skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You probably think this is another internet clickbait title uh? Just trying to get you to clickty clickty and sell you some Google Ads. Two problems. I don’t have Google Ads, and I know a small percentage of people will actually listen to this advice. Whatever. There is a reason some developers struggle to move past the Senior role.
For high-earning workers, it's hard to break free from 'golden handcuffs'
Streaming chat completions using Phoenix LiveView
This is THE explanation.

It's long, but it's AMAZING!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBZD3tFny_E
40Hz Light and Sound Waves Could Halt Alzheimer's
Without their permission, absolutely. This is in the context of coaching in which there is an agreement that yes, you may be observed pretty intensely. It does feel vulnerable, and it's up to the coach to make the person feel safe.
What was the relation between Yuzu and Citra?
The Living Blindfully podcast’s latest episode is a remembrance:

https://www.livingblindfully.com/episode-267remembering-blin...
Revy already works with snapshot deltas (see other comments scattered around this section for more details, but basically we only sync components that changed during the previous frame -- Rerun stitches everything back together at runtime)... but at 21k entities, I'm afraid you'll be facing much bigger issues on the Rerun-side of things :D

Rerun was originally designed for few (i.e. dozens up to hundreds) massive entities (e.g. it's common for a single entity to have a few million 3D points and color values attached to it).

While we're slowly working towards improving the many-entities use-case, the correct thing to do in this case would probably be for Revy to identify that all these entities are really just different instances of the same batch (either automatically, or by exposing a marker component or something).

So, say, you'd set a marker component on all your tiles, Revy would then snapshot them as a single batch of 144^2 instances, and then in Rerun you'd see a single entity `/tiles` which would be a batch of 144^2 instances (each with their own set of components, that's fine!).
From Rerun's point-of-view, this would be similar to a point cloud, and at 21k instances you'd be easily running at your monitor refresh rate with a lot of margin.

But by any means, try it! Not the web version though, you're definitely going to need multithreading :D

Nice project btw; I'll keep an eye on it and probably use it as a benchmark for the many-entities use-case!
Yea, a few old-timers still complain about pilots being dependent on The Magenta Line, but I would trade my paper-and-pencil flight planning and my E6B any day for a GPS moving map and ADS-B In. ADS-B alone has been a massive game-changer for traffic awareness with basically no downside (aside from cost to outfit the fleet). Modern engine management systems also allow you to fine tune your operation of the machine to a degree that was impossible to do "by ear" in the old days.
Sure, but then how good are Transformers at making connections between distant concepts? The brain seems way better at this, and it doesn't feel like conversation.
Can't comment on Boeing specifically, but if a company has a bunch of cash on hand and doesn't have enough plausible projects to invest in that could return better than the benchmark rate, then I think it makes sense to return it to investors.

Even in a well-run company (Apple?) it's reasonable to imagine that cash on hand could exceed the company's present capacity for new research projects. Scaling up an R&D department could take quite a bit of time, and it might not make sense to sit on that cash while they do it.
I have a touch enabled Chromebooks and when you change to a tablet mode the interface changes in front of your eyes to be more tablety. It is actually quite nice.
The real problem is not translating code. It's translating data types. If you can determine that a "char *" in C can be a Vec in Rust, you're most of the way there. It's no longer ambiguous what to do with the accesses.

This is where I think LLMs could help. Ask an LLM "In this code, could variable "buf" be safely represented as a Rust "Vec", and if so, what is its length?. LLMs don't really know the languages, but they have access to many samples, which is probably good enough to get a correct guess most of the time. That's enough to provide annotation hints to a dumb translator. The problem here is translating C idioms to Rust idioms, which is an LLM kind of problem.
> It puts pressure on developers to keep the bloat under control

If you are talking about "native" apps, maybe. Otherwise, nah. Cross-platform apps based on web like Teams and Spotify won't put too much effort on performance as long as it is not too slow. And if you haven't realized, most of the stuff you interact with is online. People just shove an entire website.

As for professional apps -- if you can't run a heavy audio/video editing application smoothly, I'm pretty sure that's your problem. Developers can put more effort into optimizing for 8GB RAM, but at the end of the day these workflows require large amount of memory, and after a certain point it is not worth to optimize for this segment of users
These are not obsolete, I'm a coffee sniffer too.
> External display handling is easily the worst part of using a Mac for me.

Using more than is explicitly mentioned that is supported, you mean? I mean yeah, duh.
> EDIT3: "The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom, was unlawfully distributed a week and a half before its release"

The game was leaked. How is that the fault of the yuzu devs?
> Maybe one reason against putting graphs in the standard library is they're easily put together from more common structures for whatever special case you have in mind.

This is a fair argument (how implementations tend to combine existing structures in bespoke ways). But any time I've needed to use a graph explicitly, it hasn't really mattered what underlying structures were involved.
What has mattered each time is having to invent my own little API to expose well-known/primitive graph operations, then go and implement them which is unnecessarily error prone.

Your example of de-duplicating nodes on insert sounds like it describes a property of your particular graph that may be better expressed through a type, which would also afford the necessary API.
I'm approaching this from an OOP-ish perspective so do with that what you will.

> I gave the nodes integer ids by appending them to an arena, then used a hashtable from integer to vector of integer. Iterating over it involves a set of integers to track which nodes have already been visited.

This is what sucks about using graphs IMO. I don't want to think about all that stuff, I just want think about graphs. In practice I spend most of the time toiling around with noisy boilerplate that dominates my mental model and allows graph concerns to leak into business concerns.
Apollo Lunar Module had an abort-to-orbit that was also used to lift off the surface of the Moon after successfully completing the mission. It used explosive charges to throw the lander frame away and involved Apollo Guidance Computer manuevering into orbit at any point of the mission up until the landing.
my two 32" USB-C (displayport over USB-C) monitors do not have that
Both were developed by Tropic Haze, the company that Nintendo sued.
> But we do not accept this tradeoff in, say, approval of medical devices or drugs.

It is applied in hospital care though, they have the same problem that they also have to cap spending somewhere. A bunch of people could technically survive but die because they can't afford care. Since care is rationed by more direct economics than design that means it would be capping out at figures far lower than 10 million/person in practice.

> I doubt Boeing is happy with the tradeoff of counting lives in millions of dollars right now.

The public reaction to Boeing is a bit hypocritical though, because of the road transport example. No-one would bat an eye at a delivery driver on a motorcycle but that seems to be a comparable level of risk to these Boeing planes. Consistent standards should be applied between different modes of transport.
> Please read what I wrote more carefully.

I think GP's reading of what you wrote is an entirely reasonable reading. Their interpretation was the same as mine before reading your follow-up. It did seem like you were saying that the GPL has ideology but BSD and MIT do not.

It would have been much clearer if you had simply said something like, "The ideology behind the GPL is very different from that of the BSD or MIT licenses".
I end up forgetting my charger when I go on trips because 99% of the time when I unplug my laptop at home (to use in a different room), I never need the charge cable. It used to be 50% of the time I'd take the cable with me, so I could be somewhere else for 2+ hours. Now I so rarely bring the charger that it just doesn't even occur to me when I'm unplugging the thing to pack.

It's night-and-day compared to the Intel MBPs.
Because the article is about recent difficulties landing on the moon and China has not had recent difficulties landing on the moon?
It doesn't have to be that way though. Look at this like a PoC. Drop the electrics and the batteries in favor of regular motors, drop the pilot in favor of remote control or self-flying, and you have a vehicle that might be great for logistics in heavily mined areas. Mines are something that we've seen a lot in the war in Ukraine, some estimate that with modern technology it will take hundreds of years to demine what the Russians have put down. So having ways to avoid that to an extent could be extremely lucrative.
Quite a few mars missions like that. They used aerobraking first though.
I like Rust a lot right now, but with polonius and some of the unnecessary and weird syntactic sugar that's being added, plus the fact that instead of full coroutines to encompass both async and generators (like Kotlin has) we're getting neutered coroutines to do generators and async is a separate but similar concept, I think the Rust designers are making a lot of missteps lately. I know nothing's perfect, but it kind of sucks.
Ah, but the DMCA Section 1201 took effect in 2000-2001. Many other DMCA sections were delayed to take effect in the years following the law's passing.
They are doing AI, you just dont know about it yet.
The spacecraft failed long before it tipped over. With the altitude laser system out of action, it wasn't going to land correctly unless they got lucky, which they didn't.

Like the article said in the last line, the margin of error is only manageable if all the systems are functioning correctly. The argument over the height of the lander is as nonsensical as arguing over any of the thousands of other design decisions. Second guessing literal rocket scientists is silly.

The lander was designed as a whole, any single change - redundant systems, extendible legs, etc., etc. - would have required other changes due to weight or space constraints, requiring other changes, ad nauseum.

The specific thing that killed this landing is a failure in quality control/checklists which if done better would have ensured all the systems operated correctly and a successful landing.
How to make difficult-to-cut materials and components 'easy-to-cut'
We're rapidly approaching the compute capacity of the human brain in individual server racks. This "moon" is neither unreachable nor is there any doubt that we will cross the threshold soon.
Oh yes. Because Nvidia so proudly and eloquently states "I engage in anti-competitive practices." Yes, it is my fault, but dare I say, how many 20 somethings do you know that come chock full of sufficient life experience to identify hostile/predatory business models? I don't see many at all. And for that matter, in order to get the information I now have, I had to dive through half-a-dozen search engines in order to find architecture information that was NDA'd, but nevertheless left open to be indexed by someone.

So yeah. There's uninformed, but goddamn if that doesn't seem to be Nvidia's modus operandi.
I don't think people want to fudge the different interaction styles together. I think they just want to have both experiences out of the same hardware.

I carry an M1 MacBook Air, and a iPad Air 5th-gen. They both have identical fanless M1 Apple ARM silicon, both have identical ram (8GB) and identical storage (256gb), it's practically the same device. I even also carry the iPad Magic Keyboard. I have to carry two sets of everything, just because Apple artificially prevents any of their own software from working on any of their own hardware.

It makes perfect sense to me that, when in tablet/touchscreen interaction, I get a traditional iPad experience.

It makes zero sense, that when I attach the $300 traditional keyboard/trackpad to that iPad Air, I get thrown into a weird iPad-kinda-pretending-to-be-a-laptop-but-failing mode, where you "kinda" have a mouse cursor, and "kinda" have windows (but only 2 or 3!) and you can "kinda" resize them, and you can "kinda" have an external display (but despite being huge, you still can't have more than 3 windows!).

macOS already works great, "iPad Stage Manager" feels like a bunch of people trying desperately to justify breaking macOS conventions and UI/UX, mostly for no good reason.

There's no reason I couldn't be put into normal macOS, and even have my existing iPad apps still running (the software portion of this already works on macOS today, iPad apps run on macOS right now! You just cant experience this on any of the devices that have touchscreens -- you can't do this on the devices that would most benefit from it.)
That sounds funny, but is it true? Certainly there's a bias that goes towards what you're quoting, but would you otherwise genuinely call the computer creative? Is that a positive aspect of a speech codec or of an information source?

Creative is when you ask a neural net to create a poem, or something else from "scratch" (meant to be unique). Hallucination is when you didn't ask it to make its answer up but to recite or rephrase things it has directly observed

That's my layman's understanding anyway, let me know if you agree
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hmWPd7uEYEY

I am sick of people making claims without quoting any numbers about real-life performance.
I heard the explanation that one was from physics and one was from chemistry.

And they were both important to get the error bars low enough so they could move over with confidence.

See https://youtu.be/KBZD3tFny_E?si=VyqjpainWVgbY_NF
I find the interplay between audio codecs, speech synthesis, and speech recognition fascinating. Advancements in one usually results in advancements in the others.
Someone should write a Wikipedia article on a glibly labeled law to the effect of, "any opportunity for forensic information to be exploited, will be done so."
Thanks for clarifying because that was the vibe I was going for (not hate).

I'm using projectbluefin.io for all my laptops/desktops and love it. Wouldn't want the same on single-purpose, production servers.
The Saturn 1B looks vaguely like Falcon 9 if you squint appropriately. The H-1 engine is in the same thrust class as the Merlin 1D (it just weighs twice as much).

So, one can imagine the S1B evolving over the years into something like a F9, with the first stage being recovered.

The idea of designing boosters to minimize cost rather than maximize performance also goes back to the late 60s. The biggest problem is government contractors have different incentive structures than SpaceX does.
An ML model might be able to, even if you can’t.
Do these external display limits apply even when using display link monitors or dock?
> I get annoyed by being pushed to accept an idea without thinking on it. What I have gone through is akin to being surrounded by people chanting something, and I expected (or even bullied) to chant the same thing without understanding what I'm buying into.

Yeah, happened to all of us. Sorry that it happened to you. My discussion with you was sitting on a much more reasonable ground, I believe: namely assess the thing (in this case thing == Rust) by its own merits and niche. And you said you are open to that so my work here is done, so to speak.

yet I put it on ice until gccrs is released, and learnt Go instead, because it proved to be a better tool for what I was trying to build.

On your point 1 here I'll only say that software licenses don't bother me at all. As long as the license does not say "you cannot use that OPEN source software in your CLOSED work or else you owe me" then I'll use it and not give it a second thought.

Morality and legalese concerns in software is something I just don't want to deal with for now, likely forever too.

As for your point 2... actually I did the same. I do love Rust but I had a number of mini projects, commercial and for my own use, where I really wanted to get something off the ground in literal minutes. Golang served me there better than Rust. When I get a little more free time I plan to achieve the same friction-less experience with Rust because it is not like that out of the box but I know for a fact that it can be made to be like that.

> I understand and I agree, but I just can't port a library developed by a team of specialized researchers and hand-optimized for a ton of hardware/processor architectures [0] by myself.

I understand. We touched on this already, suffice to summarize that in this case you're fully aware that your assessment is also a bit niche, you know that for less specialized work Rust can be a fantastic fit, you are open to try it and get intimate with it in the future, and as I mentioned already -- that's all I wanted to achieve when discussing with you.

Thanks for being a good discussion partner. ^_^
Anyone manage to find a mirror of the source? I didn't know that Citra would've also been caught up in the kerfuffle.
Not an excuse, but github has been under an attack whereby someone was creating thousands of repositories to distribute malware. I'm guessing this got swept up in the effort to prune out the real offenders
> In a way it's an education problem, but it's also a "why should I care about this topic?" problem, for which the vast majority of people will -- quite reasonably -- answer "I shouldn't".

This can also be applied to free speech, or just freedom in general. People are quite happy to trade convenience for liberty in society. Does that mean we should settle for "I shouldn't care" as an answer? I certainly am not going to.
> For instance Lenovo or Asus definitely care about pushing laptops' limits and design. A lot. IMHO more than Apple.

It's a bit more nuanced. Lenovo/Asus seem to be experimenting a lot more, but more like by throwing (relatively) easy-to-build variations at the wall to see what sticks, then release a few more polished SKUs. Apple doesn't really do that, but they do attack those limits and design aspects they care about very aggressively and with a ton of resources (e.g. battery life pre-M1, manufacturing tolerances).
I see. But how does that make either way more expensive? Those forces require no work to apply because there's no motion into or out of the ground. Furthermore, they're counteracted by opposite forces on the bicycle itself - while the bicycle is pushing the front trailer downwards, the front trailer is also pushing the bicycle upwards. So even if you consider greater downforce to be a problem (eg. more rolling resistance), it's not greater for the overall system.
HvPlot
The illustrations I've seen of neural networks really highlights the sheet incomprehensibility of visualizing large graphs
> I'll have you know, my 2023 $1300 laptop is capable of doing video calls

Weird flex
In 1981, where the article starts, Steve Jobs biggest competitor was Jack Tramiels Commodore. VIC 20 was the best selling computer at the time, and became the first computer to sell one million units. The year after the C64 came out and continued to outsell the Apple 2.

Why Commodore is left out of history is a mystery...
Oh I agree, just thought that there was a place in Europe were the prices are even more outrageous.
I agree that the GPL's ideology is different, but I don't think you need to agree with the GPL's ideology to use it, just as you don't need to agree with the BSD or MIT licenses' ideologies to use them.

You can simply make a practical choice, based on what your goals are for a specific project. If you're looking to build a community around your project where both hobbyists and corporate users/contributors end up in your commit history, you might choose (A)GPL. That's not to say there are no public corporate contributions to BSD- or MIT-licensed projects, but I expect using the (A)GPL could increase the likelihood. Well, aside from the effect of companies that simply refuse to touch GPL'd software.
I agree it's neat on a technical level. However, as I'm sure the people making these models are well-aware, this is a pretty significant design limitation for matters where correctness is not a matter of opinion. Do you foresee the pendulum swinging back in the other direction once again to address correctness issues?
I think the lineup and config options on Apple laptops and tablets are carefully planned to make you spend more than you intially thought.

You start with the idea of cheap model, then start going the ladders up.
Price: if that’s the major qualm that’s not really a product flaw. The best product usually commands the highest price.

Stuck with macOS: technically not true, Asahi Linux exists.

Connecting multiple monitors: a legitimate negative limitation unusual at the MacBook Air price point, but still something that only a small fraction of consumer laptop buyers care about.
This is an interesting reply

Note that c/c++ can be made safe, for instance tcc adds runtime bounds checking. Memory could simply be runtime checked. Problem solved

You make a good point as to why we don't. Ada has done exceptionally well at doing what you ask for a very long time. It is not hard. But we don't

Hubris is maybe the right reply

People deliver code without full line and fuzz tests: probability of code being correct; low-to-zero. This is independent of 'seems to work' c/c++ memory safety. It suggests the problem is deeper

We just assume we're safe and correct, and know best; and then live as battered spouses of our own hubris

Alternative POV: we allow sharp knives in kitchens. Kitchens are unsafe as a result. It is maybe unavoidable. Road safety causes more deaths than code safety. We allow it. A lack of safety is inherent in any complex system

Spark, Coq, provers are great. But unbounded systems quickly become unprovable. Unbounded memory allocation is one of those -- whether 'safe' or not

I think this is a major reason missing from the debate. Safety hinders and complete safety is completely impossible

However the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle

Since you are right: computers are fast enough that even 3d games could often have memory safety

In conclusion

The current memory safe languages remove more from the table than I think you expect; and that is why I would suggest most important software has been written in 'unsafe' languages

For instance, servo arguably demonstrates that. A surprizingly small amount of firefox has been replaced by rust, and not due to lack of effort

But also we simply don't care about correctness enough to get closer to it. So I would say it is good you ask for that

But too often, to me, the debate looks like we swap one blindness for another
Is there any updates on this case?
So there is a quantum of criticism/observations about systemd that can be made but after that, no more is acceptable?
And in my experience most people looking for "just a notebook" don't want to pay the prices Apple demands. Especially when they see prices on the non-Apple laptops.