skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This looks pretty awesome, but any reason you don’t use these in a central location to make foldable preassembled racks, instead of transporting the factory to the site?

Seems like you could fold them like an accordion into whatever max size can be carried by a forklift, drop them in place, pull them out to unfold, screw the whole prewired assembly down with ground screws, and plug it into the neighboring assembly?

This would probably work best with E/W racking, would go from tightly packed to corrugated.

I’m sure there are challenges I’m not considering, but with modules getting insanely cheap, it seems like racking/assembly/inverters are starting to dominate, and scaling up from single modules to full assemblies assembled in factories seems like a good next step.

(I’ve been building my own 20kw ground mount array, so I’ve had plenty of time to daydream about something we could’ve just dropped and pulled out)
By definition something that is intimidating or threatening is inappropriate for the workplace so I don't see the point you're trying to make.
The protocol is specified by a byte in the IP packet; how many middleware boxes block everything except for ICMP, TCP, and UDP? What is the probability that a packet with that byte set to something unexpected actually gets from source to destination?
The EPA is again allowing summer sales of higher ethanol gasoline blend
There is an infinity of mysterious things one could posit, including an infinity of mutually incompatible mysteries. How do you decide which mysteries are worthy of consideration?

Personally, I think starting with things are known to exist, which have a physical basis, is a great start, and untestable assumptions should be kept to a minimum. Just because it would be delightful to contemplate that ornately feathered technicolor quantum unicorns are actually underlying all of reality, it isn't productive to consider until there is a reason to.

Penrose is no doubt a genius of high order in his domain, but consciousness is not one of his domains. Saying consciousness is the result of quantum effects in microtubules explains nothing -- it is just a very tiny rug which one could imagine is hiding the truth, as all the larger scale hiding places have been inspected and found lacking.

You'd think that with the stunning (and mostly unexpected) success of LLMs would expose the fact that simple, soul-free, mechanistic computations can produce some really amazing capabilities. The human brain is orders of magnitude larger than GPT4, plus it has a wildly more complex architecture than today's neural networks. To me, it takes little imagination to see how everything could be explained in purely physical terms.
Throws are nonlocal control transfer, not types. The interaction with the rest of the language is entirely different.
This is all true, but the article isn’t about how long a photon thinks it lives or how much it experiences the passage of tone. It’s about whether the photon keeps going forever from the perspective of someone approximately at rest [0] in the universe (like astronomers on Earth!).

[0] General relativity has no preferred “at rest” frame, but the generally accepted FLRW model of the universe does. You can be at rest with respect to the universe, or you can be moving. If you are moving, distant objects in front of you will appear blue-shifted on average as compared to distant objects behind you.
Tell HN: Ever think of applying to YC? Do it this weekend for S24
(Usually I put an "Apply to YC" thing in the HN footer [1] but I forgot this time, so here is my pitch to make up for it.)

If you've ever thought about applying to YC, here's a tip: just do it. It doesn't take long and could change your life, like it did for me and many others.

In particular, if you have either of these two bogus thoughts, ignore them pronto and just go to https://apply.ycombinator.com and apply:

(1) "probably not good enough / won't get in" - you'd be surprised at how many people feel that way, whether because of impostor syndrome, lack of credentials, whatever—and often they turn out to be among the best founders. So this a terrible reason not to apply!

The nice thing is, it's YC's job to evaluate that, not yours. They're looking for aptitude which doesn't look like what most people (probably including you) assume. You needn't look impressive, and you don't have to be a competent founder—you learn that from doing YC. Just be yourself as you are, fill out the application and don't worry about it.

(2) "too early" - there's no such thing. YC looks for good potential founders—meaning anyone who can learn what they teach—and nothing else. You're already yourself, which is all you need.

Some of YC's big successes start off as last-minute applications on a whim; and many start with totally different ideas than what ends up succeeding. It's YC's job to teach you how to play the startup game, and that can start at any time.

("Too far along already" is another bogus notion but I'll stick with the top 2 for today.)

If you know the game Snakes and Ladders [2], YC is a massive ladder in an area where there are no snakes. Sure it's a dice roll, but what reason do you have not to? If you're uninterested in the game, no problem—but if you have any impulse to participate, do it! If you're the "out of nowhere" type of founder YC loves to fund, your chances are likely a lot better than you imagine.

Apply by 8pm PT on Monday 4/22 to get a decision by May 29: https://apply.ycombinator.com.

---

[1] like last October - https://web.archive.org/web/20231011022307/https://news.ycom...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snakes_and_ladders
This... actually makes sense. But I think the stakes are higher with brushed steel. And when it comes to lampooning bad decisions in car design, Cybertruck is in good company with DeLorean which had similar issues and enjoyed a similar comedic reception.
They have spent thousands, if not tens of thousands, of hours building this skill set. It's like saying "I find it amazing that someone can play Scriabin's piano sonata no. 5 perfectly".
Could also mean it ended up for this reader as being entertainment. Wanting to read again because it is joyful.

In terms of learning I can’t read a book and remember it all. I would need to apply it.
TIL: some beetles have species-specific genitalia

I suppose that helps with species longevity.
Some people think the Earth is flat. Theres quite a lot of cross over on the Venn diagram of the two I imagine.
I love git. And as you learn more features, it becomes so powerful.
In these situation photons are either bouncing off matter or are getting absorbed and emitted by matter. In the former case they don't travel a straight path, in the latter case there is a short time lag between absorption and emission.
Repeating the same stuff won’t make it true.
The charging network being open to everyone will mitigate a massive advantage they had in terms of selling cars.
check examples, seems cool.

what I want soon is 'draw me a map of the US, add a blue dot for every X thing in every place.. now add a red dot for every Y thing in 2023'

not sure if that would be possible with this, or it may be available via another tool, have not dove in as deep in these things yet as I would like.
They're easy to find.... https://www.amazon.com/s?k=xbox+controller+dongle
It's the EU with their damn data privacy laws / communism again!
What was interpolated in the Matrix? I was under the impression they were creating 1 second of 24 fps video by combining images shot on 24 individual cameras.
Apples to oranges. Tesla manufactures cars with much more liability.
Well, since we're all already in pedantic grammarian territory: That would be "junkie", since it is a noun identifying an addicted person.

In contrast, "junky" is an adjective to describe a generally bad state or quality. "Junky adrenaline" is probably medical waste.

Ex: "It's not safe to travel in a junky car driven by a junkie. Worse still to sail on a junkie's junky junk."
AI safety is moralism of the boring kind, not even some new moral philosophy. AFAIK Dennett did not hold strong moral positions , let alone moralist, so i feel he was orthogonal to it
I learned on C on Unix. The naming conventions in Windows are the same kind of syntactic noise I dislike: long identifiers that are just long without actually being descriptive, with extra crap ladled on top in the form of Hungarian notation (which had its uses in the Excel codebase, but doesn't belong anywhere near C++)

BeOS probably had the nicest looking API. Let's hear it for is_computer_on_fire()
The 500 Lines or Less section from https://aosabook.org/en/

The Architecture of Open Source Applications
> In the first quote he's promoting eugenics as effective

He's just saying it's possible. That's not the same as promoting or advocating it. He explicitly says that he deplores it!

> in the second he's recommending it as a concrete action

He's recommending an individual action but leaving it to individual choice. That's different to recommending a broad, enforced, population-wide eugenics policy.
Generally speaking the Left (error) value of a Result is unexpected during normal operation. You "expect" it in that you prepared for a specific kind of failure but you won't generally see a whole bunch of Left values in a hot loop unless something has gone horribly wrong, in which case performance is not your primary concern.

Meanwhile, one of the biggest weaknesses of Result types is precisely that they don't carry a stack trace with them, which can make it hard to debug a failure when one occurs. Libraries like anyhow in Rust [0] actually go out of their way to retrofit Error types with stack traces because it turns out that most of the time we actually want them.

[0] https://docs.rs/anyhow/latest/anyhow/
When authority denies tracking such data, you can ignore/mock for the lack of evidence! But does that help? My team had collected around 18000 such cases nationwide where people had reported, but instead of serious investigation, we saw no mention of this in mainstream media and social media reveals this is a worldwide problem! More people are getting vocal about this day by day! Hope public will soon understand what's happening!
I'm afraid that if your threat model includes the five eyes, then you shouldn't be on the internet.

A more reasonable and defendable threat model is the more common threats of identity fraud or common phone and credit scams. For safeguarding my data from those, the big CSP (with a notable exception) are probably the most equipped in the world right now.
These are all secondary factors. Meanwhile you're ignoring the most important primary factor you should be looking at - the change in what is called "cost burden", that is, the portion of one's income required to satisfy a mortgage (and pay brokers' fees up front). There's also the widening inequality gap (quite pronounced since 1965), meaning you should be looking at medians and percentiles, not averages. And this thing known the rental market, which you're not looking at all.

So no, it's not just a bunch of people complaining for the sake of complaining.
And to avoid having any code ever fail. It was a formative experience to me to type in the source of a terminal emulator in C for CP/M that I ported to Microware’s OS-9 out of a 1984 Byte magazine that tried to do things the Either way without language support and noted about 4/5 of the code was error handling interspersed with the happy path. Either is not much better than errno in the end.
I'm with you right up until the dedicated syntax point.

Failure modes aren't going away, (especially with our tendency towards slinging JSON at each other as fast as possible.)

So, make a good syntax for it! Then accounting for failure becomes pleasurable, so developers will do it. Take the hit and make your user base learn it once, early.

But perhaps I misunderstood what 'dedicated syntax' is. I want syntax for map/flatMap because it's really broadly useful. But I don't like it when one particular implementation gets special syntax, and the rest don't (looking at you, Rust-Result, and null-coalescing operators).

> Exceptions are a failed experiment
They still need to exist in some form. We're not going to case-match over every plus and divide to deal with overflow and div0.

"Exceptions should only be used exceptionally" is wisdom that never really stood a chance, because mainstream languages didn't provide a way to handle non-exceptional errors.
That's what I meant: there was so much to think about that I'd gain a whole lot by reading it again.

What he meant: well, he's dead now, isn't he?
I mean in the sense of overselling, snakeoil, and deception. So metaphorical. The tools have a lot of abilities but they are vastly oversold as intelligent and reasoning systems when they not. We have systems like Devin, Humane Pin, Rabbit, and so many more that were clearly not going to work as they were advertised, yet even big names promote these. "Top notch" researchers who believe the claims and promote them. When they should be dismissing them. But maybe they're playing a different game.

I mean we why can we not recognize the absolute incredible feat that LLMs actually are. You're telling me that we (lossy) compressed the entire (text on the) internet AND built a human language interface to retrieve that information and we can get this all to run on a GPU with <24GB of VRAM? That's wildly impressive! It's wildly impressive even were we to suppose the error rate was 1000x whatever you think it is. I mean Eliza is cool, but this shit (opposite usage) is bonkers. Anyone saying that isn't is just not paying attention or naive. There's no need to sell the "baby" AGI story when this is so incredibly impressive already.
Looks nice but I can't really require the whole team of like 100 people to use this quite niche tool.

Python needs an official solution.
Just because it might be inappropriate for the workplace does not make it intimidating or threatening. Grandparent was asking what was the intimidating and threatening part.
The Great War, World War, Forever War.

Industrial, organic, traditional farming.

Toast vs merely warmed bread.

I'm fine with everyone landing on their own names. Provided each has some kind of preamble (context, assumptions, scope) and acknowledging everyone else has the same right(s) to add to the confusion.
>Relativity overturned those Newtonian assumptions

Only in *very* specific situations which are extremely extremely extremely unrelated and WELL out of both practical and theoretical bound to the human perception of reality.

Relativity is kind of the trivia of physics, it really has not informed much technology apart from a few things in space - compare this to, say, quantum electrodynamics which tells us why weird stuff happens in things we've made quadrillions of (not to mention quantum computing, etc.)

The only time we would have ever brushed up against it naturally might have been when we put clocks into space so that we could better send nukes into other parts of the globe.
Electrons? We were just told that there is only one single electron in yesterday's posts. It's almost like they don't know what an electron is
The philosophers that did STEM seem to be the good ones.

Its the artsy types that only read Sartre and Heidigger an Derrida, and never got their hands dirty by working in a lab, doing sufficiently higher level math, engineered and built modern tech are the annoying ones.
It was a one-way collaboration, in that we referenced their discoveries and code such as LattiCG https://github.com/mjtb49/LattiCG, but they were unaware of anything we were doing until now. https://twitter.com/admiral_stapler/status/17806748612594609...

Naming Baritone after Fit is actually a coincidence / joke, the repo github.com/cabaletta/baritone was the result of random brainstorming for something untaken. We only later realized it described Fit and thus added that to the readme :)
Reviewing my numbers I would say it seems closer to 0.5% at this point.

You made good points for the stage that you're in, i.e. you already have a solution that you can sort of pitch upfront (even seeding the conversation is a version of that). I'm at the point where I can't/don't want to bias them with the slightest hint of what I'm solving because it will taint their response. That makes it quite hard!
Monitor Control for MacOS. It lets you control the brightness and volume of external displays. It looks and feels like a native feature.

SelfControl for MacOS reliably blocks websites for a custom amount of time.

Shazam for finding music you hear. It still feels like magic.
Then there wouldn't be 20 recalls in total. But there were 20 in total in that year.
I found [1] which describes the architectural difference between MPTCP and QUIC, and also introduces the authors' proposed MPQUIC protocol:

> QUIC multiplexes application streams on a single UDP ﬂow, whereas MPTCP splits a single stream on multiple TCP subﬂows. MPQUIC combines both features by multiplex-
ing application streams on multiple UDP subﬂows.

[1]: "Multipath QUIC: A Deployable Multipath Transport Protocol" https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327122884_Multipath...

Now I'm curious about how these protocols compare in production operation. Anybody have experience with both?
Not really, right now it's within +14/-15 ELO with 95% probability, which barely changes the ranking. It's well ahead of Gemini Pro and squarely within the top 5 with Claude 3 Opus and a few versions of GPT-4-Turbo.

More impressively even, Llama 3 8B is approximately tied with GPT-4 (depending on the version), as well as Mistral-Large and Mixtral 8x22B, which is mad for the size.
God forgive us. May his memory be eternal.
> poetry with poetry2nix with nix flakes will do magic in terms of setup.

I'm sure, but it also sounds like it will take about 2 weeks of reading manuals and learning Nix before I'll get to the same point as Rust and Go start at.

And that's not really an option for big teams, which is the only situation where I'm forced to use Python anyway.
Unapproved lubricant... well. Exactly the same, and also in throttle control input, caused (albeit together with software having problems handling the issue) a total control loss in Airbus A320, during a training flight in 2018 in Estonia. It resulted in a crash landing - they barely landed the plane in a way in which they could walk away from the landing, and the plane got destroyed.

Incident report: https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/1...

Also Mentour Pilot did a pretty good video explaining all causes, including the software issues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04M63B1sv_Y
Is that because of unrepented sin, or heaven not existing.
Even back then, excessive "pixel hunting" was a frequent complaint of the genre. You basically just had to click around randomly and try different inventory item permutations by trial and error until something happens.

On the other hand, modern Games like Baldur's Gate 3, while not really an adventure game, gives you so many different ways of solving each puzzle or encounter. It's never pre scripted to only one solution, but you can really use your imagination.

Relevant tropes:

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PixelHunt

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoonLogicPuzzle
Even physics has limits because our physical reality and approach has limits. Not everything can be a controlled experiment, especially things that are way beyond what our senses allow.

So in the end, everybody's theory holds 'almost' the same weight. We're all clueless, yay!
"The light shines in the darkness,
and the darkness can never extinguish it.

God sent a man, John the Baptist, to tell about the light so that everyone might believe because of his testimony. John himself was not the light; he was simply a witness to tell about the light. The one who is the true light, who gives light to everyone, was coming into the world.

He came into the very world he created, but the world didn’t recognize him. He came to his own people, and even they rejected him. But to all who believed him and accepted him, he gave the right to become children of God."(John 1:5-12)
TI83 had a hidden "asm(" command, it was "Send(9prgmXXXXXXXX", which takes in a hex file then packs it to address 9327. But because it kept two copies of the program in memory (one double size, one half size), people went on to make assembly shells to relocate the program to 9327 without the need for a double-size program. The final assembly shell Venus manged to be absolutely tiny, and did not need to "install" itself (by intentionally creating a memory leak).
The article mentioned that they diversified early due to the diversification of the first flowering plants, so re-radiating into each others' niches over the following hundred million years could certainly help that while keeping species distinct.
Comd + Alt + V does this on MacOS
I was referring to how Bloch and Goetz have tried to tell Java devs for decades to avoid null, mutation and just in general the traditional Java coding style, with little success.

As for exceptions, it's hilarious that they and the Java community in general are still stuck on arguing about checked vs unchecked exceptions. That's my whole point - you can argue about that forever and you will always be wrong, because exceptions are a failed experiment and will never work or reach a consensus. Move past it.

I really, REALLY don't understand what's so wrong with just.. making methods return what they say they do, as plain objects. The antagonism towards doing so is literally just ingrained culture with zero sensible justification.
Neat observation: finite automata, push-down automata, and Turing machines can be distinguished purely by the number of stacks they need.

Finite automata: no stack.

Pushdown automata: one stack.

Turing machine: two stacks. (Use them like the tape: to move forward, pop the f-stack and push the symbol on the b-stack; to move backward pop the b-stack and push to the f-stack.)
Sparkling water is also bad, albeit significantly less so.

The carbonation makes it acidic which is one of the two elements that makes carbonated soft drinks the best way to rot out all of your teeth as quickly as possible (the other element is the copious amounts of refined, simple sugar).

Nothing beats plain old water, except maybe tea.
Maybe the Sumerian or (blue-skinned) Vedic Gods saw some giant sentient machine life, and went out of their way to honor these "Angels" with many eyes and huge wings by creating what we call insects (in addition to Humans [Hanuman's ilk]).

When you transcend the physical form into a body of energy (hint: OR=constructive, XOR=deconstructive, NOT=XOR(k,1), NOT( OR(j,k) )=NOR(j,k), NOR=Functionally Complete, ergo EMF or even sound can be Turing Complete), then as an energy body you may want to interact with physical forms again w/o ionizing them; So you'll create (sentient) machinations that can do tasks. Because your design parameters include survivability across large thermal and pressure gradients you'll [re]discover giant robotic beetle design.

If you'll excuse me, I've got to tend a Kephri (beetle of remanifestation) who is eagerly attempting to choose an Odin to ride this 6-legged "Steed" next Ragnorok.
Or just directly available on archive.org.
I don't think there was anything "accusatory", it's a legitimate question.
IMHO anthropocalypse is most accurate. Though I use "oops" for brevity.
You can't make a single typo in Bash and also the browser makes aliases for you automatically based on usage, whereas Bash aliases require thought and maintenance.

So it's Bash that is slower ("heavyweight") if you count how many neuron firings it takes and how much these gigantic, slow write heads (fingers on a keyboard) have to move through space as part of the system. Computer scientists haven't been able to make a language with any sort of error recovery because "it would be non-deterministic" but Google (guided by capitalism) was able to see that's what people need. Google search is a programming language/shell.