skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> In biking heavy European cities, average trips are well less than a mile.

The average in the Netherlands in 2016 was ~3.5km (~2.2 miles) for ordinary bikes and ~5km (~3.1 miles) for ebikes. [1]

"For trips of up to 7.5 km (65% of all trips), 38% of the Dutch use the bicycle and 34% the car. For distances from 3.7 km and more, the car is more popular than the bicycle." [2]

"55% of workers who live within 5 km of their workplace go to work by bicycle. When the home-work distance is between 5 and 10 km 31% of the people go by bicycle and between 10 and 15 km that is 14%." [2]

[1]: "Figure: Distance per trip in kilometres (left) and average speed in kilometres per hour (right) for e-bikes and “ordinary” bikes by age group, 2016." https://www.government.nl/binaries/government/documenten/rep...

[2]: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2023/01/04/how-did-the-pa...
dogfooding has been a thing at MS probably since its inception. Of course it doesn't mean it is always practiced fully.
I'm putting Tesla on my mental "corporate death watch" list. Musk just killed any justification for new buyers to pick Tesla.

Product range? Will only get more obsolete.
Supercharger network? Will only get more crowded.

All so he can have his nerd truck and robotaxis.
Autocorrect's nice and stuff. Snake was a great game on my Nokia.

Who texts with autocorrect when they can speech to text? If hands are too busy to type, talk. Re-engineering the problem's often easier.

LLMs that are changing the world only fit well in Apple's polished world when they reach the quality needed to not mess anything up. There's a truthyness to Apple's world, a verified truth, a positivism (the epistemological version of the world) that LLMs by-and-large strive for in a very different way from the intelligent design of Apple.

The most immediate way LLMs will change the world is by making fusion reactors viable through market forces as they take the baton from blockchains in burning power.
I don't know about Java, but the C# standard library is exceptionally well design with respect to variable byte encoding. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/base-types...

The built-in string.length method is useless (it returns the number of char objects) and I agree that's a problem, but the solution is also built into the language, unlike in JS.
Then my apologies. I assumed that it was raw milk and cheese; not cheese, made from raw milk.

Carry on, then. My bad.

See how easy that was?

It was my mistake, and I have absolutely no problem, admitting it, but it did not require any name-calling.
This was the question I was going to ask! I've recently been diving into Lua 5.x internals and have been extremely impressed with Lua's register-based bytecode implementation. Lua has a stable byte code interface between patch releases (5.4.0 -> 5.4.1, etc) but not between major/minor revisions (5.3 -> 5.4). SQLite on the other hand does not consider this a public interface at all!

> "Remember: The VDBE opcodes are not part of the interface definition for SQLite. The number of opcodes and their names and meanings change from one release of SQLite to the next."
https://www.sqlite.org/opcode.html#the_opcodes

For anyone interested in understanding how a register-based VM operates I highly recommend:

A No-Frills Introduction to Lua 5.1 VM Instructions by Kein-Hong Man. https://www.mcours.net/cours/pdf/hasclic3/hasssclic818.pdf
He should be investigated for lying to shareholders. I think he knew a lot of this was vaporware the whole time.
If we stop treating asynchronous communications mechanisms (chat, email, etc.) as synchronous (voice/video calls, face-to-face), the urgency issue goes away for everyone.

Async comms should regularly (and, perhaps, by default) be muted to enhance focus. Let them collect and allow the person to manage their own time. "No hello" allows them to have the question ready for them to address when they process their incoming queues.

Synchronous comms should be used to get immediate attention on an urgent issue that needs to be addressed immediately, or be used for tight, rapid iteration in a discussion (e.g. rapid design discussions). Because it necessarily takes attention away from another task, the activation energy should be higher.
I’m not sure why we wouldn’t focus on technology, which seems to be the only actually useful part of this mission. I know that some people really like sticking people on objects in space for fun, but at this point it seems like a strange and expensive hobby. Supposedly it’s supposed to get us closer to living in space. Leaving aside whether or not that’s the appropriate goal for the moment, and not, say, 400 years from now, it’s unclear that any of the missions over the past 60 years have actually brought us closer to that. We’ve seen countries that could send people into space in the 60’s lag behind, while others that couldn’t come anywhere close are jumping forward. All signs point to the manned missions themselves not conferring a lot of lasting value.
> People who are skeptical rarely make waves (unless they take their skepticism to extremes).

That's another case of "universalizing their idea".

> I'm not sure where this leaves us. Maybe every "great thinker" is a mountebank?

Almost certainly every "great thinker" who tortures the evidence to make it fit their theory is a mountebank, whether or not their views have some utility. Girard's total lack of honesty with his "evidence" makes him a mountebank.
I really appreciate that at the top of the article, the author has a link to a bulleted summary of the article.

It's a classy move: it shows respect for the readers' time.
> England was part of the Roman world just a few hundred years before the period in question.

England was never part of the roman world. It was the collapse of the roman world that allowed the anglo-saxons to settle and create england. England was a post-roman world creation. Heck it was part of the destruction crew of the roman world.
> pump tons of fuel per second, obviously automated

Sure. Easier said than done, particularly with rapid reuse and when all your equipment is being repeatedly thermal and pressure shocked.

> Some checks could be done on earth, but we surely don't do system checks every time we sit in a car, and this comparison is only somewhat stretched, agree?

We don't send cars to space and back again. (We've also had cars for a century.) Hopefully by the time we're sending humans to Mars, this will be automated. But not in time for Artemis.

> zone below the trajectory will probably be permanently closed

You're describing major shipping lanes in the ship-surveillance area. KSC and CC also tends to close off a few popular flight routes into Orlando.

> in-flight operations are automated, even today, because there's no crew around

Still need people monitoring, including--by law--people ready to abort or order redirect.

> What's the (crucial) difference with system checks?

You have to open the rocket up.

> No repairs for the nominally working system

This has never been demonstrated. (Repairs/refurbishment.)

> Don't you have a suspicion that Falcons aren't being improved that much now because it doesn't make sense for the current mass flow to orbit and given that Starship is planned to become available soon?

No. Falcon launches are currently pad limited.

Note: I think Starship is vastly superior to SLS. But that's in part because the ground operations, including infrastructure, are reused and thus amortised across many flights.
Looks interesting but I don’t understand why Safari is excluded on both desktop and mobile.
Imo, a major failure was their inability to deliver on their contract with PepsiCo for Electric Semis [0]

The electric semitruck space would have been a massive moneymaker for Tesla, but concentrating on boondoggles like Cybertruck or X/Twitter undermined a major revenue source.

Also their inability to concentrate on developing a Model 2.

[0] - https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-...
Very cool stuff! I might check this out for my extension (https://github.com/herrherrmann/omnivore-list-popup). So far, I’ve been creating my own scripts to manage the extension builds, dev mode etc. – but I’ve been eyeing web-ext already to make my life easier. However, my main browser is Firefox, which doesn’t seem fully supported yet by Extension, right?
It's not just a PR tactic. If the app is closed source, how do you know it's all local storage? Because someone on the internet said so? These days you can't really MitM and investigate the network connections.
You don't need a NAS. Just connect a direct attached storage to your PC/mac then share it out.
Elon's goal isn't money - he has more money than God. His goal is ego gratification. He wants to be Tony Stark, to do the cool shit that leads people to worship him as a genius and innovator.
We have one Tesla already. I am going to need a new car soon. But now it looks like it’s going to be too risky to buy another Tesla. I need a certain level of stability from the manufacturer in order to make a big capital expenditure.
They haven't been able to hire talent in over a decade. The only "talent" that ever considers working there is kids fresh out of school.

Once it's a woke shithole no one important will work there. You can fleece them for money but no one capable of material contribution goes to google.

Consider what was their last usable innovation?
Making their web email client less usable?
A third-rate cloud service?
They don't even have a usable quantum computer; just a toy.
Their flagship product is a pay-to-censured search engine.
It's a giant company of assholes.
> I was never tempted to buy an iPod, but combine the phone and iPod and give me internet access to boot... sold.

Before the iPhone there were already phones which could play music and access the web. I even remember some Motorolas which interacted directly with iTunes. The iPhone didn’t succeed just by smooshing those together.

Either way, that’s neither here nor there, the point is precisely that Apple didn’t shy away from cannibalising their own product.
The question makes not much sense because the concept of "original Europeans" oversimplifies the complex history of human migration and settlement across the continent.

Europe has been inhabited by various groups of people over hundreds of thousands of years, starting from early human ancestors like Homo erectus, followed by Neanderthals, and eventually Homo sapiens. The idea of a singular "original" group of Europeans doesn't align with our understanding of prehistoric migrations and the genetic mixing that occurred over time.

Modern populations, including Germans, are the result of these extensive, multi-directional movements and interactions, making any one group not "original" but rather a product of ongoing historical processes.
Maybe there is a typo in the article then that is why this seemed weird?

The first paragraph:

> ambitious refueling demonstration, a technical feat that will put the Moon within reach.

Again here:

> By the time NASA and SpaceX are ready for a lunar landing, multiple Starship tankers will take off from at least two launch pads to aggregate propellants at a depot to supply the Moon-bound Starship.

Then again here:

> On future Starship missions targeting destinations in deep space, like the Moon, this docking maneuver and refueling process will be repeated multiple times to give the vehicle enough gas to boost itself out of Earth orbit.

Another one:

> The results of this refueling demonstration will allow SpaceX and NASA engineers to calculate how many refueling tankers they will need to fill up a Starship heading for the Moon.

All of this makes it seem like this is necessary just to get to the moon with Starship which really makes me wonder about the practicality of this when later it mentions the possibility of 10 refueling missions.

Or am I misreading what this is saying?
We have just passed 2000 visits on DevHunt!
From TFA:

> Tesla is not just laying off Daniel Ho, director of vehicle programs and new product introduction, but also his entire team.
Mostly the similarities in vocabulary - it's exciting to be able to reconstruct what could may been spoken thousands of years ago by noticing the links between present-day languages! But I also like the case system, mostly because it feels like English has lost something of its poetic utility by dispensing with it. To expand on that, with cases, you can allude to the relationship between a thing and a situation without actually specifying what that relationship is, leaving something up to the reader's imagination.
Starship hasn't even gotten to orbit yet.
System.Drawing was always just a wrapper for GDI(+), and you CAN use it on Linux via using System.Drawing.Common which is a wrapper for GDI+ (Windows) or something else like libgdi+ on non-windows. It works - but it feels more like a compat hack than anything else. System.Drawing wouldn't look the way it does if it wasn't designed to be a Windows only API around GDI+.
ImageSharp was always a good lib but now the license was murdered. Hopefully a true OSS fork will come along. SkiaSharp is also a good alternative, especially if you also need the drawing bits.

Missing a Graphics Library in .NET (5-8) is just half the story. It's of course missing an entire UI library too. But Microsoft, perhaps wisely, chose not to also implement a whole xplat UI library. Avalonia/Uno/etc are already there.
That's really not true. The optimal (in the sense of where the supply and demand curves intersect) price for maximum profit rises as costs rise. It's true that the revenue-optimal price remains the same, but I think Apple's shareholders care more about profit than revenue.

To build intuition on this, it helps to think about the extreme cases: If the marginal cost of production is zero, you can sell the product for close to zero to pick up pennies from almost every human on earth. So the revenue-maximizing and profit-maximizing prices depend on demand elasticity, but are both low.

If the marginal cost of production is a million dollars, selling for anything less than that will result in negative unit economics. You can still maximize revenue with low prices, but that incurs negative per-unit profit. In fact, the price must be more than one million dollars per unit to make any profit. That might imply that the profit-maximizing condition is one unit sold for $1m+1.

For certain demand curves, that might even imply the profit-maximizing condition is to tell zero units! A real-world example of this is Rivian. They have negative unit economics, and would be more profitable if they simply stopped production.

I think what confuses some people is that all these things can be (and are) true at once:

1. The price where Apple achieves maximum profit under the new rules is higher than before.

2. After raising prices, that profit will be less than what they earned before.

3. Units sold will be less than before.

4. Apple won't reduce prices in response to the lower profit because the new higher prices, lower quantity and lower profit are profit-maximal under the new market conditions.

What we will observe in practice is not higher MSRPs in Europe, but fewer discounts (it is an open secret that you should never buy an Apple product without at least a 10% discount).

I see a lot of people claiming (I believe disingenuously) that the changes forced by the EU will convince them to consider buying Apple's products in the future. If you believe those people, that's yet another reason to think Apple hardware prices will rise in Europe: Both the supply and demand curves are moving in directions that imply higher prices.
Woooooooooosh.

I wasn't saying a web dev could. Context is key.
They did both

> All of which makes the decision to get rid of senior director of EV charging Rebecca Tinucci—along with her entire team—a bit of a head-scratcher.
Exactly. I wish people would get over this idea that the only two options are closed source or setup and maintain a vibrant community of contributors. It's perfectly fine to just put the code on github and never look at it again. If you're willing to take an additional 30 seconds to be honest in the README.md about your intentions, even better.

Code doesn't have to be perfect to be open.
Tesla failing to deliver Semi-trucks on time to PepsiCo, Sysco, UPS, and Walmart
Driving any distance beyond the half-radius-from-home mark with a non-Tesla EV is an abysmal experience.

Every FUCKING charging station needs a different app and the credit card endpoints never FUCKING work.

So the decision to cut back on Superchargers is a bit of a head scratcher.
DR Congo accuses Apple of using 'blood minerals' from war-torn east
> just like some people's desire to teleport cannot possibly be memetic, because it doesn't exist.

In general I agree with your criticism, but on this point I think you are off. The desire to teleport could be mimetic - I could learn it from someone else's desire, not from their reality.
> If you are writing calendar software, it is legitimate to have "floating time" i.e. your medication reminder is at 7pm every day, regardless of time zone, travel, or anything else.

If you have to take medication (for instance, an antibiotic) every 24 hours, it must be taken at the same UTC hour, even if you took a train to a town in another timezone. Keeping the same local time even when the timezone changes would be wrong for that use case.
Do you also think the GNU project shouldn't exist? If not, what's the difference?
> You’d expect at least some evidence that it can lift that much weight by this point

"By this point". Well, we have testing program here (which to me looks pretty successful so far), the capabilities of the system - demonstrated, that is - are increased with each flight. Load test - that is, bringing to orbit the full payload the Starship is designed for - has not happened yet, and, as far as I remember, Falcon also didn't have such a test for some record mass. I'm sure we'll see some reasonable payload flights at some point "soon". What's the problem here?

> Especially considering that they should be long past that point according to their last updated roadmap.

Ah :) maybe you're talking about the thing which SpaceX refers jokingly as "we transform impossible things to late". Yes, "Musk's time" is always very aggressive, and I even suspect to know why he's, as an engineer and a visioner, does that. And why Shotwell's estimates are more accurate - she excels at operations, after all.

But I don't see a principal problem here either. Yes, the - rather aggressive, by aerospace standards - schedule slips to the right, while still producing results, years in a row. Big deal.
Wow, Rebecca Tinucci (EV charging) and Daniel Ho (EV products) are gone.

WTF? This is utterly bananas. I don't get it.

The long-term cost of treating longtime, loyal, talented employees as... disposable could be very high. It could even threaten the company's survival.

But... I'm going to give Musk the benefit of the doubt, because he has proven me -- and lots of people who are way smarter than me -- wrong, again and again, over the past two decades. He has a long track record of making bets that look crazy-stupid in the moment but turn out to be crazy-brilliant in hindsight.

The jury is out.
Hmm, I asked it about my GitHub project that has been out for 4 years and it got everything completely wrong.
I'm ok with this nutball going to Mars. The world has enough boring billionaires.
The comment I was replying to wasn't talking about the past.
Area of Thoughts
They did refresh the model 3 actually, but I wish they refreshed the model y.
What makes something a conspiracy theory is that it ignores simple explanations in favor of something untestable and perfectly concealed. In this case we have a very simple explanation which is highly parsimonious - Google doesn’t see a business benefit yet from committing support – but we’re being asked to believe that instead the men in black visited Google to sabotage China by … not supporting an architecture which China doesn’t depend on and could easily support on their own if they did?

Your reference to other actions undercuts your argument: when the US government has acted in the past, it has generally done so officially – not the CIA subverting Crypto-AG, but Commerce using market pressure openly. I wouldn’t say it’s impossible that they could act behind the scenes but if they were competent enough to do that so quietly I’d expect them to pick a higher impact target.
I think I pretty much agree with everything you said here. I think just taking extremely minimal precautions would deter like 90+% of piracy for people who are doing it for the "I just don't want to pay for it" crowd. Just like locking a door doesn't stop someone who really wants to get into my house, it'll still stop a vast majority of cases people trying to get in; most people aren't going to break down the door, or bust open a window, or get a bulldozer to go through my wall etc.

That's why I was more or less on board with IA doing Controlled Digital Lending. Obviously if someone really wants to break the DRM and distribute the media, they're going to do it, but I think that for most people any amount of effort will be too much, and they'll abide by the rules as a result.

I think the National Emergency Library was a huge mistake, because it basically removed those minimal restrictions, making themselves a giant target. It was certainly well-intentioned but it made a lawsuit almost inevitable.
Samsung Unveils 10.7Gbps LPDDRX5 Memory – The Fastest Yet
Show HN: Local GLaDOS
Code is available at: https://github.com/dnhkng/GlaDOS

You can also run the Llama-3 8B GGUF, with the LLM, VAD, ASR and TTS models fitting on about 5 Gb of VRAM total, but it's not as good at following the conversation and being interesting.

The goals for the project are:

All local! No OpenAI or ElevenLabs, this should be fully open source.

Minimal latency - You should get a voice response within 500 ms (but no canned responses!)

Interruptible - You should be able to interrupt whenever you want, but GLaDOS also has the right to be annoyed if you do...

Interactive - GLaDOS should have multi-modality, and be able to proactively initiate conversations (not yet done, but in planning)

Lastly, the code base should be small and simple (no PyTorch etc), with minimal layers of abstraction.
Not only this but the author lacks enough empathy and imagination to understand how most people are wildly different than him and would not want any of this complexity in the slightest.
Hey! updated to add scene related links to scenes while creating and editing it. Eg: https://scenestamps.com/scenestamp/01hwk9g8fg1sfvredw5ayvd7w...
My main point is that color highlighting just becomes a blur of colors that no one can now differentiate because they have a color for every nuance.

Note that I was quoting Pike earlier.
Notice that the wording in fact clearly avoids saying that emulation is illegal, just that it encourages the illegal piracy of their products.

Several developer kits have used the word emulation without much ado.
"If we can save one life, it's worth it" is part of the reason everything is so expensive in the US. People forget that poverty is also deadly and don't factor that into the calculation.
Pseudo conservative… I like that phrase. Of course it’s also worth saying that the guy hangs out with neo-reactionaries (people who literally want to install a monarch).

Even if he didn’t espouse whatever the hell he’s espousing publicly, his companies are known as incredibly toxic work environments—one friend of a friend talks about hiding whenever Elon visits their building so they don’t get randomly fired for no reason. Not to mention safety hazards, stupidly long work hours for no real reason (if they’re not succeeding, why are they working so hard?)