skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I find it interesting that we often think of "the product" and "the organization" as two separate things.

A common counter-example is when we start seeing (some) bugs and incidents as symptoms of organizational issues. This seems to get more visible with experience (less experience: "I screwed up" vs more experience: "this happened in a certain context, how can we prevent it from happening again?").

Conway's law is a brilliant observation but I think it's a much wider pattern: we build organizations and software at the same time, and they're inextricably linked.

In parallel to software design patterns, we have a bunch of organizational patterns and anti-patterns as well. SRE, agile methods, DevOps. Silos, CYA-ism, 10x developers, ...

Some examples of properties of an organization that directly impacts the properties of software:

- How well the organization embraces risk [0]

- Psychological safety[1]

- Hiring practices and diversity

- The ability of the individuals, teams, departments, etc in an organization to align and work towards the same goal

I'd love to hear some anecdotes of how code and products are directly impacted by these.

0: Risk-driven architecture seems like one attempt at making this explicit https://www.georgefairbanks.com/book/

1: https://hbr.org/2023/02/what-is-psychological-safety
Even if those assumptions were true (and why should they be? the universe is not a computer, does not have "frames") what would that have to do with "free will"?
Same with USEP for the Eldar Scrolls Series, the fandom site is janky and incomplete and often entirely inaccurate. The UESP (powered by mediawiki) is a truly impressive resource.
My parents are Flat-Earthers (2019)
The problem with that it is we know approaches that can generalise very well from very few examples, even one example, without any kind of pretraining, That requires a good background theory of the target domain (a "world model" in more modern parlance), and we don't know how to automatically generate that kind of theory; only human minds can do it, for now. But given such a theory the number of examples needed can be as few as 1. Clearly, if you can learn from one example, but find yourself using thousands, you've taken a wrong turn somewhere.

The concern with the data-hungry approach to machine learning, that at least some of us have, is that it has given up on the effort to figure out how to learn good background theories and turned instead to getting the best performance possible in the dumbest possible way, relying on the largest available amount of examples and compute. That's a trend against everything else in computer science (and even animal intelligence) where the effort is to make everything smaller, cheaper, faster, smarter: it's putting all the eggs in the basket of making it big, slow and dumb, and hoping that this will somehow solve... intelligence. A very obvious contradiction.

Suppose we lived in a world that didn't have a theory of computational complexity and didn't know that some programs are more expensive to run than others. Would it be the case in that world, that computer scientists competed in solving ever larger instances of the Traveling Salesperson Problem, using ever larger computers, without even trying to find good heuristics exploiting the structure of the problem and simply trying to out-brute-force each other? That world would look a lot like where we are now with statistical machine learning: a pell-mell approach to throwing all resources at a problem that we just don't know how to solve, and don't even know if we can solve.
What Pandas users should know about NumPy 2.0 and dtypes
In Greece, we recently elected as representatives for the EU Parliament:

* a 71 year old lady, with no social media and no public speeches ever.

* a guy who used a nickname for his last name, that matched with a military general (who is well known), and many people thought he was the general

* a "journalist" that was caught twice talking on live TV, conversing with a pre-recorded video

* a convicted criminal

It's impressive to manage to fail as a politician.
In Pictures: Boom Supersonic Unveils Overture Superfactory in North Carolina
Why are you asking me? And what does 'Unicorns' have to do with innovation anyway?
Another of those somewhat counter-intuitive results is the answer to the question "how much do we need to scale up to avoid response time regression when the request rate is doubled?"

It is very easy to blurt out "well obviously we need twice the processing power!" but if we scale to twice the processing power, then start accepting twice the request rate – we will actually be serving each request in half the time we originally did.

To many people that sounds weird; it sounds like we got something for nothing. If I invite twice as many people to a party and buy twice as many cookies, it's not like each guest will get twice as many cookies – that just leaves the originally planned number of cookies for each guest.

But for response time it comes back to the first equation in TFA:

T = 1/μ · 1/(1 - ρ)

Doubling both arrival rate and maximum service rate leaves ρ – and the second factor with it – unchanged, but still halves the 1/μ factor, resulting in half the response time.

The appropriate amount to scale by is the k that solves the equation we get when we set the old response time T at request rate λ equal to the one at request rate 2λ and kμ processing power. This is something like

T = 1/μ · 1/(1 - λ/μ) = 1/kμ · 1/(1 - 2λ/kμ)

but rearranges to the much simpler

k = ρ + 1

which a colleague of mine told me interprets intuitively as "the processing power that needs to be added is exactly that which will handle an additional unit of the current utilisation on top of the current utilisation, i.e. twice as much."

This is mostly good news for people doing capacity planning in advance of events etc. If you run your systems at reasonable utilisation levels normally, you don't actually need that much additional capacity to handle peak loads.
> MS does not follow "last used" switching order

Furthermore:

1. The Shift+Alt chord is obnoxiously unreliable, sensitive to which key comes down first, or something.

2. Japanese is always comeing up in A mode even though you last had it in あ mode.

3. Bad performance: sllllow language switching at times: you hit some keyboard sequence for changing languages or modes within a language, and nothing happens. This interacts with (2): did we hit an unreliable chord? Or is it just slow to respond?
I think it's typical in non-technical English to use "humans" to refer to homo sapiens only, unless you qualify it, like "archaic/early humans". Without additional context I wouldn't assume somebody talking about humans meant to include e.g. Neanderthals.
GP here. Yeah I don't think I’m blubby in that sense. I used to work daily in Rust, including with custom collection types. And lots of other language experience with iterators. Go has maps and slices, and slices fit 99% of my use cases. You can index, reslice, concat, append, sort, sort by, clone, and yes, iterate with range (although the range syntax itself is merely a small convenience).

As for the chaining, yes I do miss filter and map but is again totally doable with vanilla slices (they just haven’t added those methods to the slices package).
That's precisely the thing. Whenever EU does something people don't like, they hate EU, not the council members who voted for it.
GitHub Copilot Workspace Review
Beautiful, I love it!
Intel are probably using a TAGE style predator along the lines of ITTAGE or COTTAGE from http://www.irisa.fr/caps/people/seznec/JILP-COTTAGE.pdf

These predictors change their prediction (both direction and destination) based on the history of the last few hundred branches and if they were taken or not-taken. So the predictor needs to know where those branches were, even if they aren't taken.

Indirect TAGE predictors are very powerful. They can correctly predict jump tables and virtual function calls.

In general, branch predictors don't utilise their tables very efficiently. Cheap and fast lookups are way more important than minimising size.
More control is the objective.
Not to be confused with whale flu

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32170708/
Meta point - this page has one of the nicer "snap" scrolling mechanisms I've seen on Mac with a touchpad - scrolling still feels natural, but when I let go it snaps to a single slide. Scrolling with momentum seems to work naturally too. Can't comment on keyboard or mouse scroll wheel navigation though.
There's a lot to like in this article, but I would go a step further with its meta-abstractions. At complexity 0, there is no software to be written. In essence, complexity and the software itself are closely related, akin to the relationship between compression and AI. The article's thesis is that minimizing complexity is what engineering is about. That means we're kind of minimizing the total amount of software we have to write and maintain. Makes sense, so far so good.

Next up is architecture. More architecture generally means more complexity in the short term and less in the long term. But that's assuming we know what the long term will look like, which we can often only predict. If we under-provision architecture, there's a good chance we'll get buried in technical debt later on (though by then we may have switched gigs.) Enter the usual Agile arguments favoring the short term.

Last but not least, path-dependency. I think this is where the best designers shine. You might not need all the architecture right away, but you do need to steer clear of dead-ends. These are the bad quick-design decisions that bite you in the rear when the architecture eventually gets refactored in. An extreme example might be the lack of a version field.

IMO, awesome designers are great at predicting where the architecture will be and at forward-provisioning it. They don't need to build the freeway through the middle of town. They'll just plan a park here and a parking lot there, guessing the right spots.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

The 1st Amendment guarantees you the right to say whatever the fuck you want, with some very specific caveats concerning disturbing the peace, but freedom is power and power is responsibility.
In practice.

But I think this response showcases a particular trend within Go the language and its community: arrogance and insufficient acknowledgement of the outside world. There's myriad languages beyond Java and C++ both of which have rather non-standard "generics" implementation (object erasure and code templating). But, adhering to this trend, it seems Go design decided not to absorb much from the prior art. I know, surely designers of a popular language should know better? That's what conventional wisdom would suggest, and yet here we are.

But hey, I should cheer on - the bolted on approach that will plague Go for the years to come might just help companies realize sooner that Go is frequently a poor choice.
Good!

I really hope Apple faces some actual consequences for their hilariously bad-faith implementation of Digital Markets Act rules.
This means similar to duck typing?
> which on Windows 10 and 11 I've never seen there NOT be a small delay between the user clicking close and the window disappearing.

Isn't that delay related to the default animations? On my particular machine with animations disabled, if I click the minimize button, the window disappears instantly. This is your standard win11 on a shitty enterprise laptop running some kind of 11th gen i7u with the integrated graphics and a 4k external display.

Maximization is sometimes janky, but I guess it's because the window needs to redraw its contents at the new size.
Yet more evidence that unknown civilizations rose and fell multiple times before recorded history began ~4000 BC.

(The Why Files fans can insert here "The Younger Dryas!")
Signal had a narrow window when there was some whatsapp scandal going on and signal was weirdly popular for a month or so. Then they announced their crypto bs. And in my bubble it was nuked entirely off the earth as a result.

With Threema I have lots of uncles etc who use it exclusively.
Copyright infringement is not theft -- false comparison.

Also, have you considered how likely the people who are trying to get around your payment would be to pay up if they didn't find a way? If what you say about how long they try is true, I'd say the chance is extremely close to 0%.

That's the dirty secret of the anti-piracy campaigns of rightsholders. The "lost sales" narrative is a load of made-up horseradish, and they know it.
Someone is benefitting and it's not 'the children'.
I assume that's the back panel where the real camera has been removed for security(?). But then what about the front camera?
The stream of data from vision does NOT explain why humans learn 1000x faster: Children who lost their sight early on, can grow up to be intelligent. They can learn English, for example. They don't need to hear 200B words, like GPT-3.
Next Iteration: malware checks for scarecrow and starts anyways ^^
Ran out of ChatGPT credits. The troll is caught
Wait a minute. I am part Neanderthal.

Does this mean I am only part human?
Could be a blessing in disguise; sounds like great opportunity to stop using TikTok and never use it again, which is guaranteed to improve your life!
leather would be pretty darn perfect if leather shoes didn't need a break-in period.

I'm extremely weary of leather shoewear because I've suffered too many sores in my life, specially when I was a child. I'd like to have comfy shoes that last long but the break in period...
Look for the “Search tools” dropdown menu. Change “All results” to “Verbatim” mode: https://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/google-verbatim
The Cataract of Software Delivery
A lot of despondency about this. But I think part of why this stuff gets through is that techies are campaigning in the wrong way

Those advocating for it have a visceral pitch: your kids will be in danger if this doesn't pass. Those against are arguing for abstracts, like freedom and privacy. And sure, people should be in favour of those things - but there's a visceral pitch against, and it's not being used

What will happen if this stuff is put in place, and used as claimed? There will be a massive rush of automated "accusations" of child abuse against innocent parents, grandparents, and other relatives. This will result in many families being unnecessarily stressed and disrupted by investigations, and at least some children being removed from innocent families.

Why will this happen? after all, won't the scanning be 100% accurate?


Obviously not. Tech companies don't want to be responsible for this - the scanning won't be optimised for accuracy, it will be optimised to pass the buck as hard as possible[1], because the tech companies don't want to business of taking the blame when some pedophile isn't caught.

Who is the second level of review? Maybe some minimum wage zero-hours subcontractor at Serco or Group 4 Security, or whoever the equivalent of that is in the EU. But that's probably it - once the image has been labelled 'bad' no-one else will want to look at it.

So, even if you are sending a picture of your own child to your own mother, you will have at the very least to have to think about whether it could be mistaken for child abuse by someone you don't know who has about 5 seconds to look at it and is probably from a completely different culture.

Yet none of this has been brought up in the media either by tech companies or by privacy activists.

[1] The other option is that the tech companies abdicate completely and just use some black box from the government to scan every picture. Problems with that left as an exercise...
This line in the article sums up beautifully the desire for being an entrepreneur: "A path to avoid someone else’s bonehead business decision which kneecaps a company and executes my career."
Are you saying that domestic animals don’t have language, but wild animals might?
Primate – Release 0.31: new hot reload, projections and sorting in stores
What are you talking about? I am unable to follow your reasoning, maybe you can walk us through?
Hello neighbor. You will never win the competition for choosing the worst possible politicians as long as Turkey has Erdoğan :)
Love the name, and your domain choice!

Personally, I'd consider putting the copy about nested kanbans and it being open source in the centred text at the top of your page - these seem like the main selling points.

Also perhaps add a higher res screenshot image, and check out bootstrap and tailwind themes for landing page ideas. I used to spend far too long trying to get landing pages to look nice when there are already tons of useful templates out there that you can copy from.

Nice work!
Have you looked at the DSA? The EU can just say "we have an emergency" and gets to directly control the narrative on major online plattforms.

https://dsa-observatory.eu/2023/02/21/the-dsas-crisis-approa...

Not to mention that under the DSA plattforms have to delete "misinformation" in a short time span, whatever that is.
My ball was kind of an indeterminate grey, too, but it was on a granite countertop of a kitchen island in an open concept kitchen/living room. Like one from a Bounty commercial or something.
> We can't make optical transceivers as good as electrical ones. Not as small or power-efficient.

I was under the impression that for 10Gb and above network transceivers, optical SFPs weren't getting as hot as copper ones. Is that difference related to something else?
Also ->

YouTube prankster voted in as Cyprus MEP - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4nnrwr72dqo
Fear will always lead to an erosion of personal rights. Fear of child predators will lead to erosion of privacy rights, and fear of terrorists has deprived all Americans of the right to protection against unreasonable search/seizure. Welcome to modernity.
I think what is being pushed back against is that the idea that knowing the name of something is important knowledge by itself. As you say, it is a handle to knowledge - a node that you can connect to other nodes, a precursor to understanding.

This is not a straw man - people spend hours of study learning the Latin names for funny little blobs in the human body, and call it "learning anatomy", and feel a sense of achievement. And the sense of achievement is important! It's motivation for an important task. But they have learned nothing, until they go back and learn what each blob does. It is vital to keep reminding the student of this, to not let their sense of achievement fool them into thinking they have finished learning anatomy. They have only started.
> Then why did so many vote extremist anti EU?

Is the EU really a benefit to the people? Or is it a shit pool full of scum bags providing quite some damage to societies?
>Because absolute free speech is allowing all that without consequence

Freedom of speech is absolutely not about freedom from consequences. Where and how did you ever get that idea?

Free speech means you can say anything you want, some very specific caveats aside, and you can't be prosecuted simply for saying them. But that doesn't mean you won't have to answer for what happens as a consequence.

As an example: You absolutely can go and make wild claims about your product to try and sell it, nobody can stop you from doing that. You absolutely can make bogus claims about someone, nobody can stop you from doing that either. However, you will be prosecuted for making false statements and defamation respectively by the people you harmed. Note what is prosecuted here: The effects of the false and perhaps even sinister nature of the statement, not the statement itself.
I understand that this might be a problem in a programming language, even if you decide to ignore that mathematical sets have infinitively many elements. When I programmed an RPN calculator supporting quotients and complex numbers, I had to grapple with the fact that 1 (one) is a quotient (with denominator 1) and a complex number (with imaginary part 0). I solved it by defining the functions and operators taking a certain type and coercing the arguments to that type. One example, the logarithm can take complex numbers. If I had a quotient argument, I coerce it to a complex number before passing it to the logarithm.

However I assumed that this is only a problem in programming languages. I am a bit surprised that mathematics also seems to be affected. I am going to study it a bit.
I wish more people would use something that's not US backed honestly.

Centralisation is a curse.

I don't inherently trust Signal, and you have to because nothing they do is verifiable; I wrote a really hit-and-miss article about this before: https://blog.dijit.sh/i-don-t-trust-signal/
IMO the existing laws on fraud in most countries are sufficient, there's just a severe lack of investigative personnel. The article highlights a move by Denmark to establish a separate agency for enforcing existing laws in these kinds of situations and I think it's potentially a good remedy for the human resources problem here.

I think there ought to be an international body* for studying and highlighting effective developments in the justice systems of different countries for better spreading advances as they're made. Off the top of my head, Singapore has seen excellent cost savings from their approach to digitizing the court system (or at least the public-facing aspects) and only a couple countries have followed their model.

*If there already is one, I'd love to hear about it.
You seem to misunderstand why generalization is important for making claims about intelligent systems. To illustrate this, we could really easily design a system that encodes all the test set questions and their answers, puts them in an enormous hash table, and looks up the correct answer to each challenge when presented with it. This could probably score 100% on ARC if given the entire test set. Would you call this AGI? What if I put it through a transformer as a hashing function?

The mainstream attention LLMs have garnered has added a bunch of noise to the way we talk about machine learning systems, and unfortunately the companies releasing them are partially to blame for this. That doesn't mean we should change the definition of success for various benchmarks to better suit lay misunderstandings of how this all works