skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> We're quite happy for rental companies and small investors to own them.

I’m not, actually. Housing is a human right. If profit weren’t a motive, price would necessarily drop. For those who still can’t afford it (or who choose not to – a valid personal decision), local government should own and maintain rentals at cost. Have the board be made up of and accountable to citizens.
Apple isn't taking VR seriously, if they were they'd be funding the creation of more VR-native content in order to make the platform more attractive. Look at how much money Meta is dumping into VR and compare it with Apple.
That is an orthogonal issue. Guix has first-class support for versions (where "version" means the version string of the source code), while nixpkgs uses the same naming-based approach as Debian.

The important part is being able to install two packages in isolation, irrespective of if they represent the same software in different versions or if they are completely unrelated. Apt couldn't install two unrelated packages if they contain files that have the same path, to my knowledge.

As soon as one foregos putting everything into a single filesystem structure (like in FHS, which most distros follow to some extent) the logical conclusion will be to prefix each packages directory with some identifier that meaningfully describes its content (which could be considered an "extended version" of this package). With nix this is a hash of all the inputs that went into the package (its own source code, compiler flags, build settings, dependencies, etc. and recursively the same for all of its dependencies). This means that if the compiler flags of e.g. a five levels deep transitive dependency are changed, then the package that depends on it changes as well, which is only reasonable since its behavior could change.

At that point all dependency resolution has happened at build time and none is required at runtime. Being able to install different versions of the same package is merely a by-product of this approach.
Exactly. I went through major gas lighting trying to see the Aurora. I just wasn't sure whether I was actually seeing it, because it always looked so different from the photos. It is absolutely maddening trying to find a realistic photo of what it looks like to the naked eye, so that you can know if what you are seeing is actually the Aurora and not just clouds
Of course you can get value from toy business, but toys are toys.
I think this is a good point. Apple’s product innovation has historically been to take something that already exists but isn’t very good and turn it into a top-tier product for the mass market.

Looking at things as widespread as even the iPad in the last 10 years, it’s really been services rather than devices. Netflix, Uber, food delivery, etc. You could make an argument for wireless earbuds, bud Apple does pretty well with AirPods. They tried with VR and electric cars - the former remains niche and the latter failed.
Headlines are A/B tested to see what drives engagement at the cost of shared reality.
No, we had the lowest tier (research - funding is an issue) - but more seriously SME's will get trapped in this as well, and if I had $1m/yr I would definitely be running my own datacenter.

They offered to investigate if we paid for support, I counter-offered with not using the chat script in one of my courses as an example of AWS customer "support", and we ended up getting a full refund at least.
Of course it's Wenting. Hopefully that means a video about it, too.

https://www.youtube.com/@nbzwt/videos
Innovation doesn't always mean new products, sometimes it means making the current ones better. In the case of laptops, tablets, phones, and smart watches: thinner, lighter, more power, and longer battery life are the innovations most people want. In support of that, Apple Silicon was an incredibly important innovation that was not even mentioned once in the article.
You can get plea bargains, and judges absolutely have discretion to put individuals on probation in lieu of criminal prosecution, if there is reason.

But those have their own separate issues, of course.
This is my first reaction as well. How in the world do you end up with close to 10 different databases in production? And furthermore, most of which are totally proprietary? Just use Postgres...
The word delay depends on who he is talking to. On his Dwarkesh interview from a year or so back he speed up noticeably, presumably because Dwarkesh is a fast thinker/talker.
I get a good chuckle every morning when the "C3.ai" ad rolls on NPR.

"Hallucination-free," indeed.

Would love to know what actual, contractual guarantees they place around that.
But how many of those are ordered specifically for OpenAI, and are on order as a result of them to begin with? Do you think if we were in a parallel universe where OpenAI ended up partnering with Google or Amazon instead, the GPU shipments would look the same? I think they would reflect wherever OpenAI ended up doing all their compute showing a pretty similar lion's share.

Your claim was that people should care about compute based on what the provider has done in the AI space, but Microsoft was pretty far behind on that side until OpenAI - Google was really the only player in town. Should they have wanted GCP credits instead? Do you care about their AI results or the ex post facto GPU shipments?

Or, if what you actually want to argue is that Anthropic would be able to get more GPUs with Azure than AWS or GCP then this is a different argument which is going to require different evidence than raw GPU shipments.
It seems to me that personal finances should take a lot less time for someone who has a billion dollars vs. someone who has, say, $100k.

The latter can lose it all on a bad financial decision, and probably has ideas for what they could do if only they could double or 10x or 100x the money, so risks can be worthwhile.

The billionaire will keep getting richer beyond human comprehension even if they just put the entire fortune into treasury bonds. 4% interest on $1B is objectively so much money that you shouldn't bother trying to get more if there's anything else in your life that you'd rather spend time on. (Of course a lot of billionaires get there because the single one thing they want in life is to make money and see the number grow, but Cook doesn't seem that way.)
This is the energy generated.

Every euro spend on nuclear is a euro not spend on something that's giving you 2-3x as much energy generated.

Rewewables have been called "infeasible" at 5%, at 25% at 50%, now we're at 60%. I'm prette sure you'll yell "infeasible" even if we're running at 100%...
Oracle has a long history of not documenting all of this stuff and instead suggesting you should hire one of their army of consultants to help tune the OS or Database for you.
63 is young; most my current business partners are over 50-60 and a few of them are over 70-80s and all of them work full time. They are all millionaires for a long time already but they like work and enjoy building things. So do I; I don't think I will quit before I die or until my brain indeed doesn't work anymore. The 70+ guys are not quick with some things, but have tons of experience which makes them better/quicker in other stuff which matters far more to the business than tech, speed or 'good hip ideas'.
Funding in the 1980s was sometimes very good. My company bought me an expensive Lisp Machine in 1982 and after that, even in “AI winters” it mostly seemed that money was available.

AI has a certain mystique that helps get money. In the 1980s I was on a DARPA neural network tools advisory panel, and I concurrently wrote a commercial product that included the 12 most common network architectures. That allowed me to step in when a project was failing (a bomb detector we developed for the FAA) that used a linear model, with mediocre results. It was a one day internal consult to provide software for a simple one hidden layer backprop model. During that time I was getting mediocre results using symbolic AI for NLP, but the one success provided runway internally in my company to keep going.
I think Vision will be as big as the iPhone and this will be clear in 3-4 years.
> calling them it is putting a label on them they don't agree with.

That does not follow from your examples. I don't have religious beliefs, therefore I'm an atheist - a label which wouldn't exist without religious views. The fact people have religious views does not devalue my ideas in any way and isn't insulting in any way.

People who don't believe gender can be different than gender/sex at birth do not even disagree with the idea of being cisgendered. They just don't agree that other options exist.
That's my experience as well, but the ones which have wear leveling are almost as expensive as SSDs and I only use them in devices which have no other storage option. For a new SBCs I would definitely prefer an SSD or NVMe drive.
Raspberry Pi Ltd is considering an IPO
Here are the ideas Tim.

Stop egregiously upcharging on RAM and storage.

Allow full sideloading. Hide it away in deep place with warnings so normal people don’t use it, but let us nerds have it.

Stop charging $100 for developer accounts.

Release your dev tools so people can build apps for iOS using computers that aren’t Macs. Also, full XCode on iOS itself so you can make iOS apps on iOS.

A Mac Pro with an M4 Ultra AND NVidia GPUs. All other consumer computers will bow down.

Get the Rosetta team to make something similar to Valve’s Proton to actually get the games running on Mac once and for all.

Repairability and upgradability, for real. No ridiculous tools. Stop with the parts pairing. etc.

MacOS and iOS have lots of bugs that are weird edge cases and are not getting fixed. They don’t affect many users, but they strongly impact the users that experience them. Those many bugs add up to a lot of users.

Real intelligent human support for advanced support issues. The real genius bar for us nerds who need it.

Fix the documentation. You like to brag about being best in the world at so many things. Why isn’t your documentation best in the world?

Let Apple Watches work without iPhones. Better yet, let them work with Android phones. Better yet, let iPhones work well with smart watches that aren’t Apple Watches.

I could go on, but I think that’s enough.
Really ugly way to avoid something already solved by named parameters and/or namespacing
You say that the cost of renevables and energy storage combined don't include the cost associated with storing the energy? Wild take.
Exactly the kind of thing I was looking for! Although, I guess for a bug hidden within an electrical device (like that in the article), this approach wouldn't work?

I wonder how well these work against shielding? Might it be possible to build your own device like this?
> And if you think Apple should just "invent a thing" ... they've never really done that.

Some people seem to miss that Apple has been a really, really good integrator of technologies into their products. Their innovation edge is in polishing existing technologies into a more cohesive and complete whole.

The early Macs lifted GUIs into a useful computer, blatantly stealing tech from Xerox PARC and polishing it.

The iPod was the polished version of MP3 players, those existed much earlier than when the iPod released but the iPod was a very ergonomic solution.

The iPhone polished touchscreen interfaces, and the experience of navigating the web on a phone, all of that existed previously, they just made it better.

The polish has value, it made a lot of tech quite useful in the mainstream and the focus on the experience of using them is what always gave Apple an edge.

They don't make the most tinkerable/power-user friendly devices and that's not their business, as much as we like to complain about that on HN and other geeky places, the real users of Apple devices don't care about that aspect if the experience works really well for them.
Obviously I’m an advocate for stronger regulation. I am saying that cannot be sufficient against a cultural backdrop that glorifies greed above all else. So we should be both regulating more effectively and encouraging an ethical culture of obligation to more than just one’s own bottom line — especially in large scale and/or safety-critical business.

Given that most of us here on HN aren’t policymakers but we are creators and receivers of culture, I am focusing on the latter dimension.

Greed is not a virtue, it is a local vice that can be converted into positive outcomes through a system that constrains it. But the necessary prerequisite to constraining greed is seeing it as a vice, a thing to be constrained and not celebrated for its own sake.
Look for devices with the Intel Core Ultra processor family. They’re the first Intel chips that have caught up with the M1/M2/M3 family on performance per watt.
Yes, considering that AI operates differently from human minds, there are several advantages:

AI does not experience fatigue or distractions => consistent performance.
AI can scale its processing power significantly, despite the challenges associated with it (I understand the challenges)
AI can ingest and process new information at an extraordinary speed.
AIs can rewrite themselves
AIs can be multiplicated (solving scarcity of intelligence in manufacturing)
Once achieving AGI, progress could compound rapidly, for better or worse, due to the above points.
I'm not sure if I was taught this specifically in driver's ed but yes, I also learned that if all else fails the best approach is to hit the guard rail at a tight angle and keep steering into it until the car stops. It will total the car but it might save someone's life.
In most languages, doing what this article describes is quite straightforward: you would just define a new type (/ struct / class) called ‘Hash’, which functions can take or return. The language automatically treats this as a completely new type. This is called ‘nominal typing’: type equality is based on the name of the type.

The complication with TypeScript is that it doesn’t have nominal typing. Instead, it has ‘structural typing’: type equality is based on what the type contains. So you could define a new type ‘Hash’ as a string, but ‘Hash’ would just be a synonym — it’s still considered interchangeable with strings. This technique of ‘branded types’ is simply a way to simulate nominal typing in a structural context.
For 'low latency' in eInk, it's about the same time to turn over a page.
There can be some merit to the fact that the weight in a tire is rotating mass, though. But then you get into thoughts about that the bottom of the tire is technically standing still, and the top of the tire is double the speed of your travel. And does it then matter?
I'm guessing his next move is not related to LLMs, maybe not even to the pursuit of AGI.
I worked on a minimal self-hosted ziti for Docker here https://github.com/openziti/ziti/tree/release-next/quickstar... and minimal self-hosted zrok (includes ziti) for Docker here https://docs.zrok.io/docs/guides/self-hosting/docker/

...so, basically:

wget https://get.openziti.io/dock/all-in-one/compose.yml
docker compose up
Thanks; I did actually read the article, but missed this section (and likely some others) as the page doesn't work well on mobile.
The person they were responding to was saying that the people reporting grays were wrong, and that they had seen it and it was colorful. If anything, you should be accusing that person of hubris, not GP. All GPS point was, is that it can differ in different situations. They used the example of Seattle to show that the person they were responding to is not correct that it is never gray and dull.
Ask HN: Resources about software engineering and architecture
Hi everyone,

I'm at a point where I feel like I have a pretty good handle on coding on my day to day job (backend dev mostly).

I feel like I'm hitting at wall about getting better at handling larger projects, seeing the engineering patterns and overall architecture of a project though and that I sometimes code myself into corner when left to my own device.

So, I'm looking for resources to improve with those requirements if possible.

- Starts from business requirements or from a large refactoring and works into correcting and improving the structure and design of the project.

- Leans into modern practices with explanations of the how and why. I'm expecting to see TDD in there for the design part for example but it doesn't have to be.

I'm not looking for resources about common design patterns with basic examples but rather something very involved that'll force me to also make my own decisions (with guidance).

Thanks!
Apple should break themselves up for their own good, before it is forced upon them on less favourable terms. Keep the hardware, OS and app store together, and get out of things like music, books and video distribution where the anti competitive stuff sticks because it is too obvious.

We need to face the fact Apple has become the Toyota of computing and this isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
The simplest answer, without adding any extraordinary capabilities to the AGI that veer into magical intelligence, is to have AI assistants that can seemlessly interact with technology the way a human assistant would.

So, if you want to meet with someone, instead of opening you calendar app and looking for an opening, you'd ask your AGI assistant to talk to their AGI assistant and set up a 1h meeting soon. Or, instead of going on Google to find plane tickets, you'd ask you AGI assistant to find the most reasonable tickets for a certain date range.

This would not require any special intelligence more advanced than a human's, but it does require a very general understanding of the human world that is miles beyond what LLMs can achieve today.

Going only slightly further with assumptions about how smart an AGI would be, it could revolutionize education, at any level, by acting as a true personalized tutor for a single student, or even for a small group of students. The single biggest problem in education is that it's impossible to scale the highest quality education - and an AGI with capabilities similar to a college professor would entirely solve that.
> we've seen two major flops from Apple. The first is the Vision Pro headset ... Meanwhile, the Apple Car didn't even make it out of the gate

Calling the Apple Vision Pro a "major flop" seems bizarrely premature if you consider it to be the beach head presumably it's meant as. If they can't shift version 2 or 3, then sure.

Complaining about cutting the Apple Car after praising Jobs for cutting off ideas that didn't pan out is weird.
The good news is that projects that prevent forking from happening usually don't have huge OSS communities of contributors because of their attitude towards outside contributors. You need an outside community to be able to step up and take over for a fork to happen.

Mostly things like copyright ownership transfer is not a thing with OSS communities because it strongly discourages third parties from contributing. Copyright transfers are only needed with some licenses (GPL style licenses that insist everything else is licensed the same way) and cannot prevent a retroactive fork even if you have them. Other licenses allow distributing mixed licensed code and you can just create a commercial source distribution for those because the license explicitly allows that. Either way, anyone with the pre-license change version of the code can fork. That's why Elastic, which used the Apache license and had copyright transfers, got forked.

The more widely used an OSS project is, the more likely it is that somebody will fork it if it is re-licensed. Because that usually means lots of external contributors and plenty of interest from wealthy companies that depend on it. Meaning there are skills and money needed to fund the fork. Copyright transfers don't stop this from happening. Unless you specifically want to fire most of your user base, this just doesn't make any sense from a business point of view.

A failure to fork basically indicates the project didn't have a strong developer community and big companies simply didn't care about the project.

I consult some clients on Elasticsearch and Opensearch. Most of my recent clients now default to Opensearch. Because it's the OSS option. They are clearly spending money to get support (from me and others) but Elastic isn't getting any. As far as I can see, Opensearch now represents the vast majority of new users and is becoming a significant source of money for hosting, training, and consulting. But Elastic is getting none of that.

My guess is that the industry will learn from the repeated re-licensing and forking and subsequent community split that has been happening. Elastic, Redis, OpenTofu, Centos, etc. The pattern is the same every time: 1) project gets relicensed 2) a few weeks later a consortium of companies pools resources together and forks 3) most users stick with open source and the company cuts themselves off from those users.

Long term, I would not be surprised to see some of those companies offering support for their OSS forks (in addition to their commercial offerings) or even reverting the license change. This would make a lot of sense for e.g. Elastic as there's a lot of duplicated effort between them and Amazon. And Amazon gets a lot for free from outside contributors.
I'm sure those people existed, but money and power is money and power and influences everything as it always does.
What are the tech gadgets which folks need which haven't been made yet? What market share does Apple need to profitable stay in business? Why won't stockholders be satisfied with business-as-usual, and an existing customer base?

The iPhone (and iPad Mini) obviously subsume the Newton --- so folks have a small pocketable device with them almost constantly.

The larger iPad works well for convenient media consumption, and with a keyboard and Apple Pencil, works as a sketchpad/notepad/creative device (and can be paired w/ a Mac via Sidecar) --- so folks have a medium-size device for a bag or coffee table readily available.

The Mac is available in multiple form-factors, from small portable suited for a bag/Starbucks/airplane seat table to small/inexpensive or large/powerful for a desk.

For larger media access there's the Apple TV.

Virtual reality à la the Apple Vision Pro is one lacunae --- but really needs software support, and a form-factor comfortable enough for folks to wear for lengthy timeframes, making the Apple Pencil suited to replace the Newton's stylus might be another.

I wish that they would standardize on sizes/proportions and connector types/locations so that accessories could be carried forward and only upgraded when they wear out.
The incentives aren't structured properly for these things to happen, it has always been a sci-fi fairy tale that AGI would achieve these things.
This is more about nominal VS structural typing. I don't see how named parameters or namespacing would prevent accidental structural type matches.
> AI in the past (adjusted for 1980s) was pretty well funded.

A tiny fraction of the current funding. 2-4 orders of magnitude less.

> It's just that fundamental scientific discovery bears little relationship to the pallets of cash

Heavy funding may not automatically lead to breakthroughs such as Special Relativity or Quantum Mechanics (though it helps there too). But once the most basic ideas are in place, massive is what causes the breakthroughs like in the Manhatten Project and Apollo Program.

And it's not only the money itself. It's the attention and all the talent that is pulled in due to that.

And in this case, there is also the fear that the competition will reach AGI first, whether the competition is a company or a foreign government.

It's certainly possible the the ability to monetize the investments may lead to some kind of slowdown at some point (like if there is a recession).

But it seems to me that such a recession will have no more impact on the development of AGI than the dotcom bust had for the importance of the internet.
Tim Cook grew apple massively since he took over, Ballmer left without growing Microsoft's market cap at all.