skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Related:

Tom’s Essay (2008) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28928625 - Oct 2021 (14 comments)

Tom’s Essay (2008) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24958007 - Nov 2020 (1 comment)

Tom’s Essay (2008) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22838995 - April 2020 (9 comments)

Tom’s Essay (2008) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18414132 - Nov 2018 (6 comments)
Your (3) is ssddanbrown's case. The whole must be distributable under the GPL.

Nothing changes with ssddanbrown's repo, license, or anything. At a future time should they "code it out" and substitute another non-GPL library, their code is still MIT.

From the GPL FAQ, emphasis mine:

FAQ (#IfLibraryIsGPL): If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any software which uses it has to be under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license?

A: Yes, because the program actually links to the library. As such, the terms of the GPL apply to the entire combination. The software modules that link with the library may be under various GPL compatible licenses, but the work as a whole must be licensed under the GPL. See also: What does it mean to say a license is “compatible with the GPL”?

Note, "work as a whole" here means the runnable, binary distribution or downloadable. The source that accompanies the downloadable binary may still be in separate archives with their original licenses. Again, this is exactly how Linux distributions work.
Still not a good thing. There could be one where the gaps are smaller, or you're stuck and can't reach anything to open the trunk again.
A side note: I use old/broken phones as dedicated tablets for stuff like Spotify or calendar.
Read OWASP ASVS. That's a really good start, if you did everything yourself, you will find many issues even without further analysis of code.
I encountered many of these tar covered PCs doing retail computer repair. One of the worst I can remember was a wood shop PC of a heavy smoker. The combination of tar and sawdust absolutely glued everything in place. Dead mice and roaches were common. However, the only computer I remember saying we wouldn't touch was a slim desktop where someone had vomited into the vent on the top.
If Microsoft had played their cards differently 10-15 years ago and been more open and less prone to embrace-extend-extinguish back then, maybe they would've dominated the Web like they hoped to. But they lost a lot of trust back then that's hard to regain :(

I heard they've changed a lot since then, but it's still not super popular (at least in the US). As a web dev, it's a stack I'd be reluctant to invest in because I've never seen a company I'd want to work for who uses it... when even Microsoft themselves jumped ship to JS for so much web work (like VScode or Teams being built in webviews), it's hard to take their other web stack seriously. That said, I'd absolutely consider .NET for a desktop app!

--------------------------

> The JS ecosystem, not only is it confusing, all too often documentation, forum posts, etc. out of date making the barrier to entry that much higher.

Lol, absolutely :( Even within the same codebase, like the one I was working on yesterday, there can be like 3-4 major generations of JS paradigms across different files. It's only a few years old, but feels like it was decades and worlds apart...

I really hate that instability in the JS ecosystem. I guess that's the opposite problem of Microsoft... instead of stable but closed single-vendor support, we have unstable open innovation across 50 different frameworks and ten thousand packages with a million versions. It can be a nightmare to work in for sure.
I'm more speaking concretely than theoretically: do we know he employed them? Even if an artist defines instructions, that doesn't mean that they'll be followed.
Don't agree here. I've only ever seen GitHub do this in extreme circumstances where they were absolutely warranted.
The British Library is having a few problems with their computers right now, but for the UK they are intended to be the people who have arbitrarily large resources and space to maintain their collection. The theory is that they are entitled to be given a copy of everything ever published in the UK, print and digital.
Personally I don't use "doomslang". The author's use of it seemed more like a symptom of incessant doom mongering in popular media. Popular narratives are the disease. I'm not sure if "doomslang" is a coping mechanism or a way to signal an in-group shared belief in apocalypticism.

An alternative might be to critically examine some of the popular doom narratives. Unfortunately, this may be politically infeasible or otherwise controversial. We can still examine the historical record of doom saying without touching sacred cows. For all of the predictions of doom by self-styled experts throughout history, we are still here.

I'm not saying you have to do something bold, controversial and politically incorrect, like become a "doom-denier". At this point their belief in doom is a matter of personal faith and identity. You cannot rationalize people out of things like this. Don't bother. You'll only excite the zealots. Trust me, I'm an expert in this domain.

After awhile, popular perceptions of doom will move onto a new threat. Everyone will readily confess that they never believed in the old doom and, "Wasn't it funny how those other rubes believed in it?"

Smile knowingly and move on. Focus on the positive things you have immediate control over.
You want both to keep the intake valves clean, yes?
You describe a local hidden variable theory such as has been definitively ruled out by Bell/CHSH inequality experiments (see, e.g. (2022 Nobel Prize)[https://www.nobelprize.org/all-nobel-prizes-2022/] ).

But even if you could make some baroque version of a model like this (with the position of one ball instantaneously reacting to other far away balls perhaps and some pilot waves) invoking it still wouldn’t answer my question about ontology. Implicit in this description seems to be the existence of a separate non-quantum realm (little balls that spin, jostled by “wind”). What are these balls supposed to be made of? If not atoms (since atoms are stable by virtue of quantum mechanics, which you seek to explain), then why don’t they suffer from ultraviolet catastrophes? Hopefully you see my point.
The Optane NVMe drives were more like $1-2 per GB when they were new, and are a fair bit cheaper now that they're basically on clearance: https://www.newegg.com/intel-optane-ssd-905p-series-960gb/p/...

But this work used the Optane DC Persistent Memory DIMMs that only work with certain Intel server CPUs. I'm not sure what the typical price people actually paid for those was, but it probably was not actually more expensive than DRAM.
Developing a Neovim Docker Plugin from Scratch
I appreciate the way that duesee handled that whole issue.
it's going to personally insult them in very deep ways,

That's exactly the point of scolding. To help people calibrate social behavior outside of the judicial system. We do 10,000 things per day that are now necessarily laws but are carefully tuned social behaviors.

I didn't really understand this until I had a 2 yr old and had to explain all of them.

Sure, there are more tactful ways to scold but sometimes when people are too far gone you just have to publicly shame. They've already missed a few dozen subtle cues before making it to this point
Thank you. I love Helix. It’s my daily driver.
aws amplify free tier, upload a zip with some html. Attaching a domain is the only thing that could take a few minutes.
> Reference counting is regular garbage collection.

...while I agree, for many C++ and Rust coders statements like this are pure heresy ;)
Was that the scheme that used the rocket engine with piston pumps?
What do you mean they’re base64 encrypted
Your framing is over-broad, in that it could be applied to any policy within the bounds of legality. I.e. it sounds like a purely legal opinion. Yes, I think it's despicable, subjectively. That's my opinion. Just because somebody is "free" to engage in a behavior, does not somehow make that behavior immune to a moral description like "despicable".

I also think "just switch jobs" is often (and in this case) a fallacious defense except as a purely "free market" idea, which, again, is another narrowing of context.

Employers have more power than employees. It is much easier for an employer to find a new employee than vice versa, in general. I don't mean statistically easier - I mean easier in the sense that humans use the word. The disruption to a business of finding a new employee is usually incomparable to the disruption to an employee's life of finding a new employer, on average.

Edit: I also am not particularly interested in the "is it despicable" conversation in the first place, hence why I allowed room with the "or maybe you disagree!" qualifier. "Despicable" as a moral judgment of policy is probably not something one is going to casually convince another person to switch sides on. I was primarily interested in critiquing your use of their honesty as the sole factor in arguing that "this is good", not critiquing your personal opinion on whether the policy itself is good.
Back in my day, they'd just call the Pinkertons
Germany's Beloved Dachshund Could Be Threatened Under Breeding Bill
I'm just thinking aloud here. Scarecrows might make the pilots freak out too. This thing has to not look like something that doesn't belong near a runway.
See also "The Blub Paradox": https://paulgraham.com/avg.html#The_Blub_Paradox:~:text=were...

Good ideas in one programming language often find their way into other programming languages because the ideas are that good.
Most Common Mistakes Founders Make When Starting to Scale Revenue
I have a strong opinion, yes, and I'd argue the opposite. We won't be able to 'discover' a physical process for consciousness because it's nothing like a process. There is no logical reasoning as to how any process creates consciousness, neither could such phenomena be confirmed given our understanding of logic. I mean, it's entirely unintelligible how the brain, or any other mass, with the usage of a set of rules (the rules here being physics), can give birth to a 'being' which can observe the rules and the change over time, nor how that 'being' can use the state of that process to form a reality of it's own. Mathematically speaking, one shouldn't be able to 'observe' time at all, but here we are. Speaking of a 'physics-based explanation' is nonsense when we consider that the subject at hand is undeniably a paradox.
There has been PL/Java for a long time: https://tada.github.io/pljava/ and PL/Perl and others. The projects you mention are largely building on well-established interfaces in Postgres.
This is on point.

One other thing is to limit input frequency, only allow a certain amount of posts over some period of time. Enforce this on both the front and back-end.

A little more complex, you can set a lifetime limit per user by IP address, which won't stop a truly dedicated attacker but will definitely block most of the random web crawler scripts that find your site.
Even if they contract it out, at $350/hr (which is not a price that would raise any flags), that is less that $750k. Even with a fancy office, couple of laptops and 5' monitors, this is less than a day at the bombing range or a few minutes keeping an aircraft carrier operational.

Even a team of 10 people working on this - the code and social aspect - would be a drop in the bucket for any nation-state.
The plugin-based case can covered by the notion of multiple "entry points": every library that is intended to be `dlopen`ed is tagged with the name of the interface it provides, and every library that does such `dlopen`ing mentions the names of such interfaces rather than the names of libraries directly. Of course your `ldd` tool has to scan all the libraries on the system to know what might be loaded, but `ldconfig` already does that for libraries not in a private directory.

This might sound like a lot of work for a package-manager-less-language ecosystem at first, but if you consider "tag" as "exports symbol with name", it is in fact already how most C plugin systems work (a few use an incompatible per-library computed name though, or rely entirely on global constructors). So really only the loading programs need to be modified, just like the fixed-name `dlopen`.
Orbital and Physical Characterization of Asteroid Dimorphos After DART Impact
Abstract

The Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) mission impacted Dimorphos, the satellite of binary near-Earth asteroid (65803) Didymos, on 2022 September 26 UTC. We estimate the changes in the orbital and physical properties of the system due to the impact using ground-based photometric and radar observations, as well as DART camera observations. Under the assumption that Didymos is an oblate spheroid, we estimate that its equatorial and polar radii are 394 ± 11 m and 290 ± 16 m, respectively. We estimate that the DART impact instantaneously changed the along-track velocity of Dimorphos by −2.63 ± 0.06 mm s−1. Initially, after the impact, Dimorphos's orbital period had changed by −32.7 minutes ± 16 s to 11.377 ± 0.004 hr. We find that over the subsequent several weeks the orbital period changed by an additional 34 ± 15 s, eventually stabilizing at 11.3674 ± 0.0004 hr. The total change in the orbital period was −33.25 minutes ±1.5 s. The postimpact orbit exhibits an apsidal precession rate of 6.7 ± 0fdg2 day−1. Under our model, this rate is driven by the oblateness parameter of Didymos, J2, as well as the spherical harmonics coefficients, C20 and C22, of Dimorphos's gravity. Under the assumption that Dimorphos is a triaxial ellipsoid with a uniform density, its C20 and C22 estimates imply axial ratios, a/b and a/c, of about 1.3 and 1.6, respectively. Preimpact images from DART indicate Dimorphos's shape was close to that of an oblate spheroid, and thus our results indicate that the DART impact significantly altered the shape of Dimorphos.
You can see how that would affect a person. Advocate exploring a far out idea against resistance, then be dramatically proved correct when an unexpected advance makes the goal achievable.
What do you use it for i.e what kind of codebases are you typically working with?
3-5 devs on the project
> You just check the compiler output precisely corresponds to the compiler input.

just is doing a lot of work there.
I think the fact that it is complicated to reason about is precisely why systems developers don’t trust GC’s.

It’s far easier to write a threadsafe bump (slab) allocator than to locate and diagnose the code that someone wrote two years ago and, as of last week, started causing the GC to blow up the cache, contend on a lock, fragment the heap, add unbounded pauses, burn an extra cpu, etc, etc.

(Though, at this point, most mallocs are so good that the slab allocator loses anyway and there’s no need to bother.)
compaction really does help runtimes alot. but I'm not sure how much it really has to do with line level locality. in general we don't try to batch related objects together except in a coarse form by generation.

I think the measurable benefit comes from page level savings, both reducing the number of trips to the kernel to get zeroes pages, and from reduced pressure on the tlb.

but I have definitely seen numbers like 20% on some workloads for turning on compaction
> Is a compilation-test a legitimate/common/typical method to go about this?

Yes—in fact, compilation tests are often the only way you can tell if a feature actually works. It's extremely common for C build systems to detect and work around weird systems.
Regarding writing tools/tests/benchmarks in bash+Python, vs. writing tools in your main language:

I think we might eventually concede that something Debian-like is the “standard development environment” (at least for server side stuff, i.e. not iOS apps)

In this case, bash+Python is a non-issue. It works extremely reliably. That’s actually why I use it! Everything else seems to break, or it’s really slow (node.js is a very common alternative).

- Microsoft conceded this back in ~2017, by building Linux into their kernel with WSL, and providing Ubuntu on top

Yes bash + Python is bad on Windows (I have scars from it), but Microsoft agrees that the right place to solve that is in Windows :-)

- Every CI system runs Debian/Ubuntu

- Every hosting provider runs Debian/Ubuntu

- Every online dev env like gitpod.io provides Debian/Ubuntu

This is somewhat related to remote dev envs: https://lobste.rs/s/ucirlx/lapdev_self_hosted_remote_dev

One vision for https://www.oilshell.org/ is that the CI environment is the dev environment is the hosting environment.

Everything is just an equal node in a distributed system. BUT it’s more git like, in that you explicitly sync and work “locally”, wherever that is. You don’t have the network chatter and flakiness of “the cloud”.

---

Oils has a very large set of monotonically increasing properties too - https://www.oilshell.org/release/0.21.0/quality.html

All that is bash+Python that is run on every commit, and it’s extremely good at catching bugs and perf regressions.

I’m skeptical that any project has that level of quality automation written in pure Rust or Zig, and self-hosted. More likely it’s a bunch of cloud services with YAML.

Also a bunch of “hard-coded” toolchains that you can’t script with bespoke code. Like some shell commands in your package.json, which is just a worse way of writing a shell script.

---

Our quality process is all self-hosted, in the repo, and runs on both Github Actions and sourcehut - https://www.oilshell.org/release/0.21.0/pub/metrics.wwz/line...

(Although we need to unify the CI and release, because the release runs on 2 different real hardware machines, while CI is cloud only.)

bash and Python runs perfectly on Github Actions and sourcehut, with zero change. Containers also do.

Also, a main point Oils is that bash now has another highly compatible, spec-driven implementation – OSH. Having 2 independent implementations is something newer languages don’t have.

(copy of lobste.rs comment)
Well, the whole matter with "xz" this week would not have happened without public DVCS.
Did scarecrows ever work?
Is there some plug’n’play vendor that would offer most of these out of the box (like Netlify etc)?
> Not novel at all — it represents a specific implementation of well known techniques developed nearly 25 years ago

Your old stuff is bad.

> We, however, assert that they should not overlook the lessons of more than 40 years of database technology —

Our old stuff is good.
ikr, silver-alloy bullet at most c'mon people be reasonable
Were drones unthinkable at the time of Dune creation?
Or suicide attacks?
But... but... AT&T said it WASN'T their data that was leaked. Who are we supposed to believe? AT&T? Or AT&T?

This is why I'm for large fines for companies that lie about data leaks.
Like many others, I was a die hard Paint.NET person while Windows-only. When I went multiplatform 8 years ago, Krita took its place. Bulkier, buggier and in some ways less convenient, but so many great features and fully cross platform. I tried pdn again recently and was shocked at the chaos that plugins still are.

I recall trying Gimp 2.99 with the new UI some years ago (they take their time don't they) and finally liking it a lot. I would love for it to get a popularity boost like Blender did.
A nice, easy to use, informative GUI. I'm surprised there are so many small amounts, like $25K to the UK, $53K to Norway, $47K to Portugal, etc. Perhaps those are really remaining balances?
Invest with This Kiva-Like Nonprofit and Build Global South Solar Projects
You could definitely train a dog to do this and it would probably have a blast doing it all day.

Not enough dog investors pushing dog-tech hype though. It is a shame though, have you ever read about what their noses can do??
Anyone who has a garden knows scarecrows don't work (more than a couple of days anyway).

Birds are surprisingly smart and they lean very quickly.
It would be good if they gitlab and gitea standardised some features such as how to track issues in a repo, to make a baseline of portability available. Then they can say migrate to one of us from GitHub using this special tool, and then you'll have a nice portable repo from then on.

That might help a little with the transition, ready for when MS does one of their crazy moves and people suddenly want to switch.
Try to be more disingenuous.

Porn and bots (most of which are porn related) were some of the stated reasons for Elon to back out of purchasing Twitter.

Porn has always been part of Twitter, the old company always tolerated it but tried to avoid it coming into contact with the mainstream. Mostly due to protection and advertising concerns. They never tried to seriously monetize it.

This basically proves that Elon has given up on mainstream advertisement (or rather mainstream ads gave up on him).
I'm pretty sure I read a scifi dystopian novel where a scientist develops a bacteria that eats plastic they release it and the novel follows the after effects.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/86452.Ill_Wind but it appears there are a few books that explore this idea.
“That means the root issue with renewal is still a problem, and we plan to address it in the short term much like our ancestors did: multiple redundant calendar alerts and a designated window to manually renew the certificates ourselves”.
As a working mathematician, I would say "obvious" is most often used for omitted arguments whose analogues are widely established elsewhere.

As an elementary example, in an analytic number theory paper one might need to know that for some constant C we have

5x + x^3 + ln(x) < Ce^x

for all positive x. (In practice, one would not need to determine such a C, just know that one exists.)

Such a claim would usually be described as "obvious" or else stated without any justification. I doubt you could find precisely this claim in the literature, but one can find plenty of very similar arguments in textbooks, and anyone doing research in analytic number theory would find this "obvious".
I've never witnessed anyone do that, but I've often seen litter flying out of pickup truck beds.
How much stress is too much? A psychiatrist explains
I assumed this ruling came from the fifth circuit when I read the headline, but this comment you made strikes even me as a bit too cynical of how the judiciary works:

> Nobody is surprised by this because the Fifth Circuit operates in service of the Republican Party. As we say, you don’t bite the hand that feeds you.

These judges are not necessarily being "fed" in the corrupt way that connotes. They are people operating in accordance with their nature, and they were selected carefully during their appointment, but they might very well be capable of judicial and political independence. Lifelong appointment and all.
GPT Store doesn't list no more GPTs? Or does it?
"Your GPT will typically be listed within 5 to 10 minutes" --> I have tried 2 weeks now. I have launched 7 GPTs before this and it worked well. Now I can't submit gpts anymore. I don't know why. I have sent email to service but no can do. No answer.
I definitely wouldn't call the RCU thing a GC, since at no point is the object garbage. It is in one of 3 states, and changes between them as quickly as possible:

* active

* obsolete but alive for old readers

* deallocated

Note that depending on how you write your code, it may be possible to reuse an "obsolete-but-alive" object for a "new" allocation safely, though I haven't analyzed performance for this in full.

As usual for GC discussions, it is very handwavy about when you have to "fall back to `shared\_ptr/Arc`", when in fact avoiding refcounts (either because you can prove you already have ownership (which does have implications for tail calls, but you shouldn't use those anyway), or by avoiding indirection entirely) is the whole point of serious refcount-based systems. Doing nothing at all is obviously better than GC's "do something, sometime".