skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
By “transcations” I mean the ability to do a bunch of “invisible” writes to a file that are only published through an fsync (and also not made visible just because a sibling application invoked sync). Full transactions aren’t necessary and I agree would be overkill. The work is primarily driven by XFS developers if I recall correctly (too lazy to lookup the exact links). But there are clever workarounds in user space although they’re not particularly confidence inducing.
We will go into the realm of contract intelligence in this blog article, as well as examine its advantages and potential to completely transform how companies manage their contracts. AI has the power to completely transform companies of all kinds, from small startups to enormous conglomerates.
What makes you think people without kids only care about their own gratification?

Can’t they care for others that aren’t their children? What about people without children who work for the betterment of entire communities?
You offer "years of walnut experience" as if it's patently silly to do so, but woods vary quite a lot by many relevant characteristics, and if someone showed up for a walnut job having worked exclusively with maple, I'd be sceptical just because I've been learning the difference first-hand between the two. Walnut is brittle and open-grained and presents a different set of challenges than a forgiving close-grained wood like maple or birch.

It's like someone interviewing for a Python position saying "I've got zero Python experience but a lot of JavaScript experience, but how different can they be? They're both interpreted languages used for scripting and web dev, right?" I might not reject them out of hand, but I'm going to prefer a comparable candidate whose direct experience is with Python.
Digital asset, not currency. That is the key difference, asset transfers being expensive(in transaction fees) is not abnormal.

I don't like it, I don't support this industry, it is still big waste of energy, however if you see it from a lens of asset instead of currency then it kind of make sense that transactions are expensive.

Money has four functions traditionally, Bitcoin does not work for three of them: medium of exchange(too expensive), unit of account(too volatile), standard of deferred payment (too volatile), it kind of works as "store of value", i.e asset despite the volatility as the deflationary pressure due to its by design purchasing power increases.

Smarter economists can explain it better than me, my point is, don't think of it as a currency, it is really not, just an asset class ( still wasteful).
‘Culture fit’ interviews in Europe don’t beat around the bush - they mean right down to the frat/sorority/school, hobbies, and if you like the right beer everyone else does.

In the Netherlands, the hiring managers would even ask the women exactly when they were planning on having kids - and the men what their plans were for wife/kids. Down to the year.

Once you were in, you were golden though.
Which is why it shouldn't be no one's surprise that after 20 years we ended up like this.

I have been through multiple ways of doing agile, since the manifesto, and I really only saw it work on tiny startups full of idealistic engineers.
> Had it been 105 year it would have been an order of magnitude

That’s not true. How are you getting that number? That’s not how you calculate an order of magnitude.
I had a really rough time at school growing up, because I was a runt and got bullied pretty badly. My actual friends growing up were definitely my cousins, especially my brothers. The older ones always looked out for me, and I played outside all day with the ones close to my age. Seriously, if I did not have them in my life, I suspect I would be pretty fucked up as an adult. For me, blood has always been thicker than water.
>"is my car no longer a vehicle once it runs out of fuel and cannot function as a car?

If your car runs out of fuel in the park, it is no longer breaking the vehicle rule, though it is now likely breaking some other rule about littering in the park.

My fundamental disagreement is that if you allow for rules to be enforced in terms of what they were intended to say rather than what they actually say, then there actually isn't a rule at all. There's a pretense of law but in actuality its a dictatorship of whoever gets to judge what was "clearly" intended to be.
Something tells me that lots of people are about to get trapped in the market believing that the AI narrative will make it keep going up forever.

It would take a very nasty surprise in the market that will put all of that at risk.

I guess the euphoric sentiment in AI is a signal to safely take your money out right now before the stock market gets upset with several companies showing signs of growing geo-political / legal risks and especially extreme over-valuation.

Given that a single company is carrying the stock market, it can take one bad event to cascade onto everyone else by surprise.
You can buy a house in Shreveport, Louisiana for 10k or less.

There are many towns and cities in the US with extremely low housing costs. Most of West Virginia is a good example as well.

The reason Shreveport always comes to mind when I think of cheap housing is because I always remember that John Carmack and John Romero owned a little lakehouse there and that's where they lived while making Doom.
> I live in one of the largest metro areas in the U.S.

> Community is gone.

Let me guess: you're in the urban core of one of the more expensive cities.
I don't think my creation and abandonment of this spreadsheet suggests I'm not frustrated either.

That's unfortunate, stripping anyone's name off anything is always unpleasant and shouldn't happen. I rather wish they hadn't just serialized a snapshot of the wiki out into GH pages and then said "just open PRs to edit this", but here we are, I guess.
Precisely this. Many people have taken it as a sign of further lawlessness in SF. When actual fact it is young impulsive people acting on impulse with fireworks within easy reach.
Probably just the way their system is set up. They could change the system, add the features needed to bypass that aspect but that will get bogged down in their (probably already understaffed) IT department backlog. So just put it up in the current system and create a couple of minutes faff for us rather than it never getting released.
Mozilla CEO quits, pushes pivot to data privacy champion but what about Firefox?
Okay, I understand people are frustrated with this, but the best way to tackle problems like these is to vote with your wallet. Don't use the service and heavily promote against it.
Why? I’m a father and I’ve had such periods of Looking after the baby solo while mom was on a 1week vacation. Why is that such a huge issue to you?
I’m guessing you don’t have children and you have all sorts of incorrect ideas about how incredibly hard it must be, but it’s just a week with a bit less non-baby focused time. It’s not like it’s incredibly difficult or anything.
They fell out of favour because the UCI doesn’t allow them in road TTs.

Now that doesn’t matter to pure triathlon bikes (as they’re not governed by the UCI) but it matters to the manufacturers accessing a much smaller sub-market.

It also matters to the customers who might want to also race UCI events or resell a bike.

Essentially double diamond designs are competitive enough now to make non-double diamond unviable.
Yeah, I'm wary of being that guy too. My current approach is the slow one: first get a biochemistry degree.
reminds me of the days when s/keys over telnet were cool.

there should be a vh1 where are they now special for assigned ports in /etc/services that shipped with early slackware.
And he's "named" Darth Vader; "Darth" being a title also didn't come until later. Obi-Wan calls him "Darth" like it's his given name.
I went with the letter, and did in fact throw in wheel chairs and surfboards.
This might surprise you, but people can care about other people that aren't their blood relatives. Don't play morally superior just because you decided to procreate.
That sounds entertaining for the hiring managers.

I imagine firing someone incompetent must be super fun too in that situation.
> I explained already why 35yo is a bad cut.

These numbers are all adults under 35, so your argument about generation gaps doesn't apply here. 20-something year olds are included in each decade's numbers, and the rate hasn't substantially changed in the measured decades.

> You better check what the average mortgage payment for new house buyer today and 5 years ago. Diff can be 2-3 times.

That's a separate question from whether people are priced out. If the average mortgage payment is much higher but 39% of people under 35 can still afford a mortgage, then no more people are priced out than were in previous generations.

> Also, actual homeownership is not a perfect proxy for wealth measurement, since it could be that today's gen z are buying 1br condos instead of single family houses like boomers.

True, but I'm not talking about wealth, I'm specifically addressing the question of whether the average American cannot afford to buy a home.
The article lists a BOM of EUR 2500.
We need to talk about parentheses (2020)
which app for timelapse photo ?
> Maybe this is the great filter.

For liberalism, perhaps. If the capitalists can't figure out how to grow new worker-slaves in vats or perfect AGI, future society will be very different. Might be mostly Amish and Orthodox Jews, etc. after the population crash.
They aren’t mindless. They’re what preserve the species and the arts and the culture and the science etc etc. I’m sorry you feel resentful about normal human instincts.
> The notion that "maybe their performance floor was higher" is laughable, since no other DBMS delivers anywhere near LMDB's read performance.

What I said was that lmdb’s read performance may be so good, that at its worst when you’re seeing cross tlb shootdowns, it’s still better than the other DBs. You seem to contradict me and then restate the exact same thing.

> Benchmarks all show that LMDB performance scales perfectly linearly across arbitrarily many CPUs

As I said, synthetic benchmarks may not reproduce the cross tlb shootdown scenario frequently enough for you to notice it. It’s like frame stuttering - you can’t argue that it’s not happening by saying the average frame rate was 70fps. The data you’re using to support your argument isn’t a relevant measure. You’d have to actually measure how frequently cross tlb shootdowns are happening (via dtrace probably) and ideally compare it against a robust lmdb read path written against iouring to get an accurate measure of the issue.
Not with that pronunciation. The prequels (with "Darth Sidious") make the "invader" source clear.
> You have way less transformative companies being valued north of $100b.

Transformative maybe, but valuation shouldn't be about transformative, it should be about profitable. This is a lot more doubtful.
Great context + points. Thanks!

Definitely not in a position to question the status quo, let alone the OSM community consensus. Other than to say that - even if the focus is currently on internal software / editors alone - it still feels like a massive opportunity. And one that aligns with a number of strategic goals of OSMF[1], specifically around efforts to grow the community, extend the core developer base (and more) ... by fostering a closer relationship between OSM data-derived products / the wider (non-editor) community.

Let it be known I love scope creep.

[1] https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Strategic_Plan
second cousins? Cousins-once-removed? Whatever the one is for my cousin's kids

Since it doesn't look like anyone else has answered: Your cousins' kids would be your kids' second cousins; and your first cousins once removed.

The rule is that if the closest common ancestor is N generations away from one person and M generations away from the other, with N >= M, they are (M-1)th cousins (N-M) times removed.
This is the system everyone else who came before, and had kids, created. Seems like disagreeing and committing is the right move.
AirByte was definitely one of the MDS vendors.

They literally got a huge investment because their deck bragged about having a few thousand Github stars and a few thousand folks in a Slack channel.
There's a model railroader who builds these things.[1] They balance and corner fine.

With one rail, the models can't take power from the rails. They run on AA batteries.

There's also a drivable 2-wheeled gyro-balanced car from the late 1960s.[2]

These things work, but wobble too much. With active control, though...

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifroNPpK9jQ&list=PLE006F2D73...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTCVn4EByfI
Re: OpenAI, being "transformative" doesn't necessarily mean being worth a lot. Do you think OpenAI can hold their (so far) unchecked monopoly in such a hot market? Can they 10x their current customer base? If inference cost falls, wouldn't they have to lower their prices to compete with others? And as open source models continue to improve, might companies opt for local, slightly-less-powerful models that save them hundreds of thousands?
This list should also include Charles Stross Laundry Files series.
The concept of high math being a gate to higher dimensions and effectively magic powers provides great setting to a witty and humorous sci-fi prose placed in modern England

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Laundry_Files
Just a heads up that YouTube channels do generally have RSS feeds; e.g.: https://www.youtube.com/feeds/videos.xml?user=NFL or https://www.youtube.com/feeds/videos.xml?channel_id=UC8WAaaW...

But RSS Bridge does look very neat!
Listening to finance and VC podcasts it seems to me quite clear there is a bubble brewing. They are all repeating the same mantras and convincing themselves of a new gold rush.

The financial side is convinced developers are 10x as productive with copilot and AI tools. They are and will increasingly be forcing CTOs to get on the copilot bandwagon or risk getting fired. The tech companies are not likely to get fooled, but your average non-tech S&P 500 company is going to be giving MS a fortune.

AI companies are getting funded with hundreds of millions/billions with no realistic path to making money (mistral, anthropic, huggingface). The only one making money is nVidia and MS.

nVidia, MS and others are frankly committing clear fraud with round tripping money and making a killing.

When there is billions being spent on ventures with no business model we are repeating the dotcom bubble. I bet it is going to last a while yet though so plenty of money to be made before the inevitable.
I only think of 3 things that can happen:

1. AI becomes so good that I will be out of a job as a software dev

2. AI becomes really good and I will 10x my productivity

3. AI hits a hard ceiling and it might only make me 2x more productive

Based on those 3 possibilities, I invest my portfolio like this:

1. 40% goes to the main layer of the AI revolution which are chip manufacturers which is mostly TSMC & Nvidia. I throw some money at Intel as well because geopolitics. If AI is ubiquitous, then we need a lot more silicon.

2. 30% goes to the next layer which is mostly Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc. These are the companies close to consumers. I don't know which one will win out so I spread it across.

3. 30% goes to S&P 500 because productivity increase will benefit all industries. Also, if AI hits the ceiling fast, at least I will have 30% of my money in S&P 500 and not AI bubble companies.

I basically invest like I'm going to lose my job. If I don't lose my job, great. If I lose my job, that means my stocks will have to pay for my food.
Recruiters aren't paid to not recruit. Courtesy doesn't enter into it.
> I'm sure it is a bummer for those people, but they were paid to do a job, and don't own the film

That's a really sad viewpoint, believing that being paid to do a job is the only thing that matters, and that it compensates everything about what that job means and how it impacts the world. It's the same thinking justifying "if I don't do this terrible thing at work, someone else will do it for the same money", which is anything but decent.

There's such thing as pride in what one does; double so in artistic endeavours, where the only value is in being seen by spectators.
Yes. This article demonstrates the problem of trying to reason by simple earning analysis alone. You can have to consider the dynamics of the businesses involved.

OpenAI being worth $100B doesn’t seem ridiculous at all to me. There is a lot of risk investing in such a stock, but given it has gone from nowhere to over $1B in revenue in such a short time, and it has a very strong brand position, is partnered with one of the best run tech companies, has a unique training pipeline, has fantastic connections to important institutions, is the first mover, and has an array of impressive products, you would expect that 1B to easily reach 10B, and reaching revenue of 100B doesn’t seem far fetched.

Taking another analysis: if they manage to charge $50 per business user, which isn’t too far from current charges and not that different from say what Microsoft costs, and is a small amount to recoup in productivity gains, then they need 150 million or so users. Office has double that. And of course we can see many other revenue sources, like education.

Their biggest challenge will be competition, and that makes it highly uncertain. It’s a very _risky_ stock, but the potential upside is very high. It is not a bubble if the price is driven by expectations of earnings growth.
The opposite of OSS is not "write your own", it's "buy commercial".

I agree, but that's not the counterfactual the authors considered. They asked how much it would cost for everyone to independently rewrite the same software. It's not surprising that such a ludicrous concept produced an absurd estimated value.
Single aisle planes have the same business class seats, adapted for single aisle, but much the same.
I didn't mean to say there's nowhere to draw a line.

I meant to say that the question of where to draw the line is open to discussion, in both cases.

To be honest, I don't entirely understand your example, since in the first case you're talking about an accident, and we can't exactly pass a law saying "accidents are not allowed." But in the second case, you can pass a law against SA and such. So in my mind, the difference there is in realistic enforcement options, not on the merits themselves.

If we could somehow magically pass a meaningful law against accidents, then maybe we'd consider it. Accidents are things that just about everybody dislikes, after all. Of course, we can't meaningfully make that law, but only for mere technical reasons, not because it's undesirable.

In that imagined world, I could see people saying: "no one should have to suffer accidents" and using that as rationale for supporting the law. You may not agree with them, and I may not either. But that was my point — where to draw the line is up for discussion.
> Technically, that makes you a sort of parasite. You have no trouble taking your share of the benefits that come from living in our society, but refuse to do your part to create the next generation of people who would comprise that society.

The benefits of living in society are generally paid for by OP's tax money, not some imaginary bonds that theoretical children will repay some day afterwards. On the other hand the epithet you used could be easily applied to poor people having bunch of children while on welfare...
I don't know. I don't think the author knows too.

See my other post on how I'm investing.
This strikes me as not dissimilar to religious people who are terrified of atheists because, without God, they must have no reason not to become mass murderers.

There are many people with kids who have revealed the value they place on the sustainability of the environment, democratic society, or the economy through the lifetime of their children, let alone their children's children, to be zero. Why would you assume that the childless are any more selfish, as a group? Why can one not care about the continuance and betterment of humanity without one's own direct descendents being involved?
Or the people rejecting the future envisioned by a out of touch elite.
As someone who is doing well financially I don't think you found the reason.

The gist of it is: There are worlds and circumstances into which people want to bring kids. We mostly failed to create that world and those circumstances. If tou want to know what a solution looks like look at western democracies with high birth rates. E.g. France, Ireland, New Zealand, Denmark.

The rest is probably due to individualism. Kids cost time and energy and capitalism tells us we should live our best lives. And the best live does not involve herding 6 kids, even if they are your own.

We created this world willingly, and the low birth rate is a consequence — and so is the need for migration if we wanna stay wealthy. The thing is: now that the genie is out of the bottle we are not gonna be able to force people to have kids. We can just create circumstances in which they are willing to.

I am in my 30s and I am unsure if I will ever be able to retire. I am sure however that I will have to change my job and career multiple times throughout my life. Despite me being financially well off, I am not sure if I would be able to support kids in the future. This is not about being whiny. I just think if I had kids it is my responsibility to throw them into a world that can sustain them. This one can't.
Haha, oops my bad. Thats funny though.
> Natural selection will make that desire stronger over time.

A truer sentence haven't been said.
Simpler isn't necessarily worse. Having fewer features tends to make software more reliable and secure.
Yeah, it's weird. "How would people behave if everything was different?"

I don't see how there's either $5 VPS or Heroku free tier in a world without free Linux on commodity hardware, and I'd argue that without those, software would have taken a much smaller bite out of the world than it has over the past 15-20 years.

One thing I know is that all the companies I've worked for in my 10-year career would not have been possible to start the way they did without open source software. First of all, they all had a period of at least a year where they were just an idea and built up an MVP for no cash. If license costs had been significant, who knows how that would played out.

Second of all, throughout my career a significant portion of my coworkers have been self-taught. Actually, everyone has, to some degree, even the people with actual CS degrees have run stuff for fun. And for everyone, that's depended on license-free software, no money to install and free to mess with. If this had come with a price tag or other limitations, maybe we'd've done something else on our Tuesday nights instead.
>Transformative maybe, but valuation shouldn't be about transformative, it should be about profitable.

My assumption is that LLMs would be ubiquitous right now, just GPT4, not even GPT5, if inference cost is low enough.

Therefore, I expect the market for LLMs to expand exponentially in the future once inference cost is solved.
Your bubble is distorted too. I'm in the Central Valley of California but I work in the Bay area. The software people aren't having kids and complain a lot about housing and all that. And my central valley friends, installing garage doors, fixing machinery, making cabinets, digging pools, all have multiple kids and their own house.
> If the average mortgage payment is much higher but 39% of people under 35 can still afford a mortgage

they afford rate they secured when it was much lower and in many cases houses were cheaper.
Today's 35 first house buyer salary man coming on housing market is also in very miserable situation.
Just a custom Python script to take a picture every N seconds. And ffmpeg to combine into video. Nothing fancy.