skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Thank you. That makes sense. I totally agree, Excel is a nightmare to debug.
For those who have seen these critiques of string theory (and other issues in modern physics) and are wondering why so many physicists have bought into string theory, Sean Carroll recently presented a pretty full throated defense of the physics "orthodoxy":

https://youtu.be/MTM-8memDHs

I found it a really useful overview of what led people to the current state of physics.
I am sure he has at least a billion. That is really rich
This community’s relationship and attitudes towards its founders have varied and shifted wildly since its founding. The content shared on this site have also changed over time.
A CT-honoring client should reject an end-entity certificate that isn't accompanied by a SCT. In other words: a dodgy CA that skips CT to avoid disclosure of their mis-issued certificate should be unable to convince any CT-honoring client to accept that certificate.
Textbooks and encyclopedias on physics that I'm familiar with do go there, though. I distinctly recall reading a lot about the fight between proponents of light-as-particles vs light-as-waves (and various experiments along the way that moved consensus), including various aether theories. Or, say, how the model of the atom evolved from simplistic solar-system-like stuff to probabilistic electron clouds etc. Even in middle school textbooks there was discussion of the originally dominant theories of gravity ("heavier things fall faster" etc) and how they were disproven. I'm not a science historian, and it may well be that various important details there were wrong, but nevertheless you did get a very clear impression that scientific progress involves a lot of loops, detours, and dead-ends.
But the average hour is not driven by the average driver, better drivers drive more hours, so it has to be better than the average driver in order to result in fewer incidents.
I am more amazed you can fit a (pretty large subset of) Haskell compiler/runtime in about twice the size [1].

[1] https://www.ioccc.org/2019/lynn/hint.html
VMware. I used a pirate copy of VMWare about a decade ago, and they detected it was pirated and I was forced to cough up some coins, lest my VMs all became useless, and I had some important VMs which were mission critical to my startup. I have since switched to QEMU though. The migration was painless enough.
I've started thinking technology is best when it's invisible.
Because Apple branding is proven to be able to extract more margin? I would easily pay a couple hundred dollars more.

They already had the product, the employees, and people were already loyal to the product.
These printer companies could also open source their drivers after a number of years. The amount of landfill printers due to driver support is kinda sad. Just tossed my old cannon that had a perfectly good scanner due to driver support and the “need” for ink for the scanner to work. Booo!
I'm only concerned with calling the feature done, not the details of interface compatibility. Let me give a historical example for clarity. I built a data path for an important sensor. The hardware team made their board rev (not in source control), the FPGA modifications were made, the bootloader had to be updated, the kernel had to be updated, application middleware had to be modified, the application had to be modified, and the networked application talking to that code had to be updated.

You can certainly make the argument that all of that should belong to a monorepo (and I would agree), but it's not a painless or easy argument.
By certbot key I mean letsencrypt key, sorry for confusion.

That means that you need to hard-code the public key of the certificate that you're using in the client application. That certificate might be signed by letsencrypt or any other CA, it doesn't matter. If you're pinning CA key, you put trust into entity which you don't control. They can replace any of their keys. They can stop signing your certificate. It makes little sense to pin CA certificates.

Just make sure to have a plan for key rotation in case you need to revoke your key.
Except for Waltons or the occasional Saudi, there is much more tech wealth compared to inherited wealth.
> That humans also do this all the time is “interesting”, “dangerous” etc., but it is also why trying to move from superstition (this is actually what “reasoning by correlation” amounts to) to more scientific methods is critical for anything like civilization to be created.

"reasoning by correlation" as superstition is a brutal insight.
AMD tinybox on hold until we can build and run the relevant firmware on our GPUs
I'm not sure I understand the analogy. The very idea of NNs is that it's not perfect, it is messy and not optimal, but is very generalizable.
My main point was that the quote you were "fixing":

> It turns out that the average person is just not very good at picking stocks

Is accurate, and not in need of correction.

As a sibling comment pointed out, the average for professionals is higher: by almost exactly what they cost, as it turns out. For various ergodic reasons, that means that an investor without personal alpha should stick with index funds.
I think the suggestion being discussed was AI-cloning your voice, and then using that for text-to-speech. Audio generation, rather than automating the cuts and tweaks to the recorded audio.
So I'm sure they'll jump right on the opportunity to do 10 hours of contracting work for you.
Example: a video shows a group of police beating up a man for a minor crime (say littering). The video is signed by Michael Smith (the random passerby who filmed it on his phone). The video is published to Instagram and shared widely.

How do you expect people to take the authenticity of this video?
IMO, what makes UX for enterprise software bad is time waiting. Salesforce has multiple redirects and terrible load times with a huge JS bundle size.

Datadog isn't as slow, but it's loads 2.7MB of data. It's unusable on a 4G tethered connection (ie my car's hotspot).

I pray that you keep load times minimal. I see almost 1MB loaded over the wire for a list of 15 objects.

Also, your sidebar icons (Risks/Companies/etc) look too much hotkeys, I was disappointed when I couldn't navigate to a section by it's first letter.
Supreme Court unanimously rules against government in No Fly List case
didn't really get acquihired, which would be if MSFT bought inflection, instead it seems MSFT hired away a team, probably with options and whatnot.
It's the Toledo family. All is possible.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28337064
I would say that the TeX language was designed for the final user to add the "last mile", not for piling layers of macrosubstitution on top of something akin to lambda calculus. As amazing a feat of engineering LaTeX is, it has abused the TeX language beyond its natural limits. The price paid in complexity for abstraction was high.
THE rules of physics are OUR approximation of how we understand the physical reality we live in. They are a human invention to describe a existing system, and thus the "our" is implied.
Good that they got rid of the class/public static void/string[] Args boilerplate, but if they just went one step forward and declared implicit main function as top-level scope of a file, we could've got to a Python level of tersity. Just imagine!

System.out.println("Hello world!");
The term you are looking for is C5 connector.
> When I hear the latter, I think of vaccine skepticism and flat earth theories, not students who decided to switch to engineering.

Do you believe this to be a high quality style of thinking, if you consider it from a disconnected, disinterested 3rd person perspective?
He forgets something: debian archives are just archives. An packager just has to create an archive with standardtools that jas the same format as an deb and he is done, an repo is also relativly fast created. The only tools someone would need are:

required: ar, tar

optional: zstd, xzip, gzip, bz2(for only data.tar)
It's very unclear how book sales translate into income for authors. You are rewarding middlemen; these middlemen have a role that may or may not be important these days.
99% or more of the people who enable Google to do what Google does are employees of Google. Same with every other company. The odds of being the founder of a successful company are probably worse than being a professional sportsball player (if only because they turn over more frequently).

Depends on the size of company. A small company maybe is more probable than being a top athlete.
Agreed, I think this is the strongest counterpoint. But it effectively requires restating the point to clarify that it's tying up minds, time, energy, which are non-trivial things; but not infrastructure.
The problem with this argument is that it's very hard to quantify or even to test in general. And, of course, the obvious next question then is: if they were working on something else, could that have produced a lot more useful spin-offs?
This doesn't make sense as a requirement - you make no mention of the data. "How it works" will always depend, in part, on the data, you can't fully separate the algorithm from the data if you want to answer questions about why learning works the way it does. IMO.
Because it's the Daily Mail, which is an awful rag. A lot of people will flag anything from there. There are much better sources for this video.
This is so cool! Much nicer than what we had before.

My first Google Summer of Code project (aka my first internship ever during my freshman year of college) was implementing some of the animations (like Grow) in KDE Plasma. I'm not sure I did great work, but it felt awesome to be doing it - KDE 4 had just come out, it was extremely shiny and this was the era of the desktop cube and wobbly windows as desktop compositing had just become a thing in linux!
Hmmm, I don't agree. They do seem to understand some things.

I asked ChatGPT the other day how fast an object would be traveling if "dropped" from the Earth with no orbital velocity, by the time it reached the sun. It brought out the appropriate equations and discussed how to apply them.

(I didn't actually double-check the answer, but the math looked right to me.)

It also seems to have a calculation or "analysis" function now, which gets activated when asking it specific mathematical questions like this. I've imagined it works by using the LLM to set up a formula, which is then evaluated in a classical way.

There are limits on what it can do, just like any human has similar limits. ChatGPT can answer more questions like this correctly than the average person could from off the street. That seems like understanding to me.
I really really love Sketch, and for all the reasons that make it different to Figma.

I just hope they don’t go too deep into Figma’esque cloud features (at least without being able to opt out) because Sketch is a really superb standalone piece of Mac software and I appreciate it for that.
Speech Extension for VS Code
I would say that the TeX language was designed for the final user to add the "last mile", not for piling layers of macrosubstitution on top of something akin to lambda calculus. As amazing a feat of engineering LaTeX is, it has abused the TeX language beyond its natural limits. The price paid in complexity for abstraction was high. But the TeX language itself is a tiny elegant language.
Of course you're correct, but forget about that - two thirds of the team that started Viaweb and then Y-Combinator crashed, according to then contemporary reports, 10% of the machines on the Internet for the fun of vandalism or a prank or whatever. The one who was charged did no jail time - Graham wasn't even charged.

He then goes on to exploit young techies to put himself in a very prime position in the relations of production. Nowadays he tweets minimally veiled racist tweets about the supposed biological superiority of his brain compared to the rest of us, especially other races. Talk about privilege.
US considers 4-day workweek; will it be in favour of techies?
All these digits are only making it more obfuscated. Using the order of magnitude it's 10^44 for chess versus 10^170 for Go. Thus, Go is 10^126 times more complex than chess.

For reference, the estimated number of individual atoms in the universe is thought to be between mere 10^80 and 10^83.
Looks like we may see a first preview in Java 23, i.e. already this year.
The nsf program basically exists to fill the gap between research and product market fit. Except They focus on commercialization plans which we know that in reality is subject to change (aka meaningless).
Boring changes like these are what keeps Java interesting.

New and shiny syntax sugar becomes stale real quick.
In any field.

That would be pretty strange. For a trivial counterexample, you can look up the history of integrated circuits from invention to today.
Microsoft should rename Windows to Outdoors, given its main function now seems to be shoving ads in users' faces.
Focus up, these are two different things. You said complexity, I said looping through a vector.

You said "zero-copy RPC servers" (for some reason) but never gave any evidence of what you are saying or explained it technically in any way.

I'll ask again, show me what is being done in java that can't be done in C++. Show me technically, prove what you are saying.

I know how these conversations usually go. It's mostly the other person trying anything they can to not give evidence of what they're saying.
> “Driving” is solved. Driving with humans on the road - doing unpredictable human things - is far off still.

Plus there's serious questions about liability with self driving cars which are still unresolved in most of the world - if the goal is to have vehicles operate themselves with no human supervision, who goes to jail when they kill someone? Despite all of the progress that's been made with AI it's mostly been in low-stakes problems where failure isn't a big deal, so we don't have a consensus on what we're supposed to do when a neural network negligently obliterates a person because some logistics company wanted to save a few bucks on driver salaries.
My favourite example of this type of thing isn't mentioned in the article - using evolutionary computing to do some of the things mentioned in said article:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2737441_An_Evolved_...
Andy Brice, UK, has quite a successful product, PerfectTablePlan, written in C++ and Qt, and deployed on Windows and Mac, IIRC. His blog, successfulsoftware.net has some posts about why he chose it, and many other interesting posts about the desktop app product business, both the tech and marketing sides.

He also has guest posts sometimes about/by other successful desktop software product creators. One of them was about Beyond Compare, a GUI file comparison tool, written in Delphi, IIRC.

I have read many of his blog posts, and they are quite interesting and informative.
I use GPT4 and it confabulates constantly. Try it on a language in the 10th-20th range of popularity (let alone lower) and I expect you'll see it as well. I don't see that as often with Python, the only top-5 language I currently work with.
They almost caught up with C#, which ditched requisite class declarations years ago. Although C# went one step further and allowed top-level code outside of methods, so that hello world is now:

Console.WriteLine("Hello, world!")
General in Mideast Calls for Microwave Weapons 'Layered' Against Drone Swarms
Penning micro-trap for quantum computing
It's expecting the high reward which is high risk. Creating a small business that can trudge along and pay you a modest salary is fairly common.
That's a good site too. I think clickable math/science/etc may allow drilling down to details quickly, which may be beneficial to learning and understanding. You could also argue that having all the info so easily accessible would make people less likely to think through it and obtain their own understanding. But cool nonetheless
Somewhat off topic, does anyone use Paper/Pencil (specifically bullet journals), Apps and Digital Calendars with what feels like not much effort? I haven't been able to come to a happy medium between them all.

Also Concern #3, is there a subscription for things? o.O
I'm not sure one can, from today that is, really understand how huge of a leap was made by AI at this time.

Even going back to the closest analogue, chess, there were good chess engines for a long time prior to Kasparov loosing in 97 to deep blue. Even before Kasparov lost Chess engines were pretty good, just look at the game in 96 when Kasparov won. A grand master would still need to put some thought into how he played.

In Go however even the best engines couldn't hold a candle to a professional player, let alone someone who was the equivalent of a chess grand master. Hell, even as a lowly amateur player I was able to trounce some of the most powerful AIs at the time. Looking at some of the Pro vs AI games back in the early 2010s it's almost painful how bad they were.

It's hard to communicate just how huge of a leap this was, and just how shocking to the whole Go community. It would be like a child one day being unable to speak and the literal next day reciting Shakespeare.
Is there truly nothing you can imagine that might be more important than maximizing revenue?
The year of Linux on the desktop, and why we can't have nice things
I can’t disagree more.

I’ve founded failed startups. I don’t regret a single one of them. I’ve worked at failed startups and big companies and I learned more and had more fun at the startups than I ever did at a big company.

The point is, if you try to found a company, you don’t have to make a billion dollars to consider it a success. In terms of personal growth it’s easily the equal of any big company job.
Eh, don’t let myself or others influence your library. You will know what’s best, and hacker news will mostly elicit lots of nitpicky reasons as to why you are wrong.
>The Army's newest operational laser weapon may be undergoing testing in the Middle East, but the top general responsible for U.S. troops in the region is already looking ahead to bigger and better directed-energy systems amid a rising tide of adversary drones.
...
>The Defense Department is working on at least 31 directed-energy projects at the moment (and funding them to the tune of $1 billion a year, according to a 2023 report from the Government Accountability Office). However, only a handful of projects focus on employing high-powered microwaves.
Regarding your last statement, what do you see as the distinction?

Take for example eg continuity. Students are first taught it means you can graph a function in a single stroke of the pen. Later comes epsilon and delta, this is more abstract but at that stage the understanding is that "nearby values map to nearby values" (or some equivalent).

If the student dives in from there, they're taught the "existence" of real numbers (or any mathematical term) is rather a consequence of a system of symbols and relations that increasingly look nothing like "numbers", instead describing more of a process.

Later that "consequence" and "relation" themselves are formalities. "Pure" math occasionally delivers strange consequences in this sense. But it always boils down to a process that something or another must interpret and carry out.

So I wonder whether the edifice is meaningfully a thing in and of itself. Methods developed in ancient China and India etc would have been useful to the Greeks and vice versa, however all of them though worked by means of the human brain. "Line" has a distinct meaning to us, the axioms of geometry don't create the line, they allow us to calculate some properties more efficiently. We always need to interpret the result in terms we understand, don't we?
C#'s got even better version of this feature since Nov 2021. Hello world is just a true one-liner.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/fundamentals...
How many businesses succeed enough to make you millions? Most businesses are loss making entities, still more are just subsistence businesses. The ones which make you "rich" will still only make you worth a few millions, not what Paul Graham is referring to as "rich". You could get that same level of "rich" by working in Big Tech in a cushiony job, Wall Street, law or Congress (lobbyist or Congressman). Getting to what PG calls rich is just a lottery game in the big picture of things.

I've started one of the "small rich" businesses before, and made a few millions out of it when I was too young. Those millions enabled me to make certain bets that, though risky, would still have a huge upside. That huge upside allowed me to make very good money, the kind of "rich" that PG actually means, without the risk that comes with starting up a business that your VCs want to push to unicorn status. That's basically what most sensible rich folks in America have done, even the ones that you celebrate in your comment. And yet they'll all send their kids to Harvard and Stanford to attend MBAs and grad school because they don't want to put their kid's futures to the whims of a lottery.

"Making your first million is the hardest, so start with a second million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger
You are impressively wrong. He just wrapped up an incredible research program that demonstrated many concrete implementations of great computing ideas.

> After 16 years of continuous research and important contributions toward its mission - "Improve 'powerful ideas education' for the world's children and to advance the state of systems research and personal computing" - Viewpoints Research Institute concluded its operations at the beginning of 2018.

http://www.vpri.org/
Photogram (Cameraless Photography)
If the lindy effect were real we’d all be romans still
it just read out the text from copilot ? why need that, that is slower than reading...
KDE 6 will shake things up again.
Good enough reason I think. Actually it might provide some further motivation for them to do so if they were considering not doing it previously.
>Tasks that are instructed using conditional clauses also require a simple form of deductive reasoning (if p then q else s)

> Our models ofer several experimentally testable predictions
outlining how linguistic information must be represented to facilitate flexible and general cognition in the human brain.

Aren't those claims falsified by more recent studies that show that even in flys, preferred direction to a moving stimulus uses the timing of spikes. And that fear conditioning in even mice uses Dendritic Compartmentalization?

Or that humans can even do xor with a single neuron.

If "must be represented" was "may be modeled by" I would have less of an issue and obviously spikey artificial NNs have had problems with riddled basins and make autograd problematic in general.

So ANNs need to be binary and it is best to model biological neurons as such for practical models... but can someone please clarify why 'must' can apply when using what we know now is an oversimplified artificial neuron models?

Here are a couple of recent papers but I think dendritic compartmentalization and spike timing sensitivity has been established for over a decade.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35701166/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009286741...
To observers it looks like they missed but observers don't really want to put themselves in the shoes of him who is about to take the shot. In that moment the observer can only win by onlooking, either be reassured that failure is near certain and all risk folly or the observer can be surprised and glad to see the consuming world birth another product.

From a psychological standpoint not aiming high would have been a bigger miss to the person taking the shot. They clearly chose risk no matter how they sulk afterwards.

The ratio of posts about "work-purpose porn" for employee bees and pipe dream madness for misfits is never going to satisfy everyone on HN.