skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Excuse my ignorance, I'm about to ask stupid questions.

* What type of person uses this? I guess the intersection of people interested in composing and people able to typeset? I would have thought it wasn't that popular, but it has the polish of a popular tool. What am I missing?

* Do people typically use this to compose their own music, or are they recreating music they know?

* How similar is sheet music to source code? Does any software interpret it to output audio?

* Are there any open git repos where people collaborate on an open collection of sheet music?

* How expressive is sheet music? How constrained do you feel trying to convey your idea onto this format? Does it support abstraction, or making your own abstractions?
It's always a two-way process whether we like it or not. Some of the companies I've hit time limits on or got ghosted in feedback processes after a greatly asymmetric amount of labor in interview processes (I've never yet met a company putting a commensurate amount of labor into their interview responses than what they've asked for from candidates) could greatly use my skills. They aren't actually interviewing for my skills. I can't help but see that as a failure on their part. Not because I'm particularly great (I've got plenty of imposter syndrome to deal with, sorry), but because their interviews are particularly shit and they are absolutely saying in their choices of interview that they aren't hiring for skilled labor, they are hiring for bottom of the barrel, quick/dirty/disgusting talent and they don't care who knows it.

Technical interviews aren't about finding skills, they are about finding people with too much labor on their hands skilled or not. They are about finding people willing to do bad solutions quickly just to pass a test, not about if they have any actual skills at writing good production code.

We don't have a standardized test for "good production code" so we keep using a bunch of terrible half-assed semi-problems to approximate it, then adding timers on top because arbitrary deadlines are the only thing we know as an industry for how to get work "done".

We aren't testing for what we actually want and we don't know how (and we can't afford to actually pay for the labor involved so that the answers aren't just half-assed AI solutions), so let's keep testing half-assed shit and maybe we'll get "good" candidates, maybe.~
Assuming you specialize in professional demanding work?
How about if the x+1 was from an inlined function? a macro? perhaps even just a variable defined 10 lines up?

In a 7-character sequence it may seem pretty obvious that it's probably intended to mean something, but when joining together multiple independent things doing redundant operations it's much less trivial.

int game_logic(int prev_score, int bonus) {
if (bonus < 0) { // check for bad argument
return -1;
}
int new_score = prev_score + bonus;
// ...
if (new_score < prev_score) { // sanity check
abort();
}
return new_score;
}
// in the above the abort path can (and is) already optimized out, but an invocation of game_logic(x,1) becomes exactly x+1<x
Meet-and-greet the first few days at my college dorm nearly 20 years ago:

> Albino student: "Hey, where'd you get that watermelon?"

> Student with watermelon: "Dude, I'm black."

I think it was around then I first learned of the watermelon / friend chicken stereotype (I didn't get why everyone laughed when he said this), but "grape soda" is a new one to me.
A significant part of writing characterisation tests can be simply staring at a code coverage report and asking “can I write a test (possibly by modifying an existing one) which hits this line/branch”. Sometimes that’s easy, sometimes that’s hard, sometimes that’s impossible (code bases, especially crapulent legacy ones, sometimes contain large sections of dead code which are impossible to reach given any input).

An LLM doesn’t have to always get it right to be useful-have it generate a whole bunch of tests, run them all, keep the ones which hit new lines/conditions, maybe even feed those results back in to see if it can iteratively improve, stop when it is no longer generating useful tests. Hopefully, that addresses most of the low-hanging fruit, and leaves the harder cases to a human.

There already exist automated test generation systems which can do some of this–for example, concolic testing-but an LLM can be viewed as just another tool in the toolbox, which may sometimes be able to generate tests which concolic testing can’t, or possibly produce the same tests quicker than concolic testing would. There is also the potential for them to interact synergistically - the LLM might produce a test which concolic testing couldn’t, but then concolic testing might then use that to discover further tests which the LLM couldn’t.
> They thought they did, but failed.

Oh, never mind then. Clearly since they thought they updated the dependency it's all good.

> Impossible to guarantee. A sophisticated enough attack ... It is impossible to so completely segment a network ...

While I will acknowledge that this seems to have been Equifax's approach to security (it's impossible to do completely so why bother doing it at all?), this is not widely accepted as a philosophy of security in any industry.

That a bank could still be robbed by a military incursion from a neighboring nation state is not sufficient reason to leave the vault door open overnight. The record abundantly shows [0] that Equifax had security protocols that were weak enough that no sophisticated actor was needed to bypass their protections.

As far as their failure to detect the breach, this is what the House investigation concluded:

> Equifax allowed over 300 security certificates to expire, including 79 certificates for monitoring business critical domains. Failure to renew an expired digital certificate for 19 months left Equifax without visibility on the exfiltration of data during the time of the cyberattack.

[0] https://oversight.house.gov/report/committee-releases-report...
I like the signal-to-noise ratio of interested commenters searching for related posts.

I fear something automated would be too spammy for most posts.
Off topic, but as a finance nerd I want to point out that if you know you won't touch your money for 10 years and put it in a savings account paying 5% you are bearing "duration" risk. It's possible that interest rates will fall a lot and by failing to lock in a 4% return you end up with less money at the end of 10 years. (Just a technical note! You probably shouldn't buy 10 year treasuries!)
I find when you’re in something everyday, it just is what it is. Yes, medial equipment is mission critical and has to work, but unless it is a brand new start up, someone is probably going to walk into a place that has system in place that take that into account.

When I started out I was in a command center for stuff that was pretty mission critical. It became pretty normal. I once walked down the hall and overheard someone say they had to log into production yesterday and they were terrified, as they hadn’t done it in years. Meanwhile, I hardly thought twice about it, as I was dealing with production systems all day every day… logging into hundreds of systems some days. I wasn’t careless, but also wasn’t terrified.
Quoting myself (lightly edited) from when the paper itself came up. They misrepresent the stats in their writeup.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39406726

Their abstract doesn't match their actual paper contents. That's unfortunate. Their summary indicates rates in terms of test cases:

> 75% of test cases built correctly, 57% passed reliably [implying test cases by context], and 25% increased coverage [same implication]
The actual report talks about test classes, where each class has one or more test cases.

> (1) 75% of test classes had at least one new test case that builds correctly.

> (2) 57% of test classes had at least one test case that builds cor- rectly and passes reliably.

> (3) 25% of test classes had at least one test case that builds cor- rectly, passes and increases line coverage compared to all other test classes that share the same build target.

Those are two very different statements. They even have a footnote acknowledging this:

> For a given attempt to extend a test class, there can be many attempts to generate a test case, so the success rate per test case is typically considerably lower than that per test class.

But then in their conclusion they misrepresent their findings again, like the abstract:

> When we use TestGen-LLM in its experimental mode (free from the confounding factors inherent in deployment), we found that the success rate per test case was 25% (See Section 3.3). However, line coverage is a stringent requirement for success. Were we to relax the requirement to require only that test cases build and pass, then the success rate rises to 57%.
Transfer learning on (cute) biological neural nets!
this is a reporter "reporting" on another reporter's self-reporting (on twitter) of what he did from when he quit/was fired/laid off (the "article" doesn't even say) from his job as a reporter. "reporting" is in quotes here because it's the thinnest possible veneer atop the original tweet. what possible value does this article have over the original tweet, aside from adding an additional, unnecessary needed layer of "reporting" for this non-story? it's difficult to see this as anything but a "journalism" circlejerk (redundant).
I never said he was? I'm writing it out, not him.
Of course ChatGPT will not answer the true f
Now I’m curious if BT can be secure enough for all this (responsibly)
I think he's trying to bring up the racial image gen bias stuff that's going on with Gemini, but for some reason won't say it. He also doesn't appear to realize there is a difference between the two products/teams/launches...
I'm not expecting employees to dote. I'm expecting them not to be morons who can't get the order right, bring the food cold, or (a recent experience), notice when they charged everything on the bill twice. It's not rocket science to glance at a $300+ bill for a table that had one appetizer, 2 mains, and 2 or 3 drinks and wonder if that's right. Or don't leave food on the table and us with no silverware.

As other people have said, I'm cooking a lot more, so that's good.

The $55 + tip pizza place that's under a half mile away started bringing the pizza cold, so that's more savings.

I'm not being rude, I tip well, etc. But I'm not paying 20 - 25% for the above.
Sometimes the journey is more important than the objective.

I have a 3d printer because I wanted to play with a 3d printer. Same with a drone, zero-turn lawn mower, welding machine, oscilloscope, and a host of other things my wife would be more than happy to tell you about.

Most of us here are engineers of one sort or another. We tend to have disposable income and a predisposition for gadgets.

I doubt many of us are truly ever under the delusion that we need these things.
She could've mentioned the deal when they were both at home together (in passing, taking an M&A call outside of business hours), even if they weren't working remote. Unsophisticated person who took advantage, and was too simple to know the SEC looks for this in the trade data stream and too callous to care what would happen to their partner when (not if) caught.

https://www.velaw.com/insights/utilizing-data-analytics-sec-...

https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2022-129

> I'm not against remote work but don't misinterpret reality to push a narrative.

Reality is this happens all the time without remote work.

https://www.google.com/search?q=sec+charges+insider+trading

https://github.com/0xNF/lawsofinsidertrading.com ("Matt Levine's Laws of Insider Trading, webified")
Not sure I agree in general. Grinding through hours of research and teaching yourself things from scraps of info is a lot harder than reading it out of a well-structured book. Can't speak for this particular domain but I certainly would appreciate a coherent resource.
I do actually sympathize with that! I tried to keep a level tone, and maximize the ratio of useful information to flame-war ammunition, but that ratio unfortunately has an upper bound well short of infinity.
This is why I rarely comment but instead reply. At least usually I've read the full text of the comment that I replied to
I agree, humans should write tests. Humans are the oracles of the program output who know whether the code did the right or wrong thing.

I’m guessing they want to automate tests because most engineers skimp on them. Compensating for lack of discipline.
I'm saying it. There is a specific individual that had to approve it, somewhere, somehow, even if that's not true for the 'template'.
Essentially similar perhaps to the 3D engine that a human brain runs that generates a single "3D" image from two 2D cameras (eyes) and fills in missing objects in blind spots, etc.
>"Undefined behavior anywhere means you lack defined behavior everywhere in C/C++."

Well, stop programming then. Undefined behavior is everywhere. Your hardware, CPU microcode, any software written in any language etc. etc.

>"As an engineer"

Your statements suggest otherwise.
Isn't it macaques that adopt guard dogs as well?
there's also the soft-layoff side. You can encourage those pesky mothers or child caretakers to quit as well as those that don't live very close or can't stand the office for any myriad of reasons..
> Cities want it because there are plenty of businesses that rely on office workers buying food etc in downtown cores.

So casually dismissing the fact that this provides a HUGE amount of employment and revenue and, in turn, encourages face to face socialisation which builds communities and social cohesion.

Like... what's your plan for these people, this huge proportion of the population that can't work remotely, won't enjoy working remotely, don't want to work remotely etc.

People enjoy socialising. That's why so many TV programs are made about work and the office environment. People enjoy the social aspect of it. It's not all 'the office' - that's a massively cynical viewpoint. Most people get something out of going to the office, date co-workers, play golf with their colleagues, you know.

Society is not going to change to revolve around shut-in people haters. You're a minority. You're not normal.
And stylish and culturally engaging.

Loved the Zoolander “context window for ants?!”
My favourite description of undefined behaviour. The poster is corrected later on in the thread about whether the specific operation discussed would invoke undefined behaviour, but the description of what happens when undefined behaviour occurs is gold:

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.c/c/ZE2B2UorTtM/m/1ROv...

Joona I Palaste, 2001-01-19, comp.lang.c

This isn't about the post-increment operator, this is about the order
of evaluation of the operands.
Since you're modifying the value of i twice without a sequence point
in between, either of the two results are exactly as much "expected".
Also, equally "expected" behaviour includes incrementing every
variable in the array, flipping all the bits in every variable in the
array, converting all instances of the text string "/usr" in memory
to "fsck", changing the colours of your screen to purple, calling the
police on your modem line and telling them you're being attacked by
a one-eyed Martian wielding a herring while singing "Hi ho, it's off
to work we go", and even weirder stuff.
So... what it all boils to... when writing your compiler, just flip
a coin and use the one of the two behaviours you listed that
corresponds with the coin's face.
It's optimized out on both gcc and clang on -O1 and above. -O3 is presumably just what the author defaults to for enabling optimizations (I also write -O3 everywhere by default).
Didn't he also register bitcoin.org?
Si hzux
I think the -fwrapv switch in GCC allows this to work properly. I don't actually know about this specific case, but -fwrapv makes signed and unsigned arithmetic to wrap around so that only the appropriate number of low bits are kept.

(I commonly use -fwrapv when writing programs in C.)
“Undetected by management” is the meaning here, as the article makes clear. His friends knew he was there and were having a laugh.
I've never had to delete a Syncthing database, but I have had issues where computers don't always see each other (for one thing, you need to run as root on Android or it can't discover computers using mDNS) and a constant stream of sync conflict files.
Ask HN: Does your company track bugs shipped by team?
Wondering if this is a common practice.
What do you mean by "the opposite"? In your notation, the example shows that

Y(g) = g(Y(g))

which by the definition of the equals sign (A=B and B=A say the same thing), is the same as:

g(Y(g)) = Y(g)

— so Y(g) is a fixed point of g. What is the confusion?
For greenfield projects, these LLM coders would be invaluable. For my old codebase with observed requirements and magic numbers? Lol it’s going to be just as confused as I am.
ChatGPT and ordering from China can realllllly reduce GP workload …
BitDefender has saved *me* from misclicks, even. No one is perfect and it's not really much of a tax on my system at all, in my experience.

I'm still happy to use good antiviruses, honestly.
My issue with the 40 hours is the constant interruptions with meetings, co-workers asking questions, shifting priorities, etc.

When pulling an all-nighter or weekend, all of that stuff goes away.

It’s been a long time since I pulled and all-nighter or weekend, but I’ve been thinking about it just so I can feel like I finished something. If I could get actual heads down time during my 40 hours, I’d much prefer to use that time.
So you can’t build a house on a lot that’s over a quarter of an acre?
> It will break even against Backblaze B2 in 133 years.

I'd say an even better comparison is glacier deep archive. Let's say an average of one retrieval per decade. $2.18 per month for storage, $210 per retrieval (which is 90% egress cost that you might be able to avoid), 600 years at current pricing.
"...examined a sample of firms on the S&P 500 list—137 of which had RTO mandates and 320 that clearly did not between June 2019 and January 2023."

There are samples of both types of RTO policies in the study. So the study itself deals with the supposed bias in your question.

"Overall, the analysis, released as a pre-print, found that RTO mandates did not improve a firm's financial metrics, but they did decrease employee satisfaction."

Though I cannot speak to the quality of the study or its conclusion, because the damn crap is behind a login/paywall.

Link to the actual study: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4675401#...
Have you ever tried it?. It sounds like you are a bit against the idea of an AI supporting your work.
A GPU vendor would of course try to avoid being too obvious.
This essay is so weird to read. The author is extremely passionate, yet also claiming to be simply rational. He’s throwing terminology around (Dutch book, ZF) but seems unaware of the limits of the approach he advocates.

There are so many cracks in the Bayesian edifice promoted in TFA!

These problems are well-known in the Theories of Probability community [1] (which is only a subset of the larger set of theorists recognizing the limits of mechanical Bayesian reasoning in decision problems).

Here are a couple.

(1)

Bayesian approaches force you to assign a sharp probability to every event. How do we map any event to a sharp probability? E.g., I need to give a number for the probability of rain tomorrow, a non-repeating event. How do I map that to a number? Not through relative frequencies- it’s non-repeating. If two people give different numbers, how do we decide who is right?

This problem is what Peter Walley has called the “Bayesian dogma of precision.” [2]

(2)

As noted above in an aside, we have a hard time computing probabilities. This is a practical problem that we all are aware of, but often discount.

In what we could call CMP (Conventional Mathematical Probability - Kolmogorov’s axioms) we typically can’t even correctly enumerate the sample space. We’re always forgetting something, so our models are too confident. (In the “Dutch book” analogy alluded to in TFA, we are following the axioms but are somehow always losing money, in a very real sense.)

Related to this problem of computing probabilities, we don’t have a rigorous way to determine when two real-world events are independent. Yet we constantly invoke independence to construct models. Kolmororov’s 1933 manuscript was clear on this problem. [3]

Not satisfied with this, we go on to hypothesize conditional independence relationships in order to feed our complex “rational” Bayesian machine. It’s thirsty for numbers, and we just make them up!

*

This all sounds somewhat hypothetical. It’s not. In my day job, I compute supposed Bayesian credible intervals for various physical variables.

The people downstream who use those variables to assimilate into physical models typically multiply our credible intervals by 2. My friend across lab has it even worse, they multiply his Bayesian intervals by 3.

This is not a well-functioning machine.

[1] E.g., https://isipta23.sipta.org/, or https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/imprecise-probabilities/#...

[2] https://issuu.com/impreciseprobabilities/docs/imprecise_prob..., first paragraph, although the whole short article is on-point

[3] from memory, the quote is something like, “determining the conditions under which events may be judged independent is one of the major outstanding problems in theory of probability“
I do wonder if dogs recognise when other dogs are particularly intelligent/unintelligent. Given that there seems to be such wide variation amongst breeds, I'd assume so.
How did you reach the conclusion that the post in question was making fun of anything?
I live in Israel. Most of the ultra religious do not own a smartphone.
Had a lot of fun just messing around with it during the slow pandemic year. Takuma Nakata made many interesting tutorials for it [1], although I think most of them are for beta, not gamma.

When the latter was released it was still missing a lot of the functionality and libraries beta has, not sure how it is these days.

[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xaWkgVu_VhA
Probably because it's of better quality
This is included webauthn, which is the basis for both passkeys and fido2 auth.

To sign in, you are sent a 'challenge', and must sign it and return it. The challenge includes a "Relaying Party Identifier" (RPID) which is basically the domain of the site requesting authentication.

That way, if a phishing domain prompts you for auth, they can not proxy your response because the RPID you signed will not match the authentic domain, and therefore be invalid.
Haha, fair... Shit crashes. My work laptop has bluescreened twice in four years, and I take my gaming pc down about once a month with a game or render. But they're both still running today! Biggest fix has been a restart (maybe a few) and we're back up and running.

Ok, "chug along happily without user involvement" probably isn't the right way to phrase this...
Show HN: Consol3 – A 3D engine for the terminal that executes on the CPU
Hi all

This has been my hobby project for quite a few years now

It started as a small engine to serve as a sandbox to try out new 3d graphics ideas

After adding many features through out the years and re-writing the entire engine a few times, this is the latest state

It currently supports loading models with animations, textures, lights, shadow maps, normal maps, and some other goodies

I've also recently added voxel raymarching as an alternative renderer, along with a fun physics simulation :)
Agreed, that's a great use case for autogenerated tests.
This sounds a lot like when my kids realized anyone can edit Netflix/Disney+ profile names and pictures.
My company allows name changes. It’s fun.
> because consumers granted permission to do so when entering into a business relationship

Do we have an actual choice?