skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
In my view, they are making alternative app stores way more attractive to FLOSS apps, because they will incur no fees from Apple, and the creators won't have to set up an NPO.

Edit: Seems I misunderstood, I just re-read the relevant section:

>iOS apps distributed from the App Store and/or an alternative app marketplace will pay €0.50 for each first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold.

The fact that they are charging money for apps installed from non-App Store sources is ludicrous to me, if they aren't running the store, then they don't get to collect fees on it, imo.
I will always be impressed by folks who dare become academicians. It requires a lot of self-sacrifice
Relevant to what exactly?
The challenge is that it's hard to see the value of good commits if you've never done a `git blame` or `git bisect`, but you can't really use those until you have good commits. A bit of a chicken and egg problem.
Btw, the industry term for transferring film to video is telecine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine

And going the other way, before the introduction of videotape, the only way to store TV programs was to use a kinescope to produce a film recording of the broadcast:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinescope
"only", so we'll likely start seeing multiple listings of the same app?
Then why not simply pay for updates instead of squeezing the market?
> forced into checkmate because there's only a 2×2 square left and nowhere else for the kings to go except within each others' attack range.

If the only two pieces left are kings, that is a stalemate. It is not even a legal move for two kings to come within one square of each other.
I'm very surprised they don't even mention the efficiency of the developer in this context - C might be the greener language once the system is developed, but it's somewhat common sense that a higher-level language should significantly lessen development time.

Since developers needs to run an entire OS incl. employer/administrative overhead for the time they're developing, the greenest thing one could do for software is improving DevEx. (at all levels - language, infrastructure, tooling)

I'm talking about the majority of software being developed here - if you're FAANG or run a system with huge loads then the trade-off might be worth it.
>I will defend merge squash forever - low effort, good results. You do whatever you want in your feature branch, then merge squash.

I completely agree. Trying to read through the git history of a non-squashed repo is painful, and I actively try to avoid it. Seeing a bunch of commits that just say "fixed typo" is not helpful to me, and I really don't care about seeing someone's workflow or thought process in minute detail as they were developing something.
This is exactly what I do. No one talks about how many GPUs you need to generate enough embeddings that you need to do something else.

Here's some back of the envelope math. Let's say you are using a 1B parameter LLM to generate the embedding. That's 2B FLOPs per token. Let's assume a modest chunk size, 2K tokens. That's 4 trillion FLOPs for one embedding.

What about the dot product in the cosine similarity? Let's assume an embedding dim of 384. That's 2 * 384 = 768.

So 4 trillion ops for the embedding vs 768 for the cosine similarity. That's a factor of about 1 billion.

So you could have a billion embeddings - brute forced - before the lookup became more expensive than generating the embedding.

What does that mean at the application level? It means that the time needed to generate millions of embeddings is measured in GPU weeks.

The time needed to lookup an embedding using an approximate nearest neighbors algorithm from millions of embeddings is measured in milliseconds.

The game changed when we switched from word2vec to LLMs to generate embeddings.

1 billion times is such a big difference that it breaks the assumptions earlier systems were designed under.
> But Apple owns one of only two global mobile app, service and info platforms, and so has tremendous power to limit and veto other businesses opportunities. Few businesses that need to operate in those ecosystems can be viable only operating in one of them.

However, it is important (from a capitialism angle at least) to realize Apple has never falsely represented things. They have not done a bait and switch. They launched with their 30% commission rate on agency-model pricing almost 15 years ago (for apps, which was the same commission rate for music before that), and every change in licensing terms has been either enabling new transactions that were otherwise restricted, or by offering lower rates - such as for certain types of financial transactions, or certain business sizes.

They have also tended to do this with public policy changes rather than unilateral arrangements, although there are some partner programs around tvOS which are pretty tailor-built such that few companies would be able to take advantage of them.

And it is worth noting that they launched first as a platform for web based apps, and when you filter web technologies to actual standards (and not Google inventions) they tend to fight between first and second place with Chrome on actual interoperability.

Companies recognize the marketing value of having a native app within the App Store vs just a normal website. Apple obviously does as well.

> Apple charges a percentage of follow up revenue, even if the transaction happens elsewhere.

Note this is only true via 'new terms' to allow for steering toward alternative payment systems. Apple has always allowed you to operate your own out-of-store payment system (e.g. signing up for a Netflix account on the Netflix site, or purchasing kindle books on kindle.com) without paying them any commission.

However for most consumer apps (e.g. non. 'reader' apps like music, video, books and news) you had to provide a way to purchase in-app using Apple's system.

Many of these reader apps have played with in-app subscriptions off-and-on, which would make an interesting case study as they have been the category actually capable of deciding whether or not in-app purchasing was worth offering. Other categories are mandated.
The iPad is nice, so is MacOS. But the iPhone is the linchpin to Apple's strategy.

If the iPhone were to disappear tomorrow and Apple were banned from ever making phones, Apple's moat would most likely collapse.

If the iPad went away tomorrow, Apple would just lose billions or tens of billions of dollars in revenue and not much else would change.
Sure, there are some risks with this DMA : https://imgur.com/a/paJP1T7 ;-)
Programs are run more often than they are written.

So while I agree that it should be considered. Please remember that the weight can be totally different depending on if it's a one-off program, a small utility that's intended for a population of 100 people- or if it's curl.
Moving cells/columns/rows with drag and drop and modifier keys do not work
Admittedly there is a resurgence of understanding the benefits of risk taking, but to demonstrate the status quo, a school outing to a museum requires a risk assessment to be made, weight the benefits of, well, a school trip, against risks of walking on streets etc.
Previous discussion:

C Is the Greenest Programming Language (33 comments) 2 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29263961
https://www.asymco.com/2023/09/04/the-2-trillion-economy/

OK is an understatement.
> Kids growing up with exercise and a penchant for adventure are IMO better placed to succeed in life (long term health benefits, bravery etc.) but not so if they break their legs all the time falling off of things. It's not obvious to me how to balance these things.

Kids breaking their legs all the time falling off of things has never been a problem at any point in history. This suggests that no effort is needed to ensure that it isn't a problem in the future. You don't need protections against things that don't ever happen.
I wonder whether this will allow changing the browser iOS uses for captive portal interactions if a different default browser is selected?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39140232 gave you the actual answer why it wouldn't work.

Instead they might consider a second formation in orbit 90 degrees away from the first.
1) More spam on Android by far
2) Spotify not blocked

There’s a bit of religion happening in both directions. iOS has, objectively, fewer problems than Android in these regards and part of that are the policies.
I wouldn't say they're unrelated.

If your father is a religious zealot who hates a certain group of people, and your primary social contact is hanging out with your friends drinking coffee, you may end up extremist or not. If your primary social contact is being saturated with hate speech 24/7 on social media, where you're punished for dissent, you will almost certainly turn into a zealot yourself. Yet this isn't even the whole problem, because almost no one you read on social media should even have access to a keyboard, let alone be allowed to bully peers into acquiescing to hate and violence.

Facebook is responsible for genocide in Myanmar, and I don't think it's a huge stretch to say that its model (and social media's model in general) is responsible for the enormous wave of terrorist radicalization, school shootings, and violent antipathy toward civilized society that has overwhelmed the world since 2008.
Huh? My read is, this basically says there's no reason to give a recruit bonuses for priority (like say, undesirable and dangerous front line) work. It's more effective incentivizing the recruiter (like maybe he could just forget to mention other work is even available).

There is no way this incentive structure leads to honesty for recruiter or upward mobility for the recruit
No, their robots will.
OpenCV.ai team has published a new article about Yolo. I hope you will find it well.
This comprehensive guide offers insights into the latest YOLO models and algorithms comparison, helping developers and researchers choose the most effective solution for their projects.
> The paper distinguishes risks vs hazards as something the child can perceive & control vs something they can't, like a car or unsafe equipment

I knew someone who worked with designing playgrounds here in Norway, and his focus was on this. He called it subjective safety vs objective safety.

The idea was to maximize objective safety while allowing the kids a lot of room to explore the subjective safety.

This could be say a climbing wall which was tall enough to be challenging, but ensuring the equipment and ground was designed and maintained[1] such that there was no risk of permanent injury should a kid fall from the top.

As most kids love a challenge this induced them to play freely in a natural way, which lead to other benefits including social aspects like reduction of bullying.

[1]: https://www.bsigroup.com/contentassets/fd0e8cd7dd174774890cd...
If this creates security risks, then why is the Web somehow ok or otherwise not shut down?
You have also AsciiDoctor ( https://asciidoctor.org/ ) which is alive and well. I am using it for technical CS documentation internally, but only for single page documents. I did not try to deploy their whole multi-document setup called Antora ( https://antora.org/ ).
> It feels like a bit of doomed a project simply bc browsers don't open EPubs.

Not that long time ago, browsers could not open PDFs as well. Now all browsers come with PDF reader written in ASM/JS. I see nothing that prevents browsers doing the same for EPUBs. There exist browser extensions that do exactly this already. Its a matter of EPUB format gaining popularity.
> iOS apps distributed from the App Store and/or an alternative app marketplace will pay €0.50 for each first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold.
This isn't so clear-cut and open to interpretation. To me it sounds like this would be referring to technical limitations like the ones already put in place by the OS - ie prohibiting a third-party "Settings" app with "root" capabilities or a "file manager" app able to access data across all other apps would be fine.

Apple themselves explicitly approving each installable app does not seem strictly necessary and proportionate.
"To run AI applications (test machine): RyzenAI processor, example: Phoenix/Strix"

Is there any strix besides the unreleased Strix Point and Strix Halo?
> There’s a bit of religion happening in both directions. iOS has, objectively, fewer problems than Android in these regards and part of that are the policies.

When you say "objectively" I assume that this is something that has been measured and that there are reliable sources for this statement?
you are the cow that is being milked. what do you expect ?

do NOT buy their products. or use them WITHOUT the software.

money. that's the only pressure tool you have. use it, or be a nice obedient cow.
There it is. The line.

Physically forcing anything is a failure of governance. If you have to force it, you had no authority in the first place and you're just covering up that fact.

America is absolutely committed to creating hell on earth.
Mostly using shadcn/ui and https://ui.aceternity.com/components for beautiful components
Fan art and memes are tolerated despite their infringing nature. It's a laughable double-standard. You only need compare the contents of a typical Fandom wiki vs. Creative Commons repositories to see this in action.

If fan art increases brand recognition and promotes the properties, then it gets a free pass.
People like you is why trading opportunities continue to exist
See my comment to sibling. Bad for any "consumer" if any sales process works this way really, but if we're talking "guidance" for career paths or life and death, this just seems insanely hostile and abusive
but why should they pay?
Sounds exactly right to me.
That will grow and follow the same pattern(s), or try new business models?
a bit of a silly comment. a PC is not a phone. a phone is something very personal, something you can lose very easily (and a lot of people do), something that you use all the time outside your home (on the street, on the bus, etc). a PC isn't that.
Its easy man, you just gotta own 2 houses
> It's absurd to argue that Apple's libraries don't provide value.

Who is arguing that Apple's libraries don't provide value? Certainly the person you replied to isn't. That's an incredible strawman fallacy
Too late to edit, didn't see the typo earlier. s/pāo/pão/ .
No one consents to exist

No one consents to capitalism or other norms of their culture (born into it)

We can come up with philosophical ideals but they’re meaningless given reality

We all see how society treats each other and yet we keep giving in to reproductive urges

Our animalistic nature is a fractal in that it’s always there, has been since humans came about, will be as long as they exist

Words associations, technology change fast. Meat suits change slow.

Usually you don’t see it but when you aren’t looking it still exists.
Same. I'll also add that this company's policy of prefixing commit messages with ticket IDs was a godsend. I could trace confusing business logic to a meeting and specific people. It made a big refactor possible. Not easier, possible.

Even as a solo worker, descriptive and atomic commits are valuable. They make merging or reverting changes a lot easier.
Unrelated to this, but related to RDNA3.

I have a 7900 XT, and all my attempts at getting ROCm to work on different Linuxes seem to have failed at different points. Does anyone have a pointer to a clear explanation on how to get it to work?
Differently how?

And perhaps more importantly, what tradeoff(s) would those differences entail?
If I buy a product from company A, then want to use it to do business with company B, then what does company A have to do with it? Am I not the owner of my device?
Using APIs is fair use. If you can avoid using Apple code to do so, or only minimal ones, like headers, then I think you would be in the clear. See Google vs Oracle. IANAL of course and personally I wouldn't pursue this.
You can do that with Latex as well? I use TexStudio which has a preview pane. Any time I make changes I hit f5 and it updates pretty quickly. It's not instantly but pretty close to it, and there are already less problems with things shifting around because it manages that better than Word does, by design.
It is simple enough to do a script doing that in Ruby, but there also enough off the shelf tools specifically for load testing that encodes a lot of experience and avoids a lot of obvious and not so obvious mistakes, so it's usually not worth writing your own.
What I don't understand is how the pricing methods that our parent comment called egregious offer any type of protection or mitigation. Could you elaborate?
There is a fundamental difference you're ignoring: the GPL is not a monopoly of any sort, Apple is part of a duopoly.
Hammurabi: A Framework for Pluggable, Logic-Based X.509 Certificate Validation
Novops - https://github.com/PierreBeucher/novops - is a similar tools with active maintenance, more flexibility (generic interface, support plain strings and different secrets providers). Teller is nice but lacks some features Novops aims to provide.
Streaming services ARE paying TV manufactures for using their IP. Thats why all the TVs are becoming smart TVs - because someone signing up for Max (or Apple TV+) nets them a fairly profitable commission when you see how slim margins are for the bulk of television sales.

This is why smart TVs are becoming increasingly more annoying, because additional revenue streams are so highly desired. Display more in-interface ads, offer first party 'streaming' for the opportunity to display more ads, put movie purchases/rentals ever more prominently in your UI, always start in your menus rather than the last selected HDMI input, take metrics on what people are watching by default - I am surprised we don't have an Uber Eats button on the remote yet.

Interestingly, a TV manufacturer can't do anything to require a streaming service to provide _their_ IP. Netflix seems to have a policy of not allowing their app to run on projectors, keeping them out of the allow-list for downloads and for execution of the android app. Some projector manufacturers will ship a separate Chromecast dongle or the like so that they can say they support Netflix on the box.
Let's take a simulation code, where accuracy and precision is important, and is achievable in both C and Y (a hypothetical, more productive language).

Let's say you spent a couple of months less time in Y to get the same program, but your hot core loop, which handles the iterations, runs 1-2 seconds slower in general. Let's say this loop takes 30 seconds in C, and 32 seconds in Y. You need 4000 calls of this function for a single solve.

You lost 8000 seconds per solve. 2.2 hours. In every ~650 runs, you lose these two months of time you saved in development. 650 runs is a lot of runs you think. No it's not. It's a single run, fired in parallel on a 1/3rd of a 2000 node cluster, which is small in supercomputing world. These two seconds saves me 2 hours on a single run. Which means I mean I save a day in 12 runs. This means, I can run at least 650 more test cases on the same cluster.

This snowballs as the research moves forward.

Losing a couple months in C or FORTRAN doesn't mean much in a multi-year research project. You reap the speed benefits measured in CPU-years.

This is why we still love C/C++/FORTRAN. Because they're more productive in the end.
Ask HN: How does Apple CarPlay work?
Questions I have that I could not find answers:

1. Is the iPhone rendering in in-car displays? What is the refresh rate?

2. Does the iPhone have direct access to the CAN bus?

3. What role do the infotainment units play? Do they play any role when CarPlay is in use? Processing data/running an Apple-provided OS? If it runs an Apple provided OS does it download this from the phone or is it preloaded? Can the phone push updates?

4. How does iOS control the instrument cluster?
It's good, but I was expecting to see something like a C++ library that seemed at first glance to be useful but is hard to use.
> Footnote: I am convinced that we'll see a fork (of sorts) of RISC-V for the GBOoO segment.

Yeah, seems likely.

Qualcomm has been trying to push RISC-V to be better for GBOoO after ARM fucked them over with their Nuvia purchase. They have a high performance AArch64 core and no AArch64 licence for it.

They have been pushing to drop the compressed 16bit instruction extension from the core profile, and proposed a new extension improves code density by adding new addressing modes stolen from AArch64.

> For instance, I consider MRISC32 to be a RISC ISA, but an implementation may expand vector instructions into multiple operations that take several clock cycles to complete

ARM Inc takes this approach for vector instructions on their little cores (like the A53).

> I still think that there is potential in software-aided decoding/translation (heck, most of the software that we run on a daily basis is JIT-translated, so it can't be that bad).

Ironically, the prevalence of JITs in modern software is one of the major reasons why Project Denver had a hard time. It took a noticeable performance hit worse when executing JITTed code, not that it's performance on static code was great. This is despite the fact that Denver had a hardware translator so it didn't have to send all code though the software translator.

I suspect Transmeta fell into the classic trap of underestimating just how good of a performance advantage that a GBOoO gets from hiding the latency of memory ops with out-of-order execution. With hindsight, we know know that advantage is massive, but nobody really knew about it 20 years ago.

I'm not entirely sure what Denver's problem was. I understand they did aggressive memory prefetching to try and compensate. Maybe that just wasn't good enough. Or maybe it was just translation overhead issues, trying to schedule VILW code is a hard problem, and the same reason why Itanium failed.

> However... If software decoding is only used for small power efficient cores (and maybe they use something else than VLIW?

Yeah, might work. Well, more for a medium sized core than small.

I'm thinking maybe if you kept the instruction bundling from VLIW so your frontend is significantly simpler, but still use an out-of-order backend so you get the latency hiding advantage. And because it's only an efficiency on a heterogeneous SoC, the OS can identify code (or processes) that doesn't work well with software decoding and kick it to the performance cores.

> IIRC a main driver for Transmeta was to circumvent x86 licensing issues

But then Nvidia tried the same approach. Apparently there was a lawsuit which they lost, and project Denver was repurposed as an AArch64 core. It might have been a good product if it could run x86 code.
Like wearing a jacket :-)
This was nicely foreseen in the original Map - Reduce paper, where the authors write:

> The issues of how to parallelize the computation, distribute the data, and
> handle failures conspire to obscure the original simple computation with large
> amounts of complex code to deal with these issues. As a reaction to this
> complexity,we designed anew abstraction that allows us to express the simple
> computations we were trying to perform but hides the messy details of
> parallelization, fault-tolerance, data distribution and load balancing in
> a library .

If you are not meeting this complexity (and today with 16 TB of RAM and 192 cores, many jobs don't) then Map-Reduce / Hadoop is not for you...