skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> lack of focus on realistic, achievable goals ("go small, then incrementally bigger")

This is basically the problem with stretch goals in a nutshell. Once you get a lot of money and interest, it's easy to add more and more promises to keep people adding money to the pot.

The problem is that each of these things requires more time and effort (sometimes even exponentially more), so you end up stuck in a quagmire of 'fulfil a huge laundry list of promised features before you run out of money'.

I suspect Patreon has some of this for similar reasons. The more money you make, the higher people's expectations are, and the more insane your own promises will get to try and justify the amount of money you're bringing in.
> Which I fully realize I have the choice to do that and not give them money. And that is great. But That still means I cannot make the choice to use something I want without also being forced to make a decision that I don't want to make (use an alternative store).

Can you not see how you're being unfair here? You're saying you would not buy something not distributed through the App Store which is fine and a valid choice but on top of that you want others who've made a different choice to be forced to distribute their work through the App Store and give up 15-30% of every transaction to Apple. Would you agree to pay that markup for having that choice?
It's interesting to compare these opinions with those of the Google Security team that were released a little over a week ago [1].

Key quotes from the Google paper:

> We see no realistic path for an evolution of C++ into a language with rigorous memory safety guarantees that include temporal safety.

> In our experience, it is not sufficient to merely make safe abstractions available to developers on an optional basis (e.g. suggested by a style guide) as too many unsafe constructs, and hence too much risk of bugs, tend to remain. Rather, to achieve a high degree of assurance that a codebase is free of vulnerabilities, we have found it necessary to adopt a model where unsafe constructs are used only by exception, enforced by the compiler.

It seems like Herb Sutter at least partially agrees with the second point in his TL;DR:

> I just want C++ to let me enforce our already-well-known safety rules and best practices by default, and make me opt out explicitly if that’s what I want.

[1]: https://security.googleblog.com/2024/03/secure-by-design-goo...
Have you ever shot yourself?

Certainly people have committed suicide in stressful situations, but there is no situation where it makes sense that someone would kill themselves, and countless people get deposed who don't.

Continuing to depose someone to get them to shift their story is a reasonable strategy if their story can't be backed up by evidence and you aren't worried about anything coming out in the testimony. It's a terrible strategy if the witness is about to reveal where the skeletons are buried.
I think some elements of this stack might flow into the open compute.
Software Identifiers through the eyes of Nix
How to read files quickly in JavaScript
There's a fairly successful(?) and long-running Ostrich and Emu operation near where I live.

It's a tourist attraction though and they make their money charging admission and selling handfuls of food so people can feed the birds.
Likewise. It's also really useful having some self-catering facilities with children and other self-catering options are often unavailable totally or only in week blocks outside Airbnb in many places. Plus the cost is often the same or less than two hotel rooms.
Recommend the book The Weather Machine by Andrew Blume (also wrote Tubes) on some history of forecasting and what happens in the background nowadays:

> In The Weather Machine, Andrew Blum takes readers on a fascinating journey through an everyday miracle. In a quest to understand how the forecast works, he visits old weather stations and watches new satellites blast off. He follows the dogged efforts of scientists to create a supercomputer model of the atmosphere and traces the surprising history of the algorithms that power their work. He discovers that we have quietly entered a golden age of meteorology—our tools allow us to predict weather more accurately than ever, and yet we haven’t learned to trust them, nor can we guarantee the fragile international alliances that allow our modern weather machine to exist.

* https://www.andrewblum.net/the-weather-machine-2

* https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/42079139

For the very early history of meteorology, see perhaps The Invention of Clouds about Luke Howard:

* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1148768.The_Invention_of...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_Howard
https://twitter.com/cognition_labs/status/176754876733767289...
you get forward and backwards compatibility out of the box so long as you adhere to the schema guidelines.

The docs go into more detail on how different types are handled. We also have some special features like “binary schema” which let you ship your schema with data so clients are always up to date.
I think they were factoring 21 a decade or so ago. Now the record is at least 261,980,999,226,229. Although my understanding is that this # was somewhat cherry picked and the algorithm they used (not shor's) worked well on this 48 bit number but wouldn't scale as well as Schor's algo to sizes that are cryptographically meaningful
> The company distributing open source could change license anytime they wish

That really depends on the license and whether there's a CLA in play. If the code is copyleft (most likely GPL but there are others) and they take 3rd party contributions under that license then it's generally not possible/practical to relicense. (IANAL, YMMV)
Well, something of that sort happened with the A330 also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72
> The cost of switching device ecosystems can be comparable to the cost of renting an apartment in richer countries

I'm not sure what you are doing with your phone but you should lower your dependencies on tech gadget if switching from iPhone to Android would cost you so much. The law can't regulate primarily for people making unreasonable decisions.
In your example images at the very end, the momentum term seems to have a deleterious effect on the digital painting of the house (the door is missing in the gamma = 2.0 image). I would like to know more details of that example to build an intuition for the effect of your gradient-informed ddim sampler.

As someone who's spent a little time experimenting with sampling procedures on stable diffusion, I was also hoping for a comparison to DDIM in terms of convergence time/steps. Is there a relationship between momentum, convergence and error? (i.e, your momentum sampler at 16 steps is ~equivalent to ddim at 20 steps ± %err_term)

thanks for the excellent post
Epson is one of those companies that creates a solid product and just lets it ride. Like their V600 scanner has been $250-350 for its entire lifetime and is still the best on the market; it came out in 2009.
> Instead it will mean that bosses can fire 75-90% of the (very expensive) engineers, with the ones who remain left to prompt the AI and clean up any mistakes/misunderstandings.

We continually hear anxiety about technology leading to mass unemployment and it keeps not happening. Instead, workers tend to have higher productivity, which drives higher wages.

Technological advancements transformed agriculture from being 75% of the workforce to being less than 5% of the workforce over the last 200 years and instead of mass unemployment, everyone found other ways to add value to society and it has been an absolute win, with higher standards of living.

(https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Percent-of-the-Labor-For...)
I'd be great if they could invest in an alternative to nvidia -- then, in one fell swoop, destroy the moats of everyone in the industry.
The problem is your friend Apple locking up their subscription services behind fees that developers don't want to pay. And please don't tell me they need that money to run the service - a quick look at their profit numbers tells you the margin is significant.

Apple could fix this overnight and choose not to. Therefore they clearly don't care about their users, by your definitions.

Also: who do you think you are to tell developers how much money they're allowed to make? It's their right to decide whether they want to pay these platform fees or not.
I know we won't get it this from FB, but I'd be really interested to see how the relationship of compute power to engineering hours scales.

They mention custom building as much as they can. If FB magically has the option to 10x the compute power, would they need to re-engineer the whole stack? What about 100x? Is each of these re-writes just a re-write, or is it a whole order of magnitude more complex?

My technical understanding of what's under the hood of these clusters is pretty surface level- super curious if anyone with relevant experience has thoughts?
Sure they are. Cap'n Proto addresses a superset of Protobuf's use cases. Anywhere where you might use Protobuf, Cap'n Proto will work fine. In certain use cases (like mmaping large files or exporting complex APIs over RPC) Cap'n Proto is much better than Protobuf, but it's not bad at the other use cases.

The main limitation of Cap'n Proto compared to Protobuf is the ecosystem -- missing or poor-quality implementations in many languages, limited tooling, etc. Admittedly this is probably a showstopper for most users. It's also the hardest thing for any new contender to solve.

With all that said I would tend to agree that benchmarks are probably pointless. I've spent a lot of time benchmarking serialization and one thing I know is that benchmark results will vary wildly depending on the use case. A benchmark of an example/toy use case isn't really indicative of performance in a real use case.

(I'm the author of Cap'n Proto. I don't know much about Flatbuffers so can't comment there.)
JetBrains is still mad at Rapid7 for the ransomware attacks on its customers
It's certainly possible to make an expression of the form "bool > bool" a compiler error and require that developers rewrite it as "x && !y"
Go team does acknowledge [1] it as a bug, so there is some point here

However, that said, I wonder if OP (duckdb) could have written their solution [2] differently. Shouldn't they be able to select from a Pipe as well as Error channel simultaneously? (similar to how they are doing it inside here [3]). If not, I would have create a go-routine that does blocking read on the Pipe and then pass it on to another channel to select on.

[1] https://github.com/golang/go/issues/66239

[2] https://github.com/scratchdata/scratchdata/blob/7c1a0fcd0e20...

[3] https://github.com/scratchdata/scratchdata/blob/7c1a0fcd0e20...
Having recently had to pick up C++ again after over a decade in Ruby/Python/Clojure/Haskell/TypeScript land, it was enlightening to see how much the language is a window into a previous era of programming, full of boilerplate and footguns and dreams for programming patterns that ended up non panning out.

It feels like the programming community can do so much better, having seen the other side of it, but there's an immense amount of legacy code that's holding us back. Especially if you're going into more serious game dev territory, it seems practically unavoidable.
No, I have. I don't consider abuse of the format a problem with the format. Though I can see how having to delimit with special characters will help the type of person who writes print(','.join(stuff)).
> Basically it’s the cookie banner again. Served no-one (at least definitely not the consumers), but annoyed a lot.

Oh no, you have to be given the option to not permit your data to be shared with ~1000 different partners with "legitimate" interests. Honestly, the only thing that is wrong with GDPR is that it came out too late.
"Do the next right thing" was a phrased used by Alcoholics Anonymous long before that 2019 movie came out, so I don't think calling it "The Anna Principle" is appropriate.
> How is a company supposed to follow rules that are open to interpretation

That's easy. Make a good faith interpretation of the intent of the law and follow that.

And don't try to find loop holes that only work in your favor.
"Claims study" means nothing.
Also what kind of life does it add? If a person sits on his ass all day, those are three worthless years.
That's irrelevant. The speedometer reading is an absolute reference. The percentages being discussed are simply comparisons, and they're only being discussed to say "they behave like you'd expect."

To directly answer your original question: a reading of 21 is 5% better than a reading of 20 because 21 is 5% greater than 20, and this means that a 21 speed browser should do things 5% faster than a 20 speed browser.

TL;DR: They behave like you'd expect.
> The CTF is a platform access fee, and not a fee for interoperating with system ABIs/services/APIs.

Since Apple already charges $99/yr for a dev account, for which the Xcode price is included, and the CTF applies even when not using the App Store... what are they charging for if not API access in the form of the dev's user's devices? That's the only thing that's left
It's definitely a trade off. But Sutter is extremely selective in the analysis put forward on that trade off. Selective enough that I find the wording pretty misleading overall. And that particular paragraph is still a non-sequitur. The language used is pretty clearly "because foo, bar happened." Emphasis mine:

> However, this same feature also requires Rust programs to use unsafe code more often to represent common data structures that do not require unsafe code to represent in other MSLs such as C# or Java, and so 30% to 50% of Rust crates use unsafe code, compared for example to 25% of Java libraries.

This isn't a carefully considered statement about trade offs. This is sloppy reasoning. For example, if the reality were that 99% of that `unsafe` code were just FFI interactions with programming languages that are memory unsafe by default, then that would kind of undercut the entire point here. That is, it wouldn't really be Rust's fault. It would be the fact that we've lived in a memory unsafe hegemony in systems languages for the last several decades. That's just reality.

Of course, I'm sure it isn't 99%. But I'm also sure it isn't 1% either. The reality is so much more interesting than "30%-50% of all crates have `unsafe` in them." And that reality could very well undercut the entire point Sutter is making in this part of the article.
Arguably we haven't seen redistribution of wealth due to past automation advances, so it seems unreasonable to believe it will happen now. As automation has improved in the last decades especially, wealth has disproportionately moved upwards.
There is a similar product called Sweep AI thst I tried. For extremely simple things "like add a button to the page that prints hello" it was very good. I then asked it to do something more complex, which was to render my d3.js graph vertically rather than horizontally, and it tried to redefine constant variables (it just added a new modified code block without deleting the old one), put function clauses in places that were not synctactic. After I manually fixed those, the functionality just didnt work.
" hearsay from a passenger hardly sounds reliable."

Maybe, but also the alternative is that pilots may be pressued not to report these things due to career or crony capitalist concerns like pressure from their employer or are told this crash is 'normal'. Airlines and Boeing are not "nice guys" and are historically toxic and vindictive companies against the working class.

So that leaves us whistleblowers of lower professional value than pilots. The same way Snowden was a lowly sysadmin contractor and not a high ranking NSA general or CISO or whatever. Or Reality Winner or Chelsea Manning had relatively low level positions.

At a certain point, in a corrupt system, we have to accept the quality of whistleblower is never going to be that gold standard we want. Maybe this is fake, but its worth taking on face value considering what we know about Boeing culture and the capitalism dynamics and government corruption they've helped create that keeps them away from proper regulation and disclosure.

Not to mention we still know next to nothing about Malaysia Airlines flight 370, which was a Boeing too. The narrative of "nothing to see here, its just a pilot suicide or freak swamp gas accident" is now a lot more questionable as we've seen Boeing quality decline lately.

"Hey this isnt good enough" is wrong thinking here. In a system of corruption and secrecy its rare to have "good enough" but instead we have to deal with the cards we're dealt by witnesses and whistleblowers.
Dupe of this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39678555
Er, whyever wouldn't it? On Linux it certainly works as expected, and it seems that it works fine on OS X when avoiding the broken Go shims.
New startup from Postgres creator puts the database at heart of software stack
This is just nice packaging on top of current models. Very nicely done but still not a giant leap forward from what is already here
The reason they don't communicate their bounds is also a performance optimisation. You can certainly do it in C++; use a std::vector for e.g. and use the .at() method to index on it and it'll throw an exception unless you disable that with a compiler flag.

The thing is, it's fine to take that risk if you're writing HPC simulation software, but it's much less fine if you're writing an operating system or similar.
Airbus had a problem like this on an A330 due to corrupted AOA data in the flight computers.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72
I googled that right and partially yes, but not necessarily, sometimes I see good animation without the scrolling part, some were built with three.js but others were not, would be interesting to know the tools.
I'll allow it. Then we can rewrite it in C but better this time. I really don't see too much of the problem with Coding in C. You just have to be little more mindful. With great power....
I see a pattern, and i don't like it
I wouldn't call it imagined when Fortnite is not available on the Android App Store...

There is at least one company that is very much pushing for this exact scenario, and has announced plans for releasing a store on iOS.
Ah, yes! Thank you!. The export works like a charm. It let me select multiple formats.
What Happened to Twitch?
A little guide to building Large Language Models in 2024
For the same reason I don't switch to Windows: the alternatives are even worse.

Apple isn't the best, no one deserves "best" in desktop and mobile operating systems, but it's the least bad.

In mobiles we basically have a duopoly, and the only ones who are likely to care about the customer's interests are regulators. Neither Apple nor Google have any incentive because there is no 3rd option.
C++ is the standard. Not the implementations. The bug is fixed in the implementations, but remains in C++.
I'm pretty sure I did have to give permission for this to work, and my default instinct for such requests is to say no or close the page immediately, unless it's something I actively want, like in this case. I take your point though, I'd prefer that there were a whole other page I had to go to and enable something like this.

On the other hand, I've always hated how even something I've written for myself can be hobbled at the alter of security out of religious zeal. At one point you really couldn't access local files, although the orthodoxy has now shifted. I just wish it were easy to just point to a directory and say that's all you're getting, but do whatever you want in there.
It's not about how you might use the device. it's about how people actually use them. Maybe a dozen ppl have ever used the browser on a PlayStation. When you lose your phone, on the other hand, it literally feels weird to go about your day without one.

Right now you have a "Hobson's choice", but if you could ditch the iPhone while still keeping access to iMessage and iCloud, wouldn't you?
Linux is fragmented. Windows has shockingly few indie devs given its marketshare (compared to Apple: Omni apps, Structured, Day One, Session, Pixelmator, Fantastical...). The Mac has plenty of eager indies that care deeply about UX and design, and many discerning users who care too. Caring about UX/design is their "carrot"; they don't need the "stick" (deprecation).

The stick was mainly necessary for big devs back in the day, who never cared about making Mac-assed Mac apps. Now those have switched to Electron anyway; the stick no longer provides meaningful incentives. It just annoys people who want to play Half-Life for 5 minutes every few years.

I'm sure the people on the Mac team think exactly the way you do though, so I guess I hope they read this, or at least that they make sure their assumptions are still valid.
The post mentioned using Fiddler instead. https://docs.telerik.com/fiddler/configure-fiddler/tasks/ins...

If read-only access is all that is needed, SSLKEYLOGFILE might help. https://my.f5.com/manage/s/article/K50557518
But what control input could a pilot make that abruptly produces significant negative gees for just a couple of seconds? Other than the bland references to "technical issue" it sounds like clear air turbulence. (Although one possible mistake could be that the weather radar did warn of it and the pilot didn't react?)
Did you really not hear about one of their door plugs falling off mid air? Or how TWO of their passenger planes crashed into the ocean killing all passengers due to gross negligence in implementing their computer assisted control for their new plane?

They are having HUGE quality issues for the exact reason you would expect: finance bros took over the company and they now blow tons of money on stock buybacks and not unnecessary things like QA.

Businesses doing Big Things cannot just blow all of their money on stock buybacks and expect to do great things. It is all profits without prosperity. It used to be illegal for a reason.

It is not just hype. They have screwed the pooch.
Boeing being safe was the default, what we're seeing is the disillusion of this default. What's the alternative for the news; "plane lands successfully and without issue". As with any complex system things when things go wrong they go wrong in a myriad of ways with a great deal of uncertainty and randomness - which in and of itself makes them interesting. The erosion of the culture of safety at Boeing is a slow gradual process that has occured over several decades. Incidents that make it to the public are a lagging indicator, which suggests that there is much more to come. Culture is easy to destroy and very very hard to fix, like how cutting down a forest is much faster and easier than growing one. And a culture that has destroyed itself is very unlikely able to fix itself. So we could very well be witnessing a terminal decline. Boeing will make a ton of money providing drones for the US military so there is no real incentive to force leadership to do any course corrections - instead they will just have to act surprised each time a new Boeing issue pops up.
Ah yes, you've entered the first stage of grief. Denial. Next you'll start bargaining, you'll get angry, and you'll become depressed, eventually you'll just accept that AI is taking over software.

In my mind, I've concluded that I have less than 3 years to find an off ramp.
this seems like vendor lock in and hardly solves anything complicated
Millions of people being put out of work might change the political landscape quite a bit. We’re talking about a technological revolution, so I don’t think it’s too crazy to consider an economic or political revolution to go with it.
What does it matter whether their cycles are primes when their predators all have cycles of 1?
That is such a small number of steps.