skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> There was no need to invent new technology in 2002 and definitely not in 2024.

Sure we have had roads for hundreds of years but they're not the same ones we have today, even though it's the same concept and function.

You can't just take advantage of the technology we have today and at the same time refuse to acknowledge it and hand-wavingly claim it was just the same in '02. It's easy to say so about anything if we're going to conveniently gloss over the details.

Believe it or not, many technologies that changed the world and we depend on today actually have origin stories similar to the one shared in the article. Many of them started as custom internal tools that I imagine you would've been similarly critical towards them for trying to invent new technology needlessly.
The problem with pkg-config is that it's really really broken for cross builds. Meson depends on pkg-config so it's inappropriate for cross builds. It doesn't even pretend to support Canadian crosses.

CMake works for cross builds, as long as the company has ported their proprietary CMake program to build for your target or you supply your own hand-rolled tools file and trick it into using that.

Autotools works for cross building right out of the box almost every time.
Oh apologies, thanks for clarifying
Most backdoors that are found are really obvious garbage. Like hardcoded credentials or keys in appliances.
> origin of symmetry

Muse, anyone?
Solana Foundation Says It Can Filter Through the Offensive Meme Coin Problem
Well you’re right that LLM tooling is totally inadequate. At least we already have beam search. But the more boring answer (and why beam search is also uncommon) is that running the query multiple times is more expense.
An insurance mutual's goal is still revenue. Your own link spells it out - it still tries to make a profit, it's just that whatever profit arises gets redistributed to policy holders or others. It still has to respond to commercial pressures and the need to run a sustainable business in the same way as any firm.

It's a common misconception that co-operatives/mutuals somehow don't need to make money or will actively try to not make money, but in reality if they don't they tend to die fairly quickly.
Touchscreen shifter makes me think of all those accident with Cherokee shifter. https://jalopnik.com/heres-the-problem-with-jeeps-recalled-g...

How do you signal, is it also on touchscreen, I couldn’t find reference.
Which brings us to the question of whether the complex numbers are real, despite them not being real numbers.

This question has a long and fascinating history.
What I meant by it is "the fine article", meaning the post. Actually using acronyms goes against "Don't assume knowledge", incidentally a point in Eva's list (the article).

I've learned the acronym here on HN, googled for a second and found "the fine article" as explanation, but now that you ask I've checked wiktionary... and apparently the commonly accepted meaning is derogatory (the f*king article, like "RTFM", "read the F-ing manual).

Lesson learned, won't be saying "TFA" again unless I mean f-ing
In the UK, car insurance companies have actually been loss-making recently, despite car insurance being mandatory. It's not a guarantee of profit, especially not given how hyper-competitive the car insurance market is here.
Not really.
Two different websites will not serve the same purpose.

But if I need to use word on some other machine, lest it requires to log into some account which I don't think should be required... The UI better be streamlined.

The same way google sheet and microsoft word are not too dissimilar. That's for a good reason.
That part, I do not get. Do they mean it permits a rewrite? But all sentences do.
> This is what I'm after. If too extreme then a tax point that sets the desired ratio of individual vs corporate owned housing units. That ratio should be 100% individual owned imo but I'd be happy with people at least legislating something on the issue.

There are tons of people who simply don't have hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy a condo and don't have good enough credit to get a loan. They need somewhere to live, so they rent.

And converting units to condos doesn't really reduce prices, because you still have the same number of residents and the same number of housing units. To lower prices you have to increase supply, the actual number of housing units, not just how people are paying for them.

> Then don't tax payments on principal or interest.

Now the landlord puts all the profit into principal to avoid the tax until the building is paid off, then sells it and buys another one. And if that isn't allowed then you're back to paying down principal being pointless and the rent stays high but goes to the lender.

> But we would have successfully cut out a middleman with means, motivation, and opportunity to squeeze via anticompetitive practices. Having individuals negotiate rates with a bank is a much better situation than facing price fixed rents.

The incentive is still there, you just move it around. The landlord still wants scarcity because they want the market value of their building to increase, because they can profit by borrowing more against the increase in value or by selling it to another landlord who takes a bigger loan. And now you've made the banks even more in favor of real estate prices going up because they get more interest now and loan amounts are closer to property values so they have more risk of defaults if property values go down.

> I'm still granting that some amount of fees be charged to the tenants for shared resources (hallways, elevators, etc), so there is room for some money to be made, but that too should be closely monitored.

This is the same problem as cost-plus pricing. Normally businesses want to reduce costs, now you've given them the incentive to waste as much money as possible so their cut seems like a reasonable percentage and award contracts to cronies etc.

The problem is not that landlords charge rent. The problem is that landlords lobby to restrict housing supply -- and so do homeowners, because they want home values to go up once they already own one.
Please do. I personally won’t use it otherwise.
I remember falling asleep in a rural house when I was a kid and some loud metallic screeching noise woke me up. I listened, but it was gone. A minute later the noise repeated. I turned on the lamp. Right in front of my nose, on the edge of a blanket that covered my face, sat a bug and slowly wiggled his antennae.
Did any processor implement an integer square root instruction?
Please do however long it takes.
Money is more expensive now. Inflation was over 4% for a while.
I’m not sure what a mathematical approach _without_ structuralism would look like. Like, if you consider the operations created by combining the rotations and flips of a triangle, and the set of permutations of the letters A,B and C, it’s pretty obvious they’re isomorphic and also obvious that they’re different. My question is: is there a mathematically useful way of expressing that difference?

Or to put it a different way, I’m not sure anything interesting is being said here.
https://itsjustpostgres.com

;)
Just to give a bit perspective and with total respect - entry level. Most have little idea of the cost involved in semi-pro and pro products. But its a decent option and recommendation.
Back in 2020, so that's 4 years of active development on both tools since then. Both tools have different scopes though (cf my other comment in the thread).
Yeah, it's a very difficult situation. Either few people from younger generation will have access to affordable housing and even fewer will own a home, or we cause a lot of misery and hardship like during the 2008 crash, but for even longer. Hard to tell which is the lesser evil.
Hi, as someone who has been interested in functional programming for a while but who struggled to read point-free Haskell code until recently, I think it might be useful to share my perspective.

gears = filter ((==2) . length)
. map (neighbouringNumbers numbers)
$ filter ((=='*') . fst) symbols

If this Haskell code does not look clear, it's because people are unfamiliar with point-free style, not because the this code is badly written, and especially not because the reader is stupid.

The given Haskell code reads naturally to me now. (I'm only a little uncertain because I can't write Haskell.) It would have been line noise to me before before point-free style clicked.

I tend to read Haskell code in articles from right to left, and it reads: "Choose the symbols whose first letter is '*', get their respective (neighboringNumbers numbers), and choose the results whose length is 2". I read (neighboringNumbers numbers) as if it were a noun.

I don't know how this clicked, but I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with stupidity. Perhaps it was by chance, or perhaps it was by banging my head against the wall enough times.

Would I introduce point-free style in a JS codebase? Probably not. People are unfamiliar with this kind of style. Would I introduce this style in a Haskell codebase? Almost certainly, because it's clear and I think it reflects how Haskell programmers think.
"However, the "antibandito humps" had a second usefulness, so much so that it received a second name: that of the "pissotte" or "pissabraghe": in addition to preventing criminals from hiding from their prey, it's said that the inclined casts of mortar also had the task to maintain a certain public decorum and therefore prevent Venetians from urinating in the corners of the calli."
The weather isn’t magic either. It’s produced by physical mechanisms. But everyone would probably agree that a model simulating some rough aggregate of those mechanisms isn’t “weather” itself.

On the other hand. Take that weather model and render its output into a stereoscopic 3D world with photorealistic particle systems and whatever. To someone wearing a Vision Pro or similar high-def VR headset, the model is now “the weather” in the system their senses occupy. It’s missing a lot of actual sensory cues — the rain isn’t wet, the wind won’t chill your skin, and so on. But it’s close enough for some convincing applications. A caveman with no experience with technology would undoubtedly believe himself transported into a different world with real weather.

LLMs are a bit like that now. Their simulation abilities took such a sudden leap, we’re like cavemen wearing headsets.
m4 comes from an ancient lineage of macro processors going back to the early 1960s. There’s a nice summary of the history in the m4 manual, https://www.gnu.org/software/m4/manual/html_node/History.htm...

A big weirdness is that argument separators are identified after macros in the argument list have been expanded, which makes it difficult to understand a macro invocation by itself.

The POSIX specification seems to erroneously say that arguments are not subject to macro expansion https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/m... whereas the 7th edition manual clearly says they are https://man.cat-v.org/unix_7th/1/m4
I think the reference should have been to Kirby
Not a good comparison - you can also choose to go without buying a house, its a very US thing to measure success in life with such (massively incorrect) yardstick.
Sometimes I think it could be someone who was forced to embed the backdoor but was smart enough to make it detectable by others without raising suspicion by the entity that was forcing him.
My reading of what laeri wrote is "you seem to be proud of the work you did on that project so I'm not sure what is hindering you from talking about it".
Not "you seem to be proud of not talking about it".
People are moving from poor areas to rich areas, from villages to cities, which is actually bad for both cities (overpopulation) and villages (dying out). Half of my parents' village is just empty houses. Meanwhile prices in the city 2h drive away are unimaginably high.

Look at detailed population density map of any developed country across time. Nobody wants to live in villages, everyone comes to big cities, preferably the capital.
What does m4 get right that Tcl does not?
Currying is only a part of the functional programming stack. It can make your life easier when you combine it with other functional programming techniques like tacit programming. e.g. you have a function with a very long arguments list and dont want to write the arguments over and over again, but still dont want to define an additional function.

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

https://medium.com/@jesterxl/real-world-uses-of-tacit-progra...

when you use tacit programming and currying together you can write code in a "bash-like" pipe style which not only makes the program more readable but also is less error prone.

https://wiki.haskell.org/Pointfree
>Very large companies are definitely at the mercy of governments.

Thankfully! At least in a democracy, the government is chosen, megacorps are accountable to no one else.
PM2 is very good and I really wonder why it's still somewhat unknown.

People complaining that Node.js only use one CPU core, or benchmarks with low scores for Node.js. There are solutions for this! PM2 is one of them and is very good. Use it.
For some reason I thought Docker Swarm was abandoned. From the Docker docs,

> Docker Swarm mode is built into the Docker Engine. Do not confuse Docker Swarm mode with Docker Classic Swarm which is no longer actively developed.
"To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child"

Marcus Tullius Cicero, 1st century BCE
NSO Pegasus has existed for years without all of their exploits being detected.

You have to remember there is a lot of code in our systems. And almost every developer is inadequately trained on how to write secure software.
Gaetano Pesce, Designer Who Broke the Rules, Is Dead at 84
Progress also suggests that there is a single better destination we are tracking toward.

The concept is a quaint, 1950s oversimplification.
https://archive.ph/Z1wOP
As soon as you add postgres SQL import this will be my daily driver!
(I've been looking for a tool like this many times)
Sounds like an authentic experience. Now you can lose data to btrfs on Windows too :-D
How can I get an invitation code?
> Because possibly you return the partial assuming it's a number, and try to use it somewhere else, possibly even in another file.

Sorry, I must've been more explicit instead of implying certain usage patterns. What I meant here is that I have a hard time imagining this happening because I would start working on a function by writing its type signature. Unless my types check out, I won't be able to mark this function as "done" and jump to another part of code. So the situation "you return the partial assuming it's a number" simply can not happen, that's exactly what type checking is for. By the time I use it in another place, it has to already have been type checked.
Are you suggesting all restaurants filter out fluoride from the water they use?
Yeah it was disappointing. The 'springy' ones are easier to debug.
'I'm in intense pain': Vahid Beheshti passes 70 days on UK hunger strike
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t this how suse, red hat, databricks etc work? They offer useful open source tools and make money to sustain development by offering service around those tools.

I could be totally wrong but that is my understanding of some of these projects.
DO runs your app pretty much as is with few modifications. Think npx next init; git commit; git push; so it ain’t hard to migrate. You end up doing the same stuff you would have done on day 1.
This is just more woo woo.

Just because something is unmeasurable doesn’t mean it cannot be proven wrong.

Just because something is derived from philosophy doesn’t mean it cannot be proven to be wrong in the real world.

> Science can only help us understand things within spacetime. Anything beyond that is philosophy.

Even if one takes this statement to be correct, it doesn’t imply that any specific philosophical idea about “beyond space time” is correct.

And frankly even the “philosophy” of an after life can easily be dispensed with. There’s absolutely no reason to suggest an after life, or a duality between the body and “identity” exists other than “we would like to believe so”.

It’s not just awful science but also bad philosophy.
On 2024-02-29, a PR was sent to stop linking liblzma into libsystemd [0].

Kevin Beaumont speculated [1] that "Jia Tan" saw this and immediately realized it would have neutered the backdoor and thus began to rush to avoid losing the very significant amount of work that went into this exploit; I think he's right. That rush caused the crashing seen in 5.6.0 and the lack of polish which could have eliminated or reduced the performance regressions which were the entire reason this was caught in the first place; they simply didn't have the time because the window had started to close and they didn't want all their work to be for nothing.

[0]: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/31550

[1]: https://doublepulsar.com/inside-the-failed-attempt-to-backdo...
It really depends on the area and builders and buyers - around here 30 years puts you right into the last building boom, so the average house from then isn’t necessarily well build, and is much worse from an energy/HVAC viewpoint.
It's the default on all current Synology NAS boxes, and has been for quite a while.
Imagine a truck covered in ads ...
I worked for a few banks starting in the 1980’s. It was all MVS. End user applications were created using CICS and IMS. What we used to call OLTP (online transaction processing).
No. One uses Linux plus mingw to cross build for a Windows host.

./configue --build=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --host=x86_64-pc-mingw64

It usually magically just works, as long as the project author has a clue about portability. That's generally the limiting factor.
Freak winds kill three people by sucking them out of apartment windows in China
How much for a layman to dig his own sewer connection? How much for a layman to run out his gas connection? How much for a layman to install a modern breaker? How much for a layman to know what code to even follow?

Reasoning from first principles is great but building a modern code-compliant house isn't going to be possible for a layperson without guidance every step of the way. Move fast and break stuff isn't going to fly in real construction.
I always found it so strange how the top comments on blogposts like this are trying to answer the ‘question’ without engaging with the article at all.

Do they and the people upvoting them not realize that it’s a blog post?
Primary architect of Ubicloud PostgreSQL here. Thanks a lot for shout out!

I'd be happy to answer if anyone has any questions about our managed service.
Controversial Opinions of Software Engineers Tier List
Like a password manager, it autofills in browsers?
Let's Compute – Issues 1 to 12 (1990-1991)
Sure, but I suspect some guy building some home for himself in some tropical paradise has different construction needs than most of the folks here, including me. We have snow in the winter for example, which changes literally everything. And then there is whole world of regulations for given country, Seychelles probably have 10% of the complexity and requirements of typical G7 country. Also, if that guy is doing electricity by himself he is a (dangerous) fool.

As I said - it takes 10 professionals easily a year to build something. It simply does. Just check how their daily work looks like - its messy just like other types of projects, you have unforeseen problems, people drop sick or injured, suppliers can fail to deliver things on time etc.

From IT world - the stuff I hack together in a week takes altogether to bring live 6 months easily, since initial dev is rather small part of it. So maybe adjust your expectations to reality, its not gonna adjust to you.
Remove one enemy and another must be invented.
Just spawn more processes. Great solution! /s
Sounds anti-competitive.
A more brutal design would be news in plaintext.
The LLM would have to be trained on the local data. Not impossible, but maybe too costly?
"Cybersecurity is broken because of the lack of consequences."

If I may after few decades in - add in or change for competence.

Most often my team and I test apps that have been verified by multiple parties and we still find juicy stuff. Not always, but most often.

Here's the kicker - most important ones aren't about the tech, but the business part of it (validations, processes, flow and so on).

If I could make a very generic recommendation for most - check the logic and business first then make sure the tech is decent.

In business - make sure you include people and management.
The article mentions that too, although as a secondary explanation for some reason.

> it's said that the inclined casts of mortar also had the task to maintain a certain public decorum and therefore prevent Venetians from urinating in the corners of the calli.
In classical mechanics the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulations are mostly equivalent (though, confusingly the Lagrangian formulation is due to Hamilton, who has shown that the Lagrange equations can be derived from a variational principle, while the complete Hamiltonian formulation is due to some later phycisists; for what has become the Hamiltonian formulation, Hamilton has shown only how to obtain the system of first order equations from the system of second order equations, but that had already been done before by Cauchy in 1831 in a journal that few were reading, so it was ignored).

Still, in classical mechanics some consider the Hamiltonian formulation to be more fundamental, because the first order equations can be applicable to some problems that have discontinuities incompatible with second-order equations, though such problems are artificial (real systems are continuous enough, strong discontinuities appear only through approximations).

However this changes completely in relativistic mechanics, where the Hamiltonian is not invariant, while the Lagrangian is a relativistic invariant quantity.

This makes the Lagrangian formulation a far better choice in relativistic mechanics and it is a strong argument to consider the Lagrangian formulation as the fundamental one and the Hamiltonian formulation as only an approximation that can be used at small velocities or only as a mathematical trick for numeric solutions.

When the Lagrangian formulation is used, after a coordinate system is chosen, it is always possible to use the Legendre transformation to obtain a Hamiltonian system of first order equations. However, in the relativistic case the system depends on the coordinate system. Therefore, if the coordinate system is changed, the Hamiltonian equations must be derived again from the invariant Lagrangian formulation.

The reason why the Lagrangian is a relativistic invariant is that this scalar value is the projection of the energy-momentum 4-vector on the trajectory curve in space-time. The Hamiltonian is just the temporal component of the 4-vector, which is changed by any coordinate transformation. Therefore L is more fundamental than H, in the same sense that the magnitude of a vector is more fundamental than any of the components that the vector happens to have in some particular coordinate system.

The traditional formulation of the quantum mechanics using H is a serious inconvenience for extending it to the relativistic case. Coherent formulations of the relativistic quantum mechanics must also use L instead of H.