skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There have been papers published about making robots and autopilot-like systems robust to all sorts of "system degradation" such as obstructed optics, missing signals, noisy signals, etc...

I can't find the reference any more, but one particularly impressive result was a four-wheeled robot that could tolerate the loss of a wheel, distortions of the entire chassis, and multiple faulty sensors all at the same time!
Not much info on this Wikipedia page.

He was a PhD candidate in Molecular Biology at Berkeley and that's how he discovered UNIX.

Never finished his PhD.
Natural keys are often the best you can do if you're trying to be partition tolerant.

With surrogate keys you end up with duplicate entities whenever a partition heals (supposing the entity appeared to both partitions while they were still separate).
If you want a timestamp, by all means add a timestamp field. And of course add a (non primary) key on the field.

I would add a different surrogate field though for the primary key. Because I've -always- discovered edge cases which break my original model.

In this situation I can think of 2. Firstly if the process triggers twice at the same time you have a problem (which happened to me in a case where a test suite fired up thousands of instances on a machine with many cores). Secondly twice a year with daylight savings (and when the owner of the system decided to change from local time to utc).

Is there an actual natural kh out there that will never fail me? Probably. But I'm tired of looking for it.
Easy now Rorschach, would you really want to live in a society like this? I could imagine finding out my cousin got murdered because he didn’t realize he was selling old iPhones that were stolen with a plan like this. This is comic book levels of absurdity and extremism.
Given the shady replies on Reddit, I don't think so, that isn't how Apple operates
A simpler and more compelling reason in my experience is that relating tables is so much easier with synthetic keys. You can decide how large your synthetic keys are based on uniqueness requirements, natural keys have their own size and format that would then be copied to make relations. And if uniqueness depends on several values to be unique then dealing with compound foreign keys isn't fun or efficient. At this point, there would have to be a very compelling reason to want to use natural keys to offset this and I've rarely seen them. A case that may come up is for a miscellaneous table to use the synthetic key from another table with another natural value that uniquely identifies a row. I wouldn't choose this route if you ever think you want to relate anything to rows in this table, they should be leaves related only to the synthetic key being used.
Hi, I really like the webcam and its long battery life, on the landing page I prefer any comparison or more specific details. Bravo
https://jackschaedler.github.io/circles-sines-signals/

There is also this wonderful primer on signal processing for people who love visualizations.
I agree.
I much prefer the clean math language as well. I guess some people can process abstraction better than others. Fourier series are just a topic in approximation theory, which is a rich area.
There is a model of a thing and there is a row that stores a representation of that model of a thing.

They both are things. Ignoring the last one might be tempting, but it’s not practical.

Interestingly your own way of thought is applied, but now a level deeper again.

How do you model a row? What makes it unique? A surrogate ID is the only sensible unique identifier for such a thing as there is no “natural key” that would make sense for instances of something so general as “Row”.

What you were saying amounts to “don’t model the thing holding the model”, but experience shows the thing holding the model is itself an (often unwilling) active part of systems.

Someone here gave the example of wrongly entered PK’s by administrative personnel handing live customers. That’s IMO a good example of why you need an extra layer on top of your Actual Model(c). I can think of more.
Author here - I believe this 2020 post resurfaced as known-bits optimisation was recently added to PyPy (Python implementation using a JIT compiler), which this thread discusses:

https://mastodon.social/@cfbolz/112557672421317765

It includes discussion of where this kind of optimisation helps (not most "normal" Python code, but some code like emulators with lots of bitwise operations is ~30% faster), links to LLVM and Linux kernel implementations, and some related blog posts and papers. (I believe the Linux eBPF people came up with all of the ideas here before I did, though I wasn't aware of it at the time - it's easy to forget the Linux kernel has an optimising compiler in it.)

I'm not sure if that's what you mean by context - happy to answer questions.
Sorry, I think this style of hagiography is completely goofy, there's nothing else to say about it. And I'm sure it's not even true that he has the "highest IQ on record."

To make a claim like "greatest living mathematician" it would be more appropriate to talk about his actual research accomplishments and how they compare to canonical figures like Gromov, Milnor, Serre, Smale, Yau, among many younger counterparts.

But, personally, I think defending any such claim for any particular person is kind of a juvenile exercise. I am a mathematician and among the slight minority of mathematicians I know who would take the question seriously, a minority of them would select Tao. Which of course isn't to say that he isn't universally considered a top mathematician.
That was an amazing read. So, what is likely to happen now? Does your discovery become canon? If so, is it a slow process? There won't be a schism of some kind over this, will there?
> and it takes about twice as long to regain my bearings there than in any other language

Is that CL, Clojure, a std Scheme or something? I really don’t have any issues jumping in either of these 3 even after a decade or more, but maybe if something obscure is used? And I wonder about the difference in naming and commenting as well then.
Reading awc
https://archive.ph/aqdy8
How did python help, I always just assumed it was chosen to allow the hiring of more programmers, not that it provides any technical benefit above lisp.
Ironically, Apple's monopolistic and predatory restrictions on spare parts will still allow this scumbag to make a profit, even after he has failed to access her phone. Had Apple allowed people to access parts, her phone would be absolutely worthless.

Apple's abuse of our laws is what's making iphone thefts still profitable. Ironic.
> Do they WANT to be working on something capable of 'human extinction'

The crazy thing is, if you take these claims seriously, then every AI company in America should be subject to ITAR [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_...
"Natural keys" just means that someone else can change them under your feet.

People change names, their phone numbers, passport numbers. Governments change their numbering schemes all the time. Corporations merge and split. Heck, even governments merge and split, surprisingly often, at the municipal level. All without your knowledge or consent. And you're left wondering why you suddenly have duplicate key errors in your database.

The only key that you can trust is one that you, and only you, control. That's the point of the surrogate key. Whether it's BIGINT or UUID v7 is beside the point.
> a furry wearing a collar

A person of the furry persuasion who was wearing a collar, presumeably a dog collar, perhaps a cat collar, maybe the collar of an Anglican minister . . .

> with a shirt

was also wearing a shirt, likely a tee-shirt

> showing a furry with the radiation symbol

that shirt had a picture on it, as many tee shirts do, that picture was Inception as it depicted a furry with a radiation symbol

> came to dispose of it

which kind of made sense as that furry was part of the radiation police.
I have not used Clojure, but it’s the singular s-expr language that addresses all of the critics.

Whatever X Clojure can not directly answer, the ever expanding universe of solutions based on the JVM can.

If the OP wants to stop painting themselves into corners, write more code. All systems offer up lots of paint and lots of corners. Only experience in those systems can guide you out of them.

I’m a CL fan, so I’d turn to CL if a CL implementation will work for you. But if you’re looking for an s-expr with no excuses, it’s Clojure on the JVM. Though pretty sure GraalVM can turn even Clojure into native code if that’s a goal.
> The gender gap in urban cycling worldwide is staggering.

Why is this an inherently good objective to pursue? Are there studies showing that it would be 50/50 if it weren't for those listed factors, or did they find a few examples supporting the hypothesis and then it's all about equality of outcome and shaping society according to a biased perspective?-- that might not actually reflect individual choices in reality.

In some cases like earning wages, I can see some form of argument for equality of outcome, but is this supposed to be applied to literally everything? 50/50 going to the beach, 50/50 enjoy chococlate the same way, 50/50 split in obesity rates, etc.
Our Man in Fotheringhay
In general, all bets are off. The model has a certain auto-regressive property (a factoring of conditional probabilities), and every other sampling should be examined with extreme suspicion. At a bare minimum, a lot of real-world problems in your desired domain should be spot-checked.

For more constrained examples like that, you're probably a lot safer than with completely unconstrained strings.

Even for very simple constraints like that, it's not terribly hard to imagine exactly the same ellipses problem (especially if your chosen JSON grammar isn't very careful with unbounded vs 53-bit integers). You really want a non-negative integer, you're using JSON and don't want to roll your own grammer so you use an off-the-shelf JSON LLM CFG toolkit of some flavor, and you allow _numbers_ in that field. I haven't personally seen ellipses bugs after only a few dozen characters in current-gen LLMs, but to have something concrete talk about let's say your model "tries" to write a transaction_number of 3141592635.... They want to truncate the actual result with an ellipsis. On the first period, the only allowable results include more digits (the grammar prevents the actual ellipsis from happening). You successfully adhere to the grammar and have garbage in that field, where a simple retry loop would have likely completed correctly.

Assuming the grammar actually correctly restricts to just a non-empty contiguous sequence of digits in that spot, that's _harder_ to force a bug into, but it's not impossible. For starters, the whole thing is probabilistic. Suppose the model uses "0" as the first digit. The only remaining valid (integer) JSON is finishing the field. Multiple leading zeros's aren't allowed. If for _any_ reason the model is more likely to produce invalid JSON after incorrectly using a "0" for the first digit, the grammar-constrained implementation will have more errors than a basic retry loop.

You can probably do something clever with changing the sampling temperature based on which part of the grammar you're in to side-step some of those issues. You might also find that for a particular problem my theoretical complaints don't seem to apply in practice. Maybe, for business reasons, past a certain accuracy rate you value being able to write simpler code (i.e., assume valid JSON) even if you dip down from 99% to 98% accuracy on a task. Nothing I've outlined says "don't guide an LLM with grammars." Do be careful with it though and consciously consider the task at hand and your proposed solution. It's not a free lunch.
I think it becomes intrusive into the storytelling when it becomes a constant chain of "and then yet another, even crazier thing happened to this one character". Especially when the character started as an everyman.

It's a problem many book series have - one character keeps being the centre of the universe and surviving insurmountable odds repeatedly to the point of incredulity and usually the ante keeps ratcheting up as well so your original ordinary-human character ends up with some kind of godlike powers.

To me, Harry Potter is actually fairly good in this regard, as the character development is at least not utterly unlike 11-18 year olds at school during the re-outbreak of a traumatic civil war, and from the start, there's a clear, in-universe reason why the main character is always the one near the action in the depicted timeframe.

Star Wars did this quite well originally ("why is this rando farmhand at the centre, oh, cool, that's why"). The prequels did a little worse ("here's how the farmhand's father got to the centre, ok well maybe it's awfully convenient the ship broke down right there and a simple blood test reveals The One, but ok") and the recent films rather worse ("these people are at the centre...how? Why? Genetic predestination?"). Notably, the less you explain the Force, the easier it is to keep the story believable and consistent. Again, Harry Potter's vagueness over the specifics of magic helps it.

Something that seems to be getting more common, though it's not new, as series lengthen in real-world time is to do a Star Trek: TNG and start an in-universe subseries where you can have things happen to someone else entirely for a change, but as part of the overall universe's story. It can be tricky if the universe is very predicated on one person, like Harry Potter is. Star Wars has not done well at this, but have tried. I think they keep trying to bootstrap interest from existing fans by character reuse, but the better series like Andor pick a whole new story to tell.

Iain M. Banks was especially good at this and didn't even really have a main narrative, as he'd hop all over the Culture in time and space so you could have the cool stuff happen that he wanted to show the reader, but didn't need to keep powering-up one person (or ship) endlessly. But space opera has the advantage that you can just go and be somewhere and somewhen else very easily. It's a bit harder if you need the subseries to be nearby without constantly dragging the other main characters in, especially when they're further along their upgrade path as you need to explain why they don't just pick up the phone, pop round and stomp the "mortal threat" flat and it's another kind of deus ex machina. Doubly so if the threat is very obvious and world-ending, because surely they'd turn up to that!
We use CL for many things and it’s definitely a big average beater for us: our clients and competitors (we have no competitors, not even small ones with less than 50 devs) think we are massive by how much we churn out. We are a tiny team beating the averages.
I tend to agree with you in principle as an aspirational goal. I'm not sure people are ready from the practical sense. I hope we can navigate through this period of hyperfocus on inequality.

In my opinion, attention on the monetary differences exagerates the difference in experience and comfort. That is to say, Wealth inequality is much less relevant than difference in consumption and utilization, to the degree that either matter.

Musk might have 1,000,000x the net worth of the median American (200B vs 200K), but he is not eating one million times as many hamburgers, living in a house 1 million times larger, ect. People struggle to understand that "net worth" is simply a name on a paper associated with resources someone else is utilizing. It is not proportional to spending or consumption.
This is fascinating. I had no idea there could be different grades of fire.

Does anyone know the theological basis for the different numbers of purification rituals for each fire? For instance, why is the potter's fire purified 61 times?
In my habit of sticking to a minimalist and essentialist lifestyle, I've been trying to stay within the Native Apps and reduce third-party apps wherever I can either get rid of or replace them, even if I have to add additional effort.

I've been using Bartender for a very long time. I got rid of it about a year ago. These days, I think and ponder over multiple times before introducing a Menubar App.

- Of course, do I feel the pain if I don't have this one?

- Can this be hidden altogether?

- Is the icon monochrome? Colored icons are outright rejected.

Between the Control Center and the limitations I set for myself, I've survived so far. Let's see where this goes.
It wasn’t perfect, but miles better than 99% of sites currently. ( I have been reading a couple wired articles recently, any may be biased )
I found this post very helpful. Thanks for sharing your knowledge.
https://uaetechnician.ae/mobile-repair-shop-al-ain
> People who buy property want to protect it and increase its value

They do this because they need investments, and all other forms of investment are less appealing due to regulation/risk. They need investments due to the misguided economic cargo culting that inflation is necessary, to promote investment. So the people invest. In property.

You can see this magnified in China where traditional types of investments are unavailable, so the property bubble is constantly growing as it is constantly bursting.

People follow the incentives, and not just the incentives set by the government, but the incentives of reality. If you drop a boulder, the river doesn't just stop; the river flows around it.
It’s more true than ever that large projects resemble compilers. The existing llvm Frankensteins and code generators are evidence that people don’t know how easy this kind of thing is in lisp. As a concrete example look at auto diff.

The other advantages are less true because dynamic languages are prolific and powerful. But also you never really grok JavaScript or Python until you study Lisp. It’s common to see what’s essentially C or Java written in python syntax.

And let’s be fair nobody in the 90s understood C++ including pg.
Arm64 on GitHub Actions
Location: monterrey
Remote: yes
Willing to relocate: yes
Technologies: elixir, ruby and rust
Résumé/CV: https://thelastinu.it/full-resume
Email: me@thelastinu.it
I chose Common Lisp for my web publishing system. I could not be happier.

Some benefits of Lisp that are less commonly reported:

Lisp let's you imagine a way of doing something, and then just implement that with nothing getting in your way. You can go from something half-assed to a whole-ass in no time. The type system lets you develop quickly and optimize when it's time. You can run interpreted, compiled, and even optimize the rendered machine code.

Image-based computing let's you skip the database for a lot of things as you can just read data into an image at startup and have, essentially, a fast in-memory DB.

Language-oriented programming allows you to extend Lisp with nouns and verbs related to your problem domain. So you can express the solution in terms domain experts already understand.

The hugely underappreciated condition system is far more than a way to do error handling, but can respond to events and do flow control.

Modernizing Common Lisp is something everyone does. We each curate our own distribution from Quicklisp and develop in that. More coordination there would be welcome, but we're not writing in your dad's Lisp.

A kitchen-sink, multi-paradigm language is ideal compared to a more opinionated system in which there are official paved paths to do things. You get to spend more time figuring out what needs to be done than figuring out the official way to do it. If there is a downside to that, it's that you have to take apart enough flashlights to figure out how things work and can't just NPM somebody's afternoon project over and hope it works.

When you have a perfect spec and you just need to implement it efficiently, think C. When you're not totally sure what you're doing, want to explore the problem space and not paint yourself into a corner, think Lisp. Actually, think Lisp anyway because specs are always wrong, so you're always exploring. Lisp makes for living systems that grow and change organically. C is for making complicated but dead automata.
> So, what's your hot take

Unless you already have a rare Lisp job, or you're retired, spend your time on things more employable.

> Perusing the various search results on 'CL vs Scheme / Racket' had me personally more convinced of CL for heavy-duty "real-world",

CL has more wins on this, but Scheme has, on at least one occasion, been used for large, important, rock-solid stuff, and super-productively. It comes down to the individual programmer(s).

> all the other languages have kept picking up nearly everything once-cutting-edge about Lisp

Much of the relative value of Lisps nowadays is the communities. They're generally made up of people who would be doing this even if software weren't a well-paying job. And there's relatively little BS to wade through (like explodes in all directions around popular employable platforms), since most BS follows the money.
4 diceware words is hardly a good password. It's ~51 bits of entropy, about the same as 8 random ascii symbols. It could be trivially cracked in less than an hour. Your average variable name assigned to the result of an object name with a method name called with a couple parameter names has much more entropy.
I have a solution to scrape job portals like LinkedIn, Indeed, and a couple more. But the jobs data's value plummet very sharply over time and extracting this data at a large scale is quite extensive. Not sure what is your though.
That seems like it would make sense though, wouldn't it? To it's important information that you, the patient, need to understand before you can make an informed decision about whether or not the medicine being given to you is the best option for you.

Otherwise you can't know if a recommendation from your doctor means they've genuinely considered all the options and chosen the best one, or just that one company paid them the most money.
ntl?

me too!
> Why is this an inherently good objective to pursue?

In the joint opinon of the three authors:

This is not healthy. While cycling is good for everyone, women stand to gain more because they typically exercise less than men.

Women are also at higher risk of osteoporosis, arthritis, anxiety, depression and various autoimmune diseases. So they need more of the type of exercise like cycling that builds bone density, strengthens muscles, helps manage weight and improves mood.
I assume you hint at the security aspect of monotonic keys?

I've found this issue a bit overblown. It's basically security by obscurity, which is a nice bonus, but not something your security model can be based on.

I mean, it is a good practice to expose some kind of non-sequential key (e.g. UUIDv7), but it doesn't seem to me like a dealbreaker.
Is It Safe to Shower During a Thunderstorm?
How about:

- Internet scanner that would use host IP as the primary key

- A table connecting two other tables using their primary keys as the composite primary key (when there can only be zero to one such connections)
> I can tell at a glance if someone's on an iPhone or not.

How? Most people have a phone case and then all you can see is the case. Pretty much all modern phones are the same shape.

> The FCC, at the very least, seems to find merit in the deterrence value of such measures

People don't like it when someone steals their phone, so they demand the government Do Something, so the government proposes to Do Something, regardless of whether the something is effective. Classic politician's syllogism.

> From a purely-retributive standpoint, I find some satisfaction in knowing someone stole a brick that needs to be parted out, versus getting a working device.

The modern world isn't any fun. "I willingly compromised my own ability to repair my phone so a hypothetical thief might be put out."

People should be carrying around decoy phones that are full of sticky glitter and skunk scent, boobytrapped with blasting caps. If you're going to take revenge then do it well.