skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I picked up a car from a mechanic the other day and we got to riffing about my own Tesla. He admitted to having friends that worked at Tesla on the manufacturing line. In his own words, these guys are “complete idiots,” and “do shrooms before assembling cars.”

I want to take his words with a grain of salt, but…I kinda believe it. Obviously hearsay means nothing, though.
It's only bad news if you don't want a dangerously superintelligent AI.
Note catching exceptions too close to where they are thrown is as much of a risk as catching them too far away.

I have dealt with so much Scala code that is just too clever. Like the kind that tries to parallelize a trivial task but has race conditions anyway and doesn't use all the CPUs. You can spend two days trying to fix it or you can finish the job in 20 minutes with the ExecutorService.
The Untold Story of the First U.S.-Based Nuclear Spy and How He Got Away with It
> Modules for solar farms have been getting larger and heavier, but the maximum size/weight has traditionally been limited by what human workers can heft into place.

Are there installers that actually use humans to lift solar panels onto racking on solar field projects? I figured everyone was using vacuum pump panel lifters instead of humans these days as it’s much faster and less prone to injury.

One example: https://unimove.com/lift/solar-panels/

These can easily be fabbed up by a single person, it’s just some steel and a couple vacuum pumps.
If TCP had a protocol specific identifier for connections (a couple of 32-bit values, for example-- a client nonce and server nonce) rather than using the source/destination IP addresses multi-homed hosts and seamless transition between different networks would become native features of the protocol. A client could roam between two different IP networks and TCP connections would "survive", for example. (I'm oversimplifying nearly to the point of hyperbole, to be sure...)

(Another fun future would have been one where SCTP got widespread adoption.)
are really none of those defaulted? i kinda fiugred that example was just setting it's defaults to match the iperf defaults
yep, that’s the right answer I think. See what I said: big shots don’t HAVE to be disruptive like relocating the family to a foreign country. (Though many people do that every day)
Many things that are not 'technology related' are on-topic on HN, 'why is this on HN' comments are off-topic. Both of these are in the site docs.
Yeah, it's a great place to start. I took the time to implement streaming reads/write via npgsql's client support for it (it can stream records, and of course the Lob storage is broken into page sized rows) and performance is pretty darn good.
Who would you accept as a credible source? Will it be from any of the people complicit in what's being testified to in an official government senate hearing?
My dad spent a few years in the pokey, I experienced relief on learning this australiaism.
Soap in the glue joint between the accelerator pedal and its cover. You won't cause this by cleaning your car with soap
The following statements are not mutually exclusive:

- things are better than they were

- things could be better than they are
>> proprietary software is not evil. It’s just inferior.

> Based on these statements the author would have you believe there is no value in commercial/proprietary software and we should just never develop it.

Do you believe that there is no value in inferior products and that they should never be developed?

I certainly don't, and it's clear to me that the Carrez does not, either.

If I have the option, and can afford to do so, I will select the superior product. But if there is no option, or I cannot afford the superior product, I will accept the inferior one and be better off than if I had no product at all.
Could you explain what you mean by

> Tasks that are very context specific or require fine-tuning. For instance, if you're making a RAG system for medical documents, the embedding space is best when it creates larger deviations for the difference between seemingly-related medical words.

(sorry I'm very new to ML stuff :))
For me it was a situation where I've never heard of another case, so I guess highly anecdotal, but can see how it might have applied to millions of regular old Ford ICE cars that were on the road.

At one end of the accelerator linkage is the "user interface" (gas pedal) and at the other end it's the entire V8 engine. Where the linkage connects directly to the throttle using optimized leverage and failure-mitigating springs that can overcome a number of foreseeable failure scenarios. Which had gradually been improved since the Model T and through the entire Space Age.

Runaway acceleration wasn't a problem with the pedal.

Engine was running properly too. And the linkage was perfect.

Well the engine is heavy and is not bolted directly to the frame of the car, instead it uses motor mounts, which consist of a metal plate which bolts to the motor, and an opposite plate that bolts to the frame, separated by a thick hard rubber shock absorbing pad.

Motor mounts are doing some of their isolation duty when you see an idling engine under the hood shimmying a little while the fenders and hood are nicely stationary.

Anyway it took years to figure out because it happened so seldom, and the cause & effect were so widely separated in time, but one day while navigating a jeep trail the engine had bottomed out, and that must have been the time one of the motor mounts separated, while the engine was momentarily forced an inch or more away from its normal position.

Nothing ever seemed any different, but every once in while when I would accelerate from a stop, the pedal would drop almost to the floor and it would really take off until I got my foot under the pedal and pulled it back.

Turns out the torque was occasionally capable of twisting the engine in the direction away from the broken mount, enough to be pulling on the linkage, opening the throttle further, and resulting in more torque. Might have had something to do with the octane of the gasoline in use.

I guess at either end of the linkage you want the rubber to be bonded to the metal a lot better than you might think at first.
The author is not so much against proprietary software, as bait-and-switch tactics that present software as open source.

> Anyone who truly thinks that software developed by a diverse set of actors working in an open collaboration is not better should just adopt the proprietary model. But they should be honest about it.
> How do you check important information, when it's all wrong?

It's not very helpful to say that it's all wrong. It isn't the case, otherwise there would not be any issue. Whether the right answer is produced by reasoning or a statistical model does not take the answer not-right.
For me, neither side needs to 'win' but people should understand the facts on ground when they adopt a project for their needs. "Open Source" isn't the full story, you need to consider the motivations or potential motivations of a project's backers.

I think there's a real grievance to be had by projects that were formerly open source, solicited contributions from non-paid volunteers, and then change licensing models. Maybe those people were ill-informed, and shouldn't have contributed in the first place, and this article is trying to publicize the ramifications of a projects stewardship.
the difference is that in catch (Error e), you're actually catching the Error type, the superclass of exception

in Either<Error, Foo>, Error is not that, it's usually a sealed class with the full range of things that can go wrong with that thing, no more, no less, eg

sealed class ChangePasswordErrors {
class NotAuthenticated() : ChangePasswordErrors()
class ChangePasswordError() : ChangePasswordErrors()
class ReusedPassword() : ChangePasswordErrors()
}

or whatever (but I could have made that clearer)

and no, languages should not add weird syntax to deal with Either, Option, Try etc. Just call map, flatMap, fold.
Tesla is a public company. If the board doesn't think Elon Musk is worth that amount of money, they don't have to pay it to him, and have the incentive not to -- the shareholders would get to keep the money instead. But maybe he is worth that amount of money; he's a one-man marketing machine and owns a major social media company that can influence the public perception of the company. That could very well be worth that amount of money to the company over a period of years -- and it isn't a single year's compensation.

So then we're back to it being a competitive market. If the company gets e.g. $60B in value from having Elon Musk, and he knows this and demands $56B, the company can either pay the market price or have a net loss of $4B relative to the alternative. And then have even less money to pay employees.

Or maybe he isn't worth that much and if the shareholders give it to him then it's costing the company money. But then that's maladaptive and the company will lose business to some other company that pays its executives less and uses the money to lower the price of their cars and gain a competitive advantage while still paying the market rate for other types of labor.

Either way it doesn't change the market price for those other types of labor, which are much easier to estimate than the value of certain unusual executives.
> That you would deride Wittgenstein on a math/CS forum, when he is literally the person who thought up the concept of truth tables, seems quite egregious.

That would be Charles Peirce, in the XIXth century, not Wittgenstein.
That isn't the witty riposte that it is apparently thought to be. It really does "explain away" consciousness by reducing it to plausible physical processes. This reduction also applies to things like qualia, which is where nonmaterialists get upset as qualia (or equivalents) are also invoked by people like Nagel and Chalmers to argue against the physicality of consciousness.

The core argument from Nagel / Chalmers is that that there is a subjective element to consciousness which has no physical explanation. The reasoning for this is always an appeal to intuition. If you accept that there is "something that it is like" to see red, be a bat, etc, and that the "something that it is like" is above and beyond the physical processes of the brain -- the firing of neurons -- then you by definition cannot accept a purely physical explanation of consciousness. Dennett's book argues that this is mystical nonsense (or, charitably, wishful thinking) and the "something that it is like" is simply what happens when particular types of physical processes occur in the brain.

It's no surprise, therefore, that "explained away" is a criticism if you're a nonmaterialist. But if you're a materialist, then "explained away" is actually a good thing and the purpose of the book.
The shareholders would pay for Musk's pay package by having their shares diluted. It's not as if Tesla has to provide any money for that, so it's not really comparable to giving employees a raise.
A recall is a recall. It might be convenient for the customer that the problem can be fixed via software, but it's ultimately irrelevant with respect to the fact that a safety related issue needed to be corrected.
That's true, but in a way this is a good thing for CS students. In schools with analytic philosophy departments, you can expect to find a logician there. So every CS student can stop by their philosophy department and meet the logician, and when they do, they'll find someone who they can connect and communicate with in a similar way that they already (by junior or senior year, certainly) do with their math and CS theory instructors. Yes, they're specialized, but they're still guaranteed to be philosophically literate and they can help bridge some really interesting topics for CS students.

And they probably know other people in the department who teach things that might be interesting to a STEM student even if that student hardly knows it yet.
That's because the majority of Philosophy courses are History of Philosophy courses whereas other logic-oriented fields occupy less time on "History of". While top departments like Princeton still focus on the quality of the arguments, they do devote entire course lengths to readings of ancient philosophers which are less elucidative about logic and reasoning than they are about the History of Philosophy.

In comparison, the Seven Bridges of Konigsberg is a bare introduction in Graph Theory and Hamilton carving quarternions into Broom Bridge is an amusing aside before you get to the meat of the subject. A lecturer might amuse you with Kekule's dream before telling you about a Benzene ring but the ring is the thing, not the dream.

Philosophy is a field with time-translation symmetry but is taught akin to fields without (e.g. Literature, History, Sociology). Fields without TTS need you to build up from the replay log. But fields with TTS can do something far better: they can distill "truths" into snapshots. Consequently, as a child I read about Galois Theory without reading Analyse d’un Mémoire sur la résolution algébrique des équations or a translation thereof.

Conjectures and Refutations shows how to accelerate through a replay log, indexing at key-frames so that we don't need to play every frame to get to the conclusions we're searching for. Good field. Bad practice.
And you also need to see percent of production. Of course Ford is going to have more trucks recalled than Tesla. Tesla has only put a few thousand on the road (trucks ie cybertruck, not cars).
> is that Kant does not specifically depend on Newtonian assumptions but that human perceptions have to be mediated by time and space

I understand the point about mediation, and I tried to speak to it directly in the portion you quoted. You are exactly right about the way Kant uses that in his argument. It's flexible enough that it can be understood as resilient, I think.

I tried show how science can nevertheless speak to it in several ways. One is the convenient equivalence between Kant's necessary conditions and nature as we understood it at the time. That equivalence makes it easier to be comfortable positing time and space as we understand them as necessary conditions that are prior to nature. It would be harder (but not impossible!) to entertain if there was daylight between what we believed our faculties to be and what we believed the natural world to be, if what was "necessary" was something different than what we thought we experienced (such as, say, a singular loaf of unified spacetime). An implication of Kant's view, as I understood him, was that we should be ready to believe it's different anyway, but nevertheless, it's easier to swallow when it perfectly aligns with how we thing the world really is.

Second, for a different way of stating a similar point, if time and space are non-newtonian in some important way, we may have to understand that that is what we experience in the first instance, and we would have to wrestle with the fact that our intuitions may attest to a variety of possible underlying necessary conditions. (Wittgenstein has been mentioned in this thread, so for a paraphrase of something he supposedly said, in reply to a student noting that it looks like the sun goes around the earth: "What would it look like if the earth went around the sun?" So it may be with the nature of our faculties.)

Third, as we gain deeper understanding of brain functions of ourselves and other creatures, we may have inroads to how certain of our conscious experiences depend on conceptual abstractions or models. And if so, it transforms it into an open empirical question rather than one where we are simply stuck presuming necessary conditions. Kant might insist that that is all already through the lense of our faculties such as they are, but we, with more information, would be increasingly comfortable just not entertaining them as we get increasingly robust empirical understandings of conscious experience.

None of these is a "defeater" argument by itself and there's a lot that can be talked about here of course, but I think given 21st century science, if Kant were trying to present his vision for the first time we might find it more challenging to reconcile with what we know of the natural world.
If someone is capable of doing work, and wants to because they'd make more money, what right do you have to prohibit them from doing it just because you can't?
Having done a deep dive in philosophy at one point, the vast majority of it is ego stroking half-nonsense designed to be maximally unintelligible, because academics tolerate ridiculous amounts of jargon and equate hard to understand with meaningful or important. People like Robert Nozick, Thomas Nagel, John Searle and David Chalmers are by far the exception rather than the rule.
Your interview with your fiancée went exactly as it is supposed to. They were able to establish that you do appear to be who you say you are: a British subject, with a native command of English and appropriate cultural knowledge (and thus low risk for sham marriage). Probably worked in a few questions about what museum the two of you liked best from your travels.

I had to explain that to my wife one time when we drove across the land border from Canada. She was asleep, so I had to wake her up and get her to speak (briefly) to the agent. “Why the questions?” she asked me after we were through. “Because your passport says you’re an American citizen born in Texas; you have to sound like an American. For all he knows, I’m trying human traffic someone.”
No one should want this.
it's literally not, I'm sorry but folks who think this (and it's extremely common) simply haven't familiarized themselves with the differences
crabs attacking humans are wasting their time for example

Maybe they enjoy it.
I can't figure it out. I'm only 80% sure it's one of the old drs. ... maybe 60% sure.
> yay oil lobby funding anti-EV right wing media posted on HN

But we must blame the left whenever the right eats itself!

Or maybe we live in a multipolar world?

....nah
Consider a simpler example from basic math. Is 1/x infinite when x==0? The answer is that 1/x is undefined when x==0. In calculus one can take limits as x "approaches" 0 but x==0 is still undefined. Likewise, the Lorentz length contraction is undefined when traveling at c.
Kotlins compiler built in null safety is objectively better than Java's lack of the same

people disagree about that too, it's just that they're wrong
Sad.

J/K. It could be a really good back-end option for Supabase's S3 front end. A lot of PG clients don't support proper "streaming" and looking at the codebase it's TypeScript.. postgres.js is the only client nearing "performant" I'm aware of(last I looked) on Node.js but it's not clear it supports streaming outside "Copy" per the docs. Support could be added to the client if missing.

Edit: Actually it could be a good option for your normal uploads too. Docs talk about it being ideal for 6Mb or smaller files? Are you using bytea or otherwise needing to buffer the full upload/download in memory? Streaming with Lob would resolve that, and you can compute incremental hash sums for etags and etc. Lob has downsides and limitations but for a very large number of people it has many great benefits that can carry them very far and potentially all the way.
A decade each feels much too conservative for the things on Quynh's list, but I like the list itself as an anchoring point for what would make a content life for a great many people. Myself included, because I'm following it successfully!
You can have a low profile and still be a good interviewer and ask good questions. Lex lacks the latter two points, leaving just a terrible show.
“for a company that has done well up until now.”

Haven’t there been widespread complaints about manufacturing defects (poorly-fit panels, unexpected braking, wheels falling off, suspensions collapsing, axles breaking). They tend to rank at or near the bottom in quality surveys. Alfa Romeo comes out ahead of them. Even before Elon Musk’s antics turned me off the idea of buying a Tesla, I held off the possibility of buying one because the price/quality proposition was not great.
My current favorite here is start.me but I’ll give this a whirl.
> Note catching exceptions too close to where they are thrown is as much of a risk as catching them too far away.

Yes, another another reason to avoid them.
The term still predates OSI, but more importantly than the name than what was going on.

The specific transition from sharing as public-domain software vs free, open, shared, and permissivly licenced software dates to ~1953 with A-2 being provided for free and requesting updates be sent back to UNIVAC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-0_System Others might point to IBM SHARE from 1955 as being closer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHARE_(computing)

Followed by many similar arrangements before the term open source was coined with OSI only showing up much later.
Australian slang represents something important about Australian values - mateship, the Anzac spirit, a fair go. Aussies don't talk like poms, because they aren't like poms.
>You need that logical and forward thinking mindset and an attention span greater than 3 seconds

Not only that but you do need a lot of free time as well. As a kid I had the patience and time to push through point and click games, now as an adult with responsibilities I don't. If I only have 30 minutes per day to spend on gaming it's gonna be too short to invest in those kinds of games but just enough time for a few rounds of Q3 arena or such.
What if the money went to a charity or organization you disagreed with, ex: neo-nazis, etc?
Haven’t read the books or watched the tencent version, but main complaint with the netflix version was that it seemed kind of slow.

It was good, but I felt a movie could have covered most of the first season.
Also, his philosophical works might be bad even if he had invented truth tables: it's not like the truth table was hard to find the way, e.g., Newtonian mechanics was.
Another research project with 0 model release
Official release: https://www.worldpressphoto.org/news/2024/global-winners-ann...
I rarely hit the brake pedal in my car at all with one pedal driving. In fact I'd say 80% of drives I don't hit it at all, and the rest i might use it once or twice. I'm sure I'd still hit the brake in an emergency since it's so ingrained in me from driving normal cars for so long, but I'm not sure how long that will be true for, especially for new younger drivers that have really only driven EVs.
My gripe is that the commenter above cites early Wittgenstein as an example of the failure of philosophy as a whole, while ignoring (or perhaps being unaware) that later Wittgenstein is what is philosophical "canon". I'll concede there is some debate about how Wittgenstein's views evolved over his life and the extent to which he repudiated his earlier work. But I think you're going a bit far by characterizing what I said as "confidently wrong history," if that's directed at what I wrote.