skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Not quite puzzles, but since someone else mentioned Schemaverse, I have made a similar but Elite inspired SQL-game called Datastar [1]. It features a simulated economy with traders and miners, and the goal is to make as much money as possible. Everything is done via SQL (or other PostgreSQL features), and the player need to make and manage a database of information about the planets and their economies.

I teach uni. couses on databases and made the game for my student to give them a more self-driven way to learn SQL.

[1] https://gitlab.com/leifhka/datastar
> How many PBs of data are sent each day for what could be a monolithic service?

The companies that need service meshes couldn't possibly run everything in a single monolith. They already have several if not dozens of monoliths, each one typically coming into the architecture when a large enterprise acquires another company and its monolith, or simply different business units / product lines that don't talk to each other because of sheer organizational scale.

It's called a service mesh, not a microservice mesh. First you get the benefits wrapping, securing, and monitoring each of your monoliths, then you reap more benefit when you start to break up each of those monoliths so common concerns can be addressed by common services and provide a unified experience to the enterprise's customers/users.
Recursion Viewer
Bayesian stats

Traditional stats

Very fast iteration for data exploration in REPL (vs code or R studio).

Prefer pipeline workflows (Tidyverse/maggrittr).

Prefer functional

Prefer array based.

Prefer 1-indexed arrays (yes there are some of us).
It sort of looks like Caelid in Elden Ring.
> It might come as a shocker for you

Thanks for the unneeded tone. But the solution that author likely uses is linkerd which is free for 50 users. And even then very likely it would be less than $1000/month. If it is too much for the org to pay, I don't think they need it.

Service mesh is not something a small or medium sized company needs.

> those solutions usually need tweaking & knowledge to be operated. And if any issues happen, swift support comes at a hefty premium.

Exactly my point. Base price is not something that is gonna cost them the most when using advanced tools like this. Even if it was free it would costed pretty much the same for any medium sized org.
Have to confirm, but pretty sure I couldn't install it via steam on a fresh computer. Same account, play on original computer still, etc.
In the meantime, as clear regulations take time, we need consumers to step in.

Just stop buying and using Apple products.

Hitting their bottom line is much more effective than waiting for governments to step in.
I think its more intuitive for statistical applications where Python is grossly under-represented. This includes things like the design and analysis of experiments but also lots of domain specific statistics and algorithms such as in bioinformatics, chemistry, and so on.

Typically those applications are not the sort of line-of-business enhancements ML in Python is more tuned to. I.e. recommender systems, NN models, and so on.
It's more about the slippery slope of security vs convenience.

I do git rebase -i often. Do I want to touch my yubikey exactly 37 times for the 37 commits amended, or do I want to touch it once and just trust the software for the next N seconds to sign only these commits and not anything else?

Now, if I'm the verifier, do I trust the signer to do it properly? Or the half their commits are actually made by their cat and automatically signed?

Signing a tag is a relatively rare and very deliberate action. A more secure approach is less likely to impact convenience, reducing the chance of compromising security because it was inconvenient.
This sort of postmodern deconstruction of everything leads to an endless pit of nothing. Why even write that comment? What are words even? Let alone letters? Why is a capital A three lines? What are lines? Why are vectors? Why is anything?

Pffft. Get off my lawn.
Yes, meditation is great, but also it has some non-trivial levels of risk. Do your research before going.
> I don't agree. Correctness is strictly determined by common usage.

Happy to agree to disagree, especially when there is this much teeth-gnashing about how 'correct' this usage is—just within this thread. My point about 'could of' was even brought up elsewhere.

> Language isn't logically airtight like this.

But it is—or at least, people make it so. In a world where what people say or write is regularly misconstrued/misinterpreted and lands them in jail, or persecuted, or even killed, I believe clarity, accuracy, (factual and syntactic) correctness, and honesty should be something that every writer should strive toward. Someone else brought up contronyms—which I believe ought to be avoided as much as possible because of their potential to cause much confusion even with context ('sanction' is a very powerful example).

This sort of wishy-washy 'it is correct because people understand it' only reminds me of 'alternate facts'. I don't like it and I wish people wouldn't put up with it.
I just use my plain text email, I've never had a problem with spam for many years
Not really. The fact that "we keep our technology secret for safety reasons" is the reasoning given by many for-profit corporations does not make it a good argument, just a very profitable lie to tell, and it has never stopped showing itself false at every opportunity to test it. But it's also never stopped being profitable to keep this secrecy, which is why the likes of Apple and Microsoft make these claims so frequently

This is, in many ways, the substance of the lawsuit. This logic of "we must guard this secret carefully... for safety!" doesn't actually inevitably come from most lines of enabling research in any field in academia for example, but it does reliably come up once someone can enclose the findings in order to profit from exploiting this information asymmetry somehow

Secrecy for profit isn't a super benevolent thing to do, but it's generally speaking fine. We have whole areas of law about how to balance the public benefit of wide availability of information and the private benefit to discoverers of some technique, technology, or even facts about the world. It is well understood by most people that trade secrets aren't public knowledge. We see this plea to "safety" come up only exactly in cases where companies want to justify having control over things that have become pervasive and often mandatory to use in many contexts in a way that allows said companies to in turn exert further control over that thing's users, which is to say in tech monopolies. The use of that reasoning basically one-to-one predicts a business model that relies on DMCA 1201 (or its international equivalents) to function, a legal edifice designed by Microsoft lawyers which has become pervasive worldwide essentially at their behest

That said, I don't think it's particularly hard to make the case that writing a whole-ass non-profit charter explicitly outlining the intent to do research in the open and then suddenly switching to the very familiar corporate reality distortion field stance of a convicted monopolist you happen to have formed a partnership with in order to justify effectively abandoning that charter is a good basis for a lawsuit
Wasn't this a Rick and Morty episode?
If I can't transfer ownership of "stuff" between the stores?(installation platforms), or if I can get banned from a "store" and lose access to precious products purchases then it is definitely a walled garden. Maybe not in the original definition of the word.

Maybe if we compared it to a car dealership. Imagine if you could only buy and sell replacement parts for your car through the dealership where you bought it. Or if you try service a car and can't because you can only do that at the original dealer, etc.

This whole "walled garden" stuff will morph into region locking that we had before.
Mesa 24.1 to Raise Limit Supporting More Than Eight Vulkan GPUs per System
I will agree that I left just as tidyverse was coming of age and I'm sometimes jealous i never got to use it.

What Hadley Wickham has done is very impressive.
Psilocybin is technically not a drug. Entheogens have no serious (bad) side effects, if they have them at all, if you use them sparingly and know how. And they are not for everyone. You can microdose shrooms but you cannot sell them on the streets. There is a reason why they were treated as a sacred plants. Comparing them with meth, dope and similar stuff is ridiculous. Or plain insidious.
> I think she needs some training on how to speak neutral without much of an accent.

> Also, I don't understand why her background behind her is so... non-professional.

You focus on very superficial details. There's a reason true geniuses don't really fit into society, they don't care about and don't have time for petty details.

When they change the world the vultures come and package it into a pretty product for the masses to throw their money at and it inevitably turns into crap. Most of the money goes into PR, HR and Chief title officers for no other reason than to satisfy the gullible masses.

I'll give an example: crypto-currencies can change the world in many ways, but the killer feature that the masses adopted was fucking NFTs... Humans are depressing.

Choose for yourself where on this journey you want to adopt a product or idea. Do you act on ideas or shiny packaging?
The question: What is Truth? has been bothering people for a long time. Probably as soon as humans started to be able to talk about not so simple things. Many philosophers have spent thoughts about that. Religions popped up to give a simple answer to this question.

Somehow the experience of AI seems to trigger this question.

My take: There's no such thing as Truth. Everything is empty, and so is Truth.

Once someone wrote, God is all-powerful, so God could make it that all religions on Earth are true simultaneously. If God were not all-powerful then God could not make it so. Where is then Truth?

Descartes once thought, what if he sees and thinks is an illusion? What if he is alone on the world and all the people he interacted with are only a figment of his deeper, instinctive imagination?

Even Buddha had an answer. The desire to find Truth is one of the wants. Let it go and you'll find pease.

There are many thoughts about Truth. These thoughts are not really related to AI, but the experience of AI triggers these thoughts in many people.
I find that with vscode and the immediate window I get a decent repl.

What about R's language makes it better for Repl driven development?
If you didn’t have helm, you’d be using one of the other, much better tools, and be happier for it.
i just use my email and let gmail hadnle the spam
Subreddits can have their own individual ‘skins’ - i haven’t seen behind the scenes so I don’t know what that’s like to edit and what’s allowed, but - it’s definitely enough to achieve an effect like this.

Users can also opt out of subreddit specific styles.
Nah bro, they would instead send those cars where they would get much more profit. You just can't expect too many cab bookings in a small town of 1500.
Idk bout EU but here in India we have public transport to even remote places and it is sure profitable and many people do use it everyday, even if the population is less many use public transit instead of own veichles in towns.
Once I read somewhere that people overestimate the impact of new technologies in the short term and underestimate it in the long term.

My interpretation is that right now we're on the top of AI euphoria wave. It was the same thing some time ago with crypto. We would hear a lot of theories about how a system based in objective microcontracts would make the subjective and inefficient governments of today obsolete.

We still don't know the true impact that the new LLM models will have over the economy, but what we know is that a lot of people is making a lot of money by being excessively optimistic with the prospects. Honestly I think that the practical impacts of LLMs won't be nowhere near to what the enthusiasts are preaching. In more 3-4 years the novelty will fade and then we will be ready to go to the next hype.
Will this stay open source or will it end up as another limited open core data product?
Let’s not forget sl
> Yes, if we just ignore OpenAI's unusual structure it really simplifies the discussion

No it only makes who the responsibility of the board is to - the non profits charter, the donors, or the shareholders. That decides if their decision was lawful, not their intent.
I am curious - could you share some links to this please?
I grew up in the 1980s, when you had to know your platform well to get nice software written.

I find it annoying that there are a lot of young (and not-so-young) developers who don't take the time to properly understand where their apps are running in order to make the best of it and also not to write crappy and slow software.

I see people climb mountains in Java when they had all they needed in the database or in the OS.
It's a bit weird finding `cowsay -f sodomized` though lol
From the perspective of the users, Matrix has the "best" experience since it supports bridge controlling user accounts, so all accounts look like real users. Currently the largest part of the community is from Telegram, which is the earliest established platform. Discord comes in second, then Matrix, but there are at least one other contributor is joining from there. Although I want to, the primary goal here isn't to encourage Matrix but to avoid forcing people to use Discord and as ddevault says "set up users who are passionate about free software — i.e. your most passionate contributors or potential contributors — as second-class citizens".
There are collections of millions of books available online.

Some legal as they are out of copyright. Like archive.org and project Gutenberg. Although they are under threat and can’t be counted on to remain around indefinitely.

There are other such libraries even more complete if you seek you shall find most books.

I think the move is to keep an archive of everything printed before 2000.

Abandon the interwebs, return to monke.
Humans do this every now and then. We seem to suffer through it somehow. Most of history consists of a large-scale epistemological battle.

We used to think the Roman Emperor (or equivalent) was the sole source of truth and understanding. Then we thought it was the church. The Enlightenment changed that to individual science and reason. We're currently (for the last 70 years or so) on a kick about how everything reduces to bits and bytes.

I was thinking this morning about how in the 80s AI researchers would argue whether or not a computer that played chess was "actually" playing chess, ie, was it conscious and having the experience people did when they played chess? Our answer from that period was something like "Who cares? If to me the computer looks like it is playing chess, it's playing chess. How can I tell differently?"

The rule here is that everything reduces to my generalized conception of how this transaction/game plays out. That's the Turing Test.

But this just shows how stupid people are. It doesn't say anything about intelligence. Intelligence is transformative and pre-language. You reduce it to words and images and you've destroyed the thing you're trying to create. The human that plays chess with me is the human one day that, while moving a pawn, comments on how life seems dull to them, striking a conversation about existentialism which, in turn, changes me slightly. Or they move slower than normal, making me worry about their health, which prompts me to think about my parents. That's chess, it's not moving pieces around.

Once you spot this, you can see it over and over again. Project Management must consist of reports, graphs, video meetings, and so forth, right? Those TPS reports need their covers. Movies must be spectacle and pre-canned drama. The piece of graphic I need for my book can easily be created by AI, right? Nobody thinks that by creating my own graphic I come to a new realization about the problem I'm exploring. That's not considered "graphic arts" If it can't be digitized, it must not be important, right?

Like everything else, this will keep going until it doesn't. And like all other examples, the change will be painful. But we always seem to muddle through. And if this turns out to be an extinction-level event? I find it tremendously and oddly-pleasing that man made it through all these trials only to be destroyed by the turbo-electric bullshitting machine we finally created. Somehow that seems to suit us.
Peak journalism.. :/
"The framework" in this case was a very thin layer underneath a bunch of components for which one of the inputs was a prop that included the relevant part of the schema from the server. So at a top level you got everything. The default top-level component knew to look up a view definition, and type, and a function that knew how to render that type, and that was pretty much it.

Then it'd just apply that recursively. For a simple model there'd only be two levels: The view, containing a bunch of columns, and the columns themselves, and the view type knew to iterate over the columns in the view and look up their type and tell them to render themselves. For more complex views frontend devs might e.g. provide a custom view type that'd group columns based on certain attributes, but still delegate to the generic mechanism to render those columns.

So replacing a part just meant writing a component that knew how to render itself from its props, just like any other component. Just that some of those props would be coming from the backend.

We'd generally try to avoid replacing components if the only reason for a component was to override how something was rendered, and to focus on why it should be rendered differently and consider if we could reflect that 'why' in the data, or other ways.

E.g. were certain fields grouped together because they were semantically related? Then reflect that with an attribute in the "meta schema" for those columns, and make the frontend component render related groups according to the type of that group (let's say a bunch of fields reflects a user address). Incidentally this tended to be very simple, as with a relational model when there were groups like that the right thing was often for them to be a separate table/model anyway, and we 'just' needed to distinguish between type handlers for rendering an object 'as the page' vs. 'as a reference' vs. 'as a group within the page', and that was easy enough to distinguish "well enough".

At a top level, we'd look for a registered view-level component (or fall back on the default), within a view if the backend returned the model instance "in-line" we rendered it as a group, and if it returned an id, we'd render it as a reference.

So a "User" object for example would render as a profile view if it was not your user and you went to a page where the associated API call returned the User as the top level model, you personalised profile page w/optional edit view if it was your user, or a "pill" linking to the user profile if it was just a reference.

The idea was that frontend components should focus on how to render specific types of data in a specific context, rather than specifying how specifically to render the page, because it'd make no sense to have the frontend e.g. try to render a field that no longer exists, or try to render a field as a different type it is when the meta data about which fields were available and what type they are was already available.
I have. It was a pile of “serverless” crap. Zero tests. No ability to run locally. Few comments. Copy-pasted code everywhere. Productivity was incredibly low since people edited code in the AWS console.
start with that you know nothing

live accordingly

eat, laugh, dare to love, and depart from this mortal coil

it’s wild, it’s long, and if you’re lucky feels too short
Bioinformatics, particularly genetic mapping and population genomics. There’s an entire ecosystem of very mature tools actively maintained by labs to add analyses pertaining to advancements in the field, without breaking pipelines or silently changing the results of a given analysis from version to version.

Take something like adegenet, where the manual itself is approaching 200 pages:

https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/adegenet/adegenet.pd...
Answer to question - yes, and more. Jails+rctl (available since 2012) is not cgroups it's cgroups+SELinux+APParmor. Vanilla linux container is not a security barrier, vanilla FreeBSD jail is.

In practice this means more seamless 'isolation' in Linux case but that isolation is weak. Which perfectly corresponds to FreeBSD looking at server uses 99% of the time and Linux looking at the desktop too.

About your conclusion, I don't think that's based on anything so please do write on what facts do you base the assessment that FreeBSD has no resource limiting and isolation features, and that it would be a 'separate implementation', as FreeBSD always tends to upgrade and not change tools and interfaces, and that there is not enough interest from anyone to implement it, as most major FreeBSD features are actually paid for by FreeBSD sponsors.
The only way it gets even close to “fired” is if you had a month contract for the construction site, and the company cut it short and banned you from the property.

A contract expiring is not being fired. Maybe - maybe - a contract that has been renewed repeatedly being not renewed is similar, but it still really isn’t.
About half our team can wrangle and plot as fast as we can think of ideas. It creates an incredibly tight cycle time between us having ideas and getting answers; sometimes many (e.g. 10-20+) of those cycles in a single meeting. Before we used R, it would require someone jotting down things to investigate and reporting back in the next meeting. But we can do ~80% of whatever people can think of on the spot (more involved research questions can take more time).

The unique qualities of R that allow this are that it's so easy to use, extremely reliable for package installation (problems occur approximately never), and the tidyverse makes it incredible easy to translate ideas into code, not only in its broad, easy to understand and powerful vocabulary, but in there being little 'nesting' required; instead working left to right and top to bottom (via the magrittr pipe) - i.e. your code, for the most part, is like reading a page in a book.
Are you interested in knowing how I did it?

Next in the newsletter I will publish a post about it, I made a system that uses Puppeteer to mount a headless browser and a frontend deployed on netlify, I publish everything to a database and automatically generate new posts on HackerNews leveraging ChatGPT

You can find me on https://implementing.substack.com ;)
Salas?
With animation I mean UI animation, like smooth opening of a menu etc. That is obviously not possible because it would require a much higher resolution. That is generally the kind of animation I dislike as it almost always comes with no real benefit while slowing down user interactions.
other bad things do not make a bad thing ok
It does not because if you use + and - liabilities are negative and assets positive and if you add all balances the sum is zero. Actually the commercial accounting software I use works like that, it uses negative balances for liability accounts.