skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I switched to the Coros Vertix from Garmin Fenix a few years ago. At the time it was because their battery life was massively better. Things have evened out since. But I've been really happy with all aspects of the Coros and it's at a lower price point to the equivalent Garmin. I don't use the traditional "smartwatch" features, i.e. phone notifications, since they seemed unreliable and annoying.

I recently tried a Pixel Watch 2 for a few days. The experience was terrible. Battery life is laughable and the interface made me want to smash it. Also wasn't really useful since everything is compromised by the form factor. Dick Tracy calls were kinda fun for 2 mins though.
During the great internet blackout of 2032 he will be the one that remembers things!
15B euro fine for Apple this year. Anyone believe higher? It is guaranteed to happen just the amount may be debatable.
For the sake of argument, teaching people to be skeptical in this low stakes context might not be the worst thing.
Much simpler code and the ability to treat it like text in the browser. This is after all just a font and serializing an array of numbers into a string for this would be a one-liner function.

Responsive charts can be a pain and writing CSS for text is trivial compared to fumbling through yet another ridiculous API and needing a build step.
I don't really understand. I thought those patches were already merged into mainline a couple of years ago. For example you can have `CONFIG_PREEMPT=y` and use linux-lowlatency kernel (which AFAIK is just the vanilla kernel with special configuration)
(preface, I am pro adversarial interop)

I wonder if there are any people on HN that look at this type of project with approval who also derided projects like that iMessage one from Beeper.

Regarding ToS, both are on the same boat.

Just goes to show that the current "legal" landscape is not conducive with our collective vision of the Future (i.e clauses preventing automation, unauthorized interop, bots, etc. are in the way of progress)
Mathematical finance is basically all people saying look I know in the real world markets are driven by things like idiots buying Dogecoin because number go up but let's assume it's made of well informed participants who price everything correctly. Assuming this we can show...
extra margins for products on top of ec2 are mostly fine, there is a huge R&D effort and continued maintenance, so extra charges to recuperate that spend are totally justifiable.

but 16-20% extra charges for foundational compute tech like fargate just go against the promise of cloud :(
> Otherwise events like the MCAS disaster would be just an "happy accident" with no one to blame.

But it was. Boeing being allowed to self-certify their own aircraft was ultimately what allowed it to happen.
(This is a harmonized EU legislation)
It is true. The trouble is that different parties disagree over what is counted as "work" and when is it "done".
Becoming Data Driven, from First Principles
Ingenuity had more computing power than all NASA deep space missions combined
> They should focus on straight forward hydrogen combustion engines.

Why would they? A combustion engine drive-train has an efficiency that's significantly lower than that of a fuel-cell EV drive-train. Combusting hydrogen in an ICE as opposed to oxidizing it in a fuelcell is just a waste of energy.
My recent experience with the expensive smartwatch class is that they're buggy and shitty.
Is there a potential benefit in larger sharing of malicious-traffic IP addresses in that if more sites blocked these known-bad IP addresses then there'd be a higher chance that a victim would notice something is wrong as their online services have started blocking them?

It feels to me like we're too polite, so we're letting the infected walk amongst us. It might not be their fault, but I'd be guessing it'd also be better for victim to find out sooner rather than later if they're pwned.

I suppose the slippery slope / end game of this would then concentrate all intentional malicious traffic to VPNs and proxy's and Tor and the like, with them becoming useless due to being blocked.

I block any IP address that's probed any of my ports they have no business probing. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39171782
It absolutely encourages a lot of seasonality in work.

The best thing to do is to not exert yourself too hard Jan/Feb, take on a new project March which has some planned deliveries for the fall, and hit the target no later than mid October. November and December can then be spent promoting the work you did Mar-Oct, review/comp season, and enjoying your holiday.
What about my neighbors who might be child abductors or rapists? Or the animals, like a beer or eagle who might fly away with my kid? There's always something to be afraid of for people who are afraid.
It would get outsourced to the first provider who can indemnify the company against any failures in the software. Whether or not any provider would dare to provide such a service however...
As written in the post, it is a base model with light instruction tuning, i.e. Llama2, not Llama2-chat. You should evaluate it as a base model. If you evaluate it as a chat model, of course it will perform horribly.
Both fractional scaling and thumbnails did require massive background work.
The term „impossible“ is therefore incorrect. It required huge changes in the backend which weren’t feasible in short term. The thumbnails are done already and the new renderes are approaching.

Keep in mind, developers strive good solutions. Users need good solutions. Companies are often happy with less reliable solutions because they are forced to be fast. And this less reliable stuff tends to stay long.
> Even if your words are superficially nice what he really did was blame the engineer and told him not to do it again.

The person being told that may feel that way, but IMO nothing from his phrasing implies that:

"let's just consider it an expensive learning opportunity to redesign the system so it can't happen again"

Note the "can't" in the "can't happen again" - he isn't telling the employee "don't you dare do that again!" as you seem to be saying, he's saying "let's all figure out how to protect our systems from such mistakes".
In what way is English grammar more “devolved” than Italian? It has, for example, simpler verb morphology (conjugations etc.) but more complex syntax and word order.
Shouldn't really need a DAC, just use the PWM output. Any $5 microcontroller should be able to do this with some reliability. Heck, the PiPico has programmable IO which could do this without the processor. Or hey, a 555 timer with the right resistors and capacitors would do the same thing.
> 'maxwell's equations', which is, by the way, not a brand name

Are you commenting on the capitalization of "Maxwell"? It is a proper name, and it should be capitalized.
> A hagiography is a type of biography that puts the subject in a very flattering light. Hagiographies are often about saints.
Feel like this boils down to “if an average person can make an average mistake and people die, the system is culpable”
Sorry, I forgot that fun is not allowed [0] on HN.

[0] https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.Ud56244PvzUMGoMCMCPAMAHaHw
It happened to me and my team like 10 years ago or so: An engineer deleted the production database. We were able to recover it. But the postmortem basically focused on why the he heck did we let that happen. The guy stayed in the company for 8 years more IIRC. We fixed our systemic issue as well.

I've read about blameless postmortems from Medical professionals and I always tell my teams: if those guys (doctors) can do blameless PMs after someone has died, we can do them.
Absolutely.

I'll never forget a straight faced conversation about a project dashboard filled with red statuses, with 2 layers of management asking me "what if we change the definition of done?"

I mean sure, what if we pretend delivering code to DEV was done, then it would be done sooner, absolutely. If we never spin up a PROD env, we could mark that green as well, right.

But is the rag status to save managements a* (yay all green) or to represent reality of work remaining to be done to deliver work to clients (its not done).
That doesn't match my experience.

But more importantly, there are areas of the law that require fairly comprehensive understanding of computer systems, both on the development, infrastructure and applications such as data science to properly understand. (Not understanding the tech makes it impossible to fully understand the law).

For instance, if an average lawyer tasked with ensuring that a company is in compliance with GDPR, and come across terminology such as "Data Protection by Design & Default" with further references to "Pseudonymization" and "Anonymization", will they even know how to start a review of the present situation in an organization for these topics?

My experience is that there is often a significant gap between where the understanding of the legal team ends and where the development and data science teams take responsibility that isn't covered by anyone.

The main problem is that legal coverage of data protection topics (such as [1]) often do not prescribe very specific specifications for how to be compliant. Instead, it requires people to use good judgement. Someone with a background in law will be used to this, but will usually not understand the technology well enough to have developed the kind of intuition needed to do so.

And when they sit down with a team of typical engineers, communication can get really difficult. The engineers tend to want very specific instructions on what to do, and many will not react well if confronted with the relatively loose (for an engineer) legal language.

Some will just ignore the parts they don't understand, while others will go to the other extreme and propose draconian measures that will at best be extremely costly. The latter group tends to be ignored by management.

In the end, many compliance initiatives end up with a lot of forms that serve as little more than window dressing, but where the hard bits that nobody really understand end up ignored.

To really achieve compliance, an organization will need people who are (in the same person) able to read legal texts with a lawyer's ability to interpret combined with the ability think like a black hat hacker trying to penetrate, a paranoid operations person terrified of data loss or a shady data scientist that keeps taking all sorts of shortcuts.

Few organizations have such lawyers available.

[1] https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-re...
No, accountability is a very insufficient answer, because it helps very little in identifying and fixing broken systems.

In a lot of cases, this one being a particularly good example, nobody was particularly incompetent, negligent, malicious, or greedy. But the system as a whole lacked safeguards so that a single person's inconspicous mistake could cause a disaster, and overloaded that person's attention.

Sure, there's other cases where you can clearly identify negligence, malice, or greed of specific people as causes of the disaster. But there as well, holding those people accountable doesn't fix the system than incentivised the greed, doesn't prevent incompetent, malicious or negligent people from getting into positions where actions based on those traits cause disasters, and doesn't provide safeguards against such actions.

The deterrence value of holding individuals accountable for extremely rare events is approximately zero.
> You can even use it in a browser

Interestingly an intern at a telecoms research company where I worked in IT was tasked with using an OTA teletext receiver to convert teletext to web circa 1995/96.

I don't recall the details about it, other than that he got it working, after reverse engineering the (serial?) protocol the supplied software used. But nothing ever became of that project as far as I know.
These renderers are not on by default and likely never will be. I have never seen it work that an immediate mode rendering API translated to retained mode becomes faster. It is probably somehow possible, but will require a ton of work and probably changes on the API client side to fix some pathological cases.
As Vinni pointed it with irony.

A honest „thank you“ to the people which made the thumbnails possible would be helpful. And involving itself. Or spending money. Gtk and GNOME are not companies. People need a motivation - from their work or from outside.
I was not necessarily talking about malicious input, rather hallucinations

I noticed often when using LLMs to generate JSON structures out of (unstructured) data (job postings, resumés, news articles, ...) a lot of language models tend to hallucinate extra properties you didn't ask for

There are many valid ways to deal with this I think which do end up giving you satisfactory output 100% of the time (constrained generation etc)

It's just important to actually implement these - whereas a lot of the times when I see articles/videos/... of people implementing AI automation, they seem to often just think "Yeah this probably won't work with smaller models, but GPT-4 can do it flawlessly"

But of course, no, not even GPT-4 can do it flawlessly 100% of the time, maybe 99% of the time, yes, but nobody is really talking about how to handle or prevent it going wrong.

And as a side-effect of handling those things, I found that most of the time, in fact, small models are more than sufficient and significantly cheaper to implement than GPT-4, IF you actually know how to get the most out of them.
Extralite: Fast and innovative SQLite wrapper for Ruby with a rich feature set
In my experience the vacuum holds the bottom half immovably in place, and I have to pry it out. It looks nice in that gif but in practice I think they need to test a little more. Perhaps it’s a humidity thing?
I was recommended Nathan Ida's Engineering Electromagnetics as being comprehensive in that all the necessary Mathematics is introduced in place as needed. Lookup the reviews for this book on the web.

Perhaps somebody who has read this book can comment in more detail.
That makes sense and I (native English speaker) had always assumed it was something like that.

I wish people would present this as what it is (a childish word game) rather than legitimately “part of English”, so that learners of English don’t think they have to memorize these and actually use them…
Work from Home Is Here to Stay
And don't forget the canyon between "average manager".

I've had about 15-20 managers in my career. 3 were bad enough I'd never work for them again. ~5 of them I'd enthusiastically work for again. 1 of them is truly a good leader that I've seen move mountains. The rest are forgettably average.
As someone who was once a, "I've watched a lot of YouTube videos about physics", person, i think it's very interesting how confident people are in their understanding of what is essentially the edge of physics, something only seen in a masters or doctorate degree. Specifically the whole spacetime and qm thing.

There's so many videos on it that you begin to feel like you really understand it after half a dozen or so repeat the same words at you. But the thing you don't realize is that those are literally the only words they could possibly communicate, and that's an infinitesimal fraction of the nuance of the real thing. Plus, there's a selection bias in that the videos that make you feel good get more views, so you're more likely to stumble upon videos that make you _think_ you understand it that videos that actually do, partly because the only videos that could make you understand are a graduate degrees worth of 80-100 hour lecture courses that you're gonna have to take notes on.

It makes me wonder if this is true for literally every subject. I fancy myself are least politically versed in modern events but is my entire understanding based on an entertainment-first version of an actual education? How much do i walk around using jargon that i don't really understand to make points whose true depth I'm completely unaware of?
The trade-off is that other platforms have had this support for a decade. Stuff like this keeps people from switching.
China Warns Students on Interrogation Reports at DC Airport
Why don't we as a society apply similar safety culture to driving cars and trucks as we do to aviation?

MANY more people are harmed or killed by automobiles than by aircraft per person-mile traveled. A small improvement in automobile safety could make a large impact on society. Many of the types of improvements implemented by aviation mentioned in this article, when applied to the automotive world, would look like improvements or changes to road design.

Obviously, if you're a pilot and flying drunk who harms others or a driver who drives drunk and harms others, YOU are clearly to blame. But for the other kinds of crashes, it feels like the automotive world learning from aviation would have a lot of value.
> quantum mechanics, including qed, falls squarely within the paradigm maxwell pioneered

Does it, though? Sure, QED is a field theory, but it's perturbative where classical EM is exact, its fields are operator-valued distributions where classical fields are number-valued functions, its interactions are transition probabilities rather than forces - it's not clear to me that these are smaller jumps than introducing fields in the first place.
The Raw Truth on Global Temperature Records
> in reality it was the entire industry

Do you have further reading on this? First time I’ve seen someone suggest that Airbus has similar structural issues to Boeing when it comes to safety
https://archive.is/nobhs
But it was from Google. How dare him! /s
Not at all. Most people who spread disinformation are completely unaware that it is disinformation. They actually believe it.

Think of all the senior citizens on Facebook spreading pro Trump memes.
Four million is definitely in the range of an outage at peak, that's not counting reallocated engineering resources to root cause and fix the problem, the opportunity cost of that fix in lost features, extra work by PR, potential contractual obligations for uptime, outage aftershocks, recruiting implications, customer support implications, etc.

If you have a once a year outage, how many employee-hours do you think you are going to lose to socially talking about it and not getting work done that day?

$116.6 Billion in revenue is ~13 million an hour. Outages usually happen under greater load, so very likely closer to ~25 mil an hour in practice.
Testimony of John R. Christy (PDF, 2015)
Since I found out that ChatGPT does a really nice job of "Show me what ActiveRecord query would generate this SQL query", and vice versa, it's gotten quite a bit easier. It handles some surprisingly complex stuff
And it only kills missophoniacs so it's okay
Quantifying the Effects of Time Spent Sitting on Mortality
Apple Home Devices, Car Veteran Exits for Top Rivian Product Role
>Employees who sell their time at low rates with the "hope" that they'll get rewarded on the day of sale (but without an agreement) are, well, bad at business. Hope is not a good strategy.

They may be bad at business, but we were talking about joining a friend's startup here. If they're indeed your friend they wouldn't try screwing you over like this. And if you're joining a random startup, then of course be aware that most are trying to screw you over.

My point was rather that startup level salaries without equity _are_ being screwed over. Nobody expects the founders to give the same amount of equity to all employees. Of course the founder has an outsize risk here. But the employees do face a lot of risks with startups as well, so they should get some level of equity to match that. Otherwise they don't get any reward for that risk. Which is again, being screwed over. And also they usually have to invest more time in the startup than a normal corporate job, so that should be reflected in the equity they get, since most startups don't have the funds to reflect it in high salaries.

>Incidentally, if you think anything below Fang level salary is "low" then your thinking is too binary. Salaries are a continuum. There's no long long way between making a good living and Fang.

No, I was thinking about normal big corporate salaries. I don't live in the US though, so maybe that influences this. They usually offer more work-life balance, low risk, and a better salary than most startups.
In the netherlands, one of the earlier internet companies created this in the 90s as well. If I remember correctly it was first a java applet and then ported to JS with a CGI bin talking to the input hardware.
"I noticed often when using LLMs to generate JSON structures out of (unstructured) data (job postings, resumés, news articles, ...) a lot of language models tend to hallucinate extra properties you didn't ask for."

I see; for that kind of thing, including code generation in general, defensive programming indeed seems reasonable. You could probably do post-validation too, as you indicated with assertions. But when you move to "pure" natural language outputs, things get truly hairy.

Yet, are you sure a LLM is the right tool to generate JSON structures?
I will never quit Linux [video]
Some of the people working on GTK are funded by Red Hat or otherwise. If you're really interested, you could try talking to people.

Edit: In particular, Matthias Clasen, the guy blogging here, has been with Red Hat for many years.
He survived a lot of close calls. He ejected in Korea, Gemini 8 spinning, the LLRV crash. And then the moon mission. He was exceptional under pressure. David Scott was flying with him on Gemini and gave kudos in his autobiography.
The thing with the two MCAS accidents is that you don't have too few people to blame, but too many:

- the airlines who wanted a more fuel-efficient plane that should still have the same type certificate as the (at that time) 40+ year old Boeing 737

- Boeing management, who wanted to keep those airlines as customers

- Boeing engineering, who did what they did at the management's request

- the FAA, who failed to spot the issue

- the mechanics of the involved airlines, who dispatched the planes without working angle-of-attack sensors

- the airlines who ordered planes without the (optional) "angle-of-attack disagree" alert

- the pilots (just for the sake of completeness), who failed to notice the issue and either refuse to fly the plane or correct it in time to avoid the crash

Who do you want to single out here?
Greenland Ice Core Project
Given that it's apparently a rap reference from one (subsequently) murdered rapper to another (subsequently) murdered rapper during some kind of "blood feud", I'd contend that taking it as an implied threat (assuming you got the rap reference - I didn't) isn't that far-fetched.
Are you sure? The article makes the point that the nop is actually required for this to work in GDB because the instruction pointer might otherwise point at an entirely different scope.

I have to admit I didn't try it out though. Maybe this changed in the meantime and it is not needed anymore.
Question for anyone reading, why do I see some comments (like this one) greyed out? Never understood it.

Is it something like a downvoted comment? I fail to see a downvote button (which I am happy about).
"X will not run in these 4 bit overlay planes. This is because I’m using Motif, which is so sophisticated it forces you to put a 1" thick border around each window in case your mouse is so worthless you can’t hit anything you aim at, so you need widgets designed from the same style manual as the runway at Moscow International Airport. My program has a browser that actually uses different colors to distinguish different kinds of nodes. Unlike a PC Jr, however, this workstation with $150,000 worth of 28 bits-per-pixel supercharged display hardware cannot display more than 16 colors at a time. If you’re using the Motif self-abuse kit, asking for the 17th color causes your program to crash horribly." -Steve Strassman, Unix-Haters Handbook

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25734498

https://medium.com/@donhopkins/the-x-windows-disaster-128d39...