skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Productivity unit per dollar spent is going to follow making your system most efficient for the people that spend their entire day in it (the power user) and just workable enough for an outsider to do occasional work.

Well, why bother making this distinction to begin with? The whole concept of a power user just reeks of lazy product design.

> Compromising the workflow of your full time SCM expert in your ERP system for the sake of somebody who spends an hour or two a month filling out purchase orders is just stupid.

Yes, this is lazy product design in the other direction. It's not clear why you can't just satisfy both groups.
Someone’s gonna put one of these over a parking lot bollard.
Interesting that all of the successors to MapReduce fix all the major criticism DeWitt and Stonebraker have. (I'm thinking BigQuery, Snowflake, Spark) So the lessons were re-learned and features re-introduced, but the massively parallel execution has persisted.

Perhaps MapReduce was non-novel and flawed, but it certainly seems to have led to a flowering of rich, large scale data querying systems.
Depends on the species. Ever met pigeons?
That's very interesting: Delusions help us feel safe in the face of something terrifying, but unless the delusion maps well to reality, wouldn't they also tend to lead us astray?

Arguably, the fantasy (and other art) I was talking about is more effective: By being a fiction in a very different place, it gives us distance. By being intentional, we can avoid misleading ourselves.

For some reason, in the current crisis, people have abandoned art as a way to explore and express their problems. Probably that's because, IMHO, the people trying to create the trauma and chaos have told them so - 'art is fanciful entertainment for the wealthy' you'll hear, even on HN - and bizarrely, after at least tens of millennia of art, they abandon it like lemmings.
It looks like he made multiple sock puppet accounts talking to himself on the mailing lists:
https://boehs.org/node/everything-i-know-about-the-xz-backdo...

He made a sock puppet asking debian to update the package in 'unstable'. (along with other package update requests so it wouldn't look suspicious).
Criminals are gonna love this.
Yeah, I think he hasn’t programmed Java.
Read more good fiction.
Haskell, or hlint, also has the concept of eta reduce which removes documenting variable names. Just awful.
The kickstarter is basically a scam. The "invisibility shield" is a sheet of lenticular plastic which you can already buy on Alibaba.
So, I mostly agree with you--and I certainly think WebRTC is "peer to peer" as I am unsure what the definition of "peer to peer" even would have to be if it weren't--there is a big caveat that I think undermines the beauty here: a browser can't act as a supernode as it can't listen for HTTP connections.

To me, what WebRTC is missing is the ability to just connect to another peer who DOES have a public IP. And frankly, the tech stack seems so close to being able to pull this off... Sean even has that demo repository he linked on this thread somewhere of just hardcoding the SDP, but it isn't clear to me -- and it didn't seem clear to him either (based on a comment in his README) -- that this would actually be secure enough as a bootstrap. It certainly could be with only a minor modification, as I should only have to know the pinned certificate of the DTLS server, but I think the browser API of WebRTC requires the server to know the client's certificate as well, which then implies the client's private key has to be hardcoded and shared, and it feels non-obvious if the security model of DTLS still works in that case (I should really sit down and try to pencil this out).

Without this, your supernodes can't be browsers: they have to be native programs with full socket access. Again: I think it is still OK to call the technology peer-to-peer, and yet it is also yet still missing something that feels really core to the idea of it being usable as a platform technology for P2P deployment, and likely it will never get the rest of the way as people are now wasting their time on the definitely-not-even-trying-to-be-peer-to-peer WebTransport :/.
You’re confusing state governments with the federal government. State governments are not governments of enumerated powers. They inherited the plenary authority of the British parliament, and have general police powers to regulate the health, welfare, and morals of citizens. That includes regulating medical procedures and defining various types of homicide. They could make laws banning eating meat on odd numbered days.

Those powers are only limited if there’s a state or federal constitutional right that prohibits that exercise of general police powers.
It is very expensive to train a dog and maintain its training. Like $50k starting price and $20k every year after.

Dogs are incredibly stupid, they like to step in front of moving vehicles. Very bad for airport runways...
It wasn’t a goal with achieving.
If you press ".” when on a repo on GitHub it will open vscode in your browser
> no image previewer built into windows, in the days of Windows 95/98/ME/2000

Windows has shipped with an image previewer since Windows ME. You can see it in this screenshot: https://www.reddit.com/r/windows98/comments/y1lj7x/winme_ima...
The claim about inferences rules in academic papers is false. Gentzen’s inference rules are usually used to specify how to type check and not type inference even though inference rules and type inference overlap in the use of the word inference.
Congratulations, you've achieved perpetual job security as no new developer can actually work on that codebase as well as you do.

Also you're confusing dynamic typing and type inference.
Subjectively is what you mean. Typing out types has a cost when you want a REPL
Except that there’s basically no non-subjective evidence in favor of statically typed languages.
That's not what they're saying. They're talking about things that couldn't be done due to performance issues but are now possible thanks to improved hardware.
Objective merit is very dependent on the problem and the context. There is no absolute merit one way or the other.
I know that. Both are still illegal, which is what I said, and is the point.
> So why does it exist? Answer: to reduce the cost to provide a service where bulk data flows are p2p.

Also to lower latency.
SourceForge stagnanted and UI was messy
Which problem is more serious? 1) your small company has an over-complex system that could have been postgres; 2) your medium-sized company has a postgres that's on fire at the bottom of the ocean every day despite the forty people you hired to stabilize postgres, and your scalable replacement system is still six months away?
I think the xz disaster would be a reason why Wasm-based plugins would be bad. People would be forced to use plugins written in a language they may not know and would not be able to audit for themselves.
I am actually looking forward to their Hardware. Especially the Pixel 9. I just wish I could have it in Hong Kong. The worldwide availability of Pixel 8 remains extremely limited with 20 regions only. And I have no idea why Google hasn't done anything about it.
Complexity is a great reason to implement something like this in-house. It's probably better to understand (and fully control) the sharding and transaction mechanism than to trust a third party with such a core piece of infra.

As companies get larger they move further up the stack whether it's sharding techniques, databases, custom orchestration software, their own networking hardware, etc.
To a very close approximation, Postgres does do everything.

And on the very uncommon cases that you need really something that Postgres doesn't do, Oracle, MS SQL, DB2, and co do not provide enough of a difference, and what you actually need is an specialized DBMS.
That requirement only exists once the EPA has created the rule. What the 5th Circuit has just said is that if you've been using a hazardous process for a while by the time the EPA creates such a rule, even if the EPA and public did not know about it, then SNURs can't be applied. In this case, the EPA tried to regulate PFAS in 2020, but since Inhance had been using them since the 80s (without anyone knowing), the rule was struck down. So any company that begins using a hazardous process is incentivized to keep that secret for long enough that the EPA can no longer create an SNUR regulating it.
But the bad news, then, is all that complexity is hidden, metastasising
Sourceforge was built around projects with people, github was built around people with projects. That's my general take on it.

A byproduct was the naming/addressing of projects was built around a person (or company), then the project - usera/project1. Anyone else could take/fork their own project1 - userb/project1, userc/project1, etc. Interested in project1? You could look at various versions/forks of it through the perspective of different users, because the user was first, not the project.

EDIT: further... github really put the control back to individuals. anyone could start anything, vs trying to get ideas committed in to a project. Some of this is the nature of distributed vs centralized, but github still made it convenient to just get ideas out there. Setting up a repo takes a few seconds - my memory was sourceforge took a lot longer - wasn't there some review process where you'd submit your project then it was approved for your use?
For more, including information about the "Diverse Double-Compiling" (DDC) countermeasure, see my page:
https://dwheeler.com/trusting-trust/
remove the -e option on the script and run it.

Anyway, arch is not affected because they don't modify openssh to link against any of this nonesense.
> the cryptocurrency people can't seem to decide if they're a bunch of nerd hobbyists or the Future of Finance

I think it's strange to take a diverse set of people from around the world, from hobbyists to open source developers to fortune 500 teams, and group them all together as "cryptocurrency people", as if they represent a united movement towards a single goal.

It's as if I said "those Linux people can't decide whether they want to be nerd hobbyists or the future of server computing" while pointing out the seeming contradiction between Red Hat Linux and Hannah Montana Linux, both produced by the same "group" of "those Linux people".

Or it's as if I compared a unicycle to a fighter jet, both made by "those vehicle people".

> If you want to be HAM radio, then fine, nobody except your club needs to understand or care what you're talking about.

It doesn't matter much what I want it to be. It just is.

I find it unorthodox to compare a software standard to a "club". I'm imagining someone refer to the worldwide group of Linux users as a "club". Much like Linux, I don't need to explain to the world how cryptocurrency works in order for it to be useful to me, nor do I consider myself part of a club for using it. It's just there and I use it. As Andreessen Horowitz said many years ago, "It’s becoming like air or water. It just is, like it or hate it. It just is."

> If you think you're going to upend the world economy and force all the rest of us to use your bullshit, then you better expect the rest of us to demand explanations in plain English.

I don't know where you're getting this adversarial tone from. Nobody was or is "forced" to do anything. This is not "me vs you". We're commenting on a post about a piece of software.

It seems to me like you're trying to defend something or express some deeper frustration, and I'd be curious to know what it is. To you it's not just a piece of accounting software, is it? This software must represent some ideological point that is dear to you.

> I could tell my grandma what TCP/IP is and why it's important. Cryptocurrency proponents have been trying (and failing) to do the same to me for over a decade now.

This really seems to me like it goes far beyond jargon. Are you perhaps frustrated that cryptocurrency's continued adoption conflicts with your world view that it is unimportant? That's not necessarily something I can help with, beyond saying something trite like "each individual person has their own reasons for adopting a technology" or "there's some kind of social aspect that nobody has really been able to properly measure" or simply "protocols can be sticky".
I understand and somewhat agree with what you're saying. But good luck justifying that to the business.
Market pressure to produce an asbestos functional equivalent has led nowhere (at a similar cost), after several decades.

Since the outcome is unknown until after a huge amount of time and expense, how would you factor it in beforehand?
Yes, particularly due to the design decision that Rust code should strive to be explicit in intention and mechanism.
>I wonder how much these things weigh.

Looks like mostly plexiglass. I'd gues 10-15kg for the big one
Now cells have a carry flag?
No but they can try harder, not make a shitty performative effort and then move on. That is exactly what Obama did on Guantanamo, the single largest abhorrent stain on what it means to be an American. An extra-legal torture base in Cuba makes us all murderous hypocrites. This is on Trump and Biden as well. Obama deserves the heat because that is what we hired him for. At this point we aren't letting the tortured out because of our embarrassment.

Executive Orders are the bondo of American democracy.

Obama was a bad president.
Don't conflate personal preference as objective truth.
I have very rarely seen the second scenario, but the first seems more common.
Identity in this context is an abstraction for access control.

Decades ago firewalls were positioned to stop data exfiltration.

The problem that is making the technology evolve is making information systems head for general intelligence. In that environment smart contracts can survive as economic units. Those smart contracts might survive for thousands of years and become a proxy for negotiation and understanding.

Individualism and collectivism are probably not divergent trajectories but a slow ebb and flow.
I think a neat ide feature would be to auto hide all the types and only show them as a pop up tooltip or something similar.

This way you can read the code more easily and if you want to see the type it's there for you.
Some folks just have low tolerance for ambiguity and can't get past it. It has it's positives and negatives.
> In some ways, this just feels like a reversion to the mean for humanity.

No it doesn't, this is ridiculous. All of you guys with your "this is just like the printing press" arguments are so intellectually lazy, think a little more about the problems of scale and speed and the way information spreads in the modern world.
What we need is to move away from 1970s build tools.
The batch image manipulation features it offers are pretty handy. Plus you can press L or R to rotate an image and it has lossless rotate options as well.
How on earth could this be used for "crime suppression"?
The article says they have to look around it - the subject cannot see through the shield.
I was actually thinking of pigeons/doves when I wrote that. Every year I get several nests around my property and if I get too close before there are chicks, the pigeons abandon the nest.

I have to carefully track them to figure out which nests belong to mockingbirds and which ones belong to pigeons so I can chase the former away and let the latter do their thing.
Different needs/requirements. If there is demand for something then someone will eventually become the supplier.
Every time you want to iterate over a map, for example, you're using std::pair<T,U> or std::unordered_map<T,U>::iterator. This gets very annoying without auto, and making an alias doesn't really address any of the complaints the article has.
I like the appeal of throwback tech. Most users do not want obvious AI. The trick is providing user-desired, friendly features that deliver high value.

E.g., I don’t want to create dashboards and other monitoring alerts in Datadog, just show me the real problems. A super slow query running once per day or a fast-enough query running 10x per second aren’t problems, which are the recommendations I get from these tools today.
Criminals in Montreal Using AirTags to Steal Vehicles
Oh, good luck getting this from any of Oracle, Microsoft or IBM... But actually, you usually can get those for Postgres.

Potsgres is the one general purpose DBMS out there that you can hire a company to actually solve your problems.
Probably 3) the system you overengineered too early solved the wrong problem, and your replacement is six months away, but you've paid for it twice.
> and certainly languages with a reference-counting GC, like Rust

It's a mistake to say that the Rust language has reference counting. There's a pair of reference-counting wrapper types in its standard library (Rc and Arc), or you can roll your own, but there's no special support for these types in the language, and their use is optional. Most of the time, you won't be using these reference-counting types. Box (the generic heap-allocated or "boxed" type) doesn't use reference counting. String (and its several specialized variants) doesn't use it. Vec (the generic heap-allocated array type) doesn't use it. HashMap, HashSet, BTreeMap, BTreeSet, none of them use reference counting. And so on. You can write a lot of Rust code without using reference counting even once.

What the Rust language has is just C++-style RAII: when a value goes out of scope, if it implements Drop, its Drop::drop is called.
What's a "book"?

Seriously, that argument is like saying that long variable names are bad because sometimes you have to write code on punched cards. The solution to the drawbacks of obsolete technology is to not use obsolete technology.
The speed, plugins ecosystem, many more formats supported out of the box, crop being faster and more intuitive, often good enough auto adjust.

Irfan for images and vlc for video is the name of the game for me (and total commander for file management, the efficiency compared to simpler stuff is still in wow territory).
"My favorite languages feature types very prominently, therefore any software engineering approach that doesn't do so is invalid, and here are some reasons I thought of".

He posts this on HN, which happens to be built in Arc Scheme, a Lisp dialect (which is dynamically typed). I wonder if the author has written software that has better uptime and more popularity than HN? Is the author's codebase truly easier to understand?
You would need to consider altered flight characteristics and maybe reduced flight range with the addition. Might act as a sail and just drag any drone around enough as to render it useless. Also, what would a 4ft flying panel look like on radar.
> even the fastest chargers take 5-10x as long as filling up with petrol (2-3 mins vs 20-30)

I just drove to the airport in a bit of a rush.
Drove straight up to pump, tapped credit card, authorized for $100 and opened cap at same time. Stuffed the pump in and held it at max flow. 45l of gas later (small car), cap back on, pump away and moving again.

I don’t think it would be possible to be faster.

Total time stopped: 7 minutes.
Let's map that opinion to higher ed, where we can agree there's a high concentration of education:

https://www.aaup.org/programs/collective-bargaining

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/labor-uni...

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

Highly educated people (and I'm including more than terminal degree holders) may be more reluctant to join unions out of a misplaced sense of self-sufficiency and pride, or a perceived association with "class issues", despite constant pressure and complaints about their individual compensation.
Can anyone think of an actual usage case...outside of combat I guess
It's an existence proof that “objectively worse” is, at a minimum, context dependant.

A bicycle is objectively worse if you have many staircases to deal with, but that doesn't imply that getting used to one and being productive with it is fundamentally and necessarily misguided.
I have run into situations where piping causes a type inference error but the equivalent function call doesn't, which is annoying because I have to use two different conventions in that case. I'm still an F# noob, so it's possible I'm doing something wrong.

I also get nervous that I'll change my function logic and the wrong type will be inferred, and it'll compile because the old and new types just happen to be logically compatible, but I get the wrong behaviour (or maybe this is just trauma from my VB6 days).

I tend to type my public function parameters and return parameters for this reason.
Is there a closed form solution for this or is it an example of the three body problem?
IIRC the killer "feature" that gave these previewers traction (ACDSee, IrfanView etc.) was that you could just preview a bunch of images in a folder using your arrow keys. So you'd just load one and use arrow keys to see the other images in the same folder. With the built-in options, you'd have to double click images one by one (and close their windows one by one) which was a horrible UX compared to what these provided.
given how widespread sshd is, i'd think it is realistic because the payoff would just be worth it if successful. the whole thing is also complex enough that it would take a while to develop. the attacker starts learning the internals of xz and in the process they develop the skills to contribute patches. so development of the attack and gaining trust go hand in hand.
Because it’s so damn easy. I started contributing to OSS and creating repos on GitHub when I was 16. I was not able (or interested in) managing my own git server; I didn’t have any connections to Apache.org. Sure I could’ve emailed diffs to some mailing list, as I know many people have done for years, but GH is a vastly better experience.

Github was so accessible that it made possible what otherwise would not have been.
Don't you at least type function params and returns?

Also, what do you build in F#? I think if I moved out of Python that would be it. OCaml is one of my favorite languages ever, and F# looks rad.
I've posted an earlier WHOWAS of jiatan here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39868773
It's all about cost and performance. If you can train a foundation model 2x faster with JAX on the same hardware, you are effectively slashing your training costs by 2x, which is significant for a multi-million dollar training run.
The 3DSage Game Engine Demo – Download Link [video]
I use JPEGView nowadays https://github.com/sylikc/jpegview
Where did you meet most of your friends? Grade school? College? Church? Did you pick them as well? The truth of the matter is that most friends are friends of convenience.

Are you apt to make friends in a coffee shop? Most people are much more guarded and less social in a coffee shop because they're clearly busy and on a completely different team.
As a vim user, I have the same problems. I don't even have a mouse to hover over symbols either to see what their type is.

But even when I've used IDEs in the past, type inference still seems an unnecessary slowdown and pain in the ass to save 1 second of typing. Explicit types make the code a lot more readable, even if your IDE is capable of showing you the type.
I love this. Why? Because Mayer is doing her very best to chip away at the myth of meritocracy. It makes me happy for people to realize this because belief in this myth is a big part of what allows our current societal inequity and wealth inequality to ctoninue and grow.

I just have to pick out one comment from the article (which I can't vouch for one way or the other; it's just funny):

> She once told me that she felt confident in judging design because her mom was a grade school art teacher. Just saying.
Nobody would benefit because if fast food workers start at 80k, then a basic hamburger would start at $20. And an iPhone pro would start at $2000.
Propionate Strongly Suppresses Parkinson's Disease Neurodegeneration in Mice