skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
"Don't buy in an HOA if you like to use your hands" is probably pretty fair advice.

HOAs serve a pretty useful purpose: to coarsely/imperfectly segregate people who want to live in an HOA away from people who would never want to live in an HOA and vice-versa.

Those two groups are somewhat prone to having conflicts with each other and HOAs let both be happier than if they were to be annoyed by living next to each other.
pressure and time
Certainty this can’t be true? I believe you but do you have any actual examples?
The same way they manage to conduct health inspections even in the most random hole in the wall greasy spoon locations. You have an expectation for certain things to be there. You have an expectation that procedures are followed. When an incident occurs or an inspection happens where its clear that certain protections were not in place or certain procedures were not followed, you drop the hammer on them. Its not hard and we already have the bureaucratic apparatus to do this. Saying we can't do it for mechanics while we simultaneously do it for other industries like farming, construction, manufacturing, or food service, is just lazy.
I do think it’s basically the same. Its further on the same continuum of: Natural language/Machine code.
He could use libdragon / tiny3d which has zero nintendo code in it. https://mbeboek.gitlab.io/rspl/ (posted this to hn but of course it got ignored)
I am sure qualified to tell if somebody is trying to break into my house, it's not rocket science. Even you seem to be able to tell, as, I imagine, you are not handling your valuables to anybody passing by?
Was it between 12am-4am?
Hardware keys
The rate of deaths has dramatically declined. A lot more people are driving, and they're driving a lot more.
TL;DR: Bjarne Stroustrup is frustrated that the authors of the government's proposal don't realize that, theoretically, there may exist teams of talented developers who are able to consistently write safe C++ code.
> a friend of mine claims he asked Claude (using some plug-in in his IDE) to port his app from Firebase all the way to PostgreSQL and it just did it

In now interested in your friends setup. Do you have more details?
It's really important to follow the sources when you see something like this quoted. The article you link to is not an actual study in which people were given Vitamin D. It is a review article, and the specific sentence you quote references an article by Michael Holick, who then references two other articles. One of those articles is just a review, not citing new evidence.

The one piece of evidence that these are all referring back to is a small study done in men in high latitudes in winter, when skin production of Vitamin D is decreased. It consisted of a small number of patients who were randomized to receive different amounts of Vitamin D, so only a small number actually got 10,000 units a day, the highest dose. And this was over a period of just 5 months. You can read the article here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12499343/

Note that the highest dose in this study was 10,000 units a day, which I would agree can be safe for some people over a short period of time. But it was not necessary in this study to attain goal Vitamin D levels, and over time that dose can definitely cause problems.

Also, where is the 50,000 to 100,000 unit evidence coming from? I'm not sure actually, since there are no human studies looking at that dose. This may be a "theoretical" dose based on studies in other animals, or a false extrapolation based on human studies.
$1.8B is less than the cost of a single KH-11. These Starshield satellites necessarily have lower resolution since they aren't large enough to contain a Hubble-sized telescope but there are more of them, presumably providing fresher imagery.
I mean the fact that they did this before, I think should go in the evidence column

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

After they got caught they put extra cladding up on the building, and the soviets in turn responded by just making their signal transmission stronger.
My garage door is no longer connected to the opener, I just swing it up manually twice a day. My kid can do so as well without issue. Maybe mine is lighter.
Really sad to see such an influential computer scientist lose interest in advancing computing for the perceived slight against his legacy.

Ironically I think Stroupstrup is actually doing more harm than good to his reputation by "evolving" C++ than simply putting it in maintenance mode and contributing to a modern language.
> Most knifes today are mass produced. But there are still knife craftsman.

But are there more or less knife craftsmen today than in the old days?

How about more or less knife craftsmen per capita?

Finally, and most importantly, if you are a budding knife crafstman -- is it easier or harder to get a job that pays the bills of a contemporary average lifestyle, today than in the old days (ie, what is the balance of supply and demand)
Service your car at a dealer instead of the cheapest shop in town and you will see people gladly using ppe.
So what it sounds like:

Strousoup: The future is a yet to be defined profiles.

Sutter: The future is a yet to be defined C++v2 that's backwards compatible but also solves the problems.

Chandler: C++ compile times are too slow. Going to build a brand new front-end that really fixes compile performance and maybe fixes memory safety & let's you call C++ code.

My take:

Re Strousoup: From what I've seen, Strousoup's ideas don't seem particularly extra likely to make it to the final standard and that's when he already has a formal standard written up. Prognosis: Modules were much simpler (conceptually at least), took ~6 years, and even 4 years after coming out have seen minimal adoption. This definitely isn't on track for C++26 and likely will encounter real-world roadblocks by C++30. If everything goes well, the industry would be ready to start adopting profiles in ~10 years. Or they could start using Rust today. Still quite vague in terms of whether or not this idea can be implemented by compiler authors.

Re C++v2: Vague hand-waving without a real plan on how to be meaningfully competitive with Rust. Since it's an experiment and experiments can fail, unlikely to lead anywhere and unlikely to see industry adoption.

Re Carbon: interesting experiment and the most likely real-world candidate to displace C++. Being done by a company with a massive C++ codebase that would benefit from migration to Carbon. From the looks of it, they're spending most of their time on compile performance. Neat technical experiment but not really showing that a language that's bidirectionally compatible with C++ can meaningfully improve on safety. Also, Rust compile times have improved significantly in the past few years and are better than C++ in my experience (but of course, hard to have a fair comparison of the two and I'm compiling these days on a much faster machine than I've used for C++ in the past). The recent Cranelift work might reasonably speed things up another ~2-3x.

EDIT: TLDR: C++ today is not safe enough and no idea when it will be, regardless of the work going on to try to make it safer with no idea when that might happen.
So take Magnesium and D together?
The shift to other sources, combined with the rising water cut doesn't bode well for anyone depending on output from the Ghawar oil field.
This is one case report. Yes, this person took an insane amount of Vitamin D and ended up very sick from it. But we can't really conclude that amounts under her dose are safe.
Well, that's reassuring that youtube can't tell on its own /s.
Give yourself to the embarrassment. Publish for your past self. Or publish for someone smarter to come along and correct you.

(Currently trying to take this advice as well)
FWIW, class loading isn't necessary for log4j to be bad - unchecked Java deserialization is sufficient for pretty bad pwnage. So we really should add "no unchecked deserialization" to the list of things that a safe language should have.

Java's biggest mistake here, IMHO, was to have a serialization setup that was based solely on a generic interface rather than having the caller declare up front what class it expects to see. In the latter case, so long as you aren't storing naked Object/Serializable fields, type limits strongly restrict the set of naughty objects that can show up in your deserialized object graph. Rust Serde gets this right.
This is really nice! It's sad to see the processors go, but they aren't gone, just aren't likely to be given to us for free anymore. It's something we code ourselves. I did prefer the following format...

PROCESSOR."Template with \{holes}"

...but the new suggestion is perfectly acceptable too. Regardless of which one they land on, things are in a good place.
“Less effective” is odd here because other commenters are saying that K2 ensures D gets deposited in the right places rather than build up in the arteries (as plaques presumably). So if it is, say 30% less effective, then taking them apart wouldn’t that mean that rather than getting (example) 1,000 IU in the wrong place, you’d get 700 IU deposited in the right place, so it would be more effective rather than less?
let's talk! I'm in the same spot
Also, Michael Holick is a controversial figure. A lot of the articles pushing high doses of Vitamin D lead back to him. Please read this NY Times article for a great summary of his issues: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/18/business/vitamin-d-michae...
"Lots of people in CS are (almost surely) GPT-ing their peer reviews"
I acknowledge C++'s safety concerns, but no, Java is definitely NOT running rings around C++ perf. Not a single AI/ML model is implemented in Java. The core of AI/ML runs on C++ only. You may see a lot of Python, but the core engine that Python is wrapping is written in C++. Sorry to break it to you but Java cannot even come close here.
SSE in gin (go) is broken and has been for years. No one uses it and no one bothers to fix it.
there are a few ways that long-polling is "least scalable"

- other approaches give you locality without sticky load-balancing: let's say your application server needs to subscribe to a topic once a connection is established, with long polling you need to setup and teardown that subscription every time, other approaches let you keep that HTTP stream alive and periodically send some stuff on it resulting in mostly just memory overhead.

- each returned payload will result in at least 1 extra packet (the initial request headers, assuming the response headers and the payload fit into a packet) and at least 1/2 RTT delay.
I've long held that belief. But doing so is very technical and political, and not fun.

Turns out what is more fun is to create a new language and rewrite the whole ecosystem. So a lot of the energy is going there instead.

Programming is part fashion...
Quarterly interactive testing is the only thing I have seen work. A common method is using Proofpoint + Fake realistic looking sites and emails. Get stats on how many click the links and how many put in corporate credentials. Proofpoint can do this or a company could make their own tracking stats.

Without embarrassing or punishing them ensure the ones that put in credentials get trained. The credentials should automatically sign them up for interactive mandatory online courses so they are not being embarrassed in a classroom. Reward the teams that don't get phished. Reward the managers, sr. managers, directors and sr. directors who's teams and orgs do not get phished. The higher level of management organization that is free of phishing victims, the higher the rewards. Incentivize the leadership to discourage warning others in company chat that a phishing test campaign is in progress. I'm sure the director of incident management at my last place is reading this. It's up to them if they want to share high level stats. I would not be allowed to disclose details but I do know this methodology absolutely works, at least in a place that has integrity and employee trust.

This of course only works for employees of a company because they have signed legal agreements that would permit the company to phish their own employees and have their own corporate attorneys that reviewed this process. Any other scenario should have a small army of lawyers review the plan.
I'd say it's actually the other way around. C++ in the abstract is full of half-baked, ill conceived ideas that later had to be deprecated or walked back entirely: std::auto_ptr and memory leaks; std::shared_ptr::unique() not being threadsafe; taking the time to implement bounds checking in std::vector, but the default access operator isn't checked; corner cases with std::initializer_list leading to unexpected behavior.

In practice, most C++ shops seem to limit themselves to a small subdialect of C++ that's reasonably safe. The C++ Core Guidelines are essentially an effort at canonicalizing some of these best practices and building them into the tooling.

I think it's fair to say that Rust or managed code should at least be considered for any greenfield project, maybe even a hard requirement for certain domains like cryptography, networking, financial applications, etc. But I don't believe that every application needs to be security hardened to that level, and the C++ library ecosystem is still much more robust than Rust's is. Crates.io feels like a graveyard of experimental libraries that reached 40% the functionality of their C++ cousins before the commit activity dropped to zero.
yeah, we vote in people, regularly, whose mission it is to dismantle the EPA/FDA/CDC/etc. in the name of "progress"
I'm sure it's easy to fix because in the custom mode you can put separate lyrics and style, but you can't generate lyrics based on a theme and set your own separate style yet. You can generate lyrics with ChatGPT of course.
> If you started a brand new C++ project today, using only the modern, safe ways of doing things and including only dependencies that do the same, OK, fine.

My impression is this is not effectively true. It's not easy to follow all the rules of safe C++. I could be wrong but things like forgetting to use std::move in the right place or forgetting to use unique_ptr where you should. Putting member initializers in the wrong order. Forgetting a copy constructor or forgetting to hide the default, etc...

I'm also not sure of mapping structures to binary data (maybe this isn't enforced in any language but ...). Let's say you want to read a BMP file. You declare a struct that matches the header. If you declare every byte it might work but if you declare it as 16bit values and 32bit values then IIUC, padding rules extra make your code non-portable. What rule enforces that you don't write non-portable code? Also, what rule enforces no undefined behavior, like say int overflow?

The point isn't that it's possible. The point is it has to be enforced by the compiler. Does that option exist `--safe-cpp-only` or something like that the enforces 100% safe usage only? (and obviously, just like rust, you could break out when you need to?)
An online account is helpful. At the very least, it cuts down on the paper they used to send me, but not all aspects are great. Two attempts to auto-pay from my credit union failed, and this counts in their mind as two bounced checks, so I pay by check at a local store that takes PG&E payments by printing the slightly delayed PDF statement at their website. Nearby Walmart takes PG&E payments in cash or debit card.

PG&E's local office closed years ago.
You are not alone. It was not until I saw an experiment that dissolved the aluminum that I realized their was a plastic liner.
Like a lot of the commenters here, I have a problem with this headline. They don't "seek to become a platform company", as in making their own cloud platform where they rent GPU time, meaning they stop selling GPUs to other cloud platforms. That easy misinterpretation makes good clickbait, but no, that's not what the article says - the article has Huang bragging that CUDA already is a parallel computing platform, for a decade or more, and Blackwell Architecture is so integrated and customizable with CUDA (with all its user-extendable kernels and community) that it's thought of as a platform rather than just chip architecture.
Is there value in publishing the wrong even knowing that is wrong so that others might not have to spend the cycles doing the same wrong? Of course, that's assuming people are publishing wrong and not calling it right
Unconventional Uses of FPGAs
Oh, I thought you were talking about the establishments themselves, sorry!
A more in-depth story which you’ll enjoy.

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/de-...
Chicatana ants are so incredible. They're a seasonal delicacy in Mexico and have a great nutty, proteiny, chocolately flavor.
Examining the role AI plays in building the future of... everything.
C++ codebases are substantially about vintage. C++03 with this and that vendor-specific thing is still in the wild and those codebases are just tough to fix: it’s clearly possible, Google has a bunch of C++ from that era deep in the heart of things and they’ve managed to keep it not only running but to all evidence performant and secure. There are some financial shops that seem to have walked a similar line. But the typical C++ codebase from the early/mid 2000s isn’t something you’d sign up to own. It’s a pretty elite C++ shop that has managed to walk stuff from 98 or 03 to the present day without a real pile of grief.

And it’s eminently understandable that Mozilla was looking at a codebase from that era and said: “it’s time to consider drastic measures”.

But C++11 eventually got codified and adopted, clang-tidy and the sanitizers came on the scene, the screws got tightened yet further with 14, and 17, and 20 which is now substantially supported.

It’s just not black and white anymore: C++ has real interop/FFI and a largely “opt-in” mentality around the extreme low defect approach, Rust has a much more opinionated posture that’s trivially better at getting extreme low defect outcomes at shops more diverse in experience and rigor than old-school FAANG or Microsoft but botches some key stuff, there is not a one-size-fits all answer here.

Or rather there is if you don’t over constrain the solution space: if extreme low defect is the call you want a real type system. At the less mainstream end that’s probably Haskell or OCaml or something of that lineage.

But ultimately the Quality Inequality (good fast cheap pick two) remains binding: and TypeScript is just trivially where you find a lot of people who grew up with advanced dependent typing and don’t cost a million bucks a year each. It’s faster than most would guess, and the type system is up there with Idris or something like that in terms of the scope for machine checked rigor: these are MSR people, would anyone expect less?

The conversation is over-rotated on Rust vs. C++ which is a complicated question to which few need an answer.
All UK government offices doesn't seem to allow it... That's a couple of million potential users right away.
What makes me wary of jumping to Rust is the async stuff. From what I read, colored functions were introduced and most of the libraries that do useful stuff adopted async and kind of force you to be aware of it in your own code.

For me, the perfect C++ replacement would be something like Go without the runtime burden. I'm not sure that this exists, so I use Go whenever I can and C++ in the ultra rare cases where I can't.
Im not sure which one is the more delusional, java or c++ gang. That said being familiar with google's c++ (especially protobuf) codebases, i dont doubt your claims. Lets just say theres reason people use alternative runtimes like nanopb.
Social media giants must report efforts against terrorist and extremist content
Google, Meta, X (formerly Twitter), Telegram, WhatsApp and Reddit will be required to "answer a series of detailed questions about how they are tackling the issue" within 49 days, the online safety regulator announced.
The basic premise of political conservatism is not progress, it is literally to “conserve” the current status or restore the recent past.
what don't you like about Marfa? we've been to Terlingua, Alpine, and Marfa several times and liked all three.
I find this surprising, are you sure it's not based on the concentration of the permethrin? Here in the US, I was able to buy a clothing spray of 0.5% permethrin from Home Depot. I'm also reasonably certain that at least some lice shampoos I've seen at my nearby CVS use permethrin, although I checked the one I bought and it doesn't have it.
Ball of the Century
>People take vit D megadoses for autoimmunity, with significant success,

You mean for compensating for the low vit D levels due to constant inflammation seen in autoimmunity? or to decrease autoimmunity? I have autoimmune diseases and my vit D goes down to about 7 ng/mL without supplementation, so I'm curious.
The obvious answer would seem to be he's afraid of the (slow) death of C++ which is his legacy/child. No one wants to see their work thrown on the scrap pile of history.
I don't think COBOL's dream was to generate enormous amounts of assembly code that users would then have to maintain (in assembly!) and producing differently wrong results every time you ran it.
Stroustrup needs to realize that "just wait a few more years" isn't an acceptable answer when you're already a decade late to the party. The white house is not some radical pioneer at the frontier of programming language design. By the time it says anything on the subject, it's been obvious to everyone else for years.

There might be a reasonable discussion here if we were discussing profiles when the earliest incarnations of it appeared around 2015, but we're not. It's 2024 and they're still not in the standard. There isn't even a clear proposal for compilers to begin implementing. Once there is, profiles will still be an optional, partial, and incremental solution at best. They won't even fulfill Stroustrup's stated desires to address all kinds of safety (for which there hasn't even been discussion yet).
> Alters footage of a real event or place

I wonder if this will make all forms of surveillance, video or otherwise, inadmissible in court in the near future. It doesn’t seem like much of a stretch for a lawyer to make an argument for reasonable doubt, with any electronic media now.
I would assume "if you don't put them back together right, you can't stop, and cars are deadly enough with functioning brakes"
It’s been holding up pretty well for the specific memory safety guarantees offered by modern languages, and for a simple reason: if your language is unsafe and has a bunch of foot guns in it, all the users of that language have to be perfect all the time to avoid trouble. If your language provides a certain safety guarantee, the implementors of that guarantee have to be perfect, but at least you have a relatively constrained point to test, perhaps even something small enough to provide a formal correctness guarantee. You can’t do that writ-large with end-user code.

The flipside, of course, is that language or tool problems have a much, much, larger blsst radius.

Still, you can twist yourself into knots to try to claim otherwise, but the track records of these tools speak for themselves.
> No, the risks of nuclear power are very well known, as there have been only two major disasters over quite a few decades, and the root causes of both of them are well known and easily avoidable.

I think the statement that you were responding to would be better phrased as: "The risks of nuclear power are still largely unknown, since there have been only two major disasters over a few decades." Insurance companies are typically okay with insuring against high cost, high frequency occurrences as long as they can quantify it. If they can quantify it, they can set a price on it.

It is also worth noting that insurance companies were among the first adopters of digital computers because the better they can quantify frequencies and costs, the better they can set rates.
Project GR00T by Nvidia