skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
But you already committed the crime, surely that alone will be much worse than a completely unprovable charge of destruction of evidence.
Pg_lakehouse: A DuckDB Alternative in Postgres
I have had decent success using <https://www.monicahq.com> for journaling and birthday reminders.
> they are literally all the same shiz

Oculus Quest 3 screens: LCD displays with a per-eye resolution of 2064×2208p (4.56 million pixels per eye)

Apple Vision Pro screens: micro-OLED displays with a per-eye resolution of 3,680x3,140 (11.5 million pixels per eye)

Disproof by counterexample. Perhaps you could refine your theory?
> Alternatives: they didn't have users?

Correct, it is well known that they kept Swift a bizarre secret internally. It seems no one thought it would be a good idea to consult with the vast swathes of engineers that had been using the language this was intended to replace for the last 30 or so years, nor to consult with the maintainers of the frameworks this language was supposedly going to help write, etc. As you can imagine, this led to many problems beyond just not getting a large enough surface area of compiler performance use cases.

Of course, after it was released, when they seemed very willing to make backward-incompatible changes for 5 years, and in theory they then had plenty of people running into this, they apparently still decided to not prioritize it.
I use https://clay.earth/ which might be what you’re looking for
Why not make it a warning if the compiler leaves the happy path? The fix is easy for the programmer (enums, casting, etc.) and could be left unfixed if the programmer knows its OK (meaning it wont take 42 seconds and give an error.) The LSP would have to know when the compiler ran into this, but if the compiler can identify the type explosion problem, it can tell the LSP.
Among devs? That may well be the silent majority. Among normies? I don't think so.
I actually think this sort of thing is a huge part of SV-style companies are increasingly viewed in a poor light by normal people.

It's hubris. The mindset takes "People don't know what they want. We do." far, far too seriously.
> we’ll be embracing portions of the Android stack, like the Android Linux kernel and Android frameworks, as part of the foundation of ChromeOS.

Ew. ChromeOS was always a beautiful contrast to Android, running mainline kernels instead of Android's hacked up mess.

Actually that was pretty much true of the rest of the stack as well - ChromeOS was almost a normal(ish) GNU/Linux, running Chrome on Wayland on ~Gentoo. Android, in the meantime, NIHed the whole stack. I had always dreamed that one day Google would rebase Android to use a ChromeOS base running apps through a compatibility layer. This... feels like the Bad outcome.
> Crouton / Chrostini seem to have a lot of dependencies on the current ChromeOS platform that would be costly to migrate.

Being careful not to make any pronouncements here since I do work in the group, but no, not really.

Crostini is just a fairly standard VM manager with a handful of custom virtio and IPC mechanisms (some of which are really clever, to be fair). It doesn't require much of anything that hasn't been in the upstream kernel for years. And Crouton is just a community-maintained Linux chroot. People (including me) were doing exactly that kind of hack on rooted android devices more than a decade ago.
Why not use a beefy, Linux compatible laptop at this point? I'm unfamiliar with ChromeOS, so apologies for a potentially stupid question.
This was my initial mindset as someone whose background lies in untyped languages, but after time with Rust I no longer feel that way. My feeling now is that seeing a Rust codebase typecheck gives me more confidence than seeing a Python or Javascript codebase pass a test suite. Naturally I am still an advocate for extensive test suites but for my Rust code I only run tests before merging, not as a continuous part of development.

To give an example, in the past week I have ported over a thousand lines of C code to a successor written in Rust. During development compilation errors were relatively frequent, such as size mismatches, type mismatches, lifetime errors, etc. I then created a C-compatible interface and plugged it into our existing product in order to verify it using our extensive integration test suite, which takes over 30 minutes to run. It worked the first time. In order to ensure that I had not done something wrong, I was forced to insert intentional crashes in order to convince myself that my code was actually being used. Running that test suite on every individual change would not have yielded a benefit.
This is even handier: https://github.com/NikolayS/postgres_dba
> WhatsApp didn't have multi-device support until mid 2023.

I think it was 2020, but in any case, it was very late. To be fair, it is quite hard to do securely and without compromising too much on usability with end-to-end encryption.

> even then I wonder if it knows how to merge divergent chat histories if one device misses messages.

There's one primary device (I think it has to be a phone) that maintains the "source of truth" message database and also does the backups, I believe.

> SMS is bad, but at least I can send/receive it on my Mac without my iPhone being online, idk how.

Are you sure? Does this work with the iPhone completely off (i.e. not just on mobile data, because it does proxy SMS to iMessage in that case)?

I didn't think that was possible. Only very few operators even allow voice calls via FaceTime (without proxying the audio data through the iPhone via local Wi-Fi), but maybe they extended that to SMS over IMS recently. I can't test it with mine in any case, since my provider/plan is not on that short list.
Sure looks like a typo. Contact author?

https://x.com/fchollet
https://x.com/arcprize
https://x.com/mikeknoop
I love elixir. I use it for basically everything. And LiveBook has become my go-to place to start building toy software.

I just can't do liveview. I have a very hard time grokking it, and it has a lot of footguns. (ex: if you need to remember to perform auth checks both doing a `pipe_through` in a router and using the `on_mount` callback in a LiveView, see [0].)

In fact, the fact that the above sentence has zero meaning to a new-to-phoenix-and-liveview dev is proof enough to me that liveview should not be the default way of doing things.

It creates a very steep learning curve where, crucially none is required. elixir/phoenix are easy.

I would even say that the correct learning order for a new-to-elixir/phoenix dev should be:

- Phoenix with deadviews (MVC style).

- "Elixir in action" to learn the basics of OTP. This book is was both easy and utterly eye-opening to me and changed the way I code basically everything.

- Then, and only then, LiveView.

[0]: https://hexdocs.pm/phoenix_live_view/security-model.html#liv...
But then you have to deal with TI’s garbage called CCStudio
More HN discussion

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40661703
However, I challenge you to strip a cast iron pan and try to cook eggs in it and tell me how you got them not to stick.

The same way you cook on stainless. If you heat the pan and oil properly, you can let the Leidenfrost effect take it from there.

I'm not sure, but if you are scrubbing your cast iron with large amount or strong soaps it's going to have a bad effect on ANY seasoning.

No. If it flakes off, it is not seasoning. At that point, it is just burnt oil. But that's OK, because you can build up seasoning the next time you cook.

Crisco alone is a lot cheaper than some highly marketed brand of crisco + beeswax and will do just as good a job at seasoning your pan. Plus, you'll have crisco left over for other stuff. There's no need to buy these "boutique" products just for your pan.
Lying to the employees is scammy and wrong. However regarding that we would need more information what has exactly happened. Not telling or not highlighting something is not the same as lying.

Personally I'm not in the SV scene but from Europe, and I don't know much cases of these early cashouts.
I thought Fuchsia was the one that got hit with the larger cuts?
This is an obvious precursor to the rumoured desktop mode coming to Pixel phones.

It is also going to be a bitter pill for many Chrome OS people, who were often defined by a distaste for Android that verged on the absurd, and caused an awful lot of political nonsense. Android is far from ideal, but Chrome OS was better in one sense only: security.

Controversially I believe the most viable future Linux desktop is likely to be based on the Android stack, especially the app packaging, but with the entire “java” layer removed.
I think grasses make up the majority of a wild horse's diet
Pre-covid open plan offices had their problems. I sat elbow-to-elbow with a guy who always had Youtube bowling videos running on his spare monitor on one side, and a junior engineer who had questions for me all the time on the other side. I say this without any rose-tinted nostalgia: it was way better than the post-covid office. Same space, but despite being half-deserted it is still too small for everybody to be on Teams calls at the same time, eight hours a day. I miss the conviviality of in-office culture, but pre-covid decisions about what constitutes an appropriate office space have made post-covid office work untenable.
SD1.5 for life it is then
And supposedly, the compiler transforms the Arc in Rc or even removes it entirely if it can prove to be fine. I still did not check if there is a tool that tells you what was optimized and the reason why something wasn't.
Who's the father? For these baby animals, one doesn't exist
Is this Google acknowledging the same thing that Apple has: that x86 is a dead end and ARM is required for high-quality, portable device experiences? Hence optimising for an Android tech stack vs going further down the ChromeOS/Linux path.
Quite unusual to see Elixir among languages supported via bindings
We have machines for that, but we don't call them computers. They don't compute anything, after all...
Leave me out of it, I have other plans :)
> The experimenter driving the car insisted that he wasn’t allowed to deviate from protocol. Green told him, “I’m the contract monitor, and I say stop the car.” So the experimenter stopped. “But I’m supposed to drive to the target,” he said.

This breach of protocol makes the experiment near-worthless. Even if this anecdote is truthful, and even if there was no deliberate collusion: some impulse prompted Green to stop at the church. Was there a common event, earlier in the day, that led both to this conclusion?

> Green intended to devise a fail-safe remote-viewing test.

Rule of thumb: never trust a science experiment devised to prove something. Only trust one designed to disprove something.
Not only was the agreement voided, it was voided for reasons that call into question the composition of the board and their duty to shareholders.

The way this defective agreement was created was sloppy AF. The board didn't even go through the motions of compliance when it was drafted and approved. Ii suspect they got used to getting away with things because they prevailed in the Solar City suit.
ChromeOS works fine on ARM.
I think that’s a pretty sideways reaction to someone who is just arguing for parents to actually parent their children, rather than let computers do a worse job.

Attentive, authentic parenting is pretty well agreed upon by modern society to be a good thing for all people.
Perfectly normal behaviour these days, sadly: https://x.com/RDKLInc/status/1743460577391808825

Not to mention the planned obsolecence of non-upgradeable machines with near-unreplaceable battery packs (a very popular 'dark pattern' these days in device design, clearly aimed at encouraging people to replace the entire device more frequently)
"You believe that Stoke space is somehow the near perfect design"

- I said I much prefer it to starship, not that it's near perfect.

"The designer or Shuttle and Starship were probably idiots"

- I dont know much about the design of Starship, that stuff is not in the public domain atm. But the space shuttle designers were not idiots, they just had to deal with some impossible requirements from higher up. The space shuttle as-built has some clearly bad design elements (eg. the shuttle itself not being on top of the stack at launch, as it was in the original design). It had a famously long and torturous design process with many different stakeholders all wanting it to be capable of wildly different missions. Just one example: https://youtu.be/_q2i0eu35aY?feature=shared

So one could say management meddling with the design is what killed the space shuttle. I am wondering is the same meddling happening in SpaceX?
That's cool — use what you're comfortable with.

Myself, I am trying to create lightweight 3D code to sit on top of Canvas and HTML5. That may be why I was sensitive to the "overkill", ha ha.

https://github.com/EngineersNeedArt/Phosphor3D
I have an iPad Mini with Notability. I'm quite happy with it as I bought it before the switch to a subscription model.
This. It takes tons of energy especially if your surrounded with admirers (I suppose these types tend to gather undiscerning yes men).

I have fled a renowned institute for this reason. You are probably going to sacrifice your career over it either way, because if you're not hopping on their gravy train...
I remember running around with friends in those hats when I was a child.
If anything, the work on top of pKVM has very nearly brought the same feature to Android already, though they haven't to my knowledge finished executing on that vision.
Ah yes the old don't do the really bad thing, do the less bad thing.

I know some people like hybrid or fully in office. Thats fine I'm not trying to dump on your opinion, "full remote is best" is also just like my opinion man.

The thing that irks me is all of these articles trying to sway everyone to make them come back to the office.

If someone actually comes to me and shows me a specific reason why a given company really needs to be hybrid or in office, I'll hear them out. Usually what I get is things like "get back to our roots" or "increased alignment" or whatever.

What specific issue are you solving? Let's stop flailing around to see if sprinkling this or that magic potion will fix all our problems. Tell me the problem before suggesting solutions.
Founder risk is total myth. I was at a startup where, when it was apparent there would be no more funding, the vc’s permitted principal founder to essentially embezzle the remaining few $M. He and his cronies then lived off the proceeds for the better part of a decade in a kind of “brown dwarf” of a company of the same name.

And it was the SECOND time he had done this in his career!
Tableau is expensive, and they are trying to move into the Databricks space with managed compute, and what we are using it to build at my company is the largest hidden spaghetti ball imagineable.
Probably CrOS team doesn't have enough manpower to implement necessary local ML infrastructure and want to borrow Android's. Or at least they're using this as an excuse for paying off long standing organizational tech debts.
Out computer infrastructure today is anti-human, you see it in the examples given here in this blog post. Instead, we must start using computers and software in particular to create environmental computing infrastructure. Environmental computing infrastructure is not one of representation, not containing an interface, but a digital twin that handles the complex bureaucratic parts of our lives for us. It should not supplant us in meatspace, it should not exist in meatspace. This is what I want computers to do.

Much as the article describes, we are using contemporary computing technology to create infrastructure that allows us to live in the illusion of creating. The infrastructure is inherently cynical and consumption oriented, so it produces cynical consumers. A proper computing infrastructure, namely an environmental computing infrastructure, should produce producers.
Elon Musk sued by former employees alleging sexual harassment and retaliation
Mostly tangential: one of the sanctioned entities is the National Clearing Center, or NCC. I assume that means that "NCC" will be added to the SDN list, which is going to probably cause an large number of headaches for the legal and invoicing departments of the other NCC[1].

[1]: https://www.nccgroup.com/us/
Founder here who turned down an offer to secondary in our B round.

It would have brought ~$5M before tax. This would have been a material change in my financial security. I live in a high-cost US city and have been putting off starting a family. It would have removed many concerns that are holding us back from feeling like it's the right time for us.

My thinking has evolved, but is roughly:

(1) The argument from VCs in favor of a secondary is often: If the founders take some money off the table, they have downside protection and are more strongly incentivized towards only a massive outcome. This aligns their risk profile more closely to their (Seed/A/B stage) VCs who model their portfolios based on bimodal (boom or bust) outcomes. It helps prevent scenarios where the founders safely exit for $Xm leaving the Series B VC with a 1x'ish return that's against their profile.

(2) I didn't take the offer because I felt it would be unfair to our early employees who took a big risk leaving FAANG compensation to come build with us. I ruminate on this often. It would have changed my life, and the only difference to them would be some numbers in our cap table being 10% different. In retrospect, doing it pro-rata for everyone would have solved this, but I'm not sure the VC making the offer would have gone for it. Who knows.

(3) I do not think founders and early employees deserve exactly the same treatment. While early folks took a similar financial risk as I did, they aren't chained to the company in the same way. They can quit tomorrow and go back to FAANG jobs. A founder has to either find their own replacement, sell the company, or run a long and painful wind-down process and return money to the VCs. All of these options take months-to-quarters of work, create reputational risk, suck emotionally, etc. And that's in addition to still losing all your money like the employee did. I don't think it's the same.

(4) You don't get nice-guy points for turning down the offer. Nobody on my team knows that my cofounder and I turned it down, so we get no credit for doing right by them. Telling them about it feels somewhere between a humble brag and guilt tripping them into working harder. The motivation to do "the right thing" has to be purely internal.

(5) If you're starting a company I strongly suggest you give your employees the option to early-exercise / 43b their shares. Few folks seem to know enough about their options to take advantage of this but it prevents the lock-in scenario where someone wants to quit but can't because the AMT bill would devastate them. We have had this since the seed round but sadly only a few people pay attention to it, and I can only suggest it so much without creating a financial-advice legal risk.

While I feel like I did right by my team, I can put an exact price on the cost of that positive moral sensation. My team might even think I'm stupid for not taking it when they would have.

It's pretty easy to say what's obviously right and wrong in HN comments, but when all you have to do to pocket a life changing amount of money is say "ok", the decision feels much heavier.
IIRC the design was already established, identical to what we use now except for the material, 5000 years ago.
Project Treble was supposed to do that... and might actually work, with caveats?
> e.g., CVE-2005-2541 is considered a High severity vulnerability, but in Debian is considered “intended behavior,” making it a feature, not a bug.

CVE-2005-2541 is documented & required behavior for the tar archive: https://marc.info/?l=bugtraq&m=112360016019030&w=2 . Infuriating that the CVE was seen as valid enough to get a number.
Far too many people these days seem to lack the basic ability to think, critically or otherwise. That should be the very first thing people learn, in my opinion. Because if you raise someone who lacks that ability, it can't always be gained later.

Nuts that self-direction is barely even entertained before a college level. Someone can graduate high school without even the ability to look through Google search results.
Alexa had a whole platform push giving away clothing if you made an app ( I have a nice hoodie from it) The thing they lacked was a way to get payments done through it. This is similar to Vine at Twitter where the core problem was monetization.
The insane lack of basic heuristics in every day apps to do very obvious things like you mentioned baffles me. They can come up with huge scale fuzzy vector search AI suggestion systems for a billion users, but can't think to do stuff like, only suggest things available in your size?

I'm actually working on an app that solves this for a specific use case, tho it isn't in the retail space.

Voice assistants are particularly egregious - they've done all that work to correctly recognise the words I said - i.e. the hard part - but then it breaks because I said "set reminder" instead of "create reminder"??
> I think game companies could totally solve this problem a different way, but their incentives are not aligned to do so.

This is your root assumption underlying everything else. This also doesn't make any kind of sense. These companies put a lot of money into trying to stop cheaters. People don't want to play a game that is rampant with cheaters, it's bad for business.

The incentive is there. The incentive is more than there. As are their well reported attempts which end up making some gaming experiences incredibly negative for consumers, reporting in incredibly negative receptions which put a big dent in sales.

To say the incentive is not there is just...silly. Or disingenuous. Either way it's simply not true.

So, again, why hasn't Rockstar or Activision made these trivial modifications to completely and entirely stop cheating serverside? The cheating gives them negative press, hurts sales and turns people away from their software. So why haven't they fixed this since it's so easy?

> Here, I'm genuinely trying to understand your position

You keep repeating this but honestly I think it's bs. My point is clear and been repeated several times. You continue to try and refute the points I make; if you didn't understand my point, you wouldn't be able to do that. Honestly, I think most of your reply here is nothing but noise. Just focus on answering the top part of my reply, because eventually, inevitably your claims will be shown to be false, and the assumptions you rely on will be shown to be incredibly unlikely. I don't expect you to be able to admit that or concede, but I expect it will be entertaining for future readers and useful to those who are unfortunate enough to engage with you in the future.
> Nor is it music without a musician.

The case of music is quite fascinating. YouTuber Rick Beato is following it very closely. He seems to think that quite soon people will listen to AI generated music even knowing it is AI-generated music. They will listen to it because they'll enjoy it and they will not care who or what made it. I personally think he is right. Music can be enjoyed in a way no other art can, in that sense it might become kind of a drug.

Now some people think that will never happen because AI music will always be bad, but recently he posted a video in which he tells us that his kids can immediately tell an AI-generated song from a normal one. He is baffled because he himself can't do that. But he also tells us that one of his kids thinks that he probably won't be able to tell it anymore in six months or something. In other words, a young person with such a good ear is confident that AI-generated music will soon be if not good, at least indistinguishable from human-made music. I think that's indicative of where things are going.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbo6SdyWGns