skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
For an even earlier reference (2015) "the most pointless docker command ever" https://zwischenzugs.com/2015/06/24/the-most-pointless-docke...

This is a by design part of Docker's operation. What's perhaps a little more surprising (though it shouldn't be) is that anyone with create pod rights in a k8s cluster can do this by default on every worker node in the cluster. (unless the cluster operator or provider has implemented additional controls)
I love this! Can you tell me more about the quote please
Source: https://github.com/tombl/linux
French gigafactory startup Verkor secures €1.3B loan
Do you know what makes you feel old? When you read "WP" and think not of WordPress (which would now apparently be accepted as an adult in even the most conservative countries), but of WordPerfect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WordPerfect - which is now at "midlife crisis" age).
So even though as a user you have alternatives, you don’t want to buy one of those alternatives so Apple should make exactly what you personally want?
exactly. being from the periphery of world economies, this right wing rant reads like "you can't do in my backward what we do in Africa".
I just gave you a paper showing that is not the case. I even provided the quote.

There is no inherent limit from physics, only from engineering. History provides ample evidence were a given medium had it's "Shannon Limit" broken via new signaling methods over the same medium. The terms you used, "bandwidth" and "noise" are technological, not physical. "Bandwidth" increases each time we invent better methods to pack and decode it. Most of the old concepts are based on old Fourier Analysis, whereas a better modern framework is wavelets or even their successors. Fourier is a very simple way to think of signals, missing plenty of useful things, which is exactly what led to the development of wavelets, to enable more powerful signal analysis.

Note in particular there is no single "bandwidth" when dealing with photonics, since photons can be physically stacked arbitrarily without interference. Simply google for breakthroughs in photonics bandwidth to see decades of advances beyond what was previously thought to be "the bandwidth".

The Shannon limit is a *model* of the system. That model is necessarily incomplete, since there increasingly advanced technology. Those models almost always use simplifications to make the math tractable, such as gaussian noise, independent errors, and a host of other things that are not true physically. Even the concept of noise requires either a non=physical abstraction to math or some details of the engineering used to measure it. Simply saying there "is gaussian noise" is a gross model used to simplify math. It is non-physical.

A simple example that leveraging quantum has created a new field of quantum shannon theory, which has better bounds. Under shannon's theory and his understanding of information, quantum key distribution would not be possible, yet it is, and companies have offered commercial versions for 20+ years. I would not be surprised if more and more pieces of physics not currently used for communication get used in the future, changing the "limits" again and again.

Before MIMO transmission, single channel over the same medium had a shannon limit. MIMO surpassed it. Many channels, especially where light is used, allow stacking more and more information into the same medium, subject to technology ability to decode, which is an engineering feat, not a physical one.

The world of information theory has moved past shannon, just like orbital mechanics moved past Newton. Both Newton and Shannon have uses, but they're not valid for modern techniques.

Two of many such changes are compressed sensing, which was a major discovery, that routinely beats Shannon-Nyquist sampling theory, and the discovery of what is called generalized sampling developed around 2000-2010 (and still making it's way through image processing). Both are fundamental theory changes that allowed breaking previous "limits".

So please read the paper, and if you claim there is still some inherent limit, publish the paper countering the one above.
I can tell you how to do a bunch of things with Jujutsu without looking it up: how to rebase a tree of branches given a common ancestor, how to do a 3+ way merge, how to split the changes in a commit into multiple commits, how to duplicate a branch, how to find all of the commits that haven't made it into the default branch...

I can't tell you how to do a single one of these things in git without looking it up. My years of experience with git is around a decade I think. My experience with Jujutsu adds up to about 3 months.

Sure, there are things that I would still have to look up how to do with Jujutsu; I don't know all of its features. I think the operations I know how to do with Jujutsu off the top of my head are strictly a superset of the operations I know how to do with git though.
(Some) sites don't work on Firefox.

Sure it isn't frequent, but it is frequent enough that once a day or so I have to open chrome to do something.
Modern reality: see what horrible horrible things modern day macOS / iOS will do to a device’s ’friendly name’ in order to turn it into a conservative hostname.
Halliburton for all your seawall needs !
How much have you had stolen in monetary value just out of curiosity? I went schizo myself for a few months after having like $60k worth of stuff stolen from me when the cops did nothing. But you sound like this is just happening continually -- having this daily stress that's gonna get you or someone else killed -- and you probably don't deserve the prison time.
Personally (and this is just based on my gut feeling), I don’t think WP core is more insecure than other CMSes.

The real problem is the plugin ecosystem, which is not impossible to navigate for the disciplined, but at times bears resemblances to the Wild West.

So, what ends up happening is:

1. Cheap ’experts’ install every plugin under the sun.

2. One of these plugins inevitably gets pwned.

3. Headline: ‘WordPress backdoored’.
> The past 10 years of IPv6 have been largely uneventful for me: it just doesn't work.*

IPv6 worked "too well" for me: a while ago I was web surfing I had all those little Facebook icons show up that were served from their web site, probably dropping cookies on my system. I didn't want that so I put FB's domain in my hosts(5) file so that it go to "0.0.0.0": the little icons went away.

Then suddenly they appeared. And I checked hosts to make sure things were still there, and I did web browser debugging to see if things changed in the HTML.

And then I remembered that my ISP had activated IPv6, and so the icons were coming from FB's IPv6 address. Once I added "::1" for FB in my hosts file the icons disappeared again.
In the 80s and 90s there were locked down devices - game consoles - and computers.
I Created a GUI for Hugo
Yes, and also word-completion in various editors (e.g. Vim) does not work with hyphens.
Tiddlywiki - the poster child for a complex app delivered as a single LOCAL web page.
HIPPA
I sort of wish that we would move on from the "grokking" terminology in the way that the field generally uses it (a magical kind of generalization that may-or-may-not-suddenly-happen if you train for a really long time).

I generally regard grokking as a failure mode in a lot of cases -- it's oftentimes not really a good thing. It tends to indicate that the combination of your network, task, and data are poorly suited for learning {XYZ} thing. There are emergent traits which I think the network can learn in a healthy manner over training, and I think that tends to fall under the 'generalization' umbrella.

Though I'd strongly prefer to call it 'transitive' rather than 'compositional' in terms of generalization, as transitive is the formal term most disciplines use for such things, compositional is a different, more general meaning entirely. Similarly, I'd replace 'parametric' and 'non-parametric' with 'internal' and 'external', etc. Sloughing through the definition salad of words (this paper alone takes up roughly half of the top Kagi hits for 'parametric memory') makes actually interpreting an argument more difficult.

One reinterpretation of the problem is -- of course external memory models will have trouble generalizing to certain things like models relying on internal memory do! This is because, in part, models with internal memory will have much more 'experience' integrating the examples that they've seen, whereas, for an external-memory model like a typical RAG setup, anything is possible.

But, that being said, I don't think you can necessarily isolate that to the type of memory that the model has alone, i.e., I don't think you can clearly say even in a direct comparison between the two motifs that it's the kind of memory itself (internal vs. external) that is to blame for this. I think that might end up leading down some unfruitful research paths if so.

That said, one positive about this paper is the fact that they seem to have found a general circuit that forms for their task, and analyze that, I believe that has value, but (and I know I tend to be harsh on papers generally) the rest of the paper seems to be more of a distraction.

Definitional salad buffets and speculation about the 'in' topics are going to be the things that make the headlines, but in order to make real progress, focusing on the fundamentals is really what's necessary here, I think. They may seem 'boring' a lot of the times, but they've certainly helped me quite a bit in my research. <3 :'))))
Brokeback Mountain
That would be fine, imo. But seeing as their new development efforts (Block/Gutenberg themes) are also making horrible decisions when they no longer have to (such as putting templating markup inside of HTML comments as JSON)[1]

E.g:

<!-- wp:latest-posts {"postsToShow":4,"displayPostDate":true} /-->
<div class="posts"></div>

I've lost any faith I had in their core development teams competence. I would understand if development choices made 20 years ago weren't all that great by todays standards, and never breaking backwards compatibility would be the reason it still is bad today, but their new themes can be used independently from their old themes as an entirely different implementation, so they had a chance to finally do what is industry standard, and they chose to again make it horrible to write theme markup code that is prone to errors, has no editor support (what editor supports JSON in HTML comments?) and enforces more spaghetti to be made.

[1]: https://developer.wordpress.org/block-editor/getting-started...
Looks like your parents weren't evil enough to name you Bobby Tables.

https://xkcd.com/327/
It would be interesting if the EU stuff leaks over into the Apple Watch and lets people install mini OSs there.
of course. malinformation is the biggest threat to a modern "democracy".
> Is it fair to call Gleam an Erlang with modern syntax and a HM type system?

Kinda. There's a fair amount similar but things like message passing are implemented as a library in gleam [0] rather than being a part of the core language, so you might say the big things that make erlang _erlang_ are not part of Gleam directly.

> is the JS target as well supported?

The experience is pretty good, yeah! The compiler can emit typescript declarations, there's a vite plugin for gleam, I maintain a frontend framework written in gleam and it's all grand.

> Is performance just the same as Erlang (when compiled to Beam) or there's differences?

That's right, perf is the same.

> Why would someone use Gleam instead of Elixir (they now have optional types - not sure how well those work though)? Is there really demand for more than one modern language on top of Erlang's VM?

Few reasons. Elixir's type system work is very much Work In Progress and could be a long time before we get something "finished". Also the semantics and approach have quite different designs: I'd guess folks that like the gradual type experience Elixir is pushing would not like Gleam's type system and vice versa.

There's certainly room for us both on the BEAM (and we do interoperate too!)

[0]: https://hexdocs.pm/gleam_erlang/
Signature of geomagnetic superstorm in Earth's rotation speed (2020)
I'd say the key point here isn't that they "need" specialised embeddings, but rather that it improves things and it can samewhat manage without.

That's a far more surmountable problem. Maybe you need one model for biology and another for coding etc. i.e. Broad split by domain. Still weak AI not true general in AGI sense, but still seems like a good next step
The Finns seem to have a lot of innovative social programs - dementia villages -
https://hogeweyk.dementiavillage.com and open prison programs - https://pulitzercenter.org/projects/finlands-open-prisons
Beacons take up a fair bit of radio space so if you're going to have a lot then have it on a channel you're not using yourself.
The only problem with the fiat currency is the total failure to use it effectively due to misguided fears about "debt".
How a Sea of Nodes Compiler Works
- "it seems intent on causing material harm"

It's intent on changing public policy by persuading voters with argumentation. This is the most protected class of speech. That it publishes ugly true facts about individuals (which is also protected!) is an incidental step towards the author trying to paint a persuasive political narrative.

(I can't help but want to break this down. You say it's misleading, but the case docket is hyperlinked inline with the text you say is misleading—that's far more than adequate in US jurisprudence. No "reasonable person" (a technical standard) is misled on a fact that's plainly disclosed, just one click away. You say the criminality is in the "distant past"—but the person's felon status is current, ongoing, and in fact relevant to the author's line of arguing, which is that these nonprofits are a form of "laundering" federal government grants to people the federal government otherwise disqualifies. You think (and I'm sympathetic to this) that crimes committed 20+ years ago are not strongly reflective of the current human. But, this is a subjective interpretation—not an objective truth beyond reasonable debate; and the fact that the US government itself disagrees, by permanently disqualifying felons shows how ludicrous it'd be to argue, in a US court, that "he's a convicted felon" is speech without social value).
same, with one more layer.

this is iso9000 but for eco-conscious consumers instead of investors.

want to sell the torment Nexus, but need wholefoods to place it next to the organic avocados? bcorp was made exactly for this. just pay certification to this non profit. *shrugemoji
You are lying to claim that homeless people aren't included. They are in the denominator as part of the total estimated population.
Surely we’ve learned some things?

After Mythical Man Month there’s been other books (and talks), yes?

I’ve read The Phoenix Project (based on The Goal) and its sequels.

What should be on every EM’s shelf?
>> But this work shows in a controlled environment that the model can learn the principles of addition and extrapolate to much larger numbers.

No, because it's given hand-engineered embeddings that act as a strong inductive bias that is specific to addition. It's like addition is programmed right in.
They can get shut down for not following HIPPA regulations.
"this will be done tomorrow/next week/in three months"

This type of answer is also possible if you can agree on the desired confidence. I've found that 95% confidence is sufficient for most cases, but that number will depend on context. Understanding the stakes of the deadline for stakeholders can help adjust this further.

I agree that building trust with stakeholders can be tricky, and discussions about risks can be sometimes be interpreted as unwillingness to take responsibility. In that situation, the team can at least get a measure on their level of confidence and give an initial number they're somewhat comfortable with, as well as an estimate of how likely to succeed the agreed upon number is.
No, because those embeddings only work for addition (very weakly for multiplication and sorting). Imagine needing a specially-crafted bias for every single task. The Deep Learning revolution brought on by Convolutional Neural Nets was supposed to do away with the need to do exactly that.
I use the same strategy, but I only copy dotfiles.

I think setup can be automated further.

My latest thinkpad had a GPU.
The US power system is 240V. Every home has 240V service.
Maybe I am wrong, but at least in some contexts one can get a mortgage in a foreign currency. In which case it would be beneficial to use the more inflating one if they were the same rate, wouldn't it?
Interesting, I had no idea these are a thing. It's been a very long time since I've last been to a large concert.
I hope AT&T buys up T-Mobile soon. I've been yearning for the halcyon days.
The Largest Exploit and Vulnerability Database
Of course there are cases like this, nobody is perfect. But we are talking about mathematics here, not everyday subconscious decision making. I agree that 99% of daily life is trivial pattern recognition. That's not what distinguishes humans though is it? Because animals, down to single celled organisms do just fine without higher order mental capabilities. But we are talking about reasoning here - and specifically about structured one like math.
For me it's the risk of littering in a project repo.

So I use Zim wiki instead: https://zim-wiki.org/
RFC 1726: Technical Criteria for Choosing IP the Next Generation (IPng) (1994)
My comment can make Impress better.

Yours continues to enable the status quo.

"oh he made a great point, but he said it snarkey! Guess M$ can just keep being the only company with text size"
> Orchestration needs an orchestrator, choreography does not.

That analogy doesn't make sense to me.

An orchestra can play a piece without a conductor.

Choreography has an "orchestrator" for all but the final performance.

Neither can work indefinitely without a director, while both can work for a single performance without a director.

So it's still not clear to me what the difference is supposed to be.
Fair enough, however if your top idea is to start a web design firm 2024, this indicates that you perhaps haven't been exposed to more promising problems in any other industry. Maybe taking a job for a couple of years, in some field you are curious about, would change that.
>The point is that these middleware appliances we often use as a scapegoat exist only in well-controlled private networks. Why should we care about them?

Perhaps for the same reason we only stopped caring about IE 6 after its usage dropped below a tiny percentage.

For better or worse, making your website available to as many groups of people as possible, regardless of their browser selection or network configuration, has been a long-standing goal in the community.

If your website isn't available to folks at the offices of company X because they use appliance Y, through no fault of user Z's, well...that's not ideal, is it?
This comes up now because SG21 (the Contracts Study Group) have a proposal for C++ 26. Proponents of this work would like to portray it as a crucial safety improvement - you can now write a pre-condition contract and, hypothetically, this could be enforced to deliver a meaningful safety improvement over just documenting the same requirement on a web page nobody reads.

But of course the proposed C++ 26 Contracts rely on C++ expressions. In C++ the expressions are themselves full of potential UB footguns, including signed overflow and illegal pointer de-reference. Thanks to time travel, this means adding the "safety" pre-condition may actually make your software much more dangerous not safer.

One proposed way to defuse this somewhat is to prohibit that time travel. Your contract expressions might still be UB but the idea is to promise by fiat that if so this doesn't actually time travel and destroy previously correct parts of the software.

I genuinely don't know what will happen there and can offer no predictions. In terms of what would be amusing as a spectator I hope either SG23 (Safety) explicitly says this is a terrible idea but WG21 ships it anyway or, equally funny, SG23 endorses the current unsafe nonsense as safe and then a subsequent committee has to establish a "Safety but really this time" Study Group to replace SG23 in a few years when it's thoroughly discredited.

> most bugs I deal with are of the most trivial kind, you hit a segmentation fault, quickly navigate to the piece of code where there is still some initialization stuff missing, and fill it in

Sure. C++ is such a bad language that most of your bug fixing is stuff which wouldn't even happen in a better language. Rust's std::mem::uninitialized<T>() is ludicrously dangerous, so it's deprecated (as well as unsafe) and yet C++ not only does this, it's silently the default for the built-in types. Hilarious. My sense is that a correct fix for this won't land for C++ 26 although maybe Barry can get the stars to align and prove me wrong.
+1 for shared sentiments. Do you have a blog post(s) that explains your setup with the processes you’ve described?
2004 wow, not terrible indeed. I haven't gotten a subscriber yet, I think I'm going to use it bill my own clients
>> I think there is a good reason to find low-hanging fruits that pay dividends on these types of tasks, not because solving addition with a transformer is a good idea, but because it could improve performance in other parts of the network.

The paper makes this claim but if they could do that, they'd have showed it already: instead their hand-crafted, artisanal embeddings only work well for addition and only weakly for multiplication and sorting, and not at all for other arithmetic operations.
Just use fastmail and set the DNS to theirs, they should handle the rest. I also like that they have catchalls, i.e. I can post hackernews@mydomain.com or stepstone.com.engjobs@mydomain.com to figure out how people found out about the email address.

Pros: You can always change the provider in case you change your mind in the future. With gmail, you're locked in to their service (and if they lock you out for some reason, well, you're stuck).
Assuming there wont be any egress fess forever on Cloudflare R2 is a bit risky IMHO if you read stuff like [0]. Especially if you build a product on top of it.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40481808
The google docs experience is so spririt crushingly bad on an ipad (my preferred casual browsing / reading device) that I immediately bookmarked this site for those moments when I need to write and don't want to fetch my laptop.
> The only reason the border is wide open is because we don't have sufficient border walls and border enforcement,

The bottleneck at the border is not physically policing the border, but the fact that migrants have learned to work the legal system by filing asylum requests. So the solution is legal reform, not building more walls. The 2023 border reform bill would have enforced a mandatory cap on the number of asylum requests processed (not just granted, but processed at all). Any migrant asking for asylum after that cap would have been turned away immediately.

> But it's obvious whose causing an open border right now.

I wouldn't say it's clear at all. It's true that the Democrats have historically turned a blind eye to the border. But over the past 12 months: First the GOP leadership said they wouldn't pass border reform unless it was bundled with Ukraine/Israel/Taiwan funding, then said they wouldn't pass border reform until it was unbundled, then they brought the Ukraine/Israel/Taiwan funding back to the floor but not the unbundled border reform bill. For the first time in a generation, there were enough Democratic votes to pass significant border reform, and the GOP votes simultaneously vanished into thin air.
It seems like you’re projecting a value statement into a comment which was really only intended to be an observation.

What gave you the idea that I’m getting unwanted notifications or that I am in some other way helpless about them?