skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Where archive.is is blocked:

https://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?d=5037633466800&w=kLSkqm3H2q...
Dude, I get in 0.6 miles a day just walking around my 1200 sq ft apartment. Believe me, it’s not a lot.
"Processors like the 80386 did not come with any floating point facilities whatsoever."

The 80286 needed a 80287 - I bought one to run AutoCAD (1MB RAM!)

I can't quite remember the exact order of events but either or both 80386 and 80486 had a co-pro initially. Then Intel re-invented the IBM magic screwdriver. They dropped the 80 prefix and added SX or DX and an i prefix for a laugh. SX had no co-pro or it was disabled and DX was the full fat model.

They really started to screw the punter with the 586 ... Pentium. The trend has continued - Core iBollocks.
David Walsh! Blast from the past. I used to read his stuff when I was starting out almost 20 years ago.
Security measures should be treated as an opportunity cost, and scrutinized when it fails. In this case, the App Store's manual review layer has failed to catch a rudimentary scam. It's becoming a recurring issue on the App Store.
The policy bundle were sharded and cached on the client side, so the QPS itself was not much of an impressive data point on the OPA front. On the cache side we were seeing a lot more traffic, ~2B qpm (queries per minute) on daily peaks and p99.9 around 20 us.
I'm not too familiar with FUSE, but I would imagine that you are doing something similar to registering a custom filesystem on duckdb, then intercepting certain filesystem activities to trigger all the magic described in the blog?

Also, do you think any of this is going to make its way back into the duckdb core, or perhaps even influencing the duckdb developers to make some of this native or easier (avoiding assumptions about what duckdb is doing)? Perhaps some kind of trigger on checkpoint/similar activities?

And btw, very interesting to read this announcement after reading through the S3 discussion yesterday.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39656657
It's just like pickpocketing in Skyrim; it's legal if you just withdraw.
> Your relatives then contact you and insist that you flip the switch for them so they can install Facebook and Instagram from the Meta store so they can continue scrolling cat memes.

You should not have to police adults on what they're allowed to do with their property. If someone asks me to help them setup their computer, I may gave some advice and warning about things to avoid. If they asked me to do something that may be dangerous, I can refuse to do it, but I will not actively prevent them from doing so. They're not children.

If someone is ok with putting their whole digital life at risk, then let him do so. Just like you can't prevent someone who wants to eat cake all day. It's not your life.
> (1) the character is visible and

This can be fixed in the font
The NAM overestimates southern jetstream energy. And the 3km is just awful for anything beyond 24hr.

HRRR is OK, but usually <10 hours for better numbers.

You should relllllly look at the soundings, though.
Was he competing against other humans vs weather models? I'd hesitate to draw a conclusion from this anecdote.

I also couldn't find a link to this, and if you have one I'm interested in reading more.
https://www.videolan.org/vlc/stats/downloads.html?utm_source...
Flexible Artificial Intelligence Optoelectronic Sensors Toward Health Monitoring
Yeah seems to detract from the Google angle if it's carrier related
It depends. On new EVs (which formally designed as EV from scratch), motors and charger are usually powerful enough to exceed brakes.

On conversed, usual practice to limit torque of motor to be less than on ICE original, because of regulations (which exactly state, electric motor should not exceed ICE torque), and this mean, they are just not powerful enough for 100% regenerative braking.

From technical view, modern electric engine could easy exceed brakes.

I'm member of Ukrainian EV activists group, and we there mostly talk about conversions. Unfortunately, conversions are not so cool as new EVs, but to be honest I don't know details of other countries regulations, they could be less restrictive.
Wow, that's one pricey pigment: https://gamblinstore.com/yinmn-blue/

That's more like Williamsburg or Old Holland prices.
Are you saying LLMs are officially mid?
> The comment literally says "It's not about security like they've been lying about"

The comment literally says: "All of this just makes it crystal clear what Apple's goal is: to prevent competition. It's not about security like they've been lying about; it's all about maintaining their app store monopoly."

There is no reason for the security measures to be more onerous for the competing thing if they were sufficient for Apple's thing, unless the purpose of the security measures is to prevent competition.

> Without a kill switch, gatekeepers would lose control over apps, making them "strictly necessary."

Gatekeepers having control over apps isn't necessary for security. The device's owner having control over apps is. They can opt into a particular gatekeeper's control if they choose to. How is it "strictly necessary" for the gatekeeper to force them to use one provider of vetting services over another? Isn't the point of the act to enable competition?
You should be able to do this just fine with MouseEvents, and use `mouseup` or `mousedown` on the input box to trigger your "Caps On" icon, visible before the user starts typing.

docs: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/MouseEvent/...
Unfortunately everyone has moved to "Parquet" (Packet? Parket? Pacquet?) already and we've sailed even further.

I absolutely HATE this Parcquage.
Getting WSL2 working just right can still be an unnecessarily complicated process. And the Home versions of Windows do indeed suck for power users.

But Windows will generally support every monitor and resolution/scale well which can't be said of Linux (which struggles with hidpi) or macOS (which can't do fractional scaling and has blurry fonts on lodpi).
> Apple nor Google have any incentive because there is no 3rd option.

Uh. Apple and Google compete with each other. Why would they need a 3rd option for incentive?
I love how a never-used-by-courts-before regulation would supposedly already have "most interpretations" with any sort of authoritative value. I can probably walk into a pub tonight and get 27 other "interpretations", they will have the same value of yours. Technically speaking, even the Commissioner's own interpretation might well be flawed - we won't know until a court spends some time on it. I would humbly suggest, though, that when the very same lawmaker who wrote the law is publicly pulling your ears in public on related matters, your interpretations are probably not the right ones.

Apple pay enough real lawyers to defend them, they really don't need pro-bono amateurs.
If I remember correctly you can send illegal DMCA requests as many as you want?
No problem! I appreciate the reply.
Exploit development is more about effort and focus than difficulty. Any halfway-competent team can completely compromise any commercial IT security system.

It is a competition to see who can crack the most eggs. Anybody can do it, but the winner is who is willing to spend the most time doing it.

Google, and any commercial non-hacking organization, just has very little incentive to really waste a lot of money on that task. Where as basically every military and law enforcement arm of the US government has a ton of incentive and boatloads of money to spend cracking eggs. The military arms certainly spend billions a year and it would be quite unexpected if the law enforcement arms are not each, individually, spending hundreds of millions to billions per year.

Is the quality lower? Maybe. But exploit development is so easy that hardly matters. If you want to hack somebody then good enough is enough.
Y'know, I greatly dislike this. It's an actual emotional reaction. This should not be standardized. No one should use this. This is a bad idea and deserves to die in obscurity.

I'll tell you why, it's pretty simple. The characters this... thing is stealing, exist to represent invisible control sequences. That is their use. The fact that they can be mentioned by direct input is inevitable, but not to be encouraged.

I will be greatly disappointed if this is accepted as a standard. The fact that a USV file looks like a rendered ASV file is a show stopping bug, an anti-feature, an insult to life itself. Kill it with fire.
In which any evidence admitted or discovered in his case would become potential admissable evidence that could be leveraged in the Fed's criminal probe as a matter of public record. And since it was a defamation suit, his entire history was discovery fodder with a much lower bar to cross for subpoena's or discovery than the criminal probe would be. Then there's potential leaksge to the media and public (and thereby regulators) of exactly what to look for.

Don't stop thinking at the first order consequence/event. There is generally much more to it.
[ I work at Antithesis ]

Concurrent/distributed system bugs can be really finicky because they may depend on subtle timing conditions to manifest. So you might see a bug once, then try to re-run the test using the "same" inputs, and the bug doesn't appear a second time. This might be because e.g. threads aren't scheduled the same way as before, so some 1-microsecond-wide window of vulnerability for a race condition was missed. If you can't reliably reproduce the bug, it's much harder to study and fix.

Determinism lets you perfectly reproduce the bug as many times as you want. Perfectly as in, exactly the same thread+process scheduling, exact same memory and disk access times, exact same network packet transit times and orderings .. exact same everything. Then once you have returned to the bug, you can rewind time, to do things like explore counterfactual scenarios by varying the random seed from that moment on.

We do have randomness of course, otherwise it wouldn't be a very good fuzzer. But we save all the seeds, so it's a controlled, reproducible randomness.
Everybody who lives dies, so to avoid dying just dont ever live.

Solid workable solution you have proposed there.
Table elements are pretty much completely absent from modern web dev though?
>You don't give up the golden goose. You defend it.

Meanwhile, Android has dozens of stores and Google Play keeps the lion's share because it's built into almost every phone, has most of the apps anyway, and google's own safety assurances built-in. Google has gotten dinged but for much more insidious stuff behind the scenes, which still amounts to a few large publishers out of hundreds.

It's just paranoia at this point. Most of the market is captured, and any part Apple couldn't capture after 15 years (say, maybe premium games) is one they probably weren't every going to capture anyway. This is being worried about a crack in the brick wall while 99.999% of devs will just keep entering the front door like normal people. And most of the remaining people bypassing apple will just throw a brick at the door instead of meticulously exploit said crack.
Are you trying to take away my freedoms?
> The question is why is the scam app the #1 organic search result?

The real answer is that this has been happening for years. You can pay companies to pump up your app to the top of App Store search results or "app categories" lists, and they'll have farms of iPhones/Androids downloading apps to pump up their rank, and giving them 5 star reviews.

There have also been repeated problems with copycat apps that impersonate real indie apps (and sometimes end up earning more than the real app), which should have been a warning sign of the problems of App Review. Google "app store copycat" and you'll see.
Beautifully written little piece, on an interesting niche subject. Recommended!
In the way that they're getting pennies on the dollar. Of course they don't have to participate, but neither do workers in any other economy where slavery was abolished, so I don't see the point you're making.
The drug divisions almost all police departments in all major cities are completely riddled with corruption.

They're dealing with the primary monetary fault line of organized crime and gangs.

And drug enforcement is their big cover for almost all abuses.

We need to decriminalize and end the drug war, if only just to stop the Mexican drug gangs.

To take it to a higher geopolitical level... China is likely undergo a demographic collapse soon and possibly one due to totalitarian government paralysis. The geopolitical significance of petroleum is vastly decreasing with EVs American bakken shale oil supply and alternative energy. That means the u.s probably will not be policing the oceans as much to enable free extended trade and logistics lines.

So we will be onshoring manufacturer, and likely a great deal of it in Mexico.

So we're going to need to solve the Mexican drug problem and our drug war in a constructive manner in the next decade
> tires produce about 2,000 times more particle pollution by mass than tailpipes.

(emphasis mine)

The fact that the majority of tailpipe pollution is not particulate means that tailpipe pollution can be the biggest problem we need to fix, even if it isn't the biggest particle pollution problem.
They can choose to be compensated for their work, but in case of the 30% cut, they seem to want to be compensated for someone else’s work, because how much a successful app makes vs. an unsuccessful app is not a function of the SDK or the platform, which is the same for both. I would have no problem if they asked for a flat fee for providing their service. But they want to profit off the revenue of a whole ecosystem, and that has no quantitative relation to the effort of maintaining the OS and the SDK.

That’s just my personal opinion. The DMA is about anti-trust, that some companies are controlling a too large part of the cake, affecting too many users (end users as well as “business users”, e.g. app developers), which is bad for a competitive market and level playing field.
steam takes a 30% cut but valve isnt strongarming every game dev on PCs to use their store, they can go to alternate places or even just do it themselves directly. the playstation, xbox and switch are also problematic for the same reason the iphone is. i think all 3 of them should be forced open too, and i think they will be shortly after apple is
It added a correctly positioned autocomplete list in front of the cursor in almost any terminal app.

The core server was local, its two most used features were directory, and CLI arguments autocomplete.
I think the hardest part about CHERI is just that it's new HW. That's a tough sell no matter how seamless they make it.
Having lived through the dot-com era, I find the AI-era slightly dispiriting because of the sheer capital cost of training models. At the start of the dot-com era, anyone could spin up an e-commerce site with relatively little infrastructure costs. Now, it seems, only the hyper-scale companies can build these AI models. Meta, Google, Microsoft, Open-AI, etc.
Id probably set up a blackhat service first.

With the cracking algorithm I can now intercept and decrypt SSH traffic, it be a matter of time before I gain enough shell access to internet connected computers, on which I can run this anonymously. Probably just hang out in enough cafes in SF and Seattle with Evil Twin hotspot and enough people would be sshing into stuff for me to grab the keys.

Then once I have like 30 million in bitcoin, Id probably just post the crack anonymously on a forum, and then spend the rest of my time carefully managing the crypto and converting it to cash to make sure I don't get audited.
What's a 30% tax here and there between friends anyways?
> I understand why verifying can happen in time P for each machine, but I'm still confused on how you're sure that you hit on the right machine in P time.

My monkey stuff was a bit wrong; the enumeration stuff actually goes like this: let every binary string be a Turing machine. So TM 0 is the string 0, TM 1 is the string 1, TM 2 is 10, and so on. Every possible TM machine can be encoded in this way.

For half your time steps, run TM 0. For half of the remaining time steps, run TM 1. For half of those, run TM 2. So the sequence of execution actually looks like this:

0, 1, 0, 2, 0, 1, 0, 3, ...

This means that every 2^(n+1) steps, the nth TM does 1 step of computation. Say that the kth TM is the smallest TM that solves your problem. Then it takes 2^(k+1) * O(m^c) steps to solve your problem, where O(m^c) is a polynomial bound. (I've ignored accounting for the time for verification, but that's polynomial too, so it doesn't matter.) That O(m^c) comes from the fact that we know that a polynomial time algorithm exists for our problem (but we don't know what it is), since P = NP.

But 2^(k+1) is a constant; it doesn't depend on the input size. The smallest program that solves our problem (in general) will always be the kth program. (Technically on some inputs there will be smaller programs that solve the input just by getting lucky, but TM k is the smallest program that solves our problem for all inputs.) So 2^(k+1) * O(m^c) is a polynomial number of steps, just with an absurdly huge constant of 2^(k+1).

I found [1] to be helpful and it probably explains it better than I just did.

[1] https://steemit.com/steemstem/@markgritter/leonid-levin-s-un...
It is standard English, just somewhat antiquated at this point. Still, you see it quite a bit with "naïve".
It wouldn't even need to be an event on the input, it could be any key or mouse event on the document, including mousemove.

That being said, I think it would be better if browsers would implement this; that would make it more efficient and more predictable.
"Walled garden" does not mean "safe system". And it is not a prerequisite for a safe system, or vice versa.

You are saying you are happy in a "safe secure system".

In contrast, a "walled garden" is a prohibition on alternatives, not a source of safety. The prohibition of alternatives does not make the App Store safer.

If anything, it protects Apple from competing with safter alternatives! Like an app store only for children. Or an app store of formally verified apps.

Please correct me if I am somehow missing something...
I would venture to say that transhumanism will be the path and goal of the capital class, as that will be a tangible advantage potentially within their grasp.

I suppose then that they would become “homo sapiens sapiens sapiens” or some other similarly hubris laden label, and go on to abandon, dominate or subjugate the filthy hordes of mere Homo sapiens sapiens.
This would be more valid if the law was passed with a message that says "please interpret this law according to this documentation teleologically"
Given the fact that foreign values inherently require the use of unsafe due to not being able to verify anything about the value and it's behavior, yes, it's generally not recommended unless you're looking to write your own scripting integration plugin. Likewise, most of these scripting language runtimes are almost always not threadsafe in the slightest, requiring either single threading all scripted behavior, expensive locks, and heavy use of marshalling, which negates a lot of the performance benefits of the engine.

For more developer experience oriented reasons why this is done, I strongly suggest reading cart's reasons for making Bevy to begin with: https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/discussions/8107#discussi.... More specifically the "Turtles all the way down" bullet point.
No it’s worth a 1/2 reduction in the number of bits. So 256 becomes effectively 128 bit encryption. Idk though if the solution could be as simple as creating “AES 512”.
thanks, pushing a hotfix for this now
I've also seen some people running into issues with C/C++ indexing and I'm fixing that too!
crypto.com 1) is cryptocurrency bs and 2) buys ads on keywodrs which leads them to appear on searches for specific banks, smells like a scam to me
In workplace safety, at least in my country, there is a commonly accepted level to aim for: No accidents.

It makes sense in a way. If you don't aim for zero, what do you aim for? A few hands lost in a month? A few crushed fingers?

In this viewpoint I'd argue that aiming for a 98% reduction is a bit absurd: "Yeah we had an issue but it was the only one this month so it's within our budget."

Of course, goals are not the same as realised results. Getting a 98% reduction should be considered a huge, huge win. The next step should then be "what can we do to get rid of the rest?" Or at least the alternative seems odd: "We got this far, job done, nothing useful to do anymore."

Of course, the means will change. If C++ guarantees full memory safety next month, then the next steps after that won't be more memory safety but something else.
I think it depends on how you look at it. If your treated it as a job where you're trying to make a living from bounties then I think it is hard to do that, but if you do it as a side project or you happen to stumble on an issue then 5k or whatever is a nice bonus for reporting the issue responsibly.
I think "bug in stdlib" is forgivable, and I wouldn't fault Rust for it, exactly for the reason you say. It would be a great outcome if Rust's compiler and stdlib became a trusted compute base and folks had to be extra careful there.

It's not a great outcome if there are memory safety bugs arising from how some Rust programmer did some stuff.

So, I would revise my statement to: "It would be sad if Rust had memory safety issues that any user of the language could run into, and if that was true, then my conclusion would be that Rust isn't safe enough."
Simple: we have timer counters in the code. This is easier than handling them rolling over.
> mousemove

True, but I was trying to avoid handlers being fired constantly. Just something to consider.
I can enjoy that year 'round thanks to tinnitus. ;) It's about the same frequency for me.
It is both impressive and concerning how well their app store optimization efforts were, for what seems like a major keyword/phrase. These type of shenanigans were usually reserved for the Play Store. No more.

To be fair many crypto wallet apps are deceptively simple applications.
> Such capability can’t even be contemplated on the TPU side because you basically get a black box.

I'll just leave this here:
https://jax.readthedocs.io/en/latest/pallas/index.html
During that time period, NYPD tried to involuntarily commit one of their own police officers to a mental institution when he tried to blow the whistle on some of the corruption, with full knowledge of top brass: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Schoolcraft
I don’t think it was that nobody needed GPUs. It was that nvidia thought they could get scalper margins by restricting supply after the shortage showed people were willing to pay scalper prices.
Language attrition: what we don't practice, we forget. Even the mother tongue.
>What happens when Meta, X, Google et al. move to their own stores where they distribute apps unencumbered by Apple's privacy policies?

I guess pigs fly or hell freezes over. Musk and Zuckerburg had years after such changes to make their own store on Android (which put in similar privacy policies at the same time as Apple). It doesn't make any sense for them because being off the main store is worse than gleeming off a bit more data to sell.

>I have yet to hear a convincing argument (from multi-store proponents) about how to prevent this.

How about proving that the subjects in question are on multiple stores to begin with, or otherwise have shown interest?

You're questioning GDPR's validity, but your own premise isn't a thing to begin with.
lmfao :¬)
You are overreacting. The moment AI can completely replace SWE, our problem won't be having "jobs".