skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
'Stand up Tesla': UAW uses layoffs to make unionization progress at Tesla
It's not so much that there's a formal standard for what years "should" be middle school in the US.

School districts in the US almost always start without established middle schools. Instead, there's so much elementary school capacity and so much secondary school capacity in a district. And then, whenever the population of students in the district changes, the choices of the district school board to respond to that are either to:

1. build one additional elementary school for every N additional grade 1-7 students, and/or one additional secondary school for every M additional grade 8-12 students (and continue to pay these CapEx costs even if student population goes down; and agree to deal with the fact that growth in elementary students will inevitably propagate to growth in secondary students 7 years later);

2. add temporary capacity to existing elementary + secondary schools with portable classrooms (which can easily be reduced back down if populations decrease — but which don't come with commensurate increases in central infrastructure, eventually straining the capacity of school facilities);

3. or, at one point, you look at the numbers of students in each year in your district, treat the years as vnodes, and then rebalance a contiguous set of those vnodes to a new "shard" called "middle schools". I.e. you pick a set of school-years, where extracting students from that set of years from one or two elementary and secondary schools in the district into a newly-built middle school, will result in a "good" amount of capacity being freed from those schools, and the resulting middle school instantly having a "good" utilization.

Once you've chosen option 3 one time, it sets a precedent in that district for what years middle school should cover in that district. Most districts only do the study for what years would be best to extract out the first time they build a middle school. After that, they just go with what they did before, even if it's no longer optimal (because skipping the study saves time and money.)

In theory, school districts could actually build successive middle schools that "pull" different years of utilization out of the elementary+secondary schools around them than previously-built middle schools have. The only issue would be in administrative assignment of students to schools — this would require you to place middle schools with different year coverage so they never have overlapping catchment area.
> So basically every corporation operating in the US has to follow US law at all times, regardless of the economic/legal circumstances in other countries?

It is wild to me how some people can throw something like this out as this like, unreasonable and clearly sarcastic question like, what you expect a corporation to follow the law everywhere? And I'm just over here like... yeah? Yeah. I... always did, really, I never considered that if I formed a corporation I could fund death squads in other countries to maintain access to cheap products. What the hell is wrong with you where you thought that was not only desirable, but a normal situation...?

I grew up very conservative and pro-free-market, and honestly a huge part of my transition to being a pinko commie scum was recognizing just how FUCKED big businesses are, especially overseas. Like you have the banal stuff like tax sheltering which is shitty but like, it's just money but then, oh MAN, they get up to some truly horrific shit. Death squads, union breaking, cataclysmic environmental damage, and it's 100% enabled by our system. I hope that this trend continues and we can finally get some justice out of these organizations that have clearly overstepped in so many ways.
Whose CIDR is it anyway?
Theyve done bad things but in this case thry actually de-bananified Colombia (not !00% though).
Alan Rockefeller has a great Instagram also did a trip with `Crime Pays But Botany Doesn't` recently.
The Fake Data Were Coming from Inside the Lab
Everyone pays protection money in Colombia, every single commercial entity except in the most upscale places.
Don't worry, us taxpayers will cover the damage.
Google has been working on TPUs and Tensorflow for a decade with pretty mixed success; I don't think it's clear that they're going to win.
Bingo - if you need the kind of person whose market rate would be 28% of your company. They are a founder, if your don’t need that person… fine, but the “this is the industry standard” line is bogus.
Novos launches free AI-based biological age test
Are you aware of the history of labor organizing in the states...? Not meant as an attack, I'm genuinely wondering. Strike breakers routinely killed people, destroyed property, cars would have sticks of dynamite chucked into them, and famously the coal miners blew up a fucking bridge.

I think people tend to think that modern politics is how all politics was done and... nah. Before we had more robust judicial, communication, and surveillance systems, if someone threatened your business and you were wealthy enough, having them killed and dumped in a bog was 100% on the fuckin table.
Mathematics or more generally academics is no panacea either. At least in engineering and applied math, there is a different assembly line of "research" and publications going on. We live in the area of enshitification of everything.

In both software and math, there are still very good people. But too far and between. And it is hard to separate the good from the bad.
Security features are security features. Blocking interoperability and calling it a security feature is a marketing technique.
Do you really think Google’s hardware expertise is better than Nvidia’s?

If needed these other companies have the $$$ to buy the best chips money can buy from Nvidia. Better chips than Google could ever produce.

If anything, this is why IMO Google will fail.
Maybe the training data they get is worth it. Or maybe they'll get enough conversions to their subscription tier to make it worth it
They aren’t, they manage their spectrum you are agreeing to use.
OpenAI has an early lead in the AI battle, and their ChatGPT brand is already a household name synonymous with LLMs for most people. This is the first time there’s been a real threat to Google’s monopoly in a decade.

Never mind they don’t have a profitable business model yet. OpenAI will pay a premium to Apple to keep their lead and remain the dominant brand in this new space in hopes they can someday supplant internet search. OpenAI seems to be at the point where they’ll burn billions in cash trying to join the ranks of the big tech monopolies. If they can reach Google’s status, they’ll be able to change ChatGPT from its “ten blue links” stage into something worse (but monetizable), but only if they can achieve dominant and defensive market share. Nobody seems to know how to pull off this last trick yet.

But in the meantime, a little competition in search (Google) is hugely beneficial to the largest gatekeeper of mobile users (Apple).
Uh, yes? There are dozens of specific US laws that govern this and tons of existing case law that committing a serious crime overseas is punishable in the US regardless of its legality elsewhere.

The Travel Act for example makes it illegal to fly to another country to engage in sexual acts with a minor, even if it is legal in that country. Do you think that is some sort of government overreach?
Formula 1 Tires Made with More Sustainable Rubber Still Only Last Half a Race
Their work on folding and ai could very well be a business worth in the hundreds of billions and they know it as well as many other bets.

Wheres others are playing the llm race to the bottom.
Because it's completely irrelevant.
ChromeOS was already guaranteeing 10 years of updates for every device. Has any Android phone ever gotten that many updates?
I have two words for you, my friend: roof rack
Dont think so?

Why its different:

Nobody cares who originally wrote the code as long as it works (ideally longer, rather than shorter). Software is intrinsically self-automating, so valuable skills are more along diagnosis and pattern recognition lines rather than specific skills themselves (yesteryears COBOL master could well be a JR engineer (or more likely management) at a startup). And also, people in charge of software companies have more on-hand people that may understand how AI works, and thus, not rely on such a system to the same extent (being generous to the c-suite here, we'll see shortly lol).
Resonators like this are effectively changing the resonating properties of the tire so that the vibration of the tire isn't as effectively changed into sound. Tires have certain frequencies or tones that they amplify, and the resonators can remove some of that amplication by redirecting the energy into the resonators themselves. It's equivalent roughly to adding a second pendulum to the bottom of a swinging pendulum. The first pendulum doesnt swing as far because energy is transferred into the second pendulum. The first pendulum being the one that effectively radiates noise (the tire), the final effect is less radiated sound. Since this treatment controls noise at its source, it will reduce noise for all parties.

Source: I worked on a resonator-based noise control solution as part of my Masters degree.
Not really because we just build all out stuffs out in house.

I would like an answer on the Telegram questions tho :)
Maybe we’re just getting dumber…
> Japan simply cannot do software

Wouldn't the counterpoint here be the games industry? Sony PlayStation and Nintendo seem to make globally competitive software.
> I'm quite proud of the development I've done on a $200 chromebook

High fives!

My main Linux computer died a year ago and I needed something to write emails and browse on, so I ran out to Costco and got a Chromebook, expecting it'd tide me over until I could figure out a replacement computer.

I'm still on the $250 Chromebook machine. It does everything I need and I'm pretty amazed at that. I've been doing some side projects with Elixir/Phoenix and it's not the speediest machine for sure, but it's quite serviceable. And for that price... that's amazing.
> traditional (tracing) GCs require more expensive runtimes and consume much more memory

Not really no. Look at go, D, nim, or any ahead of time compiled language.

> ARC is key in providing Swift its ability to maintain its low memory footprint compared to, say, Java

Again not really. Java has other issues. Like lack of value types, conservative escape analysis, needing extra memory for profiling and the jit, and HotSpot’s GCs are focused on server applications and are designed not to release memory until they’re about to run out.

Even if this were true ARC trades memory for execution speed. I can’t find the exact paper right now but the ixy implementations showed that you end up spending an unhealthy amount of time just counting references when you stay in pure swift code. I think it was somewhere > 30%.
"Burgstall" is not a place name, but technical terminology for a location of a former castle of which almost nothing is left. See: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgstall

In the case at issue here, the rock was called "Burgstein" and the forest around it "Burgholz". This names were already mentioned in a book from the 15th century and a book from the late 16th mentions a castle at the "Burgstein".[1] All this was long known,[2] but not all experts were convinced, that there had indeed been a castle on the rock. The new excavation now makes it seem even more likely.

[1] https://www.unsere-burgen.de/de/Burgen-im-LK-Reutlingen/Burg...

[2] For example, one Gottlieb Fri[e]drich Rösler wrote in his "Beiträge zur Naturgeschichte des Herzogthums Wirtemberg" (2. Heft, publ. 1790): "Auf dem Burgstein einem grossen Felsen gegen Abend, auf dem die Aussicht nocht schöner ist, sind auch die Spuren der alten Burg unkenntlich geworden ..." ("On the Burgstein, a large rock towards the Evening [the West], where the view is still more beautiful, even the traces of the old castle have become unrecognisable ..."). See p. 81 of: https://books.google.de/books?id=BY05AAAAcAAJ&printsec=front...
I have this fantasy in my head that all these rich capital-minded folks currently don't mind if we organize, so long as we do so responsibly (i.e., don't take the world system offline) because, geez, turns out there's enough for all of us (y'know, "science") and it's actually a bit lonely at the top--but, it's more complicated because "society and culture" e.g., language. What a beautiful mess this would be.*

This sounds so apologetic. Ugh.

On the other hand, if we don't take it now we'll all be replaced by almost-general intelligence. Who cares? Remember always: you may be done with politics but, politics may not be done with you.

* Before you go shouting, "omg communism," yeah, man, don't touch my cows.

* If this were the case, Marx and Kropotkin might be cracking a smile over a proverbial beer right now.
> and as a result it'll make the internet worse for everyone.

Good, im on here too much already.
A perspective I've found helpful is to think about a fund as a business, which it is.

Let's assume a hypothetical case of running a $100 million tech investment fund. The first 10-11% of return should go straight to investors (not the manager), for the simple reason that 7-8% is available in the stock market, and unlike the public markets, tech funds are illiquid--unlike investing in SPY, you can't wake up one day and trade out of your interest in a fund like this. You're locked in. That shifts the return expectation upward.

So assuming the manager's cost of equity (what investors demand) is around 10-11%, maybe a great manager can get the return number to 15-16%. That's a pretty good return on the fund but it's only $5 million in absolute gross returns (10->15% on $100 million). Considering the manager might get only 10-20% of this (the rest goes to investors), it's just a lot of work to earn $1 million in performance-based comp, over 2-3 years of active work and perhaps a decade of full fund life. These things are also typically run by teams (several partners) so the returns are split.

The point is that $100 million funds just aren't making their managers rich. The two outcomes of this, which you see over and over, are (1) for managers to try to manage much bigger funds ($500+ million) or (2) big management fees of 2%/year or more, which significantly erode returns.

The net result being, VC is a very hard business that almost always delivers substandard returns to its investors, after long lock-ins with very little liquidity. It's very tough and I'm not surprised to see these guys shutting down.
I'm not sure your math there on the birthday paradox is right (you only check the time during a single 10 minute range every day, no matter what? and you wouldn't look at it out of curiosity or for the pleasure of seeing a new quote?), but 15 days to the first collision doesn't seem like that long to me, for a piece of furniture that one would expect to be good for years to come and which costs $200+.

And note that the number will go up rapidly from whenever the first expected collision is: only 10 quotes per minute means you're going to see a lot of duplicates after a few hundred days.
You can read a lot of the stories from Analog, the magazine that Campbell edited for many years, here: https://www.freesfonline.net/Magazines2.html. I was a fan back in the day, but going back now I see a lot not to like. And certainly many of the stories involved ESP.
Only Sam can say for sure, eh?
Good Feature
Maybe journalists can return to "seeking truth" instead of generating clicks?

I mean, when the whole 2nd thing is completely automated because its bar is so low anything from 2 years ago could do it, that kinda only leaves the 1st option as a business idea.
It's kind of ironic, as the US wants every other country to follow their laws too sometimes (patents, copyright, probably more).

For the extra cup of strange irony, part of the government in my country (Australia) just tried forcing X to delete posts for everyone globally instead of just not showing them to Australian users. Thankfully the court system told the Aust gov to bugger off due to overreach. ;)
> Yet we tell the coal miners to go take job retraining because photovoltaic are a better power source than burning carbon.

Do we?

Last I checked (after decades in the mining industry from driving haul paks to geophysical exploration to selling global mineral intelligence software to Standard & Poor) :

Coal mining skills easily transfer to Lithium mining (etc).

Fitters and turners still fit and turn, belt splicers still splice belts, industrial electricians still pull wire and lace looms, mechanics are still required and will easily adapt to EV heavy machines as they've been working on those since the 1970s (electric shovels, ship loaders, etc).

Could you outline some things that coal miners do that aren't applicable to rare earth mining?
I peruse the Apple Watch subreddits from time to time. A lot of the posts are pictures of people’s watches on their wrist (yeah, I don’t know why, either). But here’s the relevant part: I’d bet a good 80% of the pictures are selfies taken with the poster sitting in the driver’s seat, and few are sitting in a parking lot.
What's New in Percona Toolkit 3.6.0
here is an older take on this same topic..

https://www.yitay.net/blog/training-great-llms-entirely-from...

GPU vs TPU, and good software managing large clusters of them across all sorts of failure.

the funny bit from the above article is the incident when someone forgot about a training job at google, and month later had the model fully trained without an alert of any kind. "outrageously good infra"
The last few years the Elixir ecosystem has started to become the simplest solution to so many use cases:

- Web development with Phoenix and Liveview is immensely enjoyable and fast

- AI with NX, Axon, Bumblebee

- Audio and Video streaming and manipulation with Membrane

- CQRS and Event Sourcing with Commanded

- Embedded with Nerves to make your own devices

- Mobile apps with Liveview Native ( in development )

- Queues, pipelines and batch processing, etc... natively or with GenStage, Broadway or Oban depending on your use case

but for me, the killer feature is IEX, Elixir's REPL. Being able to interact directly with my running code easily ( in dev or in production ), introspect it, debugging it, is just life changing.

Adding types is indeed the last piece to the puzzle to bring even more confidence in the code we ship.
Star Trek was always meant to be space opera, but yes... ironically TOS, considered the campy black sheep of the franchise now, is the one series that at least attempted to be harder than others would, with input from actual engineers and science fiction writers of the time. The episode with the introduction of the Romulan cloaking device, for instance, hinged on the actual laws of thermodynamics (a perfect cloak is impossible - it must be radiating something somewhere.) In modern Trek, they'd just something something subspace some bullshit.

It helped that Gene Roddenberry was in the Navy and that Trek was basically The Cold War In Space which is actually more of an interesting dynamic to me than Starfleet being basically invincible and everything running on space magic.
My theory is not that individual genius accomplishes more than a group, but that whether a field is currently more suited for individual single-brain productivity or assembly-line cooperation is a signal of whether that field is nascent, at its peak, or in decline. I genuinely think software technology has not advanced in a long time. Computers got really fast, which allowed us to build a mountain of abstractions on top, and now you can throw together web apps, and there is no shortage of companies running around with that hammer and banging on everything. But the actual boundaries of what is possible with software have not moved in a while.

Most of the software nowadays (in addition to being terribly slow and broken, by the way) feels like stuff that doesn't actually need to exist. It doesn't advance the boundaries of technology or humanity's skill tree in any way. It's a "nice to have" — it might have some social value or make some business process more efficient or whatever — but no one looks at it and goes, wow, we couldn't do that before.

Someone is going to bring up AI and LLMs, and about that, I will just say that ChatGPT was a real accomplishment... but after that, I have not seen any use cases of LLMs that represent a genuine step forward. Like smart contracts, it's a solution in desperate search of a problem, a technology in search of a breakout app. You feel like there's just no way it doesn't have wide reaching implications, and everyone around you (especially VCs) talks about the "possibilities unlocked" — but two years in and we haven't seen a single actually interesting use case. (Again, of course they're being incorporated to optimize some business process or whatever. But who cares?)

Meanwhile, as far as the day to day reality of software engineering goes, if you work professionally as an engineer, your job is more or less wrangling microservices in one form or another. If you're at a big company this is probably literal, but even if you're at a startup the bigco transplants start doing microservice stuff basically on arrival, and a bunch of the "best practices" and frameworks and tools are meant to mimic microservices type thinking (making things more complicated rather than less).

As a final note, I grew up being a giant fan of YC and PG's essays, so I will make a comment about the latest batch of YC startups. It seems to me that a bunch of them basically exist to make some process more efficient. But then you wonder, why does that process need to exist in the first place? Like there was one startup helping you to optimize your AWS costs or something, but why is software written in such a way to begin with that you have all these microservices and towers of abstractions and untrackable infrastructure? Like you look at these startups solving a problem of solving a problem... and then you get to the root problem, and the whole thing is just a giant castle in the sky. I think this describes much of the motivating thrust of software today.