skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> For instance, Apple was the first to bring WiFi to laptops in 1999. Everyone laughed at them at the time. Who needs a wireless network when you can have a physical LAN, ey?

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirPort:

"AirPort 802.11b card"

"The original model, known as simply AirPort card, was a re-branded Lucent WaveLAN/Orinoco Gold PC card, in a modified housing that lacked the integrated antenna."
> contribute something: docs, triage, whatever

> whatever you work on doesn't need to "ship to prod"

The author walked that back pretty quickly. My understanding is "ship to prod" is redundant, "shipping" means "ship to end-users (in prod)".

I guess "do your job on the days you're expected to" isn't great clickbait.
TJ Maxx, Marshalls have started using body cameras to combat theft
who decides the amount the population needs to do?
'Interactions' is a very passive phrase for killing and dismemberment!
>> On the other hand, people who laughed at them removing the 3.5mm jack can still safely laugh away.

> Then laugh at Samsung and their flagship line of phones as well, since they haven't had headphone jacks for a while now. "After Note 10 dumps headphone jack, Samsung ads mocking iPhone dongles disappear" (2019):

I totally do. One of the problems with Apple is the industry seems to mindlessly ape their good and bad decisions. Their marketing has been so good, many people just assume whatever they do must be the best way.
Recently saw a YouTube video where around 500 kids a year are killed by their own parents because they can't see them in these monstrosities.
You said "Anything Mars is pure BS. Just anything and everything."

But I'm reading marketing. What you saying isn't even pamphlets or propaganda. Its just flat out fucking stupid.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/06/07/tj-maxx-m...
Online Privacy: An Endangered Species
> Assuming you’ve made a good faith effort to fulfill your obligations you don’t need to repay the advance or pay interest on the advance if your album doesn’t sell.

It depends on your contract. Usually, poor sales won't result in needing to repay an advance. However, there are plenty of other clauses that the contract could contain that would lead to the contract being canceled and potentially the advance having to be repaid (due to delays, editorial disagreements, poor quality, etc.)
Make it opt-in, please.
Many could disagree about the pricing of MacBooks, for example.

M Pro series are probably the best laptops on the market, and if people keep buying them, is the price too much?

MacBook Air is actually quite well priced for what you get.
And then Terragen.
Ah! This makes sense now (unfortunately). Paranoiac crybabies on the rise once again.
> work that is necessary and not more.

there is no such thing as "not more"
I was only joking, there is no way this would be singular cable without a fallback safety.
>I think this is exactly what _most_ people want.

This is what they think they want, until something happens and they are forced to move out of the walled garden, and have to replace everything.

But, admittedly, that's Apple's bread and butter, and they've managed to avoid big controversy so far...
Not an Amazon Fire phone?
https://youtu.be/jN7mSXMruEo?si=2VnfQw_rMsZckB1I
… which proves his point. This anti-Russian sentiment never really ended, it's easy to not notice it if you've never been on the receiving side of it. It's not just the news, I saw it in casual conversations all the time long before 2014, and even 2008. TBH I expected better from Americans, with their multi-cultural society and sensitivity trainings, but was mistaken.
I’d love to just use `font-face: sans-serif` and always leave it up to the user, but different font metrics result in different (usually way too big) line heights.

Out of curiosity, what’s your font of choice?
Nowhere in the linked commit does it say 72 percent faster… Where are you getting this number?
Hah, I didn't know that fact! Thanks for sharing.
Thanks for sharing. I don't need to think we have a great system to have questions about something else not working, I'm just curious if it has because when I read about most anarcho-* philosophies I seem to see gaps in them. It doesn’t mean I'm right, just trying to learn more. There's already two good shares to read up later :)

edit: thanks again, your linked video is perfect, I have held this exact view that "we're not good enough" for communism/anarchy, so this is the perfect challenge to my current beliefs!
One average American user is probably worth 5-10 average European users.
Hard disagree. It's a contract between compiler and coder, and it needs to be exposed to both. Type information does not belong in names.

// For example, this:
fn get_driving_requirements(vehicle: Vehicle) -> String {
...
}
// Is just so much nicer than this:
fn get_driving_requirement_description_from_vehicle(vehicle) {
...
}

This is nicer for me (a human) to read, even if the compiler can infer the types of both.
One way encrypted embeddings ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Ask HN: Need help coming up with a name
Help me come up with a name. The startup focuses on helping and guiding startups when they don't know what the next step is or what the right decision is. We also help them solve problems they face when building their startup.
> It wasn't Wi-Fi, it was AirPort. etc. etc.

FWIW the term “airport” predated the name “wifi” — in those days you had to otherwise call it IEEE 802.11.

And the name as great: people were buying them like crazy and hiding them in the drop ceiling to get around the corporate IT department. A nice echo of how analysts would buy their own apple II + visicalc to…get around corporate IT.

I’m OK with Apple using “apple silicon” as the ARM is only part of it.

Just commenting on your two examples; in general I agree with your point.
If you're worried about banking passwords and accounts, those shouldn't be shared logins. Banks in the US have specific procedures for handling the death of account holders, and someone logging in as the deceased is problematic. Beneficiary designation and percentages needs to be followed, and if a spouse/other logs in and starts moving money around, all that has to be unwound.

My break glass implementation is a printed sheet of all my financial orgs and account numbers (including bills I handle). All the beneficiary designations are done, so my wife would just need to give them the death certificate and she'd have control of the funds.
There have been studies showing that the driver was likely an asshole. Not kidding: https://youtu.be/jN7mSXMruEo?si=2VnfQw_rMsZckB1I
I think your conclusion is uncharitable or at least depends on how deep your interest in AI research actually is. Reading the docs, there are at least several points of novelty/interest:

* Clearly outlining their intent/policies for training/data use. Committing to no using user data or interactions for training their base models is IMO actually a pretty big deal and a differentiator from everyone else.

* There's a never-ending stream of new RL variants ofc, but that's how technology advances, and I'm pretty interested to see how these compare with the rest: "We have developed two novel algorithms in post-training: (1) a rejection sampling fine-tuning algorithm with teacher committee, and (2) a reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) algorithm with mirror descent policy optimization and a leave-one-out advantage estimator. We find that these two algorithms lead to significant improvement in the model’s instruction-following quality."

* I'm interested to see how their custom quantization compares with the current SoTA (probably AQLM atm)

* It looks like they've done some interesting optimizations to lower TTFT, this includes the use of some sort of self-speculation. It looks like they also have a new KV-cache update mechanism and looking forward to reading about that as well. 0.6ms/token means that for your average I dunno, 20 token query you might only wait 12ms for TTFT (I have my doubts, maybe they're getting their numbers from much larger prompts, again, I'm interested to see for myself)

* Yes, it looks like they're using pretty standard LoRAs, the more interesting part is their (automated) training/re-training infrastructure but I doubt that's something that will be shared. The actual training pipeline (feedback collection, refinement, automated deployment) is where the real meat and potatoes of being able to deploy AI for prod/at scale lies. Still, what they shared about their tuning procedures is still pretty interesting, as well as seeing which models they're comparing against.

As this article doesn't claim to be a technical report or a paper, while citations would be nice, I can also understand why they were elided. OpenAI has done the same (and sometimes gotten heat for it, like w/ Matroyshka embeddings). For all we know, maybe the original author had references, or maybe since PEFT isn't new to those in the field, that describing it is just being done as a service to the reader - at the end of the day, it's up to the reader to make their own judgements on what's new or not, or a huge development or not. From my reading of the article, your conclusion, which funnily enough is now the new top-rated comment on this thread isn't actually much more accurate the the one old one you're criticizing.
> I'd rather have the notification centre widgets (weather, clock, calendar, etc) always appear without notifications.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but did you know you can pin widgets to your desktop in Sonoma? They don’t have to be tucked away in the Notification Center anymore; the entire bottom half of my second monitor is a big widget dashboard.
What I'm kind of missing with Blender and the likes is the procedural 'magic' and surprise of POV-Ray. How just typing a few lines of 'code' into a text file could produce wondrous and mind blowing images, and then just changing a couple of numbers would give you an entirely different and unexpected result. Blender makes it infinitely easier to get exactly the result you want, but sometimes that not what you actually want.
A bit of warning: in spite of the author's best efforts, this book is really, really dense and you will be very confused if you are not familiar with any data compression techniques. It's better to treat this book as a very diverse survey of data compression algorithms that are worthy to "explain".
By coincidence, I was exploring a couple of very related questions a few months ago:

- [what are the commonest checkmating moves](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/44959/what-are-the...)

- [Have any full rank-and-file piece specifications ever been required in a masters level game of chess?](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/44961/have-any-ful...)

I think this question here is perhaps the more interesting one though, and it's so well explored.
> something that no-one at Apple was remotely close to achiving.

Probably due to internal political wars. Apparently they had an internal lightweight version outperforming existing Siri, but the team never got anywhere with it: https://daringfireball.net/linked/2024/06/06/how-the-wall-st...
>The proper comparison isn't the author's time versus the readers looking it up, but rather readers encountering a term for the first time having to look it up versus every other reader having to read overly verbose writing that reiterates basic definitions rather than getting to the novel points. If you're as interested in ROVs as you imply, well now you know for all of the other times you will read the term. If you're really expecting to never encounter the term again, I wonder why you're reading a technical engineering-adjacent forum.

This isn't a water hobbyists forum, nor one for all manner of remotely operated vehicles, so it's a bit optimistic to assume many people here will know "ROV" as a remote controlled submarine. Fact is, most of us cannot, from the title, figure out if we're interested, nor from skimming the first six (!) pages of a long article. Explaining ROV once at the beginning would, I dare say, not have impacted the enjoyment of underwater professionals very much, but saved me and most others on this forum some time figuring out if I want to figure it out.
I wonder if they will ever make this available to developers - I can think of many products that would be nice to have at least part of the cloud infra being hosted in a trusted provider like this, e.g indoor cameras for health metrics: sounds awesome but I would never trust a startup to handle private data this sensitive.
I gathered from OP's "huge development" comment he was talking about others people's popular perception that it wasn't a lora.
What? Shoes in the house is a bad thing? Isn't it worse to go with no shoes because you are adding sweat and maybe fungi to the mix?

I always lived in very clean houses and no one of us ever went barefoot. (We did change shoes for slippers or equivalent rather quickly though).
That was also how lucent’s access points worked.
it would be interesting to see the effects of taxation in this particular situation in the united states. from what i’ve seen, this is one of those situations where financial penalties do not dissuade or deter proliferation. at a minimum it seems to foment radicalization of political sides toward their general bent (the government is doing too much, or not enough). one side yells louder for more while consuming itself, the other side keeps buying the vehicles out of spite/support (for the manufacturers) as a way of thumbing their noses at the government overreach.
http://web.archive.org/web/20240611124534/https://www.wired....
The roots of US innovation clusters
I'm suggesting that any definition of "success" requires hard work and high standards.

Academic/professional is one and you can choose to opt out in which case you're not the target audience for this discussion which is fine.
You'd want to get rid of both.
One hundred percent this.

All these conversations always end up boiling down to someone thinking they’re being clever for pointing out you have to trust a company at the end of the day when it comes to security and privacy.

Yes. Valid. So if you have to trust someone, doesn’t it make sense for it to be someone who has built protecting privacy into their core value proposition, versus a company that has baked violating your privacy into their value prop?
Deep-sea experts criticized OceanGate’s choices, from Titan’s carbon-fiber construction to Rush’s [CEO] public disdain for industry regulations, which he believed stifled innovation

Seems a remarkably similar sentiment to the e/acc types currently loudly influencing tech and business discourse on various media.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_accelerationism
Forths do have local variables. (Cue debates on what makes a stack-based Forth-like language a "Forth".) Here is the description of Gforth's support for its own extended locals and the Standard Forth locals: https://gforth.org/manual/Locals.html (Cue debates on whether Standard Forth is a Forth and whether it is standard.)

When I learned Forth about 15 years ago, we used the { } syntax described here, not the newer(?) {: :} syntax: https://gforth.org/manual/Local-Variables-Tutorial.html
Hence the classic newsroom refrain: “Don’t bury the lede!”
> I thought maintainers can edit pull request? Why is that not used here?

I don't know if Github has it, but GitLab supports "push options"[1] where you can say "skip CI". There are other mechanisms, but they stay in the history since they live in the commit message (and the summary of all places!).

Github seems allergic to any features that are mostly useful to "rewrite history" workflows though, so I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't around.

> Not pulling someones PR also means he does not get any public attribution to it.

We use self-hosted GitLab and mirror on Github; I get boxes filled in on my Github account's grid and properly attributed in Github's stats despite only ever showing up there via `git push` commands.

[1]https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/push_options.html
I would worry more about export in the long run, since lock-in is a thing and re-typing 100 login entries is not fun, I've been there...
"along with those super bright headlamps that ruin your night vision when they're equipped on an oncoming vehicle."

I hate them.

I dream of the day, when proper night vision gear with the result displayed to the front window will be standard in cars, so all the cars can have no, or very soft lights to drive around savely at night.

Also, why not heat vision to better spot humans (and animals)? For the AI as well as the humans.

Is the tech military restricted?

Probably partly.
I don't see that.

Quality news reporting is lacking. Investigative journalism is almost dead. The mainstream media is on a war footing. There have been 0 interviews with J Mearsheimer on mainstream US media.
> I think that posting at least one commit per day

Notice that the article has been edited.

> Edit: A better title would've been "commit every day that you work". I don't mean you should work on weekends or not take time off, and whatever you work on doesn't need to "ship to prod".

I'm pretty sure parent comment was replying to the original version which, at quick skim, gives the impression that the article was about pushing to prod everyday.

I've worked at startups to do push to pod every day at it's an absolute frenetic nightmare.

Posting a commit everyday is so uncontroversial that I doubt the headline would have made it to the FP of HN. I've also never heard the term "shipping" in software refer to anything other than getting something into prod.
He already got punished by life, no need to blame him posthumous.

He is like one of the inventors of the parachute (Franz Karl Reichelt), still wanted to try because he believed in it.

Unfortunately believing is not enough when it comes to reliability.

Effort was good though, as apparently it worked at some point.

> This submersible design, later renamed Titan, eventually made it down to the Titanic in 2021. It even returned to the site for expeditions the next two years. But nearly one year ago, on June 18, 2023, Titan dove to the infamous wreck and imploded, instantly killing all five people onboard, including Rush himself

which could explain why they sell tickets.

I'm sure SpaceX already knows the rockets won't make it back intact, but they still launch anyway (despite the losses).
That coupling is due to aggregate interactions of all system particles, so it's still comes down to a cumulative microscopic effect. Pretty good example though!
> Apple's never really succeeded in the B2B business

Idk every business I’ve worked and all the places my friends work seem to be 90% Apple hardware, with a few Lenovo issued for special case roles in finance or something.
>But Apple can also collect data on how users utilize GPT-4o versus Apple’s models, and perform gap assessment. This becomes valuable training data for Apple.

I’d read that as: they know what queries users choose to route to OpenAI, so they can identify where their models are being perceived as less capable.

I don’t think the author is revealing non-public knowledge of the contracts.
Lübecks university has several projects[1] using swarms of robots for automatic cartography, water measurements and such.

Autonomous accurate navigation under water is quite complicated, because after a certain point you need to start relying on local sensors because nothing reaches you anymore. But local sensors tend to be weird, because a straight line underwater is not necessarily a straight line - you are most likely drifting -- and detecting drift isn't easy. From a local observer, the water around you isn't even moving. That was a fun team to talk with.

1: https://www.iti.uni-luebeck.de/en/research-areas/mobile-robo...
Pretty sure the inventory of the parachute didn't take paying guests on his tests...
It'd be a particularly cool position if, say these three moves were legal and distinct:

- Re4

- Re4+

- Re4#

EDIT

Ok, this seems to do it:

8/3Q4/4R3/6pp/2R2Pk1/6P1/4R1K1/3B4 w - - 0 1

Annoyingly, Lichess uses the rank or file notation in all cases.
Centuries of Childhood
I highly doubt that fact. It seems at least both thermal coal and steel have higher global export numbers. Compared to production of coffee.
The inventor of the parachute probably didn't take several people with him on false premises.
> Effort was good though.

... was it? They didn't test enough and the tests they could be bothered to do, failed. Then they shipped anyway and he got himself and several other people killed.

A non-charitable interpretation of these events could be made that it was an elaborate and long-term murder/suicide.
I wonder if this will be possible for those with root canals. They would need to regrow the nerve.
This was absolutely captivating! Better than any book I’ve read lately!
None of the use cases they presented in WWDC using Apple Intelligence was creative writing. There is one, that uses ChatGPT explicitly:

> And with Compose in Writing Tools, you can create and illustrate original content from scratch.

https://www.apple.com/apple-intelligence/
I built my own key-vault/HSM since I wanted to use various cryptographic algorithms (argon2 and signing JWTs) not supported by typical HSMs.

repo for the software: https://codeberg.org/ChristopherChmielewski/cns
If this test is calibrated like the triplebyte programming challenges, less than 1% of people will finish part 5 in the time given. I think when I was interviewing, only about 3% of people reached step 5 at all. Finishing was super rare, and it really only existed to separate the top couple percent. (And yes, we told the candidates that we didn’t expect them to finish in the time allocated). It doesn’t matter if step 5 is harder. Most people will never attempt it anyway.

But even then, while BFS would definitely work here, so would DFS and that’s simpler. A simple, unoptimised recursive DFS flood fill would be like 8 lines or something given by that stage you already have a function to reveal a cell. You just have to call it on all the adjacent cells. I don't see that as a data structure problem. You could argue it’s an algorithm problem, but it’s about as easy as those come.
Yes, fair enough. I thought the book review portion was illuminating (and it sounds like an interesting book), but then the final section isn't about the book at all and, in my view, makes an argument that isn't well supported. And I think it does all that in service to being able to include this "write code" bit of cleverness in the headline, which is the only reason we're discussing an otherwise run-of-the-mill book review. So I think it's fair to point out that the section that brought this to our attention is pretty weak...
Huh. I wonder if the set of possible checkmate positions is quite limited compared to the full game.