skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This "bug" really made me mad when it happened to me as well. It seems to be on purpose, it's happened multiple times over the years!
"choice bush" is amazing, and I like to think describes a particular class of decision shrubs.
My experience with Cloudflare is that anytime “Trust and Safety” are involved, no one will ever be told anything. Even if it’s a totally benign or even good situation. Even if they find a case in your favor or resolve an issue for you.

Whoever runs that team really, really gets off on being withholding, as Buster Bluth would say.
"403
Access denied

This documentation set is not currently available for public access.

Please subscribe to Docland Plus to gain unlimited access and unlock all premium features!
"
You're goalpost shifting in quite a major way.

Your argument is that women are not the big winners on dating apps because the outcomes for both men and women are equally bad.

That is false.

Language is imperfect but that's not the problem right now, it's that you are playing fast and loose with words and blaming it on language.

I also very intentionally said "matches" and not "dates" because again, this entire thread is based on who the big winners of dating apps are.

The goal of dating apps is to get matches. Someone else has even pointed out that these apps might more appropriately be called "matching apps", and I don't think anyone including you would disagree. (But in case you do, note that these apps have no concept of "dates"... Only matches)

I'm not misunderstanding that this is a major failing of dating apps, I'm stating that as they are currently structured, based on the current rules: women are winning in dating apps.

That is and was the topic of conversation.

It wasn't stated that women are the big winners of romance and dating in general, and that's not what this thread is about. But you are attempting to make it about that in order to get away from your original point, which is still wrong, no matter how far we depart from it.

Going to put a pin in this though.
> > No one in their right mind would write mission-critical software in C.

> That said, what “mission critical software” are you using that is not running on an OS written in C?

I'm not sure that's relevant?

If you have a piece of mission critical software, almost all the time you run it on an existing OS like Windows or Linux. You don't _write_ a new OS just for your one piece of software.

Of course, that OS had to be written at some point in the past (and is still being worked on). Presumably that writing was (and is) being done by people not 'in their right mind'. But that shouldn't concern you.

The problem with C is not that you can't write secure-ish software at all; the problem is that this is insanely difficult, and that the trade-offs aren't worth it. Especially for new software.

For software that I get from some third-party, like the OS, I only care about its quality (and price); I don't care about the trade-offs and pains the authors had to endure. If they want to use C in the privacy of their own bedroom, that's up to them.

Of course, Linux in 2024 is written in C, mostly because Linux in 2023 was written in C, then 2022, etc all the way back to the 1990s. There's a lot of path dependence. Back in the 1990s C was a more reasonable choice to write your new OS in. Especially if it was a clone of Unix, C's original home and killer app.
I guess unfortunately Apple has no choice but to include bullshit AI in it's products and services or look like they have been left behind.
Personnel of the mainstream news media (fourth estate) are richer than average and live in megacities, and so their interests align to their own bubbles, celebrities, and the political class they're unable or unwilling to hold accountable. It creates a situation where dissenting voices who don't condone beating the drums to war are excommunicated as pariahs like Chris Hedges and Ralph Nader.
Not OP. I don't think they actively want it or pursue it as some sort of conscious objective, it's just something that makes a lot of things easier for government. It's essentially gradient descent and the government following the thing that's slightly better for it, with no view of the bigger picture.
I mean, given that this pricing is used everywhere by basically every commercial body on Earth, and it is a pretty easily testable hypothesis (like, literally, you need like 30 people at most and a couple of sheets of paper), it’s pretty damn trivial to claim that.. most probably the whole market has done its homework and it is trivially reproducible.
Complete agree. The hidden damage we are doing to marine ecosystems is horrendous.

I love eating seafood but have basically given it all up due to environmental concerns, there's very few fisheries left that are harvested sustainably and farmed fish as an alternative cause a host of other problems for marine wildlife in the area.

Even the sustainable types of fish usually end up with huge amounts of bycatch that it's hard to justify eating them too.

At this point the only seafood I can eat is something I've caught myself and isn't of concern for sustainability, Australia is lucky in that respect with quite a few species thriving but we still face a lot of illegal fishing in our waters that's incredibly hard to police.
>The UK has been trying for decades to become the surveillance society, hasn't it?

Australia wants that title!

Bunnings here also uses (used?) facial recognition technology.

Also concert venues and sporting events.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/bunnings-denies-reintrod...

I'd be willing to bet that supermarkets are next, if they aren't already.
This source rapidly veered into a polemic against universities.

The original WSJ source might be a better link.

I'm surprised to find myself saying that.
I think we are technically supposed to use Zoom at my employer, but almost everyone (at least in eng) just uses Meet instead. The UX is so much better, and it's rarer that something isn't working with someone's setup.

Also I swear the audio latency is worse with Zoom -- I find myself accidentally interrupting people more often.
CollabVM
> Array bounds are not being checked on every array access not because it would make compilers too complex.

That might be true, but you could still specify something slightly less exploit heavy than 'undefined behaviour'. Eg you could make out-of-bounds access into implementation defined behaviour.
Good. Now find every paper that cited them and audit those too.
I'm not here to debate taxonomy. Rich Hickey says: "Clojure is a dialect of Lisp and shares with Lisp the code-as-data philosophy and a powerful macro system." No disrespect, but unless Alan Kay or Guy Steele come to your side and convince Rich to stop calling Clojure a Lisp, I'll be calling it that. Sorry, maybe Mr. Hickey knows better than I do about the language he created?
Interesting story, but the author is a bit "edgelord":

> The ABC is part of the reason science is corrupt to the core. The ABC Science Unit is paid to hold junk-science’s feet to the fire, instead it provides cover for the pagan witchcraft that passes for modern research.

Please. That's hyperbole. It's extremely unfair to the ABC science team.
I'm not sure that's this easy, because of the copy-and-paste nature of C's "libraries" via pre-processor #include directives.
I sometimes work out of a WeWork here in Bangalore, and they have these tiny one-person soundproof cubicles for taking calls. All they have inside is a cushioned bench to sit on and a table large enough to hold a 15" laptop.

It's a great idea, IMO. You can fit 10-12 of these in the same space as a regular conference room. This solves exactly the problem you're describing.
"fake knowledge" works pretty well too, as highlighted by Google's recent stuff.
Lunch Money: The New Era, or how a divorce redefined my one-person business
Yes, it's searching artifacts. Unfortunately searching symbols is not feasible until I have a larger budget. (Probably need TBs of index)

The keyboard navigation doesn't work yet, will fix in the next release.
Um. Wow. That's quite a story. But, it's not real. "owever, Guinness had a policy of not publishing company data, and allowed Gosset to publish his observations on the strict understanding that he did so anonymously."

I'm 1906, Gosset was the guest of Person at UCL, and since Gosset had a First in Math, and Professor Pearson was the leading mathematician and publisher of the Bell curve..

Gosset spent a year at UCL. University College London. A year with an expert looking over his shoulder? I would think that he would publish with an extreme amount of confidence, forgoing the need for an apolocetic shrug, which I have never ever heard of. Never, and I have a degree in math with a minor in Statistics. They had playing cards. You are arguing for large sample sizes, which is not economical - precisely against the design of the test - which looks surprisingly suspicious.
My experience with Pulumi enterprise sales has been that they’re fairly forthcoming about how much everything will cost based on usage.

I think it’s weird to accept an enterprise contract without explicit terms…
That’s pretty ingenious to call people dumb. This is psychology and these tricks work on you even if you trivially understand that 3.99 is not feasibly cheaper than 4.00 — your brain simply processes information non-stop in the background and you are affected by this. Hell, there was even a study that people who claim they don’t fall for these kind of marketings tricks are more susceptible to fall for this, so, take what you want from it.

Also, even knowingly false propaganda has an effect on you.
Just because you don't understand it yet doesn't mean it isn't useful.

An ideal version of CSS would remove the need for SASS, BEM, and any non-thematic framework. That we have to use those right now is a problem to be fixed.
"I arrange, design, and sell (decision) shrubberies!"
That one is something you get from a high-end landscaper.
There is some Monty Python joke about shrubbery somewhere in there.
Compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_medias_res
I'm actually focusing on the context of the thread.

Your entire presence here is in response to the statement "Women are the big winners of dating apps"

You disagree with this and your analogy was your way of explaining your disagreement.

You could have used another analogy and I would still disagree if your conclusion was different from the person you were responding to.

> Because we both know that the type and number of bad actors that men and women face aren't the same. But I'm not going to hound you for it because that'd be in bad faith. It'd be a willful misinterpreting of what you meant.

We don't both know that (in regards to number). Bad actors is a very broad term. I have pretty explicitly stated multiple times in this thread (in response to you, IIRC), that I believe the quality of interactions men and women face on dating apps is roughly the same. (To clarify this, I mean the ratio of good vs bad interactions on the app in a binary ranking system is roughly the same for men vs. women)

Yes, that includes all of the bad things you are thinking of, and including some I'm sure you have never thought of if you have never lived in a rough place.

> You're reading way too much into an analogy

You do realize that analogy was pretty much your entire original comment, right? I am directly responding to your entire point, not harping on semantics or nuance.

> I'm not sure why these are being treated as equally bad.

I'm supposed to respond to that without mentioning your analogy..? Because the analogy is why these things are being treated as equally bad. It's literally the entire point of your analogy.
You don't want to use this for pasta. The ideal cooking temperature is just above the boiling point. Boil-over is your cue that the water is too hot: uncover more of the pot and/or turn down the heat.
Because only software engineers developed the ability of higher-thought, every other field is just a bunch of monkeys/NPCs living life.

/s
Do you find that better than a stash or a branch because it shows up in ls?
Does it matter what is a Lisp? We can answer it like this.

Yes, it matters in the following way. New languages being touted as Lisps, which deviate from the Lisp characteristics, cause confusion.

For instance, nowadays you read comments like: "I tried Lisp for a while but couldn't get used to doing everything using immutable sequences, nice as the pure functional paradigm might be conceptually". Obviously, that person is referring to Clojure, and since Clojure is promoted as a Lisp, they believe that all that is true of Clojure is true of Lisp.

People believe such misleading statements which is then harmful to the real Lisps. Someone out there will avoid using Common Lisp believing that they would be required to do everything using immutable sequences or hashes.
The clue is in the next sentence.

If you look for cweb by itself, you might get weird results, because there are only so many four letter acronyms / words. Look for 'literate programming cweb' or just 'literate programming'.
Let’s give it to Elon instead. /s
The dirty secret is that nation states can get your software dependency list pretty easily in a number of ways (e.g. sending agents to meetups to nerd out & make friends would be an expensive way but there’s other social engineering attacks I’ve observed).

The other secret is that monitoring software can’t detect anomalies ahead of time & the vulnerability scan will not show up meaningfully any different than all the other random traffic already happening. Your nation state can hide it’s vulnerability scan amongst all the other vulnerability scanners already running (both legit as a service when you request it against your server & illegitimate actors trying to find a way in). So at best a ham fisted search is unlikely to really tip your hand in a meaningful way unless it requires having penetrated a few layers of your security to begin with.

As for libxz, the scary part is that as an industry we recognize the security challenge of not compensating maintainers and yet we have lackluster responses to fixing it (e.g. Google trying to pay OSS maintainers to harden their security while completely ignoring that a huge problem is that the maintainers can’t devote full time which opens an avenue for malicious actors to overwhelm maintainers & take control socially as happened with libxz).
There are 3 different ways I could get to the store, I could walk or drive or bicycle. There are also 3 different paths I can take. I could go down road A, sidestreet B, or alleyway C. I know you'd rather one big button to press that just says "do it" on it, but in order to perform complex actions on complex objects, there are going to be multiple ways to accomplish the same thing.
Yeah, growing up my mom had a grapefruit knife. It's used to "scoop" the flesh out of half z grapefruit. It's a really weird looking utensil if you don't know what it's for.

Interestingly I can't find any pictures of what we had online. Ours had a serated blade (both top and bottom) and was arc'd through 90 degrees to the side.
Engineers unlock the next generation of wireless communications
I thought the MS version was C#?
Strong recommendation is to read any other source of this news, not the Jo Nova nonsense spin of it.
> If you read code and don't think about what it's doing, are you really "reading" it?

A lot of code doesn't _do_ anything. And you can still read it.

Eg I'm thinking about type declarations, or constraint based programming, etc.
Petapixel is largely trusted as an independent source in the photography community
Reminds me of the early dialup to DSL communication over standard telephone lines evolution.
OK, don't call it C, call it C[*].

It will accept any existing C program unmodified.

With a per-file switch, say, #define __FEATURE_WEAK_ARRAYS, it will start to discriminate T* and T[], make it an error to mix them in assignments, or to pass one instead of the other if both the function definition and the function call are in files with this feature on. It will not complain about functions defined elsewhere.

Then, say, #define __FEATURE_STRICT_ARRAYS the compiler will complain about mixing arrays and pointers as function arguments, no matter where the function is defined. It would require updated stdlib headers, for instance.

Additionally, #define __FEATURE_MULTI_ARRAYS would enable syntax for fixed-size multidimensional arrays, Fortran-style. Now uint8[3][2][10] foo; would allocate 60 elements, and access to foo[1][2][3] would involve one memory dereference, not three.

More support would be needed: sizeof, support for slices, safe array copies and length checks. Nothing extraordinary.

Having this implemented would make a terrific master's degree work.
I wonder how many games have been released that could have been jackpots but weren't due to bugs and lack of rigor.

Tests also aren't just about rigor. They don't take years to pay dividends. The time you save just being able to develop and iterate without having to spin up the whole app and manually click through things to test them is huge. Not to mention the time saved hunting down regressions.
I thought all of the peer reviewers were stuck in their tusk material skyscrapers, but I guess not. That’s how the biscuit disintegrates.
Directional tomahawks lmao!
We need 70% less coders as the AI handles most of the coding
Not reading but writing code, I have a similar feeling as playing the piano, especially
in highly interactive programming languages like Clojure or Common Lisp. Does anyone have similar experiences?
Compilers understand code pretty well, but they don't run it. (Similarly, if you are a human translating code from C to Pascal, you'll want to understand it, but you won't necessarily execute it by hand to get that understanding.)

How could you run code, when you don't know the inputs?

You can reason through how the code could run with some example inputs, but that's just one of many tools we have in our belt to comprehend code.

In eg Rust or Haskell just looking at the types is pretty useful. Or in linear programming, you might want to think about the constraints expressed, but not actually do any arithmetic yourself.
One thing missing that I use all the time, "git cherry". Without arguments it will show you what commits in your local branch are not in your remote tracking branch. Use "git cherry <ref>" to list the commits in the current branch that are not in the given ref.

Most simple use is to know what you are about to push. Second use case is getting a commit list for release notes when using deployment/promotion branches.

Super useful, I thought everyone used it but maybe some don't know!
Amusingly you can’t play some of our required LMS training through Displaylink
I suppose R might be a better choice...

library(readr)
library(dplyr)
library(purrr)
data <- read_csv("input.csv")
chunk_size <- 500
chunks <- split(data, ceiling(seq_along(1:nrow(data))/chunk_size))
iwalk(chunks, ~write_csv(.x, sprintf("data-%04d.csv", .y)))
But drug companies do make effective pharmaceutical derivatives of Vitamin D, such as Calcipotriene.
Lithium Densification for High-Energy-Density Lithium Metal Batteries
digikey.com product filter results page is incredible. Clear case of form following function.
Depends how you define opportunity. Getting really good at something is 90 % putting in a lot of hours and 10 % talent. Putting in a lot that don't pay isn't for everyone, while the really great devs will do a lot of tech work outside the job as well.

(The numbers are not meant to be taken literally)
This entire duct-tape-and-baling wire ecosystem is due to a complete regulatory failure.

If regulators had been demanding interoperable banking APIs since, well, 2000 or so when it was obviously the open-Internet was going to be a thing, this mess of middlemen wouldn't exist.

Cool fintechs would either be add-on services that bolted to your account at whatever bank you already used, or would at least have the tools available to programmatically migrate accounts with a few clicks.

Even in the current fiasco, I'm amazed there's no service for that use case. Even if it only supported a small number of banks, I could see businesses and high-net-worth people liking the leverage of saying "Hey, guy at Wells Fargo, if I don't get what I want, I press one button and the entire company's accounts jump ship to Chase."
I just read Michael Pollen's "In Defence of Food" and it is so simple:

1) Avoid high fructose corn syrup, and items with non-basic ingredients.

2) Take Omega-3 if you don't regularly eat fish (and B12 if entirely vegetarian)

3) If a boxed product features a prominent health claim, it's probably bullshit.

In the past month of "eating" healthier, I have noticed more stability in my energy levels.

--

About three months ago I stopped combusting/smoking (plant vape only) entirely, and my blood pressure dropped -20/-15 , leaving me almost "back to normal" range.

Not smoking has so far been a more-immediate health increase, but I'm sure the food intake changes will amount to something.
You said "I’m going to guess that you need to have an Enterprise contract to be a business of certain categories".

If that was the problem, this issue wouldn't be relevant to most people.

When you switch to "they can terminate anyone", and they act this rashly and unexpectedly, that means anyone needs to live in fear.
The same thing as “don’t have unprotected sex and AIDS will go away”.
It is very typical Apple that wants to play Google against OpenAI to their full advantage. All while buying themselves time to work on their own.

I just wish Microsoft could get their act together on their OS and release a Surface Phone
> Palestinian people should not be displaced

This was always wishful thinking at best, and more realistically a lie.
It's interesting how mathematically shallow most stats presentations are. In most other areas I've studied, you start from some basics like axioms and gradually build up machinery by proving theorems etc. But presentations I've seen of the t-test focus on when and how to use it, without going very deep into the derivation at all.

This leaves me skeptical of the movement to replace calculus with stats in high school. It's true that an ordinary citizen will find stats more useful. But for students who will go on to become scientists and engineers, I think they should study calculus. Calculus is a better on-ramp to the sort of rigor you need in upper-level math. And I'm concerned that a bad "cargo cult" stats class may be worse than no stats education at all. Calculus education seems harder to screw up.
LLM observed emitting control sequences to modify dynamic buffer
The video shows that the LLM printed out text and then dynamically emitted sequences that caused the terminal to delete lines in real time before the completion ended
Technology grows exponentially. Ethereum validators are fixed to an arbitrary performance threshold that ensures the network will stay stagnant.
Jo Nova is anti-vax, anti-govt, libertarian, climate-skeptical, etc.

Totally on form for her to be bagging the ABC, one of her favourite targets.

Interesting reading sometimes, but also read the sources. Her interpretations can be wild. Thankfully, she usually cites the sources.
https://www.beeper.com/ has been my main chat app aggregator, it's not perfect but works for most cases

You can also self host it
What makes you think it'll have better performance if it was rewritten as a native app? All the underlying code that handles audio and network communication is already built using fast C++/Rust code. This includes things like WebRTC, audio and video capture, compression, the WebAudio API, etc.

In products like Meet, JavaScript just acts as a glue language that sticks all these APIs together. All the heavy lifting is actually done by the browser, and modern browsers are some of the most efficient language runtimes humanity has ever built.