skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> I think the people not satisfied with git are told that is a result of them not understanding it.

People are told this because it's generally true. Of course, it's not the case for everyone, but I find that most criticisms of the tool focus heavily on remembering how to use it.

(The author does mention some missing features, which is valid, but git can't be everything for everyone. In those cases, perhaps it's not the appropriate tool.)

> I need to always deeply understand the difference between reset, revert, [...]

> You need to remember that push and pull [...]

> When it comes to merging, you need to think through the logic [...]

Yes, you need to understand, remember, and think. Git (and other similar tools) solve a complex problem and doing so in a simple way would likely restrict teams into a small set of possible workflows.

I find that using git is quite simple once the project team has established the processes where the tool is used, and understands git's role in those processes. In my experience, most day-to-day tasks involve using the same small handful of git subcommands, and issues that arise are quite easily fixable.
Cornell CS 6785: Deep Generative Models
Apple cuts 600 jobs after dropping self-driving car plans
> so called "golden codes"

A minor point, but they are called Gold codes -- after Robert Gold, who developed the technique in the 60s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_code
If you are too present on social media, there is no mystery left about you. You become too familiar to trigger the curiosity of a follower to click on another link you posted. The economy of attention doesn't lead far.
You don't need a constitution for this purpose, even though a constitution can have practical benefit. And furthermore, you'd only be passing the buck by appealing to a constitution. I could just ask whether the constitution is arbitrary, and in this case, you could not appeal to anything to ground or constrain it. The ultimate ground for the written law is the moral law, such that the first is a determination of the second given the circumstances of a given jurisdiction. Note also the distinction between lex and ius.
Honestly a lot of the arguments in that post seem in favor of IaC, not against it.
I have the sense social media is really bad for written content in particular. It's likely the best broadcasting mechanism for YouTube channels, shops, some types of services.

But the audience in social media in its majority is looking for quick dopamine pills, not long form articles, so conversion on those is really really low.

I'm a programmer, not a marketer though, so take this with a grain of salt and maybe some chili pepper too.
>> if you think the financial system is unfair

The financial system is certainly unfair. Life is unfair, from the moment you are born to the moment you die. This has nothing to do with "fairness".
This has to do with personal financial management. There are rules to the game. Use them, don't use them, it's completely up to you.

If you want to change the rules to make them more fair, then by all means go for it. I'm not sure that any system you divide will ultimately be fair since it has to operate in an unfair world. The current system protects wealth at pretty much any scale. You are welcome to leave your wealth unprotected if you choose. That's your right.
AFAIK the DMA specifically allows this to protect the operating system, so Apple is always going to be involved in the process to ensure basic security.

Whether you agree with that or take Apple’s word on what is a valid security concern is up for debate
The AI model equivalent of Kessler syndrome
Hostile is stupid, because Apple's brand is something along the lines of "make things straightforward and high quality for the end user". If they can't justify a short duration like a week they are betraying that brand.

This brand supports them doing all sorts of things that some like and some chafe at. For example, the ios store, grossly deficient as it is, is IMHO a relative win: combined with the strict hardware lockdown it makes me comfortable casually downloading apps, and more importantly my parents downloading apps. Other examples are the automatic backups to the cloud or the Safari requirement. I look at my dad's virus- and crapware-ridden windows machine and just shake my head. It's gotten so terrible that he uses his phone more and more because it keeps working.

Apple understands the subtlety of that brand too well, and they get away with a lot (e.g. they crushed a lot of opportunities for advertising spyware -- yay! -- but kept that capability for themselves).

BTW I wouldn't and don't tolerate that automatic backup in macos nor a strict app store lockdown, and if the mac really headed in that direction I'd go back to Linux. For example, Dropbox is a first class citizen on the mac, but not quite on ios.

I understand that some chafe under the ios restrictions, and I don't blame them. I still think of my laptop as my "real" personal computing device and my phone as something I want to always be working.
That's what a social network was supposed to be. We changed the name because it's not that anymore. It's people you never knew and never will producing content in exchange for advertisement.
Huh. I am out of school for a long time now, but honestly I would be very surprised they managed to really get WLAN to all schools. They haven't even managed to get it to all train stations. Do you have reliable information, that now all schools have to have WLAN, by law or something?
It's a bit different in the US, there are areas where they have signs up saying "X miles to next services" because of 50+ mile stretches without stations. I distinctly remember years ago trying to figure out how fast I could go across a section of Montana without running out of fuel between stations, so it's not entirely unheard of hear to have "range anxiety".
While the dangers are limited, they certainly aren't zero. Even if the original attacker(s) have entirely gone to ground others may be scanning for hosts that managed to got compromised by following the bleeding edge and more could get compromised of downloads from primary sources are kept open.

Keeping the affected code visible somewhere could be useful for research purposes, but you don't want it where people or automations might unwittingly use it. If the official sources where the only place this could be found then it might be reasonable to expect them to put up a side copy for this reason, but given how many forks and other copies there will be out there I don't think this is necessary and they are better off working on removing known compromises (and attempting to verify there are no others that were slipped in) to return things to a good state.
And we’re expanding sports betting too across the nation.

I was at a wedding recently for a young college age couple and the groom, bride, and the grooms buddies were all placing bets on their phones at the wedding reception.

It was a little disheartening seeing some young folks starting their lives and at the reception throwing what little money they had away.
even google is being eaten by ecommerce, video games are often piles of micro transactions… everything is a store
One would probably have to define "one-man show". But, no, Theo does not write most of OpenBSD's code. Although he certainly is the leader of the project. If the copyright statement bothers you, I can recommend the announcement e-mail (see "THANKS" in particular):

https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-announce&m=171228270018970&w=2

You will also find separate copyright statements in a lot of the source files and many carry the name of their authors.
A sibling comment already mentioned the type system as a whole, but I wish to highlight one specific feature: Rust has algebraic data types.

The term sounds academical, but I honestly can't see a modern, programmer-friendly language not having proper discriminated union types in 2024. Go's lack of sum types is not simplicity. It's a glaring omission, forcing programmers to rely on "idioms" like using tuples to return errors. Having only product types (structs) is literally like trying to do arithmetic with only multiplication, without addition.
Uh? Of course it's not a one-man show.

https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aopenbsd%2Fsrc%20copyright...
Letting teams self-serve XaaS is how you get 50 dramatically mis-sized and ill-configured DB instances in prod. This team thought they’d have 1000 QPS, and have an instance that’s 50x as large as necessary. This team doesn’t know what IOPS are but figured they’d better have a lot of them, so they’re paying thousands per month for an io2 drive when the entire dataset fits comfortably into memory. This team has no idea (fair – there are a million knobs) how to configure Postgres, and the defaults suck, so they’re getting 1/4 the performance that they’re paying for.

IaC can be done poorly, just like anything, but at least if someone knows the underlying tech that they’re modularizing, downstream consumers won’t each have to relearn it.
I wonder if the (false) sense of agency, of "doing something" - might not be psychologically important. Especially if the only other viable option seem to be in-action and despair?
Cheap is in the eye of the beholder.
Insurance is not cheap. It exists to mitigate risk.
But in most places the overall cost is probably less than $1000 per year for the protection of the sorts of values most of us are likely to acquire.
> The velocity of writing filesystem and file manipulation files in shell is many times greater than in javascript.

I think you're right, after achieving a level of expertise. I've never gotten there myself which probably explains my bias, but I appreciate hearing your perspective.
IAC is one technology I will defend to the hilt. IAC is difficult because the underlying problem it is trying to solve is hard. Different people over time are making updates to a mission-critical, stateful, system that need to be coordinated with each other.

IAC is complicated, tedious, poorly documented, risky to deploy, and never perfectly aligns with what is actually going on in production but it is still better; a lot better. Manual infrastructure is also all of these things except you have nothing to grab onto if you are trying to understand an environment and what is safe to change.

If your app is very simple and you can use an out of the box solution, you should avoid IAC. But the moment you want to do something custom you need it.
From what I read (in the Ars Technica story on this), the real Woods seems to be in fairly bad shape. At least homeless, maybe mentally challenged. It seems that may have happened, even if his identity had not been stolen, but I am not aware enough of the story's details, to render any kind of semi-authoritative judgment.

It's highly likely that at least one lawyer is already salivating over this, and will help him to sue, but I’m not confident that the real Woods will benefit.

This was a nightmare story, and I would hope that the fake Woods gets real jail time.
I am always pleased to see new RISC-V based implementations.

But here, people have to keep in mind: GPU is all about performance. Namely, having the GPU handling some CPU load must in no way impact significantly GPU performance.
Setting up solutions in AWS is a most painful experience.
Even AWS consultants do not find it easy and trivial.

However, IaS being a complicated hornets' nest is more
direct evidence of vast complexity in architecture.

The best way to address it is to decrease the complexity
of the system. It will have great rewards across the board.

Most systems composed these days, have far more moving parts
than what is needed.

Simplify and shrink.

Some projects really do need it, no doubt about that, but I
predict that somewhere around 80% at least coud make do with
far less, and the project will benefit from it to to bottom.
I don’t know Go, compared to C and C++:

* safe by default — for example all array accesses are checked by default. You can do unchecked access for speed when you need, and you can check for safety in C and C++ if you want, but I feel nowadays we really should be using “safe by default”.

* much easier to parallelize. I had basically given up on multithreading in C++ and believed it was almost impossible to do well. In Rust, in my experience, if parallel code compiles it works correctly. This is because the borrow checker stops you ever mutating anything in two threads at once at compile time.
It's a reasonable response to the blog post, if the person searched for one second on Google or on ChatGPT, they would know the answer.
How Stack Overflow replaced Experts Exchange
The majority of states without a lottery are red states. The only reliably blue state without one is Hawaii. Purple Nevada doesn't have one probably because they don't want the competition against the casinos. In every state where there is a lottery, purchasing tickets is voluntary, which isn't the case when it comes to taxes.
Visual Autoregressive Modeling: Scalable Image Generation W NextScale Prediction
Fair valid points. But to me I think a lot of the story is "hidden" in the actual value those dollar amounts hold, specifically in America. There's a common theme atm about people not being able to afford homes as an example.
> Say it with me: Elevate Permissions

I always tell my team that we should be able to build and deploy from our laptops. That we should make sure we don't bake our build/deployment into third party systems, so we're still able to do things when they have outages and can move to a different one if they become unreasonably priced etc.

But that we SHOULDN'T be doing those builds/deploys from our laptops UNLESS it's an emergency. Almost no dev needs a key for the whole production infrastructure sitting on their laptop, they don't need a production DB superuser. They should know how to get access to things when needed, but embrace the safety of not being able to accidently kill something important.

I love having the power to destroy a whole companies offering at my fingertips, but the terror of running a command and realising you're doing it by accident is just not worth it.
It’s not that you need a constitution, but rather than many democratic governments have a constitution and that must be considered in the context of “when you're making new laws you can make those laws say anything you want”.
Are those supposed to convince me that spending thousands on a robot will make my life measurably better?

Because they're not; the exact opposite in fact. That Spot missing the shoe on the first grab, being loud, and taking up more space than a German Shepard (without the floofy companionship) is case in point how far away we are.
Nobody would care if you own just a personal site, but if you’re a company (and not well know ) I sometimes check to see if you’re on LinkedIn, or have posted recently on Twitter. Because if you haven’t, that might be a sign you might be going out of business

Maybe that’s unfair. But I would think twice before relying on your product for anything important
> At the time Microsoft spent a ton of money in usability research, that no free environment could afford

It was a combined effort with IBM.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Common_User_Access

Note that even the obsolete parts of the CUA is still supported on modern Windows! for example, CTRL+C and CTRL+V might have won as the favored keyboard shortcuts for copy and paste, but CTRL+INSERT and SHIFT+INSERT still works!
The CUA design documents had a very large impact on the approach taken at Microsoft in designing GUI software and standardizing interactions.

Of course, standardizing keyboard shortcuts are but a tiny part of the ambitions behind the CUA. It's still a very good read to this day for anyone interested in the design of user interfaces. Here's an excerpt of one of my favorite points made in the documents :

>The user interface should be forgiving. User actions should be easily

>reversed. When users are in control, they should be able to explore

>without fear of causing an irreversible mistake. Because

>learn-by-exploring environments involve trial and error, users should be

>able to back up or undo their previous action. Actions that are

>destructive (that may cause the unexpected loss of the users' information)

>require a confirmation. Users should feel more comfortable with a

>computer when their mistakes do not cause serious or irreversible results.

>To users, the unexpected loss of their information is the most frustrating

>and destructive application occurrence. When you allow users the

>opportunity to change their minds about an action that would destroy

>significant data, you provide a forgiving interface, even if you are

>unable to allow them to undo the action after it is completed.
A negative/positive feedback loop, depending on what you consider negative or positive.

I'd go negative, with the y axis being "useful". Negative feedback loops all go to zero.

Language processing differs from games like chess because with chess you can definite a clear metric of quality. If you can define such a metric, AI models can learn from themselves and have a near-infinite positive feedback loop. See AlphaGo etc.
This stuck out to me as well.

Why do you need to download the entire project? So you can build/compile/launch it and view/test your changes. Are we just talking about a README.md file here?
Okay serious question though. How many developers have actually read any of the git instructional material? Like beyond just peaking at the reference/man pages.

Git's docs have quite well written guides and introductory material but how many developers have ever even read those docs, even in part?

I can't think of a single other tool or library I use on a regular basis that has documentation but it's considered standard practice to just ignore all those docs and "wing it" based on colloquial knowledge and random copypasted snippets from stack overflow.

Everywhere else in the tech space RTFM is standard practice but as soon as you say that with git, it's interpreted as if it was said with complete and utter condescension.

(aside: you can still dislike git and there are perfectly valid reasons to but so often I see people argue that git is bad without ever having experience following the instructions printed on the tin)
Unless you have extremely expensive lifestyle, usually being in top 10-20% is enough. And getting to top 10-20% is extremely easy on the timescale of decade or so, basically it boils down to any directed effort. Giant majority of employed people literally don't grow.

On the contrary being in 0.1-1% is not worth it, things like monetary success are usually more down to networking and being in the right place at the right time, top 10% software engineer can earn way more money joining right early stage startup or even tech company at the right time - like NVIDIA lately. While the 0.1% developer might spend his time at failed startup - for example, because his extreme passion might mislead them to believe field like _developer tools_ is the future.

Of course, this is written from a perspective of a person that likes what they do, but not to the point where it's what I want to do for the rest of my life. Pretty much every hour spend lead climbing outside was more fun and fulfilling than any hour spend at work.
No it isn't, unless you define down "keeping in touch" to be so trivial it loses all meaning
The greatest addition to FFmpeg in the recent past was the addition of large language models translating my "ffmpeg command to mix audio file onto video file" into actually executable FFmpeg commands.

Being cheeky of course here. FFmpeg is great. An AI assistant was what I needed to execute my ~12 FFmpeg commands per year though, with ease and speed.
> Excuse me, what the flask. You don't have a wife and friends then at all. You've built a non-profit organization, not a family.

I think it's fairly common among top performers.
There's a complete blind-spot in this debate that I rarely see
discussed even in security circles.

Grubbing through personal emails to target advertising is unseemly.
But we accept companies like Microsoft, Google and Apple as the
squalid little filchers they are and take such snooping as a part of
life in the digital world now. We should not... be we do accept
it.

However, few people sincerely ask how did Google, Microsoft and Apple
get so big?

The fool says "by recruiting smart people and working hard at
innovation". At best that's a microscopic part of the answer.

A slightly wiser take is that they acquired every competitor and used
every trick in the book to sabotage competition. But, again that's
only part of the picture.

The answer is that over the past 30 years they've engaged in the
biggest, most egregious programme of industrial espionage in
history. There isn't a single business in the Western hemisphere who
BigTech have not had a total heads-up on their R&D, recruiting,
internal development, marketing strategy, trade secrets and financial
affairs.

Keeping this conversation limited to whether or not Mavis cares
whether Microsoft know what shoes she buys - is part of the trick.

Sure no individual will pay for privacy. That's not where anyone who
cares about liberal democracy and free markets should be looking.
Then most people on the Internet are using it wrong then. Centralized repo (Github) with bunch of out-of-date mirrors.

In practice you just want server with local commits.
Woah man, I definitely like walking my dog way more than running marathons! That was exactly my point they are different things, that different people enjoy and they are not so comparable. You don't get the same things from walking a dog that you get from running a marathon. The same way you don't get the same thing from reading books to reading reddit URLs to reading research papers. It is you that is injecting "one is lesser than the other" not me.
Bloviating isn't the same as explaining. You make no sense and are actively damaging Israel. Are you a Hamas plant? Your posts are composed of verbal and mental gymnastics completely unrelated to the post you're replying to. I already told you I'm on Israeli right and agree with you the 1988 charter is what to rely on
KDE2 on Mandrake 8 for me. The look and feel of that desktop was a big part of what made me want to start using it over Windows. Whereas XP had just launched the Bozo the Clown-inspired theme, KDE offered something that somehow looked more real, and lived-in.

The other part, of course, was that the tools it shipped with were far and away better than the ones on Windows. Konqueror (way faster than Netscape) and Gaim (way more functional than AIM - I know that wasn't part of KDE) are two that came to mind almost immediately. Nowadays I live my life in a Web browser, and I'm not sure I'd have had the same impressions there.
The Cybernetic Centipede?
With the addition of TikTok, Instagram, Shorts as the top row? And Email at the bottom?
Notwithstanding the extremely low probability of winning, lotteries aren't even fair, i.e. the ticket price is far lower than the expected earnings.
I wonder if it would make sense to democratize cheap high risk, high rewards instruments, for example deep out of the money options, to replace lotteries. At least their prices should be fairer (under the efficient market hypothesis).
It’s much more than just generating structured schema. It also understands user intent and assigns the correct functions to solve a query. So for example if we give it two functions getWeather(city) and getTime(city) and ask “what’s the weather in New York?” It will decide on the correct function to use. It will also know to use both functions if we ask it “what’s the time and weather in New York?”.
Me in 2014: "I don't need books anymore, maybe only a dozen PDFs about the topic I'm currently working on, everything is on the internet."

Me in 2024: "I'm back to hoarding. Wow, the backups from 2014 still work."
There's many things I don't know about AI, but I can almost guarantee very little about them is "simple"