally safe, so they let then children do really risky things without realizing the danger - and this is dangerous. I mean children should do risky things and other people(mainly the grandparents) freak out when they see, what my small kids are allowed to do. But as a climber and parkour enthusiast - I guide and assist them first, till I know, they can handle this particular new situation and I try to raise their awareness of what they are capable and when they should rather stop or shout for help. And of course, I am near, so I can assist in critical situations. But I know that accidents will happen. And they did, but luckily nothing serious so far (because I was there). But I know, that I am not in 100% control of the situation all the time, just not possible. But if I would be scared because of the remaining <0.1% - my nervousness would affect them and make them insecure. Fear makes knees shaky ... and then they fall.
Ticket IDs on commits, so useful.

Just the other day I wanted to find an old ticket which I couldn’t find via search. But I knew what changed in the code so I went to pull up the commit and… no ticket ID. And git does not provide any way to see which branch a commit was originally made to (our branches all have ticket ids in them).

I finally found it by searching PRs but it was painful.

My IDE leaves my previous commit message in the box which is awesome for me. Once I’ve committed once I just have to delete everything after the ticket ID and add my new commit message.
There's "natural" hazards and human-induced ones. One paragraph of the article mentions parents in a poor neighbourhood not letting their kids play outside due to "discarded needles, homeless people sleeping in parks, and proximity to the sex trade and drug users". If that's the kind of world outside your apartment block, it might be a reasonable choice to stay indoors. If it's a woodland where kids might slip and fall of a log they're balancing on, that's a different matter.

The use of "risk" here is not the one I'm used to; the way pretty much everyone in risk management uses it is the product of likelihood and severity. I understand that they need different words for "hazard a child can deal with" and "hazard a child can't deal with", but the work "risk" is already taken.
If you find that wasteful, you can use the “transient prompt” feature to only print the full prompt to the current line, but keep the command history on one line per command in the terminal.
Big +1, it seems like half of the startups world is working on this
As I said, if you are FAANG or similar - which browsers are - the trade-off might be worth it, yes. But only a handful of software projects out there are browsers or video games.

That's the whole point of the argument. ;)
€0.50 for each first annual install per year is extremely expensive for many applications to handle. Especially if people just do installs to check and remove.

We had this discussion with Unity already.

Could be ok for fortnite though, epic should be pretty happy.

Also, who needs apple pay, Poland uses blik payments everywhere and it is just fine (and you have to autorise each payment with an alert from your bank app).
> Is "horizontal reading" worse than reading two files?

I see this complaint a lot but I don't really get it. You can have a styled component in the same file or a separate file. In VSCode, you just command click on the component and you go straight to the style definition. Not an issue.

> What if the other file is actually 30 files compiled with SASS?

I only work in Styled Components-exclusive codebases so can't comment

> What if they're 30 files, compiled with SASS, and written by a bunch of devs who don't know CSS well, didn't use BEM or anything to name things well, and didn't organise them at all?

You got bigger problems
> stepping out is a personal choice (but now is a choice for the user, instead of banning him from doing something apple doesn't like)

The choice is the developer's not the user's, if the app is only available in one app store (which seems likely to be the majority case).

Precisely because it is the developer's choice, users may be forced to leave the safety of the walled garden if they need an app that's not available - I saw another HN comment phrase it well as: if an app you need in order to "survive" is not available, you don't have a choice (for example, a banking app or a government app).
The file format doesn’t matter one bit when the reading and authoring tools are shit and the editors can’t/don’t fix anything. And papers will generally have a lot fewer resources to deal with this than major book publishers, who have been epub-focused for over a decade now and actually make money from it.
Relevant to the question of whether machines can think.
> The set of models we're discussing haven't.

Haven't what?

> You were derailing with "reason" for no reason

I was quoting someone else who said LLMs can't reason, and I'm asking them what they meant by that because ChatGPT sure acts like it reasons no matter what's going on "inside". I assume the inside to be a Transformer model because otherwise the naming is weird, but whatever it is, it acts like it learned to reason.

And I'm saying that despite wanting this to be a repeat of Clever Hans so I can go back to feeling optimistic about my economic future.
I can explain the differences. I've been using these distinctions in practice for many years.

"Mechanical" means algorithmic. It's what Turing meant when he wrote "The idea behind digital computers may be explained by saying that these machines are intended to carry out any operations which could be done by a human computer. The human computer is supposed to be following fixed rules; he has no authority to deviate from them in any detail. We may suppose that these rules are supplied in a book, which is altered whenever he is put on to a new job." See: https://redirect.cs.umbc.edu/courses/471/papers/turing.pdf

Checking is an evaluation activity that can be COMPLETELY automated.

Testing is a social activity done by humans. It cannot be automated because it incorporates social judgement. Social judgement requires collective tacit social knowledge. See: The Shape of Actions, by Harry Collins for a very deep dive into that.

A human exploration is distinguished by the presence of choosing. Humans make choices. You could claim that human choices are an epiphenomenon of bio-mechanics, if you want to. I actually believe that, myself. However, we are speaking of the social/practical realm. In this realm we perceive each other and treat each other as if we are making free choices (although perhaps influenced by known sources of bias). Thus the difference between exploring and checking is that, in every moment, a check is controlled by an explicit script that is knowable in principle; whereas in exploration, a person is forming new thoughts and theories, through a process of real-time sensemaking (otherwise known as learning).

Checking is a process of operating a product and verifying a particular fact. A check does not change the checker.

Exploration is a process of interacting, experiencing, and being transformed by this process. Exploration grows the explorer.
You could instead learn what patterns should be avoided and why. This means you can make meaningful judgements on whether it's ok to use those tools on occasion (like goto in C).

Tailwind is a mess by default. People didn't invent separation of style and content for no reason. They did it because what they were doing before was as mess. This is that same mess.
IMO being offline from Slack from time to time should be an option for all employees.
Might be confusing privacy with security
It also explains that having a key blank allows for attacks such as bumping. Also cuts can be easily reconstructed from photo of the keys.
My favorite part: "EU users will be confronted with a list of default browsers before they have the opportunity to understand the options available to them. The screen also interrupts EU users’ experience the first time they open Safari intending to navigate to a webpage."

I mean it's like saying that having a choice before being educated by one of the parties among the choices is a bad thing and it looks bad.
That also depends on the task at hand. Text processing in C with just the stdlib? Sure, waste of time. Number crunching via SIMD intrinsics? The best option for that is most likely C with compiler-specific extensions.
I'd like to like web components, but their reliance on JS to instantiate along with all the chaos of the shadow DOM keep them off the table for me. I think they are a great concept defeated by the implementation.
> Without Tailwind, you'll have to come up with a unique, declarative, distinctive name for each and every element you're piling styles upon

I can honestly say I've never spent more than 5 seconds thinking about what to name a styled component, do you really get decision paralysis with this?
A very interesting property:

Knights have odd-even parity, i.e., they attack only opposite colored squares.

Pop quiz: How many knights can you place on a board so that they don't attack each other?
> Their algo is simple show people what they are watching and engaging with.

Imagine really just going on the internet and saying this.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/30/facebo...

Please note that article is from _2014_