skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That's a good observation about textbooks and helps explain why I had difficulties trying to teach myself topics from a textbook alone!
A neat trick is to “pledge” to make some large donation then never really get around to it.
I mean, this is an unmarked source that's been dumped at an event which is likely to involve people who are likely to be taking apart whatever they pick up. It's possible someone could have injured themselves, even if it's not going to turn into another Ciudad Juárez incident. Their tone was entirely reasonable, and now it's blown up because people find the story engaging, even if just amusing because it wasn't actually that dangerous, they're reacting to that. I dunno why you find it objectionable enough to believe that it was an action entirely taken for the purposes of attention seeking.
Does rust actually have pure functions? Also, I'm suspicious of the claim that compile time evaluation makes the language functional.
Formlabs Form 4 Teardown
> Looking at this plot by @oca.computer, I feel like I’m peering into the world’s first microscope and spying bacteria, or through a blurry, early telescope, and spotting invisible dots that turn out to be the previously unknown moons of Jupiter… There is something there! New information to be interpreted!
None of these are the filesystem though, they are all abstractions over the file system that could easily implement case insensitivity, and as a sibling comment pointed out, actually do in many cases. I'm perfectly fine with the idea of interacting with files using a case insensitive interface. I just don't feel like it should be the job of the filesystem to enforce case insensitivity.
It’s pretty perfect this comment stream has gone from a couple jokes to people (poorly) explaining monads. Basically we’ve gone from the Monads are like burritos joke to the examples of the monad tutorial fallacy blog post in 91 comments.

chefs kiss perfect.
Are you saying you have more training/experience with source handling procedures than that person? Are you specifically claiming that handing off that much material with potentially no labels (we don't know if there are any in practice, they may be removed or unreadable) to a random person interested in dissembling things is safe? Because otherwise I don't see anything attention seeking there: number of sources verified, taken to disposal, risk confirmed by the author without playing it up.
FALSE - this is so misleading - these statements imply that 68% to 70% of ALL SECURITY ISSUES are due to memory safety - that's wrong and those quotes leave out the important context.

From the post:

Microsoft's bug telemetry reveals that 70% of its vulnerabilities would be stopped by memory-safe programming languages.

Google's research has found 68% of 0day exploits are related to memory corruption.

These sorts of false statements make people everywhere think that memory safety is a bigger issue than it is and that it impacts almost all application development which is completely wrong.
I wonder if you’ll still admire them when they leave and the burden of maintaining the mess they left behind falls on you.
I don't think Teal can be total. Lua is super expressive and you would need to get deep into dependent types and whatnot to caption a fraction of the power of its types.

> Some Lua libraries use complex dynamic types that can't be easily represented in Teal. In those cases, using any and making explicit casts is our last resort.

https://github.com/teal-language/tl/blob/master/docs/tutoria...

Personally if I paid the cost of having an extra compile step then I would rather wish for some serious type safety like what Elm or Reason provide. But then you end up with a different language.

I agree though that for your use case of making complicated libraries Teal might be actually good fit.

I was going to argue that Luau is superior anyway if you really can't cope with annotations but obviously if you want to make libraries for lua users that doesn't work. (Though I guess you could technically compile down from Luau to Lua, just not sure if anyone has ever bothered.)
Until the EV infrastructure is in place which is as good as the ICE infrastructure, EVs will be the 'poor cousins' of transport.

But companies and governments just won't (can't !) spend the trillions of dollars necessary.
I thought a “Ute” was specifically a unibody vehicle with an open area in the back for cargo. Most typically the Ute is adapted from a sedan or coupe. There have not been many Utes in the states. Notable exceptions include the recent Subaru Baja and earlier Chevy El Camino. Some trucks have started to use unibody chassis but this is a relatively new development: Honda Ridgeline, Ford Mavericks and Hyundai Santa Cruz.

Maybe I’m just old fashioned and have an appreciation for imported Commodore Utes. It seems language has changed:

Traditionally, the term referred to vehicles built on passenger car chassis and with the cargo tray integrated with the passenger body (coupé utility vehicles). However, present-day usage of the term "ute" in Australia and New Zealand has expanded to include any vehicle with an open cargo area at the rear, which would be called a pickup truck in other countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ute_(vehicle)
Thanks for this timely post!

I have been kicking around the idea of starting a meetup in my city to meet interesting people in my field.

Being a freelancer on large projects in my day job, it sometimes feels like I'm out of the loop for long periods of time.
If you haven't had a 'humbling' moment, I recommend you read about Euler. He really was the master of us all :)
There's another tide computer on display in the Science Museum London, which uses Cones moving on plates.

And the meccano integrator, from Manchester. And also Marc Brunel's block making machines, and possibly Henry Maudsleys screw cutting lathe (or maybe Whitworths) and his true-plates (always made in sets of 3 to avoid co-dependent bumps) as well as transatlantic cable, wheatstone bridge, you-name-it.

And of course Babbage-engine bits-and-bobs. It amazed me when the IETF had an open-night there, and were told to stick to the space display (ground floor) when it was geeks.. and upstairs were the ur-devices of .. computation and networking.
AI written stuff I think has the oatmeal problem. It lacks any character, any distinctiveness, any flourishes, any vibrant or vigourous language.

So yes, it feels impersonal, and while it's fine to lean on it to correct errors or perhaps help you articulate something you're struggling with, it has no place in interpersonal communication between human beings with any relationship outside of the purely professional.

Plus, it's really tacky.
Nvidia didn’t start there - they took down a lot of established competitors in the GPU space, and a lot of other big companies are gunning for their position. I’d say their business operations and leadership are definitely worth studying.
That happened after they got powerful. It is like the Mongol invasions of Europe and China, they didn't become powerful from those invasions those invasions happened since they were powerful.
I do:

- 100 count skipping

- One leg skipping 50 counts each

- 50 pushups

- Full body stretching with sun salutation 5-10 counts per day
I hate 2FA.
Geometric Algebra for Physicists
Daylighting is more a factor of window geometry and orientation. The 1930s model schools in the USA all had day lighing requirements. This resulted in classrooms with long narrow windows and high ceilings to get daylight to cover the room.

A 24’ x 30’ classroom would have 10’ ceilings with 7’ windows starting around 3’ off the floor. These windows would be on one wall and make up around 40% of the wall.
I agree. I enjoy buying a friend a drink or a meal because giving something to someone is both nice and fun and makes you feel good as a result.
Can you de-frost it with glucose syrup or honey the way I was shown on a TV science show you can de-frost normal frosted glass? (the refractive index is close enough)
That's exactly what Tesla did with their Supercharger network.
It's the application that needs an OS, not the computer. It is possible (and isn't unheard of, though decreasingly common) to run software on a more featureful CPU with virtual memory and loads of RAM next door, without an OS, for example.

And it of course depends what one means by "a OS." But, generally, if you are running multiple tasks that might depend on shared resources, you might want an OS---after all, an OS is just something that mediates shared resources among different applications.

You might prefer to use a microcontroller because of power constraints, security (generally easier to mitigate physical attacks and side channels in simpler hardware), or cost and you don't need more resources.
Wow, this sounds pretty nice. I remember watching a MedCram video recently that pointed out that long wave IR light has anti-inflammatory properties and that modern IR blocking glass is actually depriving people of many of the beneficial effects of sunlight. If this could get people more IR, it could raise the bar for health across the board. Still, I have some concerns. It's a polymer nanomaterial, so it's probably fairly fragile. The "self cleaning" part is just that it's hydrophobic, which is nice but relies on the nanostructure. Again, probably susceptible to damage. The chemical itself, poly-dimethylsiloxane is pretty common but it appears that they're forming the nanostructures using a mould made via silicon lithography? That's not going to scale at all, nor does the coating seem durable enough for decades of outdoor use.

I only skimmed the paper so please correct me if I'm wrong but this is very far from production-ready.
why? 36^3 = 46,656

and also no one cares as much as they do for .com etc.
I have not bought anything from Amazon since 2004, when I double clicked on a DVD box set and got two copies, and could not undo the purchase

Never ever again. What a dreadful firm. Nothing changed
> Be careful with debt. The reason so many people in the western world go to work everyday is because they get the debt, then have to work to pay it off. Go to a country where debt isn't really possible because the economy can't support it (Argentina, Mexico, Mali, Angola, etc.) and you'll see everyone has TONS of time to live the life they want.

Been living in Buenos Aires, Argentina for a year and a half now, and this is exactly what I've seen. This explanation makes sense. I always chalked it up to socializing being a much more important part of the culture than in the US.
Looks pretty standard to me. I do tend to find Go quite pleasant.
We used the John Kraus book on Electromagnetics for the dynamic fields course. This was preceded by a course on static fields. That course’s final had the shortest test statement I had ever encountered: “Derive Maxwell’s Equations”. I found the Kraus book satisfactory.
I built a new app in a few day and you will love it
Enough of all the hustle? With Nofing you can start doing nothing, track your progress, get rewards, compete with others & stay motivated by seeing how much nothing others are doing.

It will help you to stay focused, be more productive, and have a better work-life balance. Your motivation will increase when you see how much nothing you have done compared to others.
1960 Callimahos Top Secret Maps of the Republic of Zendia
Wrong. Try reading again?
Where I'm at, this is true. The F-350 is for signaling, F-150 is a decent utility vehicle (that allows for decent city driving). People actually use the all-in-one hauling, towing, and off-roading-in-comfort F-150 & Tundra here.
I get more social value from the scarf by being seen as more generous, without actually spending more money, so I can pretending to be rich while being a cheap asshole!

Um, not necessarily. This assumes the receiver has no concept of the giver’s budget, which is rarely true. And also assumes the receiver cares about the cash value of the gift receives, instead of either the motivation for giving or the utility of the item.

This whole post stuck me as borderline disordered. Is this really the way rich people think? Sounds miserable to go through life being so calculating about everything. I’m “rich” by many measures (but nowhere near senior FAANG engineer rich) and I’d much rather just enjoy the life I’ve fallen into.
Why would they have anything to say about 10% increases in fund values? That's literally what hedge funds exist to do and that's what they're advertising they will do.
Why are you discounting the importance of video game skill? With esports people are making a living on it. Person B is specializing in a skill and mastering it. Person A is a jack of all trades and master of nothing.
(OCR error: s/brome/bronze/. Just pointing this out as a warning because I read it literally, and was very confused and spent some time search querying silly things).
I really like that this article ends with a handwritten Signature, like a real authentic letter written by a human being.
Women don't?
We tried dspy and a couple others like it. They're neat and I'm happy those teams are experimenting with these frameworks. At the same time, they try to do "too much" by taking over the control flow of your code and running autotuning everywhere over it. We needed to write our own agent framework as even tools like langchain are too insecure and inefficient for being an enterprise platform, and frameworks like dspy are even more far out there.

A year+ later, the most interesting kernel of insight to us from dspy is autotuning a single prompt: it's an optimizeable model just like any other. As soon as you have an eval framework in place for your prompts, having something like dspy tune your prompts on a per-LLM basis would be very cool. I'm not sure where they are on that, it seems against the grain for their focus. We're only now reaching the point where we would see ROI on that kind of thing, it took a long time to get here.

We do run an agentic framework, so doing cross-prompt autotuning would be neat too -- especially for how the orchestrator (ex: CoT) composes with individual agents. We call this the "composition problem" and it's frustrating. However, again, dspy and friends do "too much", by trying to also be the agent framework & runtime, while we just want the autotuner.
This is still the best, simplest explanation of monads I've ever seen, no burritos required:

https://www.adit.io/posts/2013-04-17-functors,_applicatives,...
I was speaking very roughly. What you do is basically you can peek early just a couple times and stop early if you see p<0.001. You probably won’t, which “leaves you” 0.045 or so to “spend” at the end. Then you have to pretend that when you see p=0.045, that you actually saw p=0.05, and when you see p=0.04999 that it actually said 0.053 or something (non significant at the 0.05 level even though 0.04999<0.05!), so it’s more restrictive at the end… but only by a little!

The adjustment at the end is small, so it’s not a big complication and people don’t have to radically change their interpretations like they would with some other alpha spending approaches. And then there’s the big plus that since you only have to change the end interpretation by a little bit, any secondary analyses don’t get crazy complicated. They probably just carry just a little asterisk, rather than coming with the big “this is simple but super untrustworthy” asterisk of secondary analyses after other alpha spending approaches, or having to do something very very expert.

If you want to read more, look up alpha spending functions in early stopping. I think the one I’m describing might be called Peto? Sorry i’m being lazy.
Frankly it's harder to come up with examples where it's actually just a Pareto improvement that was undiscovered until considering accessibility. This isn't to say that this is not worthwhile anyway to make tradeoffs but claiming that tradeoffs don't exist is just magical thinking.

Some obvious examples (even ignoring higher cost, since they are all also higher cost):

* Coloring for colorblind people is worse for people with normal vision.

* Large format type is cumbersome for people with normal vision.

* Traffic signals that are long enough for the elderly to cross cost everyone time every time they are used.

* Stalls in bathrooms suitable for disabled people means fewer stalls can fit.

* Ramps for wheelchairs require way more space than stairs and take much longer to traverse.

Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't do these things.
I was really confused what this had to do with a keyboard shortcut before I finally realized the author is using it as /a verb/
It's good to know about format_status/2, but isn't deriving Inspect protocol for structs better by default? Assuming they're passed as state to a GenServer, it should achieve the same, no? I think this technique should be the first one listed because it covers more ground
One of my favorite parts of my education was going through E&M to arrive at the beauty of Maxwell's Equations.

I later found out that you can squeeze even more beauty out of them by boiling them down even further using differential geometry.

http://virtualmath1.stanford.edu/~conrad/diffgeomPage/handou...
Less than skips over, utility based shopping is explicitly derided:

> The narrative that you just told me [about utility shopping] is “I am a very analytical person who only has book smarts and no emotions”. And that narrative is boring!
Hmm... if you are part of the creators of the project, of course. Now if you don't like Rust, you should not become a maintainer of a Rust project, it's as simple as that. No need to go complain on every Rust project you find online.

Same for your own project: don't become dependent upon a project that you don't want to have to deal with... If you do, then don't go complain about it: you made the choice to depend upon it.
In my experience people do notice if they're spending more than their friends when buying beers and dinners and such.

Your friends are probably not mentioning it because it's a bit awkward and they don't want to make you embarrassed, because they care about you.
Simple UX too. Early adopters are so much more forgiving of a boring but functional user interface than we want to admit. It doesn't have to look amazing out of the gate. It just needs to do something cool.

Plus a lot of our overcomplicated architectures on the frontend are because we shoot for a UI that competes with products that have been iterated on for 15 years now by teams of dozens or even hundreds.
Not OP, but I will feel an internal sense of frustration at the cards I’ve been dealt with.

Edit: To add, the frustration is projected onto the other person, given they are a physical manifestation of what you are not.
Or you can just turn that feature off.
Thank you for this - the article had me wondering: if they are putting the PMMM film over glass, what's the point? - any extra transparency from the film will just be negated by the glass, but in the paper it appears they have developed a PMMM panel that they used in testing.
Yeah, when I imagine excess I'm picturing a ridiculously lifted F-250 or 350 juxtaposed with low profile tires.
Text-to-Speech with Speaker Diarization based on Whisper
macOS is one of the last certified UNIX systems left
Different circles act differently. In grad school every student was stringy and would take and never return. After I worked in tech everyone was quite generous.
This is a good point.

I've noticed one thing that LLMs seem to have trouble with is going "off task".

There are often very structured evaluation scenarios, with a structured set of items and possible responses (even if defined in a an abstract sense). Performance in those settings is often ok to excellent, but when the test scenario changes, the LLM seems to not be able to recognize it, or fails miserably.

The Obama pictures were a good example of that. Humans could recognize what was going on when the task frame changed, but the AI started to fail miserably.

Me and my friends, similarly, often trick LLMs in interactive tasks by starting to go "off script", where the "script" is some assumption that we're acting in good faith with regard to the task. My guess is humans would have a "WTF?" response, or start to recognize what was happening, but a LLM does not.

In the human realm there's an extra-test world, like you're saying, but for the LLM there's always a test world, and nothing more.

If I'm being honest with myself my guess is a lot of these gaps will be filled over the next decade or so, but there will always be some model boundaries, defined not by the data using to estimate the model, but by the framework the model exists within.
This is how AJAX in Java Server Faces used to work nearly 2 decades ago.
There were even more fancy technologies like https://www.icesoft.org/wiki/display/ICE/Direct-to-DOM+Rende...

I bet ASP had something similar too around the same time
That sounds awesome. I have actually been working on something similar myself. I have been building a distributed NATS[0] cluster to funnel data down from the internet and index it locally. I also have a local Ollama box wired up to try to do some NLP on it.

I started with Benthos to pull in, but since the recent license changes[1] I am rethinking that :(

If you would like to collaborate feel free to shoot me an email!

[0] https://nats.io/

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40537911
There is zero chance they don't realize what you're doing.
For sure! I don't work with Go so looking at it from a noob perspective
> I’ve got plenty of my own ideas, and if I ever need new ones, I can draw on the wonderful world around us, with its long and rich history. That sounds like a more fruitful approach to me, and it also seems more fun than typing into a command prompt.

This really resonates with me. But… I do wonder how valid such talk will sound in, say, ten years.

Will we all be using generative AI (or whatever it’s called once it’s no longer considered ‘AI’) as a fundamental part of the creative process as we do with other technologies today without worry? It’s easy to imagine so, but I’m not sure. There’s something supremely beautiful about the art of putting pen to paper or fingers to a keyboard with nothing in between.

Sure, you can have a word processor with all sorts of magic typographical and grammatical assistance built in — but the ideas (at that point in time, anyway, and factoring in inspiration and experience) are still fundamentally yours.

Perhaps much of the word will move into a new reality where our ideas aren’t purely our own, even in the moment of writing them down. But there’ll always be those who hold sacred the bond between, say, a writer and his pen and paper, or (to put it more relatably for those here) a programmer and his rudimentary text editor and compiler.
Interesting, I find rust is pretty dense, but mostly in a good way. It packs a lot of important information into the code, which is useful for reasoning about it. Languages with simpler syntax tend to hide that information (and sometimes because it's irrelevant due to the kind of tradeoffs they make, like all the languages you mention have some form of GC). Haskell I would say is especially hard for me to read, when there's so little syntax the code is just a sequence of functions and symbols without obvious delimiters it becomes a lot harder for me to understand the structure of it.
But then it's not fundamentally Wayland, right? Like there is still a chance that Wayland will end up having what you prefer (assuming that the people who like it on X11 port it to Wayland).

I am not an expert, but it feels like X11 has fundamental security issues that Wayland addresses. So to me it makes sense that Wayland exists. Then I would happily contribute to whatever I need in Wayland, but honestly it all exists already: I used i3wm, I'm now on Sway, and all the tools I need do exist.