skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
One of the root problems with the UNIX signals IMHO is that they conflate 3 different useful concepts together.

The first concept is that of asynchronous external events that the process would like to react to in a timely manner (e.g. SIGINT): those can be processed on a dedicated thread, maybe it could be created anew every time a signal is delivered a la Windows [0], maybe it could be created once at the moment of execve and ELF format should get a "secondary entry point" field for it, whatever.

The second concept is that of synchronous internal events that the process has caused itself (e.g. SIGSEGV, SIGILL): well, those are just low-level exceptions, and could be processed on the thread that caused them. Some sort of structural exception handling [1] (only less awkward) could work, I think?

An interesting mix of those two kinds of signals is SIGALRM, which is an asynchronous internal event. Can be quite useful for implementing lighter-weighted/cooperative multitasking, I guess: it basically makes the OS to regularly punt your instruction pointer somewhere else where you could e.g. flush some memory and raise semaphores so a sibling thread could notice and report the progress to the user, while the main thread returns back to number crunching, or you could use it to to force coroutines/fibers to yield or something. To be fair, not sure what the proper interface for this should look like.

And the third concept is that of the control operations acting on the process itself, the operations that the process gets no chance to react to: SIGKILL, SIGSTOP, SIGCONT. They are not really process signals, they are the API of the process manager/scheduler that were implemented with the signals machinery because what was the other choice? Introducing new system calls?

[0] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/console/handlerrou...

[1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/debug/struct...
> Is there a library for that?

What? Are there really people out there relying on libraries for every peripheral? I've never seen anyone use a third party library for peripherals like that, short of some prototyping on an Arduino or the like. It's always just drivers implemented from scratch.
> Starship is a single stage

I'm no expert, so this is a question to confirm my understanding: Starship does have a booster. So, doesn't that make it a dual stage?

https://www.zenger.news/2023/11/27/elon-musk-reveals-simple-...
Fair enough. I still believe it's wise to be skeptical of government overreach, and call me old fashioned, but I believe that government's ability to hurt us with unchecked abuses of power exceeds that of any corporate giant.
There's a lot of benefits actually, as symbolic links often need to be handled as a completely different type of file with different semantics which often leads to bugs. Hard links are always better when you know you are dealing with a single static host & filesystem. Symbolic links in such a case are only better for indicating quickly to the user which files are linked to which others.
I don’t know why I can’t edit my previous reply.

I tried it on Zola, works great and I love it, but it still requires JavaScript, will keep it in the meantime, if someone knows something else that works without JavaScript that would be appreciated!
Half my family are police. It’s impossible to do the actual work. Half of them plan to retire at the minimum years of service and transition to private security to a fire department.

Writing tickets for blocking sidewalks is an overtime generating detail, not intelligence. It’s “objective” in the sense that everyone gets harassed, and thus safer than using discretion to do something potentially intelligent.
That's really cool. Congratulations on the release!
Thank you! Might also be seeing performance improved by by our system prompt on claude.ai.
As I said above, I imagine keeping commits. Think of them like checkpoints in a race. Any typed character will be between two commits - so git log and git blame can still work just fine. They just operate on a different data structure internally.

Merging is also fine. How do you think CRDTs work? You know merging is the entire point, right?

I agree that the system needs to handle both synchronous edits (peer programming) and asynchronous edits (the kind of editing we do now with git). CRDTs can handle separate concurrent branches just fine. It’s just none of the existing crdt libraries support branches.

You’re right that rebase is weird in CRDTs, but I think we can still build it if we need to. Rebase is mostly used in git to work around one of git’s design flaws: Git is never sure if commits should represent the actual history of changes, or the semantic history of merged tickets. But a better system could just separate those ideas anyway.

Yes, it is a PhD level problem right now. But so was diff-match-patch a few years ago. I’m an expect in this field. And I believe we now know how to solve all the sub problems here - all but one: how do we actively generate conflicts from asynchronous edits in a crdt? That needs to be figured out first.
How businesses are using generative AI
what free market? can you explain me what a free market is like I was a 2 year old?

if Spotify hire a militia and let them demolish all Apples offices, is that just the free market? Apple should just have invested more in defense.
>I have never once read about abort-to-orbit capability as a concept

ATO was an abort mode [1] on the Shuttle program and is notably the only abort mode that was successfully used in the entire program, on STS-51f [2] . Challenger suffered an engine anomaly on liftoff that resulted in a lower orbit than was intended, but otherwise the mission went off without a hitch.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_abort_modes#Abor...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-51-F
Remote Stuxnet-Style Attack Possible with Web-Based PLC Malware
The main limitation for such codecs is CPU/battery life - and I like how they sparsely applied ML in it here and there, combining it with classic approach (non-ML algos) to achieve better tradeoff of CPU vs quality. E.g. for better low bitrate support/LACE - "we went for a different approach: start with the tried-and-true postfilter idea and sprinkle just enough DNN magic on top of it." The key was not to feed raw audio samples to the NN - "The audio itself never goes through the DNN. The result is a small and very-low-complexity model (by DNN standards) that can run even on older phones."

Looks like the right direction for embedded algos and it seems to be a pretty unexplored one, as compared to the current fashion to do ML E2E.
// no one is forcing anyone to understand how computers work //

There is something very right about this, or the implication of this: Everybody, no matter how dumb or smart, rich or poor, educated or illiterate, is expected to comply with EVERY law, all day, everyday, 24/7, every minute of their lives. Whether they know about those laws or not.

So yeah, having a broadly understandable and accessible legal system is a necessity.

Nevertheless, at the rate we are inventing new algorithms (like LLMs), new financial techniques (like derivatives) and are going into new realms (like space), there are exponentially more opportunities for people to collaborate with each other--or, unfortunately--harm each other. So we need ever more laws. A few, simple laws just cannot give us all the protections we want, or create enough of a space for cooperation. There is an element of irreducible complexity.
You're right. I could still amend the post, so I added the 20+ years caveat. Thanks!
It’s surprising that someone runs a business like you describe in your post from a jurisdiction where Nintendo can actually get to them.

I really don’t want to support piracy, but there are many countries where Nintendo could never get any access to the company. And all those countries have the internet too.
It would take us a great deal longer to go via the US from our western pacific location. There are quite a few options from Asia to Europe which do not go through the middle east.
> the air with non-sabotaged specs

Anyone who says this has never used an 8/256 Air post-M1, and is complaining about them hypothetically. They're fine. They're fantastic computers.

You can upgrade to 16/512, which puts the machine at $1500. This is $200 cheaper than a Dell XPS 14 16/512. "But the Dell has dedicated graphics" no it doesn't. "But, well, the Dell has a higher resolution display" no, its actually 1080p, the Air is higher resolution. "But, but, the dell, its, uh, no wait never mind don't buy Dell, buy a (insert some other brand)" the thing a lot of people really don't want to accept about Macs, right now, is that they're actually so extremely obviously the best computer money can buy that its irresponsible to buy anything else at $1000 and above (unless you're gaming or doing AI, but get a desktop at that point).
I think this is because a graph is not a data-structure nor a data-type. It is really an abstraction.

Fundamentally, all I need to define a graph is a set of vertices v \in V and function Neighbors(v). And that really is all is needed for the most foundational set of graph algorithms.

Everything else are case-by-case constraints. Does A->B imply B->A? is the node set partitionable with certain constraints? Are there colors? labels?

To make things even more general I can go up one level and consider the hypergraph. In which case I just have a set of vertices, and a set of sets of vertices. This can be represented in a myriad of different ways depending on what you are interested in. Of which (non-hyper) graph is simply a special case.

An alternative way to think about it perhaps from the database perspective, is that its a query optimization and indexing problem. Depending on what questions you want to ask about the graph, there will be different ways to represent the graph to answer the question better. Just like there is not one way to represent the abstraction called "Table", there is not one way to do "Graph" either. It really depends on the questions you care about.
plot twist: they leave it up, collect telemetry to match and understand the data behind pirating vs. owned emulation, find it useful to open the platform, focus on services, and build their business to 10x on software almost exclusively

not probable, but that would be interesting to see
ComPromptMized: Unleashing Zero-Click Worms That Target GenAI-Powered Apps
Another comment mentioned it but the instrument used has a decently detailed Wikipedia page:

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

The name and appearance might make you think it's some sort of flux capacitor for dogs but that is apparently not its (primary) purpose.
Reverse question: why use symlinks when you can get away with hard links?
The GNOME built-in apps seem to work just fine in touchscreen mode. Yes the buttons and window titlebar are larger, but not too much. (And there are ongoing 'tweaks' that allow for a better use of the resulting space; e.g. the large, touch-usable titlebar now has a room for a subtitle and a few app-specific buttons.) The clearest issue with GNOME on touchscreens right now is that it ships with a crappy on-screen keyboard, missing many of the PC keys (which leads to usability issues with many apps) and a lot less usable than what you can get on AOSP.
I think it's fair to say -- sadly -- that most people don't even know of the FSF's goals, and think "free software" and "open source software" are the same thing. And I don't think we're going to fix that problem by insisting random people use the terms properly.

"Free" is a terrible word to use in English for this concept. It gives the absolute wrong impression, and no one is going to sit through RMS lecturing about "free as in speech, not as in beer". It's a pity English has such a common word with two meanings like that.

To use your phrasing, the choice of the world "free" cheapens (literally!) and confuses the goals and purpose of free software.
The repo linked below my comment has release builds. It uses cmake; not sure of the specifics, though.
I'm curious to see how this turns out, but one thing I'm not sure I agree with is that lifetimes are confusing?

I want to be clear here, it's been a few years since my job was coding in rust, but I found lifetimes to probably be among the easiest parts of rust to understand. Is the issue actually not understanding what lifetimes are, or just that people need to annotate them explicitly (which obviously other languages don't do[1])? The former seems surprising to me, the latter I could understand more readily due to the combination of the newness/novelty of explicitly annotating the lifetime, and also the ' prefix to lifetime names which I can imagine triggering a "that's weird looking" response when people first need them - I think I may have had that response at first, but it was fairly brief as it's just an initially new/novel syntax, and even now having the sigil prefix seems like a reasonable way to distinguish lifetimes from anything else, it's similar to why there's a * in generators in JS despite it not being strictly necessary for parsing or type checking.

One thing that did just occur to me though is how many adopters of rust were coming from languages with entirely automatic lifetime management (GCs, etc) so having to think about object lifetimes at all is new? I realize I've mostly assumed people adopting rust have been C, C++, etc devs where thinking about such things is mandatory and continuous, but if there are lots of adopters from managed languages then maybe that's new. In that case though I don't think the issue is rust's lifetimes specifically in as much as it's just object lifetimes at all?[3]

[1] Because they don't need to because of implicit lifetime management (GC, automatic refcounting[2], etc) or because their programming model is "what memory safety?"

[2] Yes I know refcounting is technically GC, but this is comparison to scanning GCs

[3] [this is an addition] I want to be clear, I am not critiquing devs who have come from managed languages for not being aware of lifetimes, this is literally just saying "if you're from a language where it's not a thing you have to think about, the entire concept may be new"
Assuming the landing is soft enough to survive, shouldn't it be fairly trivial for the astronauts to disembark and right the lander? To the extent anything in space is trivial.

Even if it's a bit more than doable by hand a ratchet jack should make short work of it.
What Mark Zuckerberg knows about you
Co-Founder of Datapods here.

Through building our MVP we've gone through the act of finding out what companies like Meta and Google store about us.
We found some of the obvious stuff, but also some of the more interesting data, like Google's predictions about the way you travel.

Some of these finding might be interested to the r/datahoarder type folks who like being in control of their own data, or just to interested hackers who like a high-level glimpse into what these companies are collecting.

If there's any interest in a deeper (and more technical) dive into what these companies gather (my google takeout was several GBs big), I'd be happy to write one up.
If you want to run some time-consuming tests prior to pushing your bug fix it's convenient to run those in your separate worktree. You can continue working on your original branch while the tests run.
I think GP was saying that the lander is single-stage. By the time of a presumptive lunar landing, there's no lower stage to drop as with the Apollo LEM.
Well, the moon has never had a GPS system in the past, and there have been moon landings. Apollo used celestial navigation, so yes, it is good enough.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVCNS2jQQ6g
If you're talking about Bowser, the only thing they convicted him of is "conspiracy" to do things that shouldn't be illegal [1]. All the other charges were dropped. If you think "conspiring" to sell modchips is a crime worthy of prison I don't know how to convince you that we should have a fair and just legal system. It was a plea, too, and anyone who knows the legal system well understands that plea bargains are generally unjust and used to bully people into not defending themselves.

1: "Gary Bowser, 52, a Canadian national of Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, pleaded guilty in October 2021 to Conspiracy to Circumvent Technological Measures and to Traffic in Circumvention Devices, and Trafficking in Circumvention Devices."
Building infrastructure doesn't make sense for exploratory missions that each want to land somewhere new though.
Radical suggestion. Don't make your lander taller than wide. I'm the first to assume that the science nerds have thought of everything and that my uneducated self has nothing to say about it. But then I saw the lander. It looks very tippable.

So then here's my luddite take. Can't they just unfurl wider stabilizers from the legs that increase their footprint? At slow speeds in low gravity it seems like they wouldn't need to be heavy or strong.
> But when that LLM merely [...]

What if I copy your article by hand? Or run it through an algorithm that translates it into another language. Can I sell it as my own? Or does it have to go through an LLM for people to sell your work as theirs?

Think about this: what if your job was to write articles, and suddenly nobody buys them anymore because they can read them cheaper on another website that serves them after the LLM laundering? Is it moral for that other website to make money out of your work?

> I find it immoral to impose restrictions on what, who, where and how my content is read.

Did you think that through? Do you find it immoral for a book author to sell their book, and to make it illegal for you to sell copies of it? It feels like you only consider your hobby-blog and ignore those who try to make a living by producing content (e.g. a photographer).
The part that's landing on the moon is just the second stage.
There's work in a new kublet replacement that moves things that would normally go into daemonset into systemd (or something like systemd).

There's also a neat feature of podman that runs pods as systemd units, which is a nice intermediate step between a more traditional pet server and a full kubernetes cluster.
I meant this one: https://github.com/pineappleEA/yuzu
IBM published the full BIOS listing and schematics. There wasn't much to RE.
> nothing comes close to being able to bring your Mac to the next Apple Store.

Ah really? Ever heard of worldwide on-site next day repair warranty?
Interesting that Opus and Sonnet have the same limits
Is there a single popular Tauri app? What are the most popular?
TIL the lunar lander for Artemis is 100 TONS! My goodness! I didn't think it'd be the Mylar balloon of the Apollo LM, but I did not really think it was going to be the entire first stage of Starship. I guess I need to read more.
Why Do So Many Mental Illnesses Overlap?
The video is about launch abort I believe. As opposed to aborting a lunar landing.
Sure, but Walmart is moving from a niche language to a mainstream one. Significantly easier to make that business justification. Go to Java should require a lot more political capital to champion such a change.

For what it’s worth, the 2023 stack overflow survey said 14% of professional programmers used Go vs 1% for F#. (Java at 30%)
I know lol this a famous quote by ganoo loonix enthusiast Richard Stallman.
> What sorts of parts?

A lot of parts I had to work with didn’t have it, last one a couple months ago for example was a guided parachute for a drone dropper, I ended up making the driver from scratch that interfaced with the serial io.
The problem is that heap has only an informal connotative definition, not a denotative one. 4 grains of sand doesn't seem like a heap, but if your kid leaves 4 of his toys out you might consider it a heap.

So now what, does the definition of a heap have to account for the subject's and object's relative scales? Formalizing informal notions is not always straightforward.
A drive-by patent owner can show up on anything, and if they don't want to license to you, your entire product is bust.

Even if it's AptX and Qualcomm issues you a license in exchange for money. I wouldn't even bet on being able to claw back these license costs after being ordered to destroy your AptX-equipped product after it ran into somebody else's patent.

The risk that this happens is _exactly_ the same for Opus or AptX.
>I don't think I would enjoy using a 4 year old Lenovo Ideapad today

Why not? I have a M1 Max supplied by my employer, and it's awesome. But guess what I use as my daily driver? An old t450s, running Ubuntu. Does everything I need, I can fix and replace anything in it (including the battery), and the keyboard is awesome. I think it's 10 years old.

I mean, for most of the work I do my computer is just a client anyway.
Chronic UTI Pain Could Be Caused by Overgrown Nerves
The installers don't actually work, because wherever they hosted the updates is gone.

I see a lot of people on Twitter lamenting that 3DS emulation is dead, but Citra was more or less a finished product, and third-party builds will undoubtedly be up within hours.
Anyone who says the 8/256 Airs are throwaway machines has literally never used one. Full stop. You have an opinion about what 8gb of memory is capable of, which is influenced entirely by Intel CPUs and Windows. It hits different on the M1 platform and MacOS.
Why is the ethics question important? It is a new feature for an audio codec, not a new material to teach in your kids curriculum.
No need to choose. Framework drives are removable and backupable.

Apple choose to make a nonrepairable, non-upgradable product.
To quote Brian Goetz [0], the language architect:

> It is super-common to observe "I saw feature F in language X, then I saw it come to Java, they must have gotten their inspiration from X." And while sometimes this is true, it is far more common that both are drawing inspiration from a common source or literature, sometimes even one that predates either language. (It is also super-easy to confuse "Language X was the first place I saw feature F" with "X invented F.")

Another in reference to getting inspiration from OCaml [1]:

> This is exactly the reaction that I was describing by "might elicit strong reactions from some", which is what I would call a "who moved my cheese" objection. Good, now we've got it out of the way. I had the same concern for the first few seconds after seeing this idea (the inspiration came from work being done in OCaml), but it didn't take much longer to see how it fit into the bigger role of switch.

Another from Ron Pressler [2]:

> Obviously, we do borrow features from less popular languages (primarily ML, which was never popular), but only when we think they're the best way to address a real need of Java's millions of mainstream developers and not just because those languages' self-selecting users love them.

This has all been discussed multiple times on the /r/java subreddit.

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/java/comments/11322uy/jep_draft_imp...

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/java/comments/18hglp5/effect_cases_...

[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/java/comments/18ynhn1/which_kotlin_...
I expect if astronauts aboard HLS lose their altimeter they'd have to abort the landing immediately -- to proceed without it would be the height of recklessness.

In addition to the obvious, it should be taken into account that the absence of atmosphere makes very difficult to assess distance and scale. Videos of approach seem like a fractal browser.
> Just don't ever use a metaphor on Hacker News. People will always misinterpret it

I've always wondered why that is. No other community I'm active in insists so much on explicitly spelling out everything and very literal language – most will actually reward playing with language, if done well. Writing as if targeting Commander Data seems to work quite well though.
The point is that it's growing:

https://github.com/tauri-apps/awesome-tauri