skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> I will get a type error and it will take me 2-3 seconds to figure out what it is about.

You should really screen capture yourself coding sometime. On a large codebase you're lucky if the compiler even runs in 10 seconds.

> Why would it be in a completely different part of the code? At most it would be 2 lines away, but usually on the same line.

Because possibly you return the partial assuming it's a number, and try to use it somewhere else, possibly even in another file.
Came here just to write the same. I've squandered to find an explanation because I absolutely enjoy the subject. Perhaps it's because I'm not a native speaker and generally have non-native speakers around so I don't understand some of the metaphors, perhaps it's because I'm just not used to reading these kinds of long sentences anymore, or perhaps it's just not my kind of beer. I really don't know.
Docker has been among us for years. Why isn’t efficient caching already implemented out of the box? It’s a leaking abstraction that users have to deal with. Annoying at best.
I would be more worried about them having directly hired a CIA shill. Smoke & mirrors
> one basis could, for example, be two vectors pointing North and East; another could be a vector pointing along a certain road and one perpendicular to it.

And there's no requirement that they be perpendicular is there? The second just needs 'some amount of perpendicular', North and North-East for example? Since any [n, e] can also be described as [(1-sqrt(2)*e)*n, sqrt(2)*e] in the latter. (I think that's right, but my main point is you can do it, not the particular value there, and if that's way off I'll blame the fever.)
It's a later problem you can't solve! You cheaped out in the short term and will face ludicrous long term costs.

And not just you, it's a core part of cloud computing's monetization model.

Additionally, if anything goes wrong with your Digital Ocean account, Digital Ocean will not help you. So you are running a high risk.
And dozens of non-Linux systems. AIX still lives, I still see HP-UX running, QNX is hidden away quietly running many things you take for granted every day, and there are a number of embedded executives make the world run.

There a lot more to the world that writing scripts to steal people's bandwidth by pushing ads to web browsers.
Even Faster JPEG Decoding
> but also Israel (IST)

I had the same thought myself initially, but the analysis suggests a work-week that includes Fri, which precludes Israel (where the work week is Sun-Thu and not Mon-Fri), as well as celebrating Christmas and New Year's which are not official holidays in Israel. It isn't uncommon for younger people to take a day off for New Year's since it is an excuse to party, or for Jews with eastern European origins to celebrate Novy God, but I don't know of any Christmas celebrations.

Obviously these could be faked, but then why fake a Mon-Fri work week and not also fake the work hours to match it? To me it seems like an unlikely hypothesis.
No, but an API is a leaky abstraction. you'll notice slowness, you'll encounter bugs, you'll see shortcomings in the data model used. All of those flow from the choice of language used on the backend. I'm not claiming that any one language is better than another, just that the leaky abstraction means the choice of language will have user-facing consequences.
That argument is silly because it misunderstands what "risk" means both in an insurance context and in general.

Yes, if you could 100% guarantee that someone was going to have a $Y valued claim, their premium would fairly be 100% of $Y at least in order to allow for their contribution to the risk pool. Problem is, you cannot 100% predict the future, and there is no model capable of doing so, nor will there likely ever be. Nor can you predict that any other insured risk might not materialise in the meantime.

More to the point, it fundamentally misunderstands what insurance is and how it works, not least the commercial considerations involved. If there is a 100% risk of risk X materialising, the insurer won't rate your premium at the cost of risk X; it will simply exclude risk X from your policy and rate your premium based on all the other myriad risks that might arise that year in an attempt to win your business and collect premium for what, to them, is a better bet.

This already happens, incidentally; travel insurance policies will exclude pre-existing conditions or recurrences of previous illnesses as a matter of course, because if someone (e.g.) has cancer, the odds of them needing to claim on their policy - and as such draw down from the pool more than they paid in premium - skyrocket.
Ask HN: Hasn't the startup world become far too serious and dull?
Just look at this video recorded only in 2013 and see how relaxed people were back then. Okay, I'm not defending that image either, but now everything is so serious. Did you get into YC? Are you a Harvard graduate? Do you have a PhD in AI? Do you have amazing traction? No? Then get out.

Genius Co-founders at TechCrunch Disrupt

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NAzQPll7Lo&t=1489s

Travis Kalanick's Presentation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQDlqOVxUqA
This is basically action they have to take if they want to trademark the term.

And chili crunch is obviously not a generic term (WTF is a “crunch”).
Okay but how about a better keyboard? Systemwide ad-block? Theme customization? Dolby Atmos driver? Blocking all the trackers inside apps? Blocking internet access for certain apps? YouTube Revanced? XManager Spotify? or other modded apps?

I have an iPhone 14 Pro but I don't use it a lot. Android is way better when it comes to providing a feature-rich experience. Not that iOS is bad but it's quite limiting.
Any kind of discrete Fourier transform, and also any device that generates the Fourier series of a periodic signal, even when done in an ideal way, must have outputs that are generated by a set of filters that have "a varying response to a range of frequencies".

Only a full Fourier transform, which has an infinity of outputs, could have (an infinite number of) filters with an infinitely narrow bandwidth, but which would also need an infinite time until producing their output.

So what you have said does not show that the eye cone cells do not perform a Fourier transform (more correctly a partial expansion in Fourier series of the light, which is periodic in time at the time scales comparable to its period).

The right explanation is that the sensitivity curves of the eye cone cells are a rather poor approximation of the optimal sensitivity curves of a set of filters for analyzing the spectral distribution of the incoming light (other animals except mammals have better sensitivity curves, but mammals have lost some of them and the ancestors of humans have re-developed 2 filters for red and green from a single inherited filter and there has not been enough time to do a job as good as in our distant ancestors).
> Without that caching, performance would slow to a crawl, severely impacting the production, delivery, and consumption of cat videos, phishing spam, and cryptocurrency scams. This prospect is seen as a bad thing.

Okay, that's a cheap joke, but it got a chuckle from me.
Upvoted by a fellow Bruce fan
Exactly. In the US even things that look like brick houses aren't actually brick but the outer veneer.

But whatever the materials, you're looking at a minimum of $100k for materials, and then the rest is labor and other expenses (like delivery, excavation, etc).

Even a "manufactured home" (think: doublewide) costs something like $80-$100k before delivery these days.
I'm just sharing thoughts on why people shouldn't be scared from AI since it won't be replacing their work any time soon and how they can leverage it.
Yes. If you don;t know what you're doing things can seem difficult and you will have problems. This is not a property of the autotools but a property of life in general.
I set up my first nodejs backend project on an ec2 instance with pm2 almost 9 years ago. I've also been toying with an instant deploy pipeline that takes advantage of its watch and restart.
It doesn’t sound hard for LLMs to act as a domain-computer bridge.
This is quite interesting because I've specifically tried this kind of basic ensembling for my NYT Connections benchmark and it didn't work. This is something everybody would try first before more complicated multi-step prompting, and yet since ChatGPT 3.5 I'm not aware of any papers showing that it works. It will be interesting to reproduce this result and learn more about how they set it up to make it work.
An update on rust/coreutils. (2022)
Adobe is still used in the southwest sometimes, and works fine.

Saves somewhat on the materials, but a lot of the cost is labor and things like plumbing, electrical, etc.
At least he took his time, researched, shared his findings and did not insult anybody. While you have “tl;dr” and called him idiot. Great.
Absolutely. I’ve been a customer for many years and it’s always been a pleasure to interact with such a simple, transparent and “to the point” UI. The fact that they are a tiny team also bumps it up the list for me.
Yes, but it shouldn't take +35 years to change the default to the correct behavior.
GNU M4 was released several years before the relevant POSIX standard.
No, you have been played. Signing a contract, any contract without previously seeing it... ask any lawyer how good of an idea is that.

Its doesnt matter what mumbo jumbo they come up with, if you cave to peer pressure then accept the risks. Or vote with your wallet.
Obviously, more people are going to read it.

It is like putting a stupid face on your youtube video to show how shocked and amazed you are at the content.
A friend of mine has a small office. At one time he used names of alcoholic beverages and put the corresponding bottle on top of each desktop.

I use names of painters I like at home: Goya, Mondrian, Repin.
You don't have any more control over your content or account on Instagram than you did on Twitter. Trusting Meta to be a good steward of your identity is bound to be a losing bet in the long run. Consider joining the Fediverse. Mastodon is turning out to be a much better place to build a community. Or Pixelfed instead of Instagram.
I created a Node.js binding for sd-notify to cover at least some of the use case here: https://github.com/systemd/node-sd-notify
Well, only "pure" in the sense no IO effect happens. I doubt mentioned library neglects state or global variables
The scope of a domain is defined by its bounds. Expressed mathematically the bounds can be expressed using any variable type that can enclose an area or a field of elements or sets. The range of the bounds can extend to infinity. An abstract unspecifued domain may have no associated elements, sets or operators.
My two computers are named ‘spaghetti’ and ‘potato’. Although I think broke the rules of the linked article because potato is named after its bulky case and relative weight compared to spaghetti.
Trying to unwind after work, end up running a startup into the ground .. that was stress in very condensed form.
It also can't in general deduce whether the abstract and the implementation match, as doing so would require solving the equivalence problem (which is undecidable for anything as or more powerful than pushdown automata).
Interesting story. Thanks for posting.

Unfortunately AWS's complexity and cleverness is catnip for developers, and its support for résumé-driven development is second to none.
What's interesting is that each run of the model tends to converge to a different "local maximum" in the solution space, and some of these local maxima correspond to better performance than others. By running the model multiple times, we increase the chances of finding a higher-quality local maximum or even the absolute best solution.

This got me thinking: why is this ensembling step implemented as a higher-level abstraction on top of the base LLM, rather than being built directly into the neural network architecture and training process itself?
There is ABSOLUTELY no way in H-HADES that exposing ME to those evil, creepy creatures from the depths hell could benefit a soul. ESPECIALLY not if they are close to me when trying it. I have run through a campfire (completely missing the long steel rods being used to roast hotdogs, but just by a few inches). I have twice lost clothing IN PUBLIC over thinking one was on me (and proved to anyone looking at the crazy screaming psycho lady that you absolutely can manage to fall out of a shirt without ever touching it! I have screamed in such a horror movie way when I picked up a dog bowl only to end up with a handful of one single, HUGE, BLACK SPIDER, that my husband came running ready to shoot something/someone. There is absolutely nothing that will ever make me believe this thing they say. Also, spiders ARE a threat. Almost all of them are venomous (while the venom may be more dangerous to flies than me, seeing them makes me dangerous because I know they have venom!) and so everyone remembers here is a giant spider eating a possum!
https://youtu.be/cuKfAFI19pg?si=IpD20_abla1XAffk
Definitely, I was only making the point that even reducing UNIX === GNU/Linux is kind of myopic.
Efficient caching exists when caching makes sense, layers are meaningfully cached.

What most people need but don't use is base layers that are upstream of their code repo and released regularly, not at each commit.

Containerisation has made reproducible environments so easy that people want to reproduce it at each CI run, a bit too much.
My experience is: Downtime does matter.

Customers ignore downtime when you're a service with big lock-in or no real alternative (GitHub, Facebook, etc). Because then they can't do anything about it.

When you're a small/medium service, and you're down for 3 hours during a time where 4 employees of a company need you for productive work, they ask what's up, and if they must expect that this will happen again. Generally, shorter, one-off downtimes are forgiven, but longer or recurring ones are not.

We run on Hetzner dedicated, and I think the best way to run most sensible software is to run on 3 or 5 beefy machines. If you only have 1 machine, the following will take you down, all of which have happened in my production systems (except the last, which I only read about in the news for 3 hosters):

* You need to reboot for kernel security updates. A reboot causes 3 minutes downtime because that's how long a reboot takes on server hardware, including Hetzner's (multiple POST style screens, netboot timeouts and so on, most of which make sense). Kernel updates come in approximately every 3 weeks. You may skip some of them that are not security-relevant for you, but this requires careful analysis, which is more effort than just installing.

* The mainboard dies. It needs to be replaced. Immediately causes 3 hours of downtime.

* Some disk or RAM dies in a way that prevents the mainboard from booting. This should not happen, but it does. Also 3 hours of downtime.

* One of these happens at 1 am on Saturday. You are in Europe or Asia. If you are not set up to be paged out of bed, your US customer will see 8 hours of downtime.

* The top-of-rack or datacenter building core router has some trouble, and it takes the hoster 3 hours to fix it. 3 hours of downtime.

* There's a fire or sprinkler flooding in your data center. It takes the hoster 2 weeks to clean up the physical mess. 2 weeks of downtime, unless you manage to re-build the infra somewhere else and restore from backups, then maybe 48 hours of downtime.

Note most of this also applies if you run a single VM in AWS. If you're lucky, the restore times will be faster by being a VM. But that is not guaranteed; I've had instances not do their work for some hours and afterwards got the email "We noticed a problem with the physical host of your VM, we've automatically migrated it somewhere else now".

Most of these problems go away if you have 3 servers (of the type the original post describes) instead of one, which is only slightly more effort.
Surely it's pretty common everywhere to have at some point a suspect ('solved!') who is then released, because you lack evidence, realise it's not them, whatever. A suspect isn't necessarily convicted even if you do ultimately convict someone.
Okay, that's a fair critique, let it not be said I can't admit when I'm wrong. I shouldn't have used `curry` as a verb there, as my point was about the concept of currying rather than the specific curry function.

My mistake there doesn't negate my larger point, but I've gotta go touch grass.
If Google could release Gemini with a straight face, is it so hard to believe that this shadowy org might fail in an even subtler way?

Patrick McKenzie observes elsewhere that criminal orgs operate more or less like non-criminal ones — by committee and by consensus. By that light, it’s not so hard to fathom why this ship could have been sunk by performance degradation arising from feature bloat. Companies I’ve worked at have made more amateurish mistakes.
This particular author is really being hypocritical here.

She has repeatedly petitioned sites to remove legal content she finds objectionable[1], and then is thoroughly confused when her own content is given the same treatment.

She isn't making the argument that mainstream social/media sites have too much power, she is making the argument that her opinions should not be silenced but other people's opinions should.

It is impossible for a rational person to support anyone who wants to silence opposing viewpoints.

[1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-IFF6pyxKkgG3CWuyNmZVE8L...
Say you are dealing with a callback mechanism that takes a function and (only) one value to pass:

function c(f, v) { ... f(v) ... }

But what you actually need this callback mechanism to call is a function that takes two arguments. No default values.

function f2(a, b) { ... }

There's no way in js that c is going to call f2 and set its b parameter to something. You can't set v to be a tuple so b will be filled:

c(f2, "value") => b will be undefined.

c(f2, [1, 2]) => a will be set to [1, 2].

you need to wrap f2 for this when calling c:

function wrapf2(b) { return f2("fixed a", b) }

Or you can make c deconstruct v, or use apply:

function c(f, v) { ... f(...v) ... }
function c(f, v) { ... f.apply(null, v) ... }

but then v always needs to be an array:

c(f, [1])
c(f, [1, 2])

c(f, 1) // fails

This is why in Javascript, multi-arity is different from unary with tuples. JS doesn't have tuples as a primitive / first-class type anyway. In some math notations we don't make the difference, but in most programming languages there's a distinction. Your model where functions are always unary but can take tuples, and (v) is the same as v, is correct (and useful when the distinction doesn't matter and is just annoying to deal with), but doesn't match the way many programming languages actually work. I believe even in most functional programming languages, (v) is different from v, you also said it.

In assembly, different parameters are in fully separate registers or stack entries. Interestingly, you could imagine representing tuples as C structs (that can have only one member) and always pass structs, and passing a one-member struct will actually have the exact same effect as passing a value of a primitive type.
As an engineer, this would help me alot while i do freelancing, and the design is smooth and fancy, kudos
I can't believe people think this guy is anything other than utterly full of shit and a fraud.

That quote is totally moronic as usual.

I would even say I don't want to read anything by anyone who thinks Zizek has anything interesting to say. Instant block or else I may become infected by the stupidity.
The Accelerating Divide in the Age of AI
Differentiale search indices go into this direction: https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.06991

The approach in the paper has rough edges, but the metrics are bonkers (double digit percentage POINTS improvement over dual encoders). This paper was written before the LLM craze, and I am not aware of any further developments in that area. I think that this area might be ripe for some break through innovation.
I am not a cheap-ass developer. I believe that thinking economically is a fundamental facet of engineering, and if you are not thinking economically, you may be doing something, but it’s not engineering. Like the sibling commenter, I am delighted to pay for something that brings value and saves time. Not like I ever considered building my own billing system, anyway…
Indeed...bought AMD shares on the bet that they'll catch up.

However this is still true only in a fairly narrow space - inference - once you stray off that very narrow path they're still a fair bit behind
You might want to mention that it is a "data modelling tool" somewhere in the description text, as some of your target users will definitely use that term to search for such a solution...
Fourier basis is unique in that the complex exponential basis functions are the eigen vectors of the linear time invariant (LTI) systems. No other transform has this property. Many real world systems (circuits, communication channels, antennas, etc) are LTI. This property make sure for example, signals transmitted over different frequencies do not interfere. That is why Fourier transform is so useful and used instead of other transforms. There is also the connection with quantum physics, in using Fourier pair as wave functions of position and momentum, which other transforms don’t have.
Commercial insurances will also often pay for risk improvement works and assessments for their customers' businesses on the basis that it will reduce the incidences of claims and/or reduce the cost of claims if they do arise.

> At the risk of getting political, (governmental) healthcare is another one, where regular checkups can save you thousands in repair. It might look like a subsidy but in the end it becomes a net-benefit for everyone in the pool.

This is part of the theory behind the Affordable Care Act and its subsidies, in that the more people who have health insurance, the bigger and more diverse the pool, it becomes a win-win-win for insurers (bigger pool = good, more money, more customers, more profit) consumers (health insurance = healthier, better life) and the government and country overall (healthy population = better long term prospects for the country).

Of course, true universal healthcare programmes like the NHS simply abstract that away by removing the profit incentive entirely, cutting the insurers out of the equation and turning it into a more straightforward "the government pays for healthcare because a sick population is just a plain bad thing". It's as such not really a "risk pool" or "insurance" in any real sense, because the amount you pay into the system is completely disconnected from your risk of drawing out of it (and indeed, given the correlation of poor health and low income, likely inversely proportional).
According to their code, they used temperature 1. https://anonymous.4open.science/r/more_agent_is_all_you_need...
> Don't worry about what some plug-in code might do to your program. Extism is built with security as a core principle, and fully sandboxes the execution of all plug-in code.

I find the wording a bit off here. Responsible security involves transparency along the supply chain and minimum trust, certainly not talking about worries and giving them up with ease.
Given how many different companies now offering hosted Postgres it must be a challenging market to compete in.

People get dragged into the big cloud when they start using one service or the other, moving the database if for no other reason than to minimize latency seems smart.

I do agree with other people on here that dealing with a laser focused independent company is far preferable than big cluod.