skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> behaves exactly like dark matter

Dark matter is non-collisional, doesn't decay, and doesn't strongly scatter radiation. The last is about gravitational microlensing. You address the first two in another comment, but focused on falling into central black holes of galaxies and Hawking radiation. Black holes merge (cold dark matter doesn't clump, and certainly the absorption cross-section of CDM does not grow with clumping in the event there is some "dark chemistry" in the CDM sector; black holes absorb more radiation as their masses increase, including via merger). The MACHO (massive compact halo object) models which use small black holes have to keep them very sparse and on a restricted set of orbits in order to keep them from merging in galaxy and galaxy-cluster halos where they would be detectable. It's also hard to have galaxy-cluster distributions of small black holes: the density profiles get very different as tiny black holes interact with each other. Additionally, in distributions around the central-bright-galaxy of clusters, it's hard to suppress inverse compton scattering X-rays from dust scattering around (or forming accretion structures around) tiny black holes. So the signature radiation a tiny black hole MACHO model has to worry about is less Hawking than the behaviour of normal matter moving around black-hole-infused space in clusters like Abell 2764 <https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2024/05/Euclid_s_n...> or Abell 2744 <https://esahubble.org/images/heic1506c/> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abell_2744> for example. It's really hard for simulators to arrive at this kind of structure using mainly MACHOs, and there seem to be lots of these structures. Lots and lots.

It's somewhat easier to do with ~solar mass and bigger black holes (they can be sparser, their orbits are thus less contrived to avoid collisions -- after all star-star collisions are rare unlike dust-dust collisions), although larger-mass BHs run into limits form gravitational microlensing. In particular, BHs of 100 or more solar masses would tend to disrupt wide stellar binaries, particularly in at the outer margins of galaxies (including our own, easy enough to look for out of the plane of the disc). And there are strong limits on BHs between about 10 and 2000 solar masses from ultra-faint dwarf galaxies, where domination at that mass of BH would expand the visible part of those galaxies (especially bright star clusters like the central one in the Eridanus II dwarf satellite <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eridanus_II>) via dynamical heating.

The MACHO idea was certainly plausible, and projects like OGLE and MOA developed microlensing-observation techniques which are now used for finding low-mass and wide-orbit exoplanets, and "orphan" Neptune-like planets ejected from their birthplace star systems. See for example https://kmtnet.kasi.re.kr/~ulens/

However, there seems to be very little hope that black holes are a large fraction of whatever the detailed description of dark matter might be.

That there are plausible mechanisms for forming primordial black holes at arbitrary masses does not mean they are actually there.
Right, people gamble on houses to provide them shelter. Insurance hedges against the risk of losing.
You almost certainly don't need a "drop-in replacement" which is part of the problem. If you really just need a hash table, Abseil, Boost and Folly all provide several good options to suit your needs, and if you have a favourite utility library that's not one of those three it probably has at least one hash table type.

A "drop-in replacement" would commit to all the weird things about the standard library type which result in poor performance, some of them might be important to you, and you'll probably insist oh, it's not a "drop-in" replacement if I can't have those, and across the entire C++ population that means there is no high performance drop-in replacement, the type guarantees any number of weird properties and you could depend on all those, so, too bad.

The most likely reliance you'd have is reference stability, maybe you give out references to items in the table and they're long lived so you mustn't invalidate them when/ if there's a resize, let alone on unrelated changes to a table which keeps the same size. Abseil, Boost and Folly all provide types which lose some performance to get this back if it's all you need to be "drop-in".

The most unlikely reliances are two fold, firstly maybe you insist on messing with the bucket API, which makes no sense in open addressed tables (ie all the ones with great performance). In this case you're wedded to std::unordered_map because the details of how the type is structured are welded into your code. Sucks to be you. Secondly though, you might have decided you care about the order, the std::unordered_map says it doesn't promise an order, but on a single platform none of the implementations actually kick you if you assume the order is preserved, so you can merrily write a unit test which checks that after adding fake users Alice, Bob and Carol to your user hash table, when asked for the users back in no particular order you get exactly: Carol, Alice, Bob. Is that a good unit test? No. But the replacements will make it go red, they're not "drop-in" replacements.
Ive never seen a definition of utility which wasn't self referencing.

It's a highly unscientific concept.
I think this is the absolute worst way of dealing with the issue, and I truly hope everyone who sees this in a code-review has the sense to reject it.

By all means, have such a check as a compile-time error, but not as something that gets shipped to customers. The code you have now works, even if as a developer you'd like to refactor it. However, what if you ship this software to a paying customer, and then your company goes bust? At unknown point in the future, their perfectly good application suddenly stops working, without warning or obvious cause, and your company is no longer in business to simply change the time to a later one and recompile. Even if your company hasn't gone bust, why should the customer have to spend ages trying to figure out if they've done something wrong or it's the software that's at fault, before contacting your company, possibly being told to pay more money for an update even if they were otherwise happy with the old version they'd purchased.

Basically, this change is a liability for everybody working on the project and your customers. It'll soon get forgotten about, until you have people complaining that something just suddenly stopped working without warning. You might be able to "fix" it in seconds, but it can still require hours to triage the issue to discover what caused it before it ends up as your problem again, and probably significantly longer after your few seconds to fix it before the working version is back in the hands of the customer. For all that time, they've been inconvenienced just to save you the hassle of sticking a reminder in your own personal calendar or raising an issue in your bug tracking system or wherever else.
Language and culture go hand in hand. I don't understand how you've learnt 1 fluently and 3 passably and are deemingly completely missing this aspect to it. So to standardize language is to attempt to standardize culture which I would imagine we don't wanna do, right?

And it doesn't matter what your ancestors spoke, of course. But it does matter what those around you speak, now. Neither the person you originally responded to or me have mentioned ancestors.
Plus, humans bullshit all the time, even well paid and highly trained humans like Doctors and Lawyers. They will bullshit while charging you 400 an hour. Then they'll gaslight you if you try to correct their bullshit.

AI will bullshit sometimes, but you can generally call it on the bullshit and correct it.

For the tasks that it helps me with, I could work with a human. But the human I could afford would be a junior programmer. Not only do they bullshit more than a well prompted AI, but I also have to pay them 30 an hour, and they can't properly write specs or analyze requirements. GPT 4 can analyze requirements. Much better then a junior, and I'm many ways better than me. For pennies.

I do use it in the real world, to maintain and develope software for the industrial design company I own. It would be foolish if I didn't.
I've been able to modernize all our legacy codes and build features that used to stump me.

Maybe the fact is that I'm an incompetent programmer, and that's why I find it so helpful.

If that's the case so be it! It's still a significant help that is accessible to me. That matters!
But you always need to have the code for escaping and you always need to check for it. I don't see how an implementation can be simpler without dropping support for tabs within columns, which would make it non-conformant to the spec.
I'd argue that there's definitely a business case for frequent and early refactoring - it just needs to be refactoring worth doing in the first place. IMHE a most code gets touched rarely, and some parts get touched all the time, so refactoring needs to be strategic if it's going to have any utility.

This also argues for ongoing refactoring - addressing pain points as they arise, while they are fresh in people's minds, rather than suffering through them until Stockholm Syndrome sets in, people can no longer see the forest for the trees, and much of the velocity refactoring would provide is lost because the subsequent work is already done.

But the biggest issue I've seen with not handling tech debt on an ongoing basis is that there's never a good time to start. So if it's not built into the development cadence, then resistance builds for doing it at all. Product starts pointing fingers at "slow" engineering, who point back at the "breakneck" demand for feature work, and negotiations start for unrealistic (for both sides) halts in feature work - neither sufficient to resolve the problems nor short enough to avoid hurting the business.

Then product breathes a sigh of relief - the tech debt is "resolved" and will never need to be addressed again, engineering returns to wading through a codebase that is only marginally less swampy than it was before the cursory refactoring sprint, and the downward spiral (and finger pointing) resumes.

At least that's how it always seems to happen around me :)

As far as tests, IMHO refactoring without them (with BDD style tests being greatly preferable) is fraught with peril. But unless the team is bought in on BDD tests and using them to guide development, I agree they are a time sink to write them early. However, writing them later (and around code that might have been touched by multiple hands) rather than maintaining them is flavor of pain - like the refactoring, it's harder to be sure they won't miss things and you'll break something.
That is not enough because k is allowed to depend on n.
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/collection/aquiline

birds aren't necessarily real
This is too glib. Some organisations do a a lot better than others, have better culture, responsiveness to evidence, and management.
Misread it as “federated bookmaking software for the independent web” and thought “Yes, a useful application of blockchain!”
Sure thing! Bit of cloud computing history. Covered a bit here:

https://leerob.io/blog/heroku
Paywall. Please stop advertising and just post the archive link instead
cool, but I don't see the point of it being federated. My bookmarks are just stuff I might want to see again, probably not very interesting to anyone else

so I can hardly see the benefit of them going off and propagating throughout the entire known universe
[sigh/]

Democracy guarantees the people the authority to do incredibly stupid and unsustainable things. Both via their elected representatives, and in most cases directly.

Responsibility is far more elusive.
Reverse engineering TikTok on iOS to only show cat videos
The Satyricon
Clickbait. There's no "raid"
That's cargo scrum, very common disease. Teams without autonomy or self-organization. The queue should consist of higher level tasks, milestones, and the team should rework them into the small tasks that will actually go into sprints. Of course there is a motivation to pick the higher priority tasks first, but team members should be able to pick a task with which they can most efficiently contribute to the sprint goal, it's not always the top one.
I like the bet-a-coffee idea.

I used to tell them that what they should do is unplug the cable, and plug it back in again but the other way round -- in other words, with the ends reversed. From end A in port 1 and end B in port 2, to A/2 + B/1.

This, of course, forced them to check both ends and in the process made them ensure it was the same cable.

I made up some BS about corrosion patterns on the connectors to justify it, but it worked often enough to keep using it. Sir Terry Pratchett might have called it "headology".
A lot of world class endurance athletes have asthma. See here:

> is suggestive that years of endurance training may be a contributory cause.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22228581/
The garbage collector already has a 100% coverage test suite.
It's ok, the AMD one still doesn't even work on Linux without a custom kernel
Leonardo AW609
Feels like a conspiracy to force power users to experience software the way noob users experience computers in general.
TypeScript 5.5 Release Candidate
They definitely don't need to be that expensive, but anything less than 500 credits isn't going to be very nice to ride. The sweet spot is something like 600-700 which is non-negligible.
I found this piece was trying too hard to be funny and I really struggled to focus on the points it was trying to make.
We just need to stop wealth and money hording, by both individuals and companies.

We also have to do more to break the myth that many of these wealthy people earned their wealth, when if any truly did it was a very exception and very small minority.
Kinda funny to draw the classic examples of "tip of the iceberg" to see them ending up flipping :D
To all the downvoters: Just because something is obvious to you doesn't mean that it is obvious to everyone else. Three character abbreviations can make context discovery really difficult as simply plopping the abbreviation into Google will quite often produce mostly unrelated results.
I don’t think their attitude is indicative of some sort of brain damage. It’s likely that their opinions come from deep in the lizard brain and played a role in human survival at some point. It’s possible that libertarians have certain personality traits in common with conservatives like low openness and low conscientiousness. It also wouldn’t surprise me if they’re statistically more likely to have low empathy - they also have very “small” minds - they don’t think about the big picture. I don’t even necessarily think that these traits are hard wired, it’s just that they’ve fed into their own attitudes and in general it’s hard to move someone from low openness to high openness especially (unless you give them psychedelics). There’s also an entire propaganda machine in the US owned and operated by some very rich and powerful people that’s designed to feed into all of the personality / thinking styles I listed above to get these people to vote against their own self interests and the interests of others. Sad situation all around, but I’d be lying if I said I didn’t deeply resent them, even if they are brainwashed and operating from a place of ignorance and fear.
WTF?

> I heard the first version is close to VMS.

No.

> Is it true?

No.

> Is there any material on VMS?

Tons. It came with metres of docs. It is still on sale. You can get a freebie hobbyist VM image.

> OpenVMS is open sourced

No, it isn't.

> but the version is too high.

Not true.

Always, always check your assumptions before asking a question. If you want to ask "because (a) can I (b)" then check A is true before asking. ALWAYS.
s/virtu/epsilon of licentiousness/ ?

EDIT: not "viti"

Going to flip through your recommendations (at least) with an eye (3rd) towards ergodicity (or even Hurwitz spaces)

EDIT: don't worry too much about Galois -- you make me wonder if I had not read his letters (esp the fine print in his last testament) too carelessly.
It is possible to disable federation if you want so. Just untick the corresponding checkbox
Venezuela's last glacier, Humboldt, has melted away
There are, IMO, many things that would be important to mention if we wanted to try to glean the account holder's real intent on the disposition of his retirement account.

For example, how long he had relationship with each girlfriend (he had broken up with the second a while ago, too; for all we know there may be others). What were his relationships with each brother and so on.

But such moral judgements are, to me, not the right way to go. The person had money, if he cared where it should have gone after his death he should have made a will or changed the beneficiary. We should not reject his existing instructions just because they were too old and assume he wanted something different on the basis of some moral judgements. My 2c.
https://henhousebrewing.com/beer/avian-surveillance-division...
"Infra team jira hell" exists precisely because of accounting CapEx trickery. There are no technical reasons for it to exist.
index funds also take a fee
That is literally debatable. The definition of legitimately in this case is literally not clear and quite arguable. You have merely picked a side, not pointed out some obvious definitive truth.

The ex legitimately has a claim. The strength of the claim is still to be decided.
Junk DNA can also affect spatial organization of the genome, thereby affecting its usage.
Easy. You can insure only insurable interest. Your house can catch fire at some point in the next 20 years, and Dallas can beat Boston the NBA finals. Both outcomes are unknown now, and therefore probabilistic events. If you buy fire insurance on your house you can try to rephrase that you placed a "bet" that your house will catch fire. But it's a stretch. If you bet on Dallas, how do you spin it to say it's insurance? Can you claim that you are a Boston fan and you insure against the emotional hurt if Boston loses?
Can't you make a group with people you like ? There a feature like that in rocket league.

Getting grouped with the same bad team mates repeatedly would just make me quit the game.
Yeah, I was confused about this, too.
> I have not seen the arguments against.

How could you have seen any if the entire topic itself is a political hot potato and verboten to even discuss?
Alameda City Council unanimously blocks climate change project from resuming
Ok, in case when there's no will there's path of inheritance defined by law. It's still the best way to go forward.

Parents, siblings, siblings children.
i don't know why everyone started hating on semver 10 years ago. It makes a lot of sense to me to have `v<major>.<minor>.<patch>`
We don't trust judges. We trust the process they follow. A judge is not a God, why we have a hierarchy to redo judgments (lift a decision to a higher court).

Also, IMHO judging a person for something they did not do is amongst the worst things that can happen in a society. This is also why there is a principle of rather letting 10 guilty people go free rather than convicting a single innocent person.

(i am speaking from a Scandinavian juris system)
Your in depth breakdown doesn't address the substance of the argument at all, it's mostly a distraction.

Servers can not bear the entire weight of guarding against cheat, it's impossible. If you don't understand that then you are not in a position to be writing any sort of breakdown.

Several games and game protocols require security on the client side to be able to stop cheats. You can't have security on the client side if the client has full access to the hardware and OS.

It's not more complicated than that, and your 'breakdown' doesn't adequately address that. You can dismiss this point if you like as you did when I made it in my previous reply, but it doesn't make it any less a fact.
My gut reaction was that you’re wrong and it’s easy but actually thinking more about it, even in a small area like my side of London there are a lot of what could be considered high streets, even with different parts of the same street acting as different separate high streets for different communities. A more concrete example is Uxbridge road near Shepherd’s Bush and the section near Shepherd’s Bush Market being two distinct high streets, and then a couple k’s down the road it turns into Acton High Street (Acton itself having multiple distinct high streets). It’d definitely be a challenge to map something like this if you’re not familiar with the area.
My understanding of UBI is that it is for everyone, rich and poor.

There will be no more social security or benefit payments.

Because UBI is not a benefit or social security payment everyone will be able to work as well as getting UBI.

Currently, if you claiming any sort of unemployment or long term sickness benefits here in the UK you are not allowed to work whilst claiming. Ensuring people are stuck or trapped in the benefit system.

The basic universal credit payment in the UK:

£311.68 a month for single claimants under 25
£393.45 a month for single claimants aged 25 or over

You have to jump through many hoops just to get that paltry sum.

That is not something you can live on.

UBI will allow the poor to have a regular income that will pay for their basic survival costs and have the opportunity to work so they can actually live a life.

My only concern about UBI is that it may lead to payments via facist governments digital currencies.
So the replication crisis is not an actual crisis because most studies didn’t make sense to begin with?

That’s not the advertisement for psychology you think it is..
what was your response?
Utility of money is just how much value one (an individual or entity) can derive from having x amount of money. Utility and value might be defined by self referencing each other but that's true for many other concepts or words in a language for that matter. It doesn't make it problematic or unscientific.

The point is that it matters how much certain amount of money or wealth is worth for you not how much wealth you have. It's an important point as it explains why calculations purely in money terms are useless for making financial decisions (as seen in example of insurance)
I wonder when Ractors will be take seriously as an alternative to Parallels. It's been in the experiemental stage for a long time now.
Ripping out the DRM absolutely is piracy, and it's the only way to do it since the companies themselves are not doing it.

Anti-cheat absolutely is DRM, a lot of the time. It explicitly uses DRM tech from companies that make DRM technologies. At the very least I guess if we want to be precise we could say DRM is often a component of anti-cheat technologies even if anti-cheat isn't explicitly DRM.

I've been paying attention to the gaming space, and I know it still sucks unless you use Steam and Proton (which can't be used without Steam). Valve even pretty much gave up on their console because the developer support just isn't there.

And like I said, DirectX is still a big deal.