skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Magic links/codes are a security compromise on their own.

Still, corporate email belongs to the employer.

For "magic links", It doesn't solve the problem that the email is intended for a specific individual, for one time use, and the filters are not aware or intelligent enough to do so.

In other cases privacy and security of the communication in some cases is being compromised.

It does give rise to a bootstrapped solution that delivers links well so I guess that's good.
I can't shake the feeling that everything has become more monochromatic because there's an overall deficit of joy in the world right now.
The byline, presumably
Love the name. I'll take a look too.
Thanks for the examples, I'm working on a TypeScript code base at the moment and this is fantastic way of adding compile-time typing across many of the basic types I'm using!
This was in the news a while ago. It was a guy in his 20s in Miami: https://regmedia.co.uk/2016/09/02/linux_hack.pdf.

Who is also in the Panama Papers... https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/12097929
> I'm not sure I agree that those rule-of-thumb statistics are "arbitrary" or "fictional"… I guess it depends on what you mean by that.

Sorry for the confusion: I meant that fragmede's comment was arbitrary and fictional, not the 90% figure. I was talking about these numbers:

if it takes 1 hour to get one answer by hand, but only 20 minutes for the machine, and 20 minutes to check the answer, the user still comes out ahead
Elician here: thank you for sharing our tool and for this praise!

We're glad you're enjoying it.
good thing CACM decided to become open access. bad thing this letter is not linking to original article by legend Vint Cerf. great examples about what innovation thresholds are and examples include Ken Thompson's Unix porting.
> Most people don't die every year

I don't think anyone dies every year. Just once. /s
My general approach for macros that I want to execute many times is to end by going down a line (for sequential lines) or to end with a search for the next place that the macro can run. Then I can easily review the targets and run or skip on each.
I was about the comment something like this, but you put it well.

If you don't read a lot of poetry, what LLMs output look like poems, but almost always lack wit, a through-line, coherence and poignancy. It usually contains the individual parts, but never fitting as a whole.
There's some possibilities:

* The impact is actually much smaller than you initially think

* You're not vocal enough about that, or that's just one-off thing (high performers usually pretty consistent)

* You're in a bad environment where good work isn't getting recognized

I've did exactly that and my coworkers keep know how that benefits them, so it's not impossible. Anyway, being vocal on what you're doing or achieve in remote work is also crucial, if the environment cannot discover your achievement easily.
What's up with ChatGPT's new sexy persona?
Unpatterning
My understanding is that the key feature of SPARK is design-by-contract aka run-time enforced pre- and post-conditions plus invariants for loops. Whereas F* lets you define dependendent types, a subset of which are compile-time constraints similar to those SPARK contracts. Is that a fair contrast?
Thanks, apologies for the misunderstanding. I wonder what the number is for pneumonia.
Do any terminals support overprinting? This could radically change what is possible in TUIs
So around 5-10 software engineers (compensation in finance seems mostly similar to SW), not including any other costs like office, etc? That's not a lot of money.
Neovim is great and is my daily driver for a couple of years now. I was really looking forward to 0.10 because the roadmap said "multicursor", and that's the only thing that sometimes make me open Sublime Text, but it seems like it was more complex to implement than originally estimated and so it was now pushed to 0.12 (https://neovim.io/roadmap/).
Oh, my bad—I misunderstood, thanks for the clarification
This could also be the common error where someoone tries to pipet bromine like it was an ordinary liquid:

Open the bottle (under the hood), there's not that much red smoke coming out, dip the pipet into the dark liquid, pull in a few mLs, looks normal, almost like you could precisely dispense small amounts into the nearby target apparatus.

Lift the pipet slowly out of the source bottle, and carefully position it over the waiting reciever flask. Don't be too concerned about exact amounts to be dispensed any more, it can be seen that precision with bromine is not as ideal compared to something like pipetting alcohol, where you commonly lose a few drops anyway.

After all, immediately when you withdrew the pipet from the bromine bottle, the entire contents of the pipet had spewed out from its own gas pressure, into the inside of the hood. Don't worry about the state of your reaction, not a drop of bromine landed where you had intended.

All you can do if you have your wits about you is to hold your breath, carefully put the stopper back on the bromine bottle (without knocking the whole thing over) and fully evacuate, basically following out behind everyone else in other parts of the lab who knew there was a problem as soon as you did, just from the smell.

And that's with the best of hoods.

edit: not my downvote
Dart's claim to fame was a static type system, but TS's type system eventually surpassed Dart's and then some: TS not only gives lots of escape hatches from soundness because the JS ecosystem is messy and needs it, but it also doesn't repeat Dart's colossal mistake of making every generic type covariant then inserting runtime checks on writes (something everyone knew was a mistake after Java arrays and Eiffel did it).

Dart has some things in its favor: it's not defined by underlying JS semantics, so it's free to jettison some of its legacy (bye bye `undefined`). Unfortunately its changelog doesn't paint a picture of an evolving language.
Doctors speak Greek; lawyers speak Latin.
I'm assuming that you're the author of the article? If so...

>If you know something about Cicada 3301 games (especially 2012 game), than you can find a lot of similarities between them and 2004 Puzzle Hunt

It's your job, as the author of the article making the bold claim, to explain these similarities. The only similarity I see is the fact that they are both open-world puzzles.

This article is a brief history of a puzzle hunt at Melbourne Univeristy, and that's it!
You make no connections, you don't explain what similarities you see.

Probably the worst of all, you assume the reader has intimate knowledge of the Cicada 3301 puzzle from over a decade ago -- and expect the reader to draw the same conclusions as you do!

I have no idea whether Julian Assange helped organize Cicada 3301.
What I do know is that this article has not convinced me in the slightest.

It's certainly an interesting theory, but you need to at least help the reader connect the dots about what you're thinking.
I've given this some thought and it's definitely on the roadmap. A few other people have asked for this in the comments. Tagging people is very doable. Right now the model does a decent job with famous people, but not custom faces.

Seems like it's worth bumping this up in priority.
It became painfully obvious during the development of LLVM Flang that it is very hard to define what the Fortran language is, and that it is tricky to write truly portable Fortran. See https://github.com/klausler/fortran-wringer-tests?tab=readme...
>Pictured: Jeffrey Hillman’s origin story. Any resemblance to Tim Burton’s 2005 remake of Willy Wonka is purely coincidental. Ignore the Warner Bros. copyright in the corner.

Blogger trying to convince us he's presenting a good faith article challenge: impossible
What about the dev who is making the library for their own purposes, they don't matter? Be thankful for the opportunity to use their work for free; you can do your own thing if you don't like theirs.
Sorry, I thought that all foods (animal-based or plant-based) are carcinogens when burnt, but I don't actually know if that's true. I know that I avoid burnt vegetables for that reason.

It's likely that self-reporting is indeed an issue, but I wonder whether it's not a "balanced" issue on both sides. E.g. there are so many people who want to eat meat, they might be willing to lie about their health when asked how meat affects their health.
Attn: Data
2.5% of deaths caused by flu is not the same as a 2.5% chance of dying of the flu, though.
I've tried to describe my preference before as "lyrics lead and the music follows or supports it". "Lead" in the dance partner sense, not the temporal sense.

Pure music without context usually comes across to me as just noise. Context can be many things, not just lyrics, but that is probably the simplest form.
>The binary for some properties is absolutely there and completely justifiable based on the reasoning I laid out

As a spectator in this thread, I do not see an argument for this conclusion in any of your posts. You're just insisting on it rather than arguing based on data.
What's that saying?
Words make you think thoughts, music makes you feel feelings; so songs make you feel thoughts.
You can find your suspicions answered pretty quickly in the linked Wikipedia article.
Hey whatever. I don't care. But when I hear a leaf blowers early on a Sunday or even a Saturday, I cringe. There's no reason miserable people need to make others miserable as well.
I think substituting simulation for reality can be analogized as being a bit like drugs. It may bring you thrills and happiness in the short term, but it's going to make you even more unhappy and lonely in the long term.
I always enjoy Derek Lowe's "Things I won't work with", but I have to admit they're getting a little stale for me (although of course this was from 2019 and it wasn't stale then).

A writer can use the structure of their writing and word choices to hit certain emotional beats, and Lowe is quite good at this. If the actual content isn't quite substantial enough, though, the structural elements ring hollow to me because I've seen a lot of them.

It's directly analogous to clickbait titles, and also the subtle increase in head size, eye size, and emotional affect in YouTube thumbnails. The structure is used to encourage a level of emotional reaction in the consumer that the content of the title and/or thumbnail can't support in a more realistic style. But it starts to grate after a while.
> I suspect a lot of Elicit's target users want to use scientific knowledge in their personal/professional lives, but without doing the hard work of gaining scientific understanding. However, they're not going to spend money on a product that says "we use AI to create sciencey bullshit that sounds plausible in conversation." They want a product that Real Scientists would use.

It sounds kind of like toy marketing: want to sell a toy to 5 year olds? Show 7 or 8 year olds playing with it, even if they'd never actually choose the toy in real life.
I actually got into metal casting and blacksmithing because one day I tried using my dad's shop vac to blow air into a fire I'd made in the backyard. The shop vac was about as strong as a leaf blower and was extremely effective.

After that I dug a small pit, trenched a 2" pipe into the bottom of it to act as a tuyere, and then hooked the shop vac hose to the other end of the pipe. That fire got hot enough that some rocks lining the pit glowed white and sand started to clump together. I could toss an 8-10 inch piece of (undried) oak log into the fire and it would completely burn away in under ten minutes. I had used an old log holder from a fireplace made of 3/4" iron bars to allow airflow around the larger logs as the fire was starting. When the fire died down I discovered it had completely buckled and collapsed from the heat.

I went on to learn how to make refractory bricks and distill charcoal. I switched from the shop vac to a computer case fan for my actual forges though, as the shop vac easily blew all the charcoal out of the fire pot and was very loud.
Hey all! I built an open-source AI-powered answer engine called Farfalle. It’s a self-hostable alternative to Perplexity.

Check out a live demo here: https://www.farfalle.dev/.

The code is fully open-source on Github (https://github.com/rashadphz/farfalle/)
The repository includes instructions on how to run the project locally, along with one-click deploy buttons for Vercel and Render.

I'd appreciate any feedback!
https://scisummary.com can get you pretty deep dives on individual papers. I've always found that these document search engines that are "AI-powered" just can't stand up to hand picking articles myself. Also, these are only open access papers, so anything behind a paywall will just be straight up missing.
F* + 1ml (https://people.mpi-sws.org/~rossberg/1ml/) would be the ultimate experience. I was born too early!
Wow, I love that so much stuff is coming to core!

Every once in a while for the last few years I overhaul my Neovim config and try to add all the new goodies (commenting, LSP, etc., that are table stakes for most IDEs) as plugins using the latest and greatest plugin manager.

That works for a while, but like clockwork, something breaks- a plugin updates incompatibly, Neovim updates incompatibly, an external binary the plugin relies on updates incompatibly...

At this point I'm stuck with a broken IDE and I don't have the energy to debug all the moving parts. I suffer for a month or something and then restart the cycle.

For my latest config, I decided to treat Neovim and "just a text editor" and made a much smaller config ( https://github.com/bbkane/dotfiles/tree/master/nvim-03-lazy ). It's been really nice having something that "just works" for text edits and using VSCode for heavier IDE tasks.

I WANT to use Neovim for more complex tasks, but I also want a simple config that "just works".

I'm really excited that the core devs seem to agree and are adding tablestakes features to core- the new default colorscheme, Treesitter WASM, and better commenting will all make my config even simpler!

At some point I might even try LSP integration again!
What hardware do you use to not immediately down step the bandwidth coming off the modem?

When I subscribed a few years ago there was no reasonable home network hardware that exceeded 1gbps so I finally gave up and “settled” for the lower speed…
Yes, but even the best scientists aren't born with knowledge of what came before. It has to be discovered, and where the discovery process is broken it needs to be fixed. On the individual level, "spend hours chasing rumors about the perfect paper that lives in the stacks, find out the physical stacks are on a different continent, and then sit down and struggle through a pile of shitty scans that are more JPEG artifact than text" makes sense because it's out of scope for a single PhD to fix the academic world, but on the institutional level the answer that scales isn't to berate grad students for failing to struggle enough with broken discovery/summarization tools, it's to fix the tools. Make better scans, fix the OCR, un-f** the business model that creates a thousand small un-searchable silos of papers -- these things need to be done.
I could never really understand the enthusiasm. Why are we still dealing with over half a century of cruft? I get that this is a core piece of technology lots of stuff is built upon, and I'm not arguing to get rid of the classic terminal emulation altogether. But I wish there was an effort of building a new, modern, textual interface to computers with modern assumptions and integration bindings. We shouldn't need to be concerned with obscure escape sequences to print color; tooling shouldn't need to parse strings to do something useful; and junior developers shouldn't need to waste hours scrolling an obtuse man page until they resort to a half-assed SO response with broken parameters to extract a tar archive.

There is more to shells and text interfaces than working within constraints set 50 years ago.
Actually, it's not an LLM!

We do use LLMs, but the secret sauce is an approach we call Factored Cognition which we wrote about here: https://ought.org/research/factored-cognition

(Elicit the company and app was spun out from Ought the research lab).

We do joke internally about the homophone (in fact, IIRC we did a little joke on our CEO by rebranding for his birthday in 2022) but I'm sorry to report that we're all careful, ethical, and well-behaved people :(
Lexers can be much faster than this.

A regex can be translated to a finite state machine. N regex can also be compiled to a (bigger) state machine. The longest-match-wins, ties go to the earlier regex lexer semantic needs a register/int value to track where the current favourite match ended and a second to track which regex matched. Can probably drop one of those registers if preferred.

That takes a pointer into your string, returns the index into your N regex or an indication of failure. Either it moves the pointer along or returns a length as well.

No dynamic allocation. Constant stack space. Couple of machine registers in the interface. Linear time through the input array (slightly handwaving that since some bytes get read multiple times to disambiguate which match is preferred, but it's bounded by a constant factor of the N regex).

Probably read a byte of the input at a time. The C output of re2c is especially clear for seeing why the compiled machine works.

A nice quirk of the above is equivalent regex turn into the same minimal state machine so it doesn't matter how the regex are written. Literals are the same performance as regex specifying that literal.
my neighbor uses them to clean his gutters
Feel thoughts or think feelings?
A massive amount of the noise of a gas blower is the gas motor part of the thing.
It will really vary. Most places I've worked, even in lower paid jobs in my later teens, they're pretty lenient and understanding with personal/sick time.
That's pretty much already possible today with nvim distros like lazyvim.
IIUC fixed widths is more than just a UI problem. Lots of internal code is assuming that. But maybe it works well-enough that it isn't a real issue.

I remember trying a terminal that didn't have fixed char widths and it mostly worked. The only real issue was line wrapping (as vim and the terminal would both wrap based on how long they considered the line to be). So maybe it would be possible! I would love to see solid support for variable-width fonts.

I know variable-width fonts are controversial, but I actually think they work well for coding but haven't had the chance to use them much due to Vim limitations. But especially for Markdown and similar mostly-text content they seem like a clear win.
There's a lot of nuance here. A $100mm fund could be a single guy/gal working from her office, running money in an industry she knows with a little bit of admin support. In that world, $2mm a year in fees is plenty to keep the lights on. Some fund managers I know in this situation don't call all the fee; there may be social considerations / signaling the manager prefers to make. Some spend it all and then some of their own. Absolutely none of them think that the fee is 'retirement money'; they all have eyes on the prize of a 3-5x and carried interest getting them to $100m or so, when they can do whatever thing it is they want to do that got them into running the fund.

On the other hand, a $100mm fund could be a 'contender' fund that wants to raise a large fund, and is in a competitive industry -- it's trying to get on the cap tables that, say, Mayfair gets on to, and so it needs to staff recruiting support, tech help, marketing people. Perhaps it's multi-jurisdiction. In that world, $2mm is way, way too little, and the GPs may well be financing the fund personally through fund 1 and into fund 2, depending on the follow-on raise. They are aiming at running, eventually, $1bn+ per fund in three to four stacked funds, and taking home $1bn after 20 years (or less?) of good effort for each of the original GPs.

These are caricatures, and there's much more than this to the lifecycle of venture funds, but since we're at HN and VC is a big part of the conversation, I think it's good for hackers and founders to understand the counterparties they do business with, and particularly to be able to read the signals of the VCs they talk to, while the VCs are reading the signals of a desperate, out of date deck.
If your company is even halfway legitimate they will have what they collect / monitor in your employee handbook or a privacy policy somewhere.
> By Jack’s peculiar reckoning, 10 was nuclear annihilation. Free though he was to think that way, he had twisted a subjective tool into something that made sense to him and to nobody else on the planet, rendering it unfit for its sole purpose: evaluating pain.

But then, what is a 10? If you have no other instruction, mapping 10 to an extreme seems reasonable. Every time someone asks me this question I think of the time I broke a bone and the pain is never anywhere close to that and I know there must be something even more painful... so what am I to do?
Good post, I assume this was in response to the "Every map of China is wrong"
post a few weeks ago? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40220072

Its not surprising to me that there are so many competing standards, I'm curious how that ends up being rectified in the software (is it all internally translated on ingest?)
The resizing process doesn't introduce any compression artifacts but there is some loss when the images are processed by CLIP, depending on the dimensions.

CLIP likes perfect squares, so that's a limitation on the model size.

In terms of general compression are you familiar with FFmpeg? It has support for lossless compression into a bunch of different image formats.
Do you have a specific response to this?

> Based on the results of extensive excavations and geophysical surveys, this article calculates Gini coefficients—a statistical measure of inequality in the distribution of household income—of house floor sizes, which have been shown to be a suitable proxy for evaluating household variability in diverse cultural contexts and in global comparative studies (e.g. Kohler et al. Reference Kohler2017; Thompson et al. Reference Thompson, Feinman and Prufer2021; Basri & Lawrence Reference Basri and Lawrence2020).

Otherwise it seems like you're pushing your own preferred interpretation onto data you don't understand.

I don't agree that the authors went out of their way to characterize the ruins through a lens of our modern society. If they did, they've hidden that from me.
There are tons of efforts like that. https://xkcd.com/927/
By that argument you can never criticize anything, so what's the point of even talking about how you should or should not code?
If enough people asked for it, sure!
They have their own, and it's documented.

https://invisible-island.net/ncurses/terminfo.src.html#tic-m...

Surely you can imagine that it takes years or more to get people to update though, so switching to a new entry right away could make for a bad user experience.
Sure they are. Just not infallible/perfect, but yes, they certainly are capable of mixing up inputs and coming up with something that’s not in the input set.

No, they won’t come up with a totally new set of concepts and axioms that are totally unconnected to any human set… and you don’t want them to. Because those are the actual hallucinations. New ideas need to be novel, but they still need to fit into the rest of the set.

It’s remarkable just how much people race to be pessimistic about LLMs, even when the pessimistic assertions are obviously and factually incorrect. Like yes we know LLMs have “hallucinations”, which is a loaded term to begin with, because the pessimists literally never shut up about it, even though it’s a fairly trivial overall problem given the immense overall utility.

Some people are clearly so very very emotionally invested in there being nothing productive or useful about AI if it’s not AGI or if it needs the slightest amount of correction or oversight.