skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm not against using UUIDs, but it has to be done in a balanced manner. Normal numeric IDs for all surrogates, and then a UUID as an external lookup attribute. You push that externally for API calls, tokens, etc. so you don't have to worry about leaking sequential values, so it should be indexed. Otherwise, it's purely a lookup to key you into the JOIN chain for everything else.

That said, Now that UUIDv7 is available, switching to that should be a priority.
You obviously haven’t been paying attention.

AI might be used to create a picture of you! This is way more dangerous than any firearm, or dare I say, even a nuclear weapon.

/s for the /s impaired
We should all be ashamed that we have created a society where the prospect of reduced work is a doomsday scenario.
I've been through the full FCC certification process for an intentional transmitter, and it is pretty labyrinthine, on top of being very expensive (I recall $30k, but I don't have access to that company's financials anymore).

Its certainly true that a module can save you a lot of money for small volumes. Its actually pretty easy to figure out where the tipping point is:
Its the difference in certification costs divided by the difference in BOM costs. Its a little bit more complicated when you factor in economies of scale, but by and large, module costs don't fall off as steeply as individual components do.
> Computer-Checked proofs are one area where ai could be really useful fairly soon. Though it may be closer to neural networks in chess engines than full llm's.

Yes, if significant progress is made in sample-efficiency. The current neural networks are extremely sample-inefficient. And formal math datasets are much smaller than those of, say, Python code.
An experiment in fixed-term open-source patronage
It sort of is fixable, though. If you think about it, the problem is a bunch of functions are all mapped to one of a small set of names: +*/, etc. That is, the operators. If we didn't try to cram all this functionality into a tiny handful of symbols because of some weak analogy they have with basic math operations[1], then the compiler would have far fewer name conflicts to try to disambiguate, and the problem goes away on its own. Like yeah, the problem still exists if we made a few dozen functions all called "a", but the solution is to not do that, not give up on an otherwise fine type system.

I'm convinced operator overloading is an anti-feature. It serves two purposes:

1) to make a small set of math operations easier to read (not write), in the case where there are no mistakes and all readers perfectly understand the role of each operator; and,

2) to make library developers feel clever.

Operator-named functions are strictly worse than properly named functions for all other uses. Yes, yes, person reading this comment, I know you like them because they make you feel smart when you write them, and you're going to reply with that one time in university that you really needed to solve a linear algebra problem in C++ for some reason. But they really are terrible for everyone who has to use that code after you. They're just badly named functions, they're un-searchable, they make error messages unreadable, and they are the cause the naming conflict that is at the root of the linked blog post. It's time to ditch operator overloading.

[1] Or because they look like the same symbol used in some entirely other context, god, please strike down everyone who has ever written an operator-/ to combine filesystem paths.
> Something has to give if you want E2EE, usually it's the chat history or multi-device support.

True, but then again, neither SMS nor RCS have server-side message history either.

WhatsApp lets you backup your chat history to iCloud or Google Drive, optionally end-to-end encrypted using a passphrase.
I recognize some of those words....
Interestingly enough, AI with humans in the loop is probably perfect for this.

The first tier of review can be AI. It will get a deluge of pro-se requests from prisoners just like the current system. People will (rightly) insist on an appeal process. Most prisoners will appeal, so the queue will be just as long as it currently is.

But, now there will be a short queue of some high-quality pro-se lawsuits that are given more weight, and a queue of dubious-quality pro-se lawsuits with diamonds in the rough that is at least no longer than it is today.
> 1.4. Mispairing database files and hot journals

I’m surprised it would corrupt the database. The database could have included a unique identifier as well as in the journal and refuse opening the database if the identifiers don’t match.
I think this is a unfair characterization. Yes Apple's developer ecosystem has a lot of fair complaints, I've personally run into the issues in this article particularly with newer APIs like SwiftData's #Predicate macro. But we just saw two days ago a lot of concerted issues to fix systemic problems like XCode the editor, or with compile times with Explicit Module improvements.

I think you're painting with too heavy a brush. Apple clearly is dedicating resources to long-tail issues. We just saw numerous examples two days ago at WWDC24.
Whenever a company is gleeful for regulation this is where my mind goes. Do they see regulation as an extra moat? We have the cash and years head start. It's love government procurement. Companies love it because once they are in, they rarely have competition and can charge extra.
I have a feeling it's going to be nearly impossible to replace it without breaking a lot of existing code, since the syntax will have to be a lot more explicit.
Perhaps, but this does not contradict the premise in any way.
Low-Power Piezoelectric Energy Harvesting Circuits for Battery-Free Wearables
Do you enjoy getting paid for your labor? I'm sure journalists do.
Is there some sort of internet law which says that any device providing a service which could be an app will eventually be replaced
by an app?
But have you ever tasted link juice?
Founder liquidity is wrong -- and not because employees don't get the same deal.

It's wrong because it is NOT uncommon for a founder to take chips off the table sometimes enriching themselves to the tune of millions only for the startup to then "fail" -- either go bankrupt, sell for peanuts, or sell for only a modest multiple.

You're not done until you're done. But founder liquidity has now become a path to getting rich when the outcome of the company is still unknown and up in the air. If venture backed founders don't want that risk, they should start bootstrapped companies.

At a minimum, there should be a cap on it (not % but $), and yes, it should be extended to early employees too.
This is a great idea, and I love that it includes four languages. The price is a bit more than I'm comfortable with but I may pick one up anyway, it does look nicely constructed.
I'm sure there will be some, but even if one takes most of the AI claims as exaggerated, current machine learning is orders of magnitude more useful than bitcoin ever was.
More discussion in the "Changelog News" newsletter

https://changelog.com/news/97
I think the most interesting part of the discussion is that the early employees almost always get the worst end of the deal:

Going in they have a lower salary than if they work for a more established company.

Then, either their shares end up being worthless, or at the final exit, they make less money than if they worked for a more established company the entire time. IE: Being an early employee in a startup is a lose-lose situation.

This is something founders need to understand when recruit their early employees: These are often the most critical hires for the business, and therefore it needs a high probability of upside.

IMO: A series of retention bonuses, and/or guaranteed bonuses at acquisition / funding events is a good solution. It's how I've sidestepped the equity issue when I was employed during an exit event.
The city is polluted. Do we replace the entire city or install air filters? It's mostly a matter of scale.
Gaslighting has a very specific definition — lying to someone in a way that causes them to question their own reasoning or grasp on reality.

For folks who are just finding out they never stood a chance because Google does indeed have a “small site” designation, they probably feel pretty manipulated.

I’d rather not have tens of thousands of small business owners wasting their time trying to figure me out how to work within Google’s system when it’s all a tissue of lies.
Related Raivo OTP just deleted all tokens after update and is now asking for money [0] (102 points, 13 days ago, 60 comments)

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40523411
I think this sort of negative definition is not very useful, though. As soon as telepathy is demonstrated, it becomes an existing sense. And that's not just word chopping, it's pretty evident that this is going to bother people and that they will believe it can't be "real" telepathy.

In a non-trivial way, this means that "telepathy" is defined as something that does not and can not exist. If it exists, it won't be telepathy, because it'll have to be something real, and as such, it won't be "real" telepathy.

If you do give it a concrete definition that permits it to exist, it is often the case that it turns out that we have it in the real world already, unless you define it as some sort of ability to invasively read people's minds or something, in which here's hoping it never exists in this universe.
The EU does have one - it's called the EU Green Deal [0]

The EU was very slow with implementation due to COVID, but with the US's passage of the IRA in 2023, disbursements rapidly sped up.

Also, it's prioritizing building green infrastructure first - not EVs - because unlike similar sized economies, much of Europe fell behind on renewables investments in the 2010s.

[0] - https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-...
That's my point basically. Since AI is owned by so few, all of the profits from it will flow to 0.01% of society or less and leave the rest of us with scraps.

And that's the entire point of companies like OpenAI.
It's definitely mind-boggling to me too.

I do hope Radia gets their WindRunner plane off the ground. It's designed for onshore wind renewable energy, to be a plane with colossal internal volume. But it's also designed to work on landing strips that are much shorter & crucially primitive iirc or at least much more basic, to radically expand access to where we might setup wind power.

I have high confidence such a plane would most likely end up being used for other tasks too, if created. Maybe it's not as absurdly expensive as I imagine, planning & coordinating these intense logistics routes, but being able to airship things to interesting destinations seems super compelling to me, seems like it could enable a lot of infrastructure development that's simplify infeasible right now.

Marching into fancifulness here, but with something as big as a fab, I could definitely picture an initial construction phase where a sizable fraction of the land is dedicated as runway to start, isn't developed, while big items are flown in. Sounds wild, but could be possible! The model Radia has is off-site construction, and it's not too too hard to imagine perhaps more than wind turbines might benefit from this model: maybe not just coolers and fabs, but perhaps even prefab building walls could benefit from this.

https://www.wsj.com/business/energy-oil/how-the-worlds-bigge...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39690182

Maybe it's infeasible, but I could imagine something as large as a fab being able to
> Having read neither of these articles, the original or the retraction, would be the ideal state.

I disagree. The ideal state would be news organization would be held accountable for the nonsense they get up to.

The original article was an interesting insight into the benefits of the Internet and how it can be beneficial to tribes like that. This latest article (not really a retraction) is also beneficial in that it calls out the nonsense other news outlets got up to, and points a light at the issue itself, as you yourself are doing.
Ted Cruz will be relieved; https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/12/ted-cruz-twi...
> It's a solid reason to not use any SaaS.

That's also true, and I do.

> You might be drinking too much anti-Google koolaid if you think their product failure rate is any different than the rest of the field.

The rate may not be different, but Google has demonstrated organizational willingness to obliterate SaaS products that have an audience but not a sufficiently large one to suit Google's model of revenue generation.

> It will die with dignity instead.

I don't care how my software dies, I care that it died and how much work it will take to replace.
I agree with this and think that the role of exercise and sport in body composition is often misunderstood.

The calories burned playing a five a side football match aren't that big a deal, neither is the BMR adjustment from going to the gym unless you really go hard on it. It makes a difference, yes, but it's not the real key.

What matters is that it forces you to be to some degree mindful about what you are eating, because most sports become really shit and unenjoyable if you are out of shape, you can literally see and feel your performance decreasing.
> Some of the information revealed appears to contradict claims that the company has made publicly. One variable that Google Search apparently tracks is when and where users click, not just on Google’s core site but any page that is accessed within Google’s Chrome browser. In the past, Google has repeatedly denied factoring that data into its search algorithm. Fishkin told me that, among S.E.O. experts, this “reinforces an already long-held belief that Google’s public representatives regularly lie, mislead, and omit key information.”

This flummoxes me that it's written as some big discovery, because it's widely known and accepted that Chrome reports telemetry that a) is reported back to us in Google Search Console and b) affects search results.

Am I misreading this? What's the discovery here?
Why do you think that lawsuit has anything to do with the text you quoted? They seem totally unrelated.
nice! this reminds me of an art piece I saw once, which used segments of movies to show the time: https://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern/christian-marcl...
The Topological Problem with Voting
Hey this is much like that tribe from the other day that DID get addicted to porn. What a coincidence.

I've also heard of this one tribe heavily addicted to misinformation. They just can't get enough of it! They weren't even feral and naive to exposure, it somehow just... crept up on them.
I much prefer their design to starship. It's optimising for the hardest part of the trip: re-entry.. Also re-entering like Apollo and not like the space shuttle is a good thing imo. It doesnt rely on an ablative heat shield or tiles, also it doesnt have extremely heavy / complex / vulnerable actuated fins yet it can get lift and steer itself simply with it's shape and by rotating the whole craft like Apollo.

SpaceX is a mix of mindblowing engineering with sometimes baffling decisions. I can never help but wonder how much input Elon has, and if he is responsible for all those questionable choices, as he honestly appears to be a bit of an idiot.

I've been following Starship's development avidly, but knowing he's involved always makes me cringe a little.
The app (or some equivalent) may already exist.

The whole point of this product is that you get a device whose hardware is tailor made (e-ink, no other distractions, long time between charges, etc.) for this purpose.
I'm not looking forward to my new role an as an AI Therapist*.

* Not to be confused with an AI Whisperer, who performs the same tasks but didn't complete his certification.
Direct air capture is really about the least realistic of popular geoengineering proposals. The atmosphere is huge. We didn't get into this situation overnight - it took almost two centuries and oodles of factories, vehicles, concrete plants, etc. It's vastly cheaper just not to output more CO2 in the first place. Thermodynamic constraints mean that tremendous amounts of energy are required to do DAC in the first place, not to mention the knock-on biosphere effects of the production required to build that hitherto-unseen scale of capability.

We can't magic-tech our way out of this situation. It will take huge effort, and more importantly, sacrifice of the unthinking low-value abundance we have. Nuclear power is hard, but it is still much more realistic than unproven wundertech like DAC.
You're looking for faces in the clouds.

It's definitely possible that there is rational intention behind what Musk is doing, but it's also possible that your mind is just seeing rational intention where there is none.

After all his bullshit he does not get the benefit of the doubt about being rational and cogent.

If he wants that he has to earn it, and I'm skeptical that he ever can.
In addition to standardization headaches, the wheel issue discussed is also hindered by using file names as an at least somewhat complex medatata structure's transport. Sure, you can do that, but it's a pain in the ass even if you do a good job. A file name is just one string, after all.

This is a somewhat hot take, but I wish there were more widespread use of package repository tools that don't use the dpkg model of "the registry's metadata is baked into a simple file hierarchy". The simplicity and accessibility (I can just browse packages with HTTP/FTP) of that approach is appealing, but it breaks down a lot in cases like this.

I don't think it's too opaque or overcomplicated to wish for repository servers that have a pair of access APIs: one to ask the server about metadata/packages matching a set of constraints, and another to download blobs/tarballs/whatever. Docker takes that approach, and it seems to work well. I just wish that instances of this pattern weren't per-language/platform and we had something a little more standardized.
Yep. I was curious about what that mitigation was about. Anyone knows?
The times here seem unreasonably bad even with the bad algorithm. Something else has got to be going on. Maybe kind of hidden factorial complexity when it tries every combination?
It's a catch 22 with ML though. What you wrote is completely true however with ML you cannot say "We will get to 98% precision and 92% recall by Q4". You do not know how long it will take (see self-driving cars). However of course you can always lie.
This is just the code license. Parents are referring to the XTTS model (their best one).
If the carpet is AI, and the subfloor is everything else, then we're already in the process of putting the new carpet overtop of it

And there's a lot of people telling us we can't afford the time or money to replace the subfloor first
Hi. I'm excited to try this out. Does the typescript library for writing restate services run in Deno? And how about in a Cloudflare worker? These aren't quite nodejs environments but they do both offer comparability layers that make most nodejs libraries work. Just wondering if you know if the SDK will run in those runtimes? Thanks
EU SAFE Agreements, help us unify EU startup funding
I'm a big fan of the idea of Swift as a cross platform language general purpose langauge, but it just feels bad without Xcode. The Vscode extension is just okay, and all of the tutorials/documentation assumes you are using Xcode.

A lot of the issues that Swift is currently facing are the same issues that C# has, but C# had the benefit of Mono and Xamarin, and in general more time. Plus you have things like JetBrains Rider to fill in for Visual Studio. Maybe in a few years Swift will get there, but I'm just wary because Apple really doesn't have any incentive to support it.

Funnily enough, the biggest proponent of cross platform Swift has been Miguel De Icaza, Gnome creator, and cofounder of Mono the cross platform C# implementation pre .net core. His Swift Godot project even got a shout out recently by Apple
> So it's a dormitory with unlimited dining hall, but you can only take one plate a week outside of the dining hall.

You see how that's bad, right?

My phone service, a utility, should not be micromanaging me.
Indeed, what software would you want to update?
I have received equity as an employee. When I started, the company was very early and their evaluation was still very low. The way it worked was that I had to pay for the equity grant upfront. I forget exactly how much but it was<$200. This is also how it worked for me as a founder of a company.

That same company eventually raised a sizeable equity round and then began issuing options for new employees. If they were to continue issuing equity grants, the cost to purchase the grant would be much more than $200 (likely tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars). Alternatively, if the company were to give employees equity grants directly instead of having to buy them then that would count as income and the employees would owe taxes on the equity gained. The tax bill could also easily be tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Options avoid all of that and defer the upfront costs that come with an equity grant.

Imo, the real problem is that options can be clawed back once you no longer work for the company.
I was a fan of Calm Company Fund's thesis from the start, but I've been puzzled by some of their choices.

Their thesis is to invest in capital-efficient, profit-focused companies. Contrast that with the Calm Company Fund itself, which appeared to have invested a lot of time and money into putting on destination Founder Summits - https://calmfund.com/writing/how-we-built-founder-summit

Running annual summits is a lot of work, and I couldn't reconcile the contrast between asking founders to be profit-focused and "calm" while also running destination events that founders were supposed to travel internationally to attend. They posted a lot of fun photos and had a lot of branding around it, but it felt like quite a distraction for a small fund and team to be operating.

Calm posted something about the events being a small net loss, but the real tragedy was the ensuing litigation with their partner for the events. You can find Calm Fund's full story on Twitter ( https://x.com/tylertringas/status/1716592486460629132 ), but the TLDR is that they partnered with a PE fund for the events, then later cancelled the partnership with the intention of running the events on their own. The other fund is now suing them for trying to take over running the events.

This is mentioned in the blog post:

> Compounding the difficulty through this period is the fact that a private equity firm, SureSwift Capital, that we co-hosted the successful Founder Summit events with, has persisted in litigation against us. That process has been an eye-opening realization that someone who is committed to wasting their own money in a pointless legal process can force you to do the same and it has been a massive drain on our already strained bandwidth and budget.

From the outside, running the Summits felt like a distraction from the start. When it spiraled into legal battles with ongoing costs, it only got worse. I wonder how they would have done if they hadn't tried to run vacation-style events every year and instead just focused on being a "calm" VC fund that focused on being profitable itself.

The letter somewhat acknowledges this contrast. However, their excuse makes it feel even stranger that they thought being "un-calm" was the key to success as the Calm fund.

> The irony is not lost on me how “un-calm” these past five years have been. I told myself that “we are doing the un-calm things to help 1,000s of founders build actually calm companies.” The jury is still out on whether that was a good plan.
Actually, I was saying that technologists should be humble because their inventions pale in the face of nature’s inventions (including but not limited to the human brain). It’s ironic that this summary was generated by mistral? Because it completely missed my point.