skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The problem with rebase is it creates a lot of friction when sharing with others. Even if a single dev has two checkouts, it can get confusing ("can I just pull the changes or do I need to reset the branch? - dammit what did I do again? I guess I'll have to review both checkouts history in detail"). Merge based git push / git pull in the other hand, have none of this, thus conceptually much simpler.

Furthermore, since pushes must necessarily overwrite (--force), you actually risk loosing work.

This is all fine and doable but you have to be "on the ball" / paying close attention all the time thus introducing higher cognitive load.

The bottom line is getting work done and making history look good are competing objectives to some extent. There are all kinds of reasons to commit code (I got something working, I want to share something, I need to try this on another machine, etc.). Thus, the only way for commits to appear logical / atomic is to review the current state and refactor it to a logical looking but artificial series of commits. I can't imagine such efforts being useful enough to actually do in most cases. Perhaps even a task better suited to AI.

In reality, the PR is the only commit that anyone cares about. Everything else is mostly just noise. Therefore it would be best if the PR was a first class concept in git vs something only available outside of it (i.e. github).
The author mentions that his father was in touch with a PE-backed chemical company a month before he passed, who re-engaged a month after- sounds like that might have been his succession plan?
Obsidian is good
Ask HN: How do you know what to build to peaople want this?
The best startup advice is build something what people need. How do you know what it is? Are there any strategies to get to know what people need?
Arguably this is an incorrect default of mtune
I love this part: One of the other pilots on the mission was reported to have radioed Foust during his descent by parachute that "you'd better get back in it!"
Never rebase shared branches.
They should be, Chuck Moore was a student of John McCarthy.
I'm basically trying to avoid situations where I might be legally obligated to prove a negative, that I did not take ideas or code from a proprietary yet source-available project that is topically very adjacent to some projects I work on. I write with Rust, use Rowan and tree-sitter crates, create LSP implementation, and so on.

I don't have a retained lawyer or legal budget, so it's just risk aversion on my part to treat this project as radioactive and never once look inside. Same reason a lot of folks don't look at GPL'd things.
Here is the key part of my argument: in sufficient detail such that another master or a robot could create David, (implying) in the exact same style as the masterpiece, without seeing or touching the artifact itself (because that would not be just verbal language anymore).
Ignoring the obvious hypocrisy, there's another point worth making here.

As much as we bemoan the corruptness, self-interest and narrowmindedness of various politicians, when it comes to tech in particular, you have to realize how incredibly clueless so many lawmakers are. Like they simplly do not have even basic understanding of how tech works.

You see this in Congressional hearings about backdoors about encryption. Pushed by various lobbying groups, lawmakers want US law enforcement and intelligence agencies to be able to read encrypted messages and will parrot the word "backdoor" or maybe "master key". I guarantee you none of these people know what any of that means. Worse, most of them don't care to know.

Those that do care to know can be convinced when it's explained that once a backdoor exists, it will be used by someone else and there's no way to control that. That's why backdoors are a bad idea.

In the case of Chat Control, the obvious problem is "how do you identify an EU minister?" You've created a huge identity problem. I guarantee you some people will end up figuring out how to mark themselves as exempt from monitoring, even if this system could work, which it can't.

Lobbyists and bureaucracies push this kind of thing and most of the time the lawmakers making these decisions have absolutely no clue what any of it means.
My understanding is that round wafers are cheaper to produce since the silicon purification process produces cylindrical rods that are then cut into circular wafers.

With fabrication becoming more and more advanced I can see that this original cost advantage of round wafers becomes less significant compared to everything else.
Sorry I’m a bit confused. You describe this as an offline alternative to Notion, but there are also some optional components that run on serverless?
https://youtu.be/AOtUo25GB3c?list=TLPQMjEwNjIwMjQajcfSE5215w

Kinda
It seems like it’s not only function overloading (which, as you point out, Haskell does too by way of typeclasses) but also the implicit conversion between Int and Double. OCaml, Haskell, and Rust all require you to convert between them explicitly so they don’t need to figure out whether each 1 in the expression is an Int or a Double.

Am I seeing this correctly? Is HM + polymorphic literals + implicit type conversion the cause of Swift’s exploding compile time in such cases?
And even if you do know what it does, it’s very impractical given that it’s a global option. Turning it on for selected portions of code would be a completely different game.
> my wife: Was it you? me: Well obviously

"Research shows" (I read long ago) that the happiest men are those take their wives' advice — that's certainly been true for my own N=1, for coming up on four decades now. I'd imagine we could replace "wives" with "spouses" and get comparable results.
It's a terrible reason to add a feature in a language. But I'm still happy it's there for that reason.
Don't buy it on Steam then. It's available on 2 other non-steam outlets, Gog and Itch.io.
Ask HN: HN Folks Please Create Free Content Like Andrej Karpathy
First of all Thank You Andrej Karpathy for your amazing content!

Secondly,I would love HN folks can start creating content like Andrej Karpathy or other such creators.A personal YT channel explaining diff stuff would be super much appreciated
Pieces.app, a Workflow Copilot
As one of my commits said:

* Replaced dusty old bugs with shiny new bugs.
Read up on “color charge.”
I've used this to speed-up CLI commands which have a slow startup phase. I run the process up to the point where it finishes initializing things and starts reading input, SIGSTOP there, and resume it later. You can identify that "reading input" library call with strace, and intercept it dynamically with an LD_PRELOAD shim.

I haven't yet figured out how to (neatly) persist this to disk, so I just sort of make a mini server-loop that catches signals and dispatches a fork() for each one, and that's my fast version of the CLI command. Delightfully ugly :)

(The killer app I'm trying to apply this to is LaTeX, so that I can write math notes in Emacs, incrementally, without visible latency. Unfortunately the running LaTeX process is slightly convoluted, and needs a few more tricks to get working in this way. This trick works on the plain TeX command out-of-the-box (it's like a 50x speedup), so I think I'm on the right track...)
The issue is the assumption that managers can assess productivity if is it is captured by a number; but would otherwise be aware, they'd be hopeless at it in a conversation. ie., theyre reducing it to a number to hide the fact they cannot do it.

It's strange that we havent figured out how to trust technical leadership to assess these things for management.

In many ways, the answer is obvious: give technical leaders economic incentives for team productivity. They will then use their expertise to actually assess relevant teams.
Not exactly "eggcorns", but as a father of a 3 year old, I'm constantly getting a kick out of the incorrect but plausible words she uses. E.g. "bump beds" for "bunk beds", "de-odor-mint" for "deodorant", "screamer" for "speaker".
With the goal being that one would get things back in print so as to compensate the author.
That makes sense, but I wonder if it would still be better to cut out a rectangle from the circle.
I think you can think of rubber duck debugging and similar ideas as "forcing functions." In order to communicate an idea one must have "an idea" to communicate. The process of putting vague notions into words forces you to reason about them and clarify them.
From reading it, and the various references to various potential buyers his father had already been in discussion with, it appears his plan was to sell it before that.

This is a big problem with these kinds of businesses. A lot of these solo owners who build up a business over the course of many decades serious underestimate how hard they are to sell, and have an unrealistic idea of what valuation they'll be able to get.

There is a whole industry of those bottom feeders the author referred to, who's business is precisely waiting for these sole owners to either die, or better yet become incapacitated to the extent they are forced to sell their businesses (but not so much that they can't hold a pen and read a sales contract), so that they can swoop in and offer them 2x or 3x - "what's your best alternative?".
Do you think for example Intel gets contacted by "shit customers"? If a business is communicating clearly that they only offer very expensive solutions to very big customers, they're not going to be contacted by small fry.
On a lighter note, this is actually a career threatening news for me. So much of my job is to figure out what to do with the end of the round wafer (partial dies), that I can't imagine what my whole department will do if we go for rectangular wafers :'). Made me realize how specific my engineering has been for the last 5 years.
Sure, but I don't think making a habitat unsuitable for a few species is what "ecocide" refers to.

Obviously wherever you draw the line of ecocide is going to be blurry, but I don't think it applies to the situation here -- or else it would apply virtually everywhere humans live and grow crops, and would cease to have meaning.
I think you'll find that most people who would understand 2 and 3 would also understand the meaning of "the electron is negative" perfectly well, as humans (and at this point, probably LLMs too lol) can infer that the intent is to say 3, especially in this casual context of a social media discussion among normal people.

It isn't like "the air is negative", which has many context dependent meanings.
If its not true then why do many cars with self-driving build it in as a feature to allow breaking the speed limit (up to a limit, in my car it still won't go above 15mph above the limit) in order to more closely match the flow of traffic.

I think theres a bit of nuance. If the flow of traffic was all being crazy lunatics then yes I'd say so. But I would feel safer without other cars flying past me/around me because I decide to go 70mph when everyone else around you is going 80-85.
Hmm...

- Starliner's current showstoppers all seem to be in its Service Module's propulsion systems

- Relatively little delta-V is needed to deorbit from the space station

- Rocket Labs has been zealously developing several "as a service" versions of their Photon satellite bus/kickstage:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Lab_Photon#Photon_versi...

SO: Could Rocket Labs quickly launch a "space tug" Photon, capable of replacing the Starliner Service Module's propulsion system well-enough for the undocking and controlled de-orbiting? Hard to imagine NASA allowing that with a manned Starliner. But is there any current capability to handle "dead" spacecraft near the ISS? Docking ports are very limited, and "drifting nearby" can be damned dangerous in orbit.
there are no good examples. The basic premise in Linguistics these days seems tl be that all languages are potentially equally expressive. Trade-offs in one domain (grammar, lexicon, phonology etc.) afford advantages in another. Which means, there is no need to refer to Japanese at all.

You could equally refer to some slur in a lower register to then claim that this doesn't exist in your language and how it can't be translated either. So when Joe Biden said "SoB" on tape once, that was code switching; likewise, when Trump says anything it's all made up and coded and means something entirely different. However, these are bad examples if your target is a monolingual Japanese, obv.
> A rather delightful property if you want to attack anonymity in some proposed “everybody just uses cryptographic signatures for everything” scheme.
Their product search is... interesting. I used to think that it was programmed by idiots, and wondered how Amazon, with the ability to hire all the expertise in the world, couldn't do better. Then I realised its function is not to give you what you are looking for, it's to maximize Amazon's profits, which it clearly does fantastically well. I would imagine that a lot of heavy-duty machine learning goes into Amazon's product search to make this happen.
Firefox has had it as feature flag for at least one year now, Safari just announced the technology preview during WWDC updates.

WebGL 2.0 took almost a decade to be fully supported, and still has issues on Safari, don't expect WebGPU to be any faster.

Also note that Google is the culprit why WebGL Compute did not happen, WebGPU was going to sort all problems, and even though they use DirectX on Windows, apparently it was a big issue to use Metal Compute on Apple instead of OpenGL, and then they ended up improving Angle on top of Metal anyway.

Web politics.
Quarks and gluons, or quantum chromodynamics
The best papers to read are the T5 paper which introduced intstruction training.

BERT showed that training with two tasks (next sentence and mask fill) was more effective than solely one task.

T5 showed that multiple instructions could be used for one task (token prediction) like not just translating, but also summarizing. They suggested this could generalize (it did)

GPT-2 showed with just token prediction and no instructions you could represent good text; GPT-3 showed this was coherent and also that sufficient context was reliably continued by models(and impacted by the format of training data, e.g. StackOverflow used Q: A: in the training data, so prompts using Q: and A: worked very well for conversation-mimicking).

Davinci-instruct essentially made GPT-3 outputs reliable, because they "corrected model outputs" not just to follow the implicit continued context but to follow text instructions with general english in the users submitted prompt. They could change this to always follow a chat format (e.g. use Pronouns and refer to the user with "You") which seems to work more naturally, but the original instruct worked based on simple commands which are responded to without the chat format (e.g. no "I am sorry" - just no token, no "I believe the book you are looking for is:") etc.

Nowadays most instruct models do actually use prompt formats and training datasets which are conversational (check out the various formats in LM studio) anyway, so the difference is lost.
I'm way out of my depth from a cryptography perspective, but if it's saying you could derive the extended public key, I can see why that would matter. With a protocol like Bitcoin, for example, that would allow you to tie each address to the others from the same wallet's xpub, even if they've never moved the coins they received. You'd basically be able to create a watch-only wallet and monitor all of someone's transactions.

It doesn't give you access to the funds or anything, and there are already companies that can effectively de-anonymize the vaaaast majority of Bitcoin transactions anyway, but this would make surveillance of the network even easier.
1st Kindle DX: Screen cracked, not sure why. Maybe thermal stress? Amazon replaced for free.
2nd Kindle DX: Stopped booting, no physical damage.
Kindle: Rolled on it after falling asleep, screen cracked.
Kindle Oasis: Dropped directly on its face, screen cracked. This weird anti-bezel obsession means there is nothing to protect the screen. But you need a bezel to hold onto, so not having a bezel makes the device worse in most ways.

The Kobo that I have has large plastic bezels, so it is easy to hold, lightweight, less likely to be dropped, and when dropped, unlikely to suffer direct impact to the glass surface.
What do they do with the leftovers? I’m curious

I mean even if they do start using rectangular wafers for _some_ things, there is so much supply chain momentum in circular wafers that surely you have some fairly significant job security.
I have the internal audio. I wish I could just hook up an audio interface to my brain for that sometimes as it would be so convenient for making new music.

In theory I could translate it to a DAW (but I'm not that great at transcribing music...it's possible, kinda, but slow), but I can't easily repeat the music in my head (not what I make up at least, proper released songs tend to be easier to repeat), so it would be difficult to recreate it enough to be worth the effort.
> The browser must request each JavaScript file individually. In a large codebase, this can result in thousands of HTTP requests in order to render a single page. In the past, prior to HTTP/2, this would also result in thousands of TLS handshakes.

> In addition, several sequential network round trips may be needed before all the JavaScript is loaded. For example, if index.js imports page.js and page.js imports button.js, three sequential network round trips are necessary to fully load the JavaScript. This is called the waterfall problem.

In general the number of requests is not the current (in HTTP2/3) problem. In HTTP1 browsers limited the concurrent requests to each domain to 6, so if you had more than 6 resources you had to wait for a slot (this is head of line blocking). This was supposed to be fixed in HTTP1 with HTTP pipelining, but that never took off and support is basically non-existent. If your server was properly configured (with keep-alive) this still would not lead to additional TCP/TLS handshakes.

With HTTP2/HTTP3 the head of line blocking is fixed by multiplexing all requests over one connection, so the problem is more discovery/waterfall and compression than the number of requests.

Discovery/waterfall problem: If file A loads file B which loads file C you cannot know to start loading C until first A has loaded, then B, and then C (and this chain will probably be a lot deeper in most modern frontend apps). The idea to fix this was via either Server Push (which is sorta deprecated and removed) or HTTP 103 Early Hints (which would allow you to send preload hints before sending the actual server response). If File A loads B and C directly then the impact is much lower.

Compression: If file B and file C contain similar code (like a lot of frontend components do) then the result of individually compressing B and C is a lot larger than keeping them in the same file and compressing the combination. SDCH (Shared Dictionary Compression for HTTP) was supposed to fix this by allowing you to have a compression dictionary that could be used by many files but that was only implemented in chrome (which has since removed it) and basically only used by linkedin. A similar idea is present in brotli, where there is a single standardized shared dictionary based on common text on the web, and I think there has been some talk about how to revive this for zstd on the web.

So, the number of requests are usually not the issue, and if you used Server Push or Early Hints combined with SDCH you could have pretty close to the performance of bundling without build systems. But that ship sailed long ago with the deprecation and removal of Push and SDCH
Totally, the gold/blue dress picture is a perfect example of that[0].

I think with aphantasia, what makes it so interesting to me is just how much I consider visualizing in my mind to be core to how I think and understand things as well. It's not as subtle or isolated as a reaction to external stimuli but more fundamental to who I am along sitting along side my inner monologue.

[0] https://slate.com/technology/2017/04/heres-why-people-saw-th...
When _Traditional Archery from Six Continents_ went out of print, the price quickly got to 4 digits (feedback loop from Amazon pricing algorithms), so I put up the money for a second print run --- before I picked up the printed copies someone put up an illicit, unauthorized PDF copy --- it took several years for me to sell out the print run and get my living room closet back.
I find your implication petty offensive, but moving on. I'm advocating for giving parents tools to "show up" as you say. I don't know wtf you are advocating for.
driving 50 in a 30 is a 66% increase, not a 10%-25% increase like gp was suggesting. When speeding is more extreme it probably crosses a threshold where it's safer to drive the speed limit than to drive with the traffic. But when the difference is 10%-25% (which is accurate IME in the US) then you only have to experience it a few times to know it's less safe to drive the speed limit.
Oh yeah, and there were all sorts of softwares to make the best of partial reads. I had one that I can't find the name of right now, that would compute forward-error-correction and make an additional file that you could store on the same disc, or on the last disc of a set. If you had 500MB of data, you could compute 150MB of FEC and fill the 650MB disc, and recover from up to 149.9MB of bad sectors later. (And that was the failures that got through the C1 and C2 error correction built into the drive, of course.)

There was another thing called jigdo, "jigsaw downloader", which would take a collection of files in a filesystem, and use them as the source to reconstruct a bit-perfect ISO. You could put the .jigdo file on the media itself, and the recipient could read the files, discarding the ones that failed, and (perhaps automatically?I don't remember this part) fetch only the failed ones over the internet, and reconstruct the original .ISO that you meant for them to have in the first place, with hopefully only a few minutes of dialup time.

Later, I found that BitTorrent could accomplish something similar. You could pre-seed your local copy of a torrent with burned media, flawed or perfect, didn't matter, just copy it to a writable hard drive. Launch your torrent client and point it to the "existing files on disk", and do a "force re-check", and it would go through and verify every block checksum according to the .torrent itself, joining the swarm to fetch the ones that failed and seed the ones that matched. In this way, if you had several discs with nonoverlapping errors, even without internet reachability, you could use local peer discovery make a LAN-only swarm and your clients would all share blocks and correct each other into all having a perfect copy.

I used this when I had a big pile of files that I wanted to hand out hundreds of copies of, to a hopefully-technically-savvy audience. Time was of the essence so I was burning at max speed and making my share of coasters, but I kept the failed burns, making sure that the .torrent itself on disc and the README describing this concept were readable, even if the rest of the burn was trash, and those were the ones I'd hand to people I knew could handle it. Sure enough, that evening I popped online and saw that a handful people had joined the swarm, most with a 99%-complete-already copy of the files, and they reached 100% in very short order, even the ones on dialup.
I live in Texas and I would unironically feel safer driving the normal ~10-15mph above the speed limit that traffic is normally going than go exactly the speed limit, because I don't want everyone else flying around me recklessly because they all know that nobody goes exactly the legal limit here.
Maybe it's just me, but a blanket rule that no one can exempt themselves from a law they help pass seems like a good idea.
The site owner changed equals from accidentally-allowed to forbidden, but left any existing solutions using it. See comment and reply here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40724707