skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> An ideal might be if, as the author falsely claims, apps actually were structured as CLI or APIs overlaid with a GUI. You could then program the CLI/API layer, or re-configure or even re-write the GUI layer to taste.

I also thought of like that (although the command-line and GUI are both done from the API; some parts can be done automatically but some parts must be programmed explicitly), it would work better that way. (It is one of the things that I had considered with operating system design.) However, there are details to be considered, such as the usual considerations of CLI, API, GUI, and how these things would be done in order to work well together (I had considered some such details too, though). Of course it would allow to reconfigure and rewrite the GUI layers, which is an advantage; it would also have many other advantages if this mechanism is designed well.
Curlie: Human maintained expert web directory
One downside for diffusion based systems (and I'm very noob in this) is that the model won't be able to see it's input and output in the same space, therefore wouldn't be able to do follow-up instructions to fix things or improve on it. Where as an LLM generating html could follow instructions to modify it as well. It's input and output are the same format.
Squares tessellate better than hexagons so I have no idea what advantage hexagons could bring.
Wikimedia REST API 1.0.0
Oh that's an interesting point. The article seems to be treating the collapse hypothesis and the ecocide theory as the same thing, and I guess I was too. I suppose you could separate them out as two parts.

Although if it continued to support the same human population, is it really fair to call it ecocide? The environment was transformed but certainly not "killed" as the "-cide" would require.

I mean I guess it really depends on whether you would call cutting down forests in New York State to grow fields of corn "ecocide". Yes you eliminated one environment but those fields of corn are very much alive. So I don't think many people would call that "ecocide".
It showed a complicated map and asked me if it was 3-colorable. Then it said it can convince me that it's 3-colorable without revealing the solution. But then it demonstrated this proof on a super simple map that we already knew to be 2-colorable, not the complicated one I was told to assess.
So how is the latency floor for HFT calculated?
The main issue is that on a longer branch, you have to fix all the rebase conflicts on the oldest commit. Then, if you changed something in the conflict zone, you fix it again on the next commit, because the next commit used to be based on something else. Sometimes git rerere can help with this, but I find it fairly unreliable (could be user error!) If you do a merge, you only need to resolve it all once.

Otherwise I tend to prefer rebase.
I sincerely hope not. Talk about a dystopian future. That’s even worse than what social media has become.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monocrystalline_silicon
Because he didn't know anything about electrons, and the experiment he did involving rubbing amber and glass rods on fur and silk cloth only showed that something was transferred between the two materials, and that when the material containing the substance was brought near to the other material containing the other substance, the property conferred by the substances appeared to negate. If you read Teaching Introductory Physics the author very clearly points out that there is no way of knowing the direction of the charge. It must instead be decided by convention. And Franklin simply chose a convention that we stick with.

This is where the need to use mathematical formalism to describe physical concepts becomes clear. Numbers and numeric quantities aren't a real thing that exists in the world. They exist only in our minds. And so does the concept of negation. Calling electrons "negative" is simply a tool for us to model how the substance behaves when it interacts with an "opposing" substance using numbers. We could just as easily have called it "black" or "white" charge, except that we then need to adapt arithmetic and algebra and calculus and so on to work with the concept of "black" or "white" quantities if we are to use them to understand the substance of charge.
What is your definition of API?
Eh. 1994 feels about right.

In 1994, home computers were getting more much popular, thanks in large part to the Eternal September having already begun and the proliferation of other national dialup services. People were finding interesting things with these new-to-them (expensive!) computers offline because even though dial-up was a prime reason they bought a computer to begin with, it very slow and was often still metered.

And by 1994, approximately every new big-box desktop computer came equipped with a CD-ROM drive. IDE CD-ROMs became well-entrenched around that time (which reduced costs by eliminating competing proprietary buses), and CD-ROMs held what was still a seemingly monumental amount of data. So they often used CD-ROMs to do much of their offline stuff.

Things like the Saturn, Dreamcast, PSX, and CD-i certainly helped move a non-trivial share of CD-ROM media, but the total number of these (pricey!) games sold is probably dwarfed by the ridiculous number of cheap shovelware PC releases. (And most people weren't reading like PSX discs in a PC -- piracy was a thing, but it required hardware hacking to work smoothly and successfully burning game discs was sometimes problematic enough that my friends considered it a black art.)

By 1996, things were changing in the PC space. Unlimited dialup was becoming common. Even AOL went from metered to flat-rate all you-can-eat in that year, and downloading larger things became a lot less of an ordeal.
That bachelors degrees should not be a prerequisite for office jobs only reinforces the argument that education is not meant to be vocational training.

And bachelors degrees are not the only form of education, nor the one being discussed here.
> Rebasing is definitely the better option if you can do it.

A bold claim.

> but for obvious reasons you should avoid that when at all possible.

Obvious? I do this somewhat regularly and haven't had a problem. I don't even know what the problem is supposed to be.

Also, I never rebase. Maybe that's why I don't have a problem? When you rebase, commit A becomes commit A'. This becomes a problem when you need to determine whether a particular commit is an ancestor or not. A and A' have different commit hashes, so the identity of the commit becomes somewhat ambiguous.

My workflow is do all development using merge only. When the code review is complete, squash to master. I have found no down sides to this. But I'm not trying to sell it to you either.
> Buddhism is, to my understanding, something where the dogma is easily proven or disproven by doing the meditation

This makes sense because it is trivial to empirically measure if a person has achieved the cessation of dukkha and escaped the wheel of rebirth
Or amino acids. Many have a D (Dextrorotatory = right) or L (Levorotatory = left) form, indicating into which direction they rotate polarized light.
Your phone only has 1-4 antennas. For practical applications just one station can be connected at once.

a 10 db change in signal is 100x change in quality . You can go from good to bad quickly .

On a bad connection you have to wait for timeouts until you trigger a renegotiation.
My only gripe is after 15 or so years with git I still sometimes forget the direction of the time arrow in the interactive rebase.
Helps to understand the language easier
Electrons were not discovered for more than a hundred years after his death. How could he have done the "right" thing other than by chance?
You're demonstrating my point :)

When we get to that level, we're all out of work.

In the meantime, LLMs are already basically as good as the scriptwriters made the TNG-VOY era starship computers act.
i remembrer using squaed sinus acceleration curves profile for robotique at school to minimise jerk
Rebasing is a way to cleanup when a project have a useless history because of too many small commits, badly described and so on. A dangerous way, but still a way.

The issue is another: git does next to nothing to handle forks. We can cherry pick some commits, but there is no easy way to state "we have a project that a certain point in time diverge, keeping some common base, that need to be kept in sync, ignoring the fork specific changes". This led to long and manual three-way merges. No extra help.
Apple just announced that Apple Intelligence, iPhone Mirroring etc will be delayed for EU users.

And it’s very likely they won’t appear at all as the DMA would force them to make APIs that allow apps full access to all data as well as take recordings of your screen. Privacy nightmare in the hands of Meta, Google, TikTok etc.

So the winds of DMA are blowing alright. Back in the face of the EU.
isn't lying to congress a crime? was there documented proof of the notification or was it just a he said / he said situation?
Most ML engineers know that many want more fine grained control. But the straight forward way to train such models is incredibly data demanding. The datasets used for whole image generation consist of several billion images. I do not think anyone has compiled any DAW project / stems projects that are anywhere close to this size. So that is a limiting factor right now. But we will find ways to get there, probably a lot of progress over the next 5 years. Maybe even the next 2.
A government making a regulation that helps the its constituents seems like what it should be doing.
I'd love to read the critiques (if any) the professor dared to give when grading that.
We looked at hotels for a recent Italy holiday but they were a good bit pricier and in worse locations. Good locations were wayyy more expensive than an apartment. The Airbnb we went with was pretty nice, and I much prefer the experience of an apartment to a hotel room anyway. I haven't holidayed in a hotel pretty much ever, come to think of it.
But you can also get it with much less discipline if just go wild merging and doing whatever. And then resolve your master PRs using squash.
This was my first thought as well. I took a quick look through the API docs and didn’t see any mention of MFi.
Wouldn't it be great if all you had to do to power your 1GW data center would be to build PV solar farms with 5GW peak capacity on the other side of the globe.

BTW, the land for those solar farms would occupy a square 9 miles on a side and cost $16 billion to buy the land in the Northeastern US (if you could find the land to acquire.) Doesn't include the cost of panels or storage.
True, it’s very flat. And If you add some major temperature changes over many days and a descent amount of non full charging cycles, it’s more challenging. Maybe I wasn’t told it was a mess, but it’s how I remembered it.
Based on anecdotal evidence, I strongly suspect these are remotely driven cars, not completely self-driving, which means there is a remote saftey operator ready to take over if the ride starts to go bad. "Self-driving" sounds sexier and is the ultimate goal, but if it were my company I'd probably lead with "remotely monitored by safety driver" to calm any fears people might have. I'm guessing the percentage of people who are willing to put their lives in the hands of this tech is rather small and the percentage of people who don't trust tech is rather large.
I didn't see this comment when I first posted my own. Is that immigration and crime stat legit? How is that not bigger news? That's a worse increase than New York in the 70's or 80's when things were really going to hell.
> And anecdotally it's common for friends to talk about driving 10-15 mph over the speed limit, and we know speed is the leading predictor for severity of a crash. Most US drivers, especially of higher income classes, are probably well aware that they speed and break plenty of other traffic laws on a regular basis and don't want to reckon with that fact.

Because 99 44/100 percent of the time, this is not a factor. The true threat is not someone going 10 over on the highway, it's the loons you see zooming ahead of everyone else going 20+ over, weaving like they're in a video game. Equally unsafe are the self-appointed speed police camping in the left lane doing 2 under (looking at you, Greater Seattle). This forces people to pass on the right to keep up the flow of traffic, which is much less predictable.

The correct answer is to keep right except to pass, keep your speed within reason (<10 over max in good weather), keep a decent following distance, and let the cops take care of anyone driving recklessly. If speed was so dangerous by itself, Germany would not have Autobahns.
I appreciate this comment because I think it really demonstrates the core problem with what I'll call the "get off my lawn >:|" argument, because it's avowedly about personal emotions.

It's not "general intelligence", so it's over hyped, and They get so whiny about the inevitable criticism, and They are ignoring that it's so mindnumbingly boring to have people making the excuse that "designed a circuit board from scratch" wasn't something anyone thinks or claims an LLM should do.

Who told you LLMs can design circuit boards?

Who told you LLMs are [artificial] general intelligence?

I get sick of it constantly being everywhere, but I don't feel the need to intellectualize it in a way that blames the nefarious ???
The short answer is that everything on your computer that seems discrete (aka digital) is analog. We are used to the speed of cpus / memory / storage at billions /cycles a second which masks this noisiest.

Wi-Fi roundtrips are millions of times slower, hence your poor UX
I’m somewhat surprised that the article doesn’t mention Robert Winter’s “The Interactive Beethoven”. I kept an old ThinkPad running for a long time after it should have been obsoleted, just so that I could spin up that disc. Amazing sound quality, great use of hypermedia… a real CD-ROM showpiece.
There are mitigations (of a sort) for the Starliner. It probably should not have launched, but now that it has, the flight crew is no longer in danger and can be brought down via Crew Dragon if necessary (as if Boeing needs any more embarrassment). If I was NASA, I'd take that option; though actual danger to the astronauts coming down in the Starliner seems minimal, having SpaceX do the job just seems safer.

As it is, NASA is keeping the Starline in orbit to learn as much as possible about what's going on with the helium leaks, which are in the service module, which won't be coming back to earth for examination.
How do things like this handle sockets? Is there some kind of first class event that the app can detect, or does it just "close" them all and assume the app can cleanly reconnect to reestablish them (once they detect that the socket has rudely closed on them)?
I like this way of putting it. I find a LOT of technology questions and problems can be easily answered once you have a good understanding of the layers of the stack, whether that’s OSI, Kubernetes, or a large enterprise cloud platform on top of AWS.
Xi, Putin Score Wins as More Asia Leaders Aim to Join BRICS
I think this is another crucial part. Right now, writing prompts is kinda like writing hand-crafted assembly back in the day where that was routine because there was simply no other way to get good results out of hardware in many cases - but also because the tasks that are actually doable do not require much code, so it's perfectly feasible to write it in assembly by hand.

LangChain is kinda like taking that state of hardware and bolting on a modern C++ compiler with templates and STL on it.
Internet Archive forced to remove 500k books after publishers' court win
If one takes into account the field dynamics, the electrons are indicators of electromotive force and not the originator. The electromagnetic field connects the circuit and then _drags_ the electrons with it in a flow.

Technically the opposite flow theory would be the opposite reaction to the field drag. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The equal reaction would be the electrons being dragged with the field. The opposite would be the current flow we observe.

I can't wait until we can more clearly and accurately view the different fields that make up everything we know. It's fields all the way down.
I do. It'll be easier to keep the fleet on a cleaning schedule, and won't be left to the whims of individuals.
Can we have an AI that reads datasheets and produces Spice circuits? With the goal of building a library of simulation components.
Provided rewording, reordering and squashing (or fixing up, same thing really) are all you need I think you could argue this is true. Trying to do anything else tends to be a bit of a pain.

On another note, is it possible not to lose the commit description when trying to split a commit? I'm talking about
1) marking commit as `e` to edit it
2) git reset HEAD~ to move back
3) split the change however you want
4) commit again
whenever I do it I always lose the original commit message. I'm not sure if it's me being stupid or if there is just no simple way to do it.
Ah! My people.

I, too, much prefer a rebase-heavy workflow. It allows me to both have a dirty "internal" history and clean up for publication.

As a side-effect, it also makes me comfortable having a mostly linear-history for what I publish, as opposed to a many-branched, merge-heavy one, which I dislike, and makes history confusing.

I reject the argument that a no-rebase, merge-only history "preserves the true history of how commits were created", because I believe that is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the tree looks like once the merge (or rebase) lands.

Should a merge conflict arise, in a rebase workflow the conflict resolution is folded into the rebased commit, so it looks like it was fine all along. In a merge workflow, the fix is in the separate merge commit. In both cases you still have to handle the merge conflict. And in my opinion it is not significant for the merge conflict resolution to be separate from the original commit itself because, again: what's important is the final state of the repo.
It is not that we do not teach this anywhere at all, but we certainly do not teach this in the introductory science classes, where the goal is to provide an accessible path to the already available "shrink wrapped" conceptual framework.

That is hard enough already. Showing the history of science properly is easily a hundred-fold more monumental of a task. It is a subject which is studied, and taught -- but for the specialists in the history and philosophy of science. There are many books dedicated both to cursory high level overviews of the history of science, and to some specific episodes in this history, going into nuances of what happened and how it happened.

For example, for the history of mathematics, one can consult "The History of Mathematics: An Introduction" https://www.amazon.com/History-Mathematics-Burton-Professor-...

Here is a much more specialized book, showing how much trouble relatively modern physicists had in correctly conceptualizing "heat" and "temperature": "The tragicomical history of thermodynamics, 1822–1854" https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=history+of+thermodynami...

Beware! The history of evolution of ideas in science and technology is a vast, vast and an extremely fascinating field, with many dangerous rabbit holes!
Most spreadsheet users aren't programmers. Automation isn't necessarily the primary objective of spreadsheet use. In many cases, they're just used to store and communicate/transmit large data sets to nontechnical people.
Mysterious shiny monolith removed from Nevada desert
Stock market today: S&P, Nasdaq fall as Nvidia slides for 2nd straight day
I'm glad Musk's sex scandals don't involve island properties owned by Jeffery Epstein (Ahem Bill Gates)
With chiplet based designs, how big are the individual chiplets? Would triangles make sense in that context?

(Asking from total ignorance)
The grounding of New Zealand's only rail ferry
It's not a 10% lower turnout. The average was 67%, but that average includes the lower turnout for younger people.

For citizens ages 18-34, 57% voted in 2020
In the 35-64 age group, turnout was 69%
In the 65 and older group, 74% voted in 2020

Only 50% of citizens 18-29 voted. And some people count the youth vote as 18-24.

Meanwhile 39% in a presidential election year is a more typical number.

Also, given that both parties voted for the TikTok ban, who are all these people going to vote for?
You would think that. I would think that. But can you actually name more than a handful of things Google created that were good? Because I can't.

There's search, obviously. Gmail, if that wasn't an acquisition.... What else?
Cow tipping is, according to all reputable sources, largely an urban myth about what takes place in the rural regions.
I'm not sure I follow you there. In that sense, "down" means toward the center of the gravity well. It is the same regardless of which side of the world you're on. If you mean that "down" changes direction with reference to a straight line, ok. But how does that make "up" not the opposite of it?
> they can vote for it.

I don’t want third party App Stores since my family will need additional support as a result, costing me time. How do I vote against this?
This seems unlikely, given that the moai were mostly carved from tuff from a specific crater (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rano_Raraku), whereas the stone gardens are made of "fresh basalt quarried at nearby valley rims" (https://evols.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitst...). There's a lot of research supporting the conclusion that these stone accumulations were agricultural.
This is laughably false. The highly-paid, experienced seniors produce so much more value than juniors that it's not even in the same ballpark. It's also usually the kind of value that juniors don't even notice, because it's not measured in lines of code.

A good junior will write a hundred lines of code in a day. A good senior will delete a hundred because they realize the user dictated a solution instead of detailing their problem, asked them, and figured out that they can solve that problem by changing a config variable somewhere.
Atomic commits can be great. I really prefer to see intentional atomic commits with meaningful messages than 20+ files changed with a commit message: "Feature X".

I am 100% onboard with devs squashing their "lint fix", "test fix", "whatever minor fix to get CI working", "generally meaningless commit to cross the finish line". Also, if devs are working on something they check in a "WIP" commit. It is great if you smash your WIPs into a single meaningful commit. These manual squash strategies require some discipline to clean things up.

I think the "squash branch to a single commit" merge strategy defeats the purpose of atomic commits. Of course devs will be bad at atomic commits if the commits will inevitably smashed to a single commit. IMO squashing branches on merge is a bad version control strategy. I love it when commits are intentional.

One rule I have for any rebasing is, when there may be more than one person using the branch, no more rebasing that branch.
That's bloat. Current Z-Machine interpreters and libraries (Inform6+Inform6lib and better with Inform 7) have a MUCH better parser than the typical adventures for limited 'computers' from the 80's.
> git is entirely immutable data store

Not entirely, since git can automatically garbage collect commits that aren't reachable.
It sounds like a certain commercial aircraft manufacturer that starts with a B and ends with an oeing could really use an effective Inspector General system.
The number of times I bumped by head against a desk, after missing multiple deadlines and then out of nowhere having a random moment of clarity such has “this gives me X vibes, but it would be insane if this was actually the case”, and then I do a quick string search and there it is.