skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Oh that's a great response, much appreciated. I'm glad I asked the question.

From what I understand, a disadvantage of this templating capability in C++ is that it makes the language "unpredictable" in terms of static analysis, so that, for example, intellisense in code editors cannot be implemented without having a full C++ compiler. ..But then again, maybe that's true of any language with macros, where the code can dynamically modify itself.

That's an interesting point too, about how C++ templating is a second language that runs at compile time, making the code more complicated to understand. Whereas in Lisps, macros are written in the same language, working with the same AST in a unified way. It's conceptually simpler, a more elegant way to achieve the same result.

I'd heard of comptime in Zig, but didn't know that there was a "complexity limit". Fascinating. It makes sense how it's related to the concept of "gas" in the Ethereum virtual machine, and "fuel" in Piccolo. (I remember seeing the latter language recently.)

https://ziglang.org/documentation/master/#setEvalBranchQuota

https://kyju.org/blog/piccolo-a-stackless-lua-interpreter/#f...

https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/gas/

..Whew, many tempting rabbit holes there. :) I'd been interested in Zig, reading about it here and there, but your comment convinced me to get more serious about studying it. Thanks!
Show HN: Using the djb2 hash to map IP addresses to readable words for the lulz
Hi HN,

This is more or less a fun experiment that I thought was worth sharing.

Using Daniel J. Bernstein's [1] djb2 hash that he made when he was only 20 years old in 1991, we map names to hashes and provide reverse mappings using an english word list from dwyl [2].

You can see it here: https://github.com/ipv6rslimited/hamon

Hamon (ハモン not 刃文) is derived from HAsh MOdulo Name.

I hope you like it [3]!

[1] The Cypherpunk Super Hero, https://cr.yp.to/

[2] https://github.com/dwyl

[3] Probably minimal real life use cases. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yup, the only real way we could ever set up a long term habitat on mars would be to do it underground to shield from the radiation. The only way we could maybe justify the huge pain in the ass it would be to stay there long term, is if we treated it as a purposeful scientific mission with a goal of looking for signs of (potentially ancient) life, and accepted that there’s nothing else useful we could really do there.

Whether this is worth it is questionable. What isn’t questionable, is the fact that we will never, ever, ever be able to have a viable independent colony on mars.
> I don't think this is indicative of people who don't know what they're doing. I think this is indicative of people using "AI" tools to help with programming at all.

I think using AI tools to write production code is probably indicative of people who don't really know what they are doing.

The best way not to have subtle bugs is to think deeply about your code, not subcontract it out -- whether that is to people far away who both cannot afford to think as deeply about your code and aren't as invested in it, or to an AI that is often right and doesn't know the difference between correct and incorrect.

It's just a profound abrogation of good development principles to behave this way. And where is the benefit in doing this repeatedly? You're just going to end up with a codebase nobody really owns on a cognitive level.

At least when you look at a StackOverflow answer you see the discussion around it from other real people offering critiques!

ETA in advance: and yes, I understand all the comparison points about using third party libraries, and all the left-pad stuff (don't get me started on NPM). But the point stands: the best way not to have bugs is to own your code. To my mind, anyone who is using ChatGPT in this way -- to write whole pieces of business logic, not just to get inspiration -- is failing at their one job. If it's to be yours, it has to come from the brain of someone who is yours too. This is an embarrassing and damaging admission and there is no way around it.

ETA (2): code review, as a practice, only works when you and the people who wrote the code have a shared understanding of the context and the goal of the code and are roughly equally invested in getting code through review. Because all the niche cases are illuminated by those discussions and avoided in advance. The less time you've spent on this preamble, the less effective the code review will be. It's a matter of trust and culture as much as it's a matter of comparing requirements with finished code.
"Esteem" and appearance of authority is a much more valuable asset to more senior people; something they have been building up for years and many will see as their main asset. Of course they're protective of it.
FM Radio transmitters broadcast a continuous 19 KHz pilot tone to indicate that it's a stereo broadcast. If it's present, then there's also a 38 KHz AM modulated carrier, which has the stereo information.

The main FM modulation is (Left + Right) audio channels - the baseband. The 38 KHz subcarrier is (Left - Right). Notice that the stereo information is likely to be higher noise, being AM and without a lot of power. So on weak FM broadcast signals, you're often better off setting your tuner to mono.

Some cruddy FM tuners don't properly filter out the 19Khz pilot tone, resulting in ear-ringing in the listener.
> but there is no anatomy coded by genes, no genes code for how many limbs will a biosystem have (as reiterated by Levin)

What's this supposed to mean? We are already able to develop bugs with missing or additional limbs by modifying their genes.
All that iPadOS needs to do is to be able to run macOS apps.
And that’s why replies are helpful in these kind of explanations. My over-edits became wrong, and then an hour later, unfixable. bglazer is correct.

AAVs, unlike Lentiviruses, do NOT integrate.
Depends what domain you work in. Auditability is a key/mandatory requirement in a lot of regulated industries.

There are of course other ways to do auditability.

Event Sourcing + Projections provide a nice way to build multiple models/views from the same dataset. This can provide a lot of simplification for client code.
This kind of thing must be happening much more often than we're hearing about it, right? I'd love to start a site that collects AI "horror stories", where trusting an AI's output led to significant consequences.

I have no idea how to validate people's anecdotes, though. (To be clear I don't doubt this story at all. But if I set up a site where people could submit stories I wouldn't trust any submissions at face value.)
I also find it interesting how he correctly recognized that the problem is not simple fluid dynamics but then made two major mistakes assuming that he correctly identified all of the complicating factors and concluding that he had a more accurate understanding than the thousands of people who’d been working in the field for decades. This is practically insulting when he just asserts that climate scientists are staying in comfortable offices without verifying their assumptions, as if there are a number of fields where people are doing fieldwork to collect things like ice core samples, measuring ocean conditions, surveying plant and animal communities, etc.

This is, of course, a notorious intellectual pitfall for both physicists and elder scientists but I think in this case it’s more a question of insufficiently vetting information. He wasn’t just wrong in some novel manner but in exactly the ways that the fossil fuel industry’s propagandists were saying in the 90s and early 2000s, down to the decoy concerns about public health and disaster relief (both of which are becoming much harder due to climate inaction). This essay seems like a good example for how susceptible smart people can be to the message that they’re savvy enough to see something most people missed.
What’s your opinion of game theory?

> It's "vibes" dressed up in sciency sounding language

This is pop economics. (And again, as mentioned, it’s not science-y. It’s applied mathematics. It’s only when you use the model to make predictions that it becomes science-y.)

Of course, if you’ve refuted von Neumann and Morgenstern, by all means, publish. Otherwise this is the “series of tubes” equivalent for economics.
I think it's like all blue ocean endeavors, like Columbus first trip.

He used the wrong earth circumference calculation to estimate his trip to the Indias to convince the queen (it was way off, that's why the Portuguese went around Africa instead), he got really lucky, and the end result was way better than what they set up on to obtain in the first place.

Exploration is a bit crazy and a bit stupid, some people die and a few times we find something amazing that was in non way near what we thought we would find.

I think Mars is - hopefully - going to be a bit like that. We go for one (maybe the wrong) reason, yet we stay for a different one.
I figured, and I mean that too!
Do you know if there’s been any advancement on the cause? Last I checked, my cocktail party understanding was it trained immune cells to attack parts of the nervous system. So long Covid was (sometimes) a bit like having transitory multiple sclerosis. I probably misunderstood the explanation. I just hope there ongoing research. I miss physics Girl on YouTube.
When the beard is black, take the reasoning, ignore conclusions.

When gray, take both reasoning & conclusions.

When white, just conclusions.

~Taleb
Paste through Setapp is my go to clipboard manager, but always looking for alternatives. Thanks for the recommendation!
> What about all the land that isn't even farmed or managed?

Dyson was talking about "half" the Earth's land area. https://www.fao.org/sustainability/news/detail/en/c/1274219/ says "Globally agricultural land area is approximately five billion hectares, or 38 percent of the global land surface." That's surprising to me too -- maybe they're wrong?
Probably High Barnet High Street.

There are a few other contenders though:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest_points_in_Lond...
Exercise changes your metabolism so you burn more calories no matter what you're doing.
One pearl of current software wisdom is "don't think, just do", as a corollary to "move fast, and unbreak things later". Never mind that the cost of unbreaking things is usually far higher than whatever expenses were notionally saved by going to plaid in a hurry.
For this specifically, shouldn't HIPAA apply and quite strictly at that?

Unlike the general Internet where laws are so poor that an opt-out hidden checkbox is sufficient as "consent", HIPAA is quite specific on what is needed and who needs to get it.
Location: Athens, Georgia
Remote: Yes
Willing to relocate: Possibly
Technologies: Front-end stack
Résumé/CV: https://codegreer.com/resume/Sarah-Greer-Front-end-Developer.pdf
Email: hello@codegreer.com
On the same theme, A City On Mars by Kelly and Zach Weinersmith (of SMBC fame) is a humorous yet an in-depth pragmatic look at why space colonization will suck.

Summarizing: space will kill you fast, moon will grind you down with the regolith, and Mars will poison you. There are some interesting bits about international/space laws and treaties too.
No congestion charge seems to be partly a handout to the wealthy: for a cost that's negligible to them, they get to pollute _public_ streets.
Never do emails. I get hundreds of emails a day and I don’t need to add another newsletter to make my inbox more cluttered. The average inbox has 5,000 to 10K unread emails and your readers will not likely read emails with that inbox size.

RSS is the way to go it’s much easier and news does not go into my inbox and it is also privacy friendly which is a huge bonus.
If the sails can't absorb or reflect the radiation there won't be any transfer of energy.

In other words, if the X-rays pass straight through the (X-ray-transparent) sail they won't impart any energy to it.

As an analogy, a yacht's sails made of chicken wire won't catch much wind.
I have seen the same mistake made in code created by humans. Many times, especially in react / typescript/ JavaScript, someone will forget to use a lambda.

I felt the blog post failed to articulate the root cause of the issue and went straight to blaming ChatGPT.

When you rush and make large or non peer code reviewed commits to main it is going to happen.

The real issue was when you rush, take shortcuts and don’t adequately test and peer code review then errors will occur.

I would have imagined that a test that tried a few different signup options would have found the issue immediately.
The fluttering wail of a one-hour fallout “grey” warning is chilling to imagine. It’s a sound I didn’t think to imagine before.
There are enormous economic forces that push for standardization. For example, your keyboard is likely connected via USB. USB isn't a government standard. Neither is Standard C. And endless other things that the market standardized. Even 2*4 lumber is standardized. Gasoline is standardized. And so on.

> Power companies created incompatible systems.

They're usually granted government monopolies.
"It's hammer time" is the first heading, and then I see "Nailed it!" in the video

Somebody knows how to have fun lol
I recommend that you try the carnivore diet yourself. It really is a panacea, and I don't use that term lightly.
Looking at current human society, I don't think that's a very good bet.

If you wake up too early in a lava tube on the Moon, you then use the tools and spare parts you hopefully were smart enough to pack and repair your cryo-pod and then go back to sleep.
Tokyo's new dating app wants all your personal information
I was wondering that too. Why wouldn’t the error be in the logs?
There is a version 2 being implemented to fix some of the known issues.

https://github.com/golang/go/discussions/63397

https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/go-json-experiment/json
"AI-powered" has become a red flag
You're not wrong! After training, the neural network is in fact "hard coded" in that the weights do not change anymore.

During training, you update the weights. As a very, very simple example in relation to my original response above... Suppose you are training a neural network. You know that the probability of "weary" coming after "Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, " is 1.00, right? So you set up your LLM with random weights, and you see that the probability estimate for "weary" is 0.77 (I'm making this # up)... Well you can now use an algorithm to nudge the neural network's weights in a way that makes the 0.77 closer to 1.00!

In other words -- the learning happens during training.

A good place to start might be this course: https://karpathy.ai/zero-to-hero.html

Depending on your sophistication and amount of free time you have, here are more resources: https://phaseai.com/resources/free-resources-ai-ml-2024

Good luck!
> Network overbuilds make absolutely no sense.

You could say the same about any competition. And yet the evidence that competition reduces prices is enormous.
I have a degree in economics and both my parents taught economics and I grew up with a couple Nobel prize winners in economics around the dinner table from time to time.

Which, in fairness, I didn’t mention earlier and isn’t necessarily something that moves forward a message board discussion anyways.

But like maybe consider the possibility that at this point “mainstream economics” is a lot closer to astrology than it is to science.
But that's exactly my point.

This article appears to be entirely about an implementation from scratch.

It makes very clear that it is not about forking Chromium.

But even Google was smart enough not to start from scratch.

So again, I don't know who the intended audience for this article is. It's advice on something no sane person or organization would ever do.
The oceans connected us to regions with oxygen, food and resources.
Nobody ever made anyone become an Uber driver.
Map Pack Toolbox
Introducing Map Pack Toolbox - your comprehensive solution for maximizing local search visibility and nurturing connections with ease, quietly.

With Map Pack Toolbox, you can seamlessly bridge the gap between reaching out to potential clients or partners and nurturing those relationships into meaningful connections. Our innovative tool streamlines the process of identifying and contacting prospects, ensuring your outreach efforts are strategic, effective, and personalized.
If you're going to downvote, please explain any disagreement with the references.
The first observation is that DNA, on its own, is useless. It has no causal power. It doesn't generate or explain life or cells. You need an existing cell, an existing organism, to make use of the DNA, as it were. Of course, without DNA, the cell cannot proceed. So this mutual dependence tells you that they're a package deal, and neither can be reduced to the other.

The second is that you really cannot get away from telos. The ostensible banishment of telos is not a scientific conclusion, but a metaphysical choice, and one that is incoherent. Telos isn't will or desire or planning or intent per se, though these are examples. Telos is what explains why an effect follows from a cause, and does so with regularity. That striking a match (efficient cause) results in fire (effect) is a question of telos, of the match being ordered toward the effect of fire, effected and actualized by striking. The match obviously is not planning to produce fire, it doesn't will it or want it. But it is causally ordered toward that end or effect. Otherwise, you could not explain why striking it actualizes this potential for fire. You could not make sense of any phenomena, why striking a match results in fire instead of, say, nothing or the appearance of an elephant or whatever.

Biology is no different, but here we can speak of higher order telos. And as biology progresses, the more difficult it is to maintain the crude mechanistic view of life reaching back to the 17th century, that is, one modeled on the machine metaphor. Living things, strictly speaking, are not machines. They're integral wholes, not accidental arrangements.
Leave spaceflight to the robots. They don’t need to drag around a planetary environment.
libaom is slow because it's fundamentally a research product - the folks hacking on it are mostly concerned with the workload of encoding a basket of twenty short clips and demonstrating a tradeoff between Bjontegaard scores and increased encode time, and much less on holistically making a usable encoder.

Source: wrote part of the AV2 spec and traded off a 0.3% improvement in compression for a 1% increase in encode time
Man Gothic was such a good game. One of my all time favorites
I know you were joking, but what I was thinking of was that our DNA creates cells, but I don’t think that we would grow into proper humans without interacting with the rest of the earths environment. And there’s a lot more than 750 MB of information out there
Interestingly, the population has only decreased by about 1%. It's amazing how such a seemingly small change can have such a large effect.
Authy is dying. I moved to strongbox 4 years ago and never looked back. It’s Mac and iOS integrations are great!
> It’s not even as simple as that. 2009 Public Authorities Reform Act states that the MTA board is an independent body and should be making all decisions with the MTA's fiscal responsibility its primary concern. It’s going to be really, really difficult to justify an 11th hour reversal that will leave the MTA in a financial pit. It’ll almost certainly lead to legal action.

They are legal fiduciaries, and they have been asked to vote to bankrupt the company for which they are fiduciaries.

It's very difficult to find a way to square that circle legally, which is why Hochul has started to claim that the board doesn't need to vote on this at all (which is an equally laughable claim).
Heating perchlorate also liberates chlorine and other chlorine compounds. That doesn't sound great. Also water isn't exactly easy to come by on Mars. I doubt there will be a whole lot of bathing going on.
For us, it is the realisation that it is both of us - as a team - against the world. IE put less energy into quarrelling with each other, and more into making the team more capable/efficient/whatever-the-goal-is.

But not everyone is so confident in the partner to assume they see themselves as an equal in partnership.
That's what I don't get. Five days to query CloudWatch logging? This should have been caught before the first email even came in. "Gee, isn't it strange how we get these spikes in stderr output on our backend last night?"
I've personally seen this, it can be pure goddamn cancer.

The company hired a very smart charlatan and he convinced them to start a greenfield project in Haskell. Then they need to hire Haskell developers for this specific thing because everyone else only knows Java and Python. Nearly a year later they're barely getting started, but it's getting hyped like you couldn't believe. A lot of sprint planning time starts to become 'how do we start integrating [New thing]' because the Directors have been fluffing it so hard.

Anyway it never got used in prod. The development turned into a disaster and the original guy quit. The team got dismantled and the whole thing got memory-holed. Anyone in the org hearing the word "Haskell" would invariably just think about it lol
Although the single car at 100 MPH has twice the initial kinetic energy of two cars at 50 MPH, not all of this gets dissipated in the collision.
After the collision in the "single car 100 mph hitting an identical stationary car" case, we have both cars moving at 50 MPH in the same direction, NOT two stationary cars. Half the original kinetic energy is still in the form of kinetic energy, in other words.
The 100MPH car does not experience a velocity change of 100 MPH, but only 50 MPH - the same as if it had hit an oncoming car at 50MPH.
Might as well scrap the program, this is a bucket of poison in a well
Please help me understand where my intuition (or maybe my assumptions/simplifications) is wrong.

Assume two perfectly elastic cars. When they collide at 50mph, each car will bounce backwards at 50mph (due to conservation of momentum), representing a change in velocity of 100mph — identical to the brick wall case.

I feel that introducing deformation or other energy dissipation to the equation kind of takes it out of the “high school physics” realm, right? What else am I missing?

Edit: ah I see, the car will bounce off the brick wall at 100mph as well, resulting in a 200mph change in velocity. I guess you could explain it then that the effect of the impact is felt entirely in one car in the brick wall case, and it’s spread out over two cars in the head-on case?
The idea of inheriting a ChatGPT code base no one understands now makes it worse.
At least by NASA, spring washers have been declared mostly useless. I'm not an expert on bolt fasteners, but I personally haven't seen a spring washer in quite a while.
So I guess she just knows her washers and doesn't care about the functionless ones.
Surprised its a piston not a turbine, but I guess piston tolerances are lower and so can be maintained more easily on site. But you would think a gas turbine was equally efficient and a good fit. Plus, it's standard to ship them worldwide, they're understood pretty well as movable commodities.
My first thought is that this is kind of ridiculous. BUT. I bought a cheap pair of tweezers like 15 years ago and they are fantastic. The amount of flex is perfect. They're easy to use, but you can also apply a fair amount of pressure with them. It's just the one pair, and in a panic after misplacing them for a week I tried to find a back-up pair. Well, now I have a lot of tweezers. Cheap pairs. Expensive pairs. Made in Japan. Made in U.S.A. But still only one good pair. Dammit.
Granted it doesn’t look like low-hanging fruit but never, ever is a very long time.