skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'll take a plain histogram/kde plot every day of the week over those damn violin plots. I think box plots are quite usefull as they are easy to read but only if you trust the author has actually looked at the histogram. And you can typically not trust the author to have done that.
Enhancing Open Source Security: Introducing Siren by OpenSSF
Not as far as I know :)
Isn't the existence of GNU su itself an inconsistency? It seems like RMS' vision was an environment in which everyone is effectively root, and su wouldn't be necessary.
100ms !!!! wtf? :)

[borg@cube] time ruby -e 'nil'

real 0m0.007s
For me https://buttondown.email is the equivalent for TinyLetter before it got acquired by Mailchimp.

It's a honest small business and the founder also has an interesting blog: https://buttondown.email/blog
We already have affordable advanced robotics, what we lack is AI to control the robot limbs accurately and carefully enough to match humans.

This robot is $1600 today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ClYBtfhkaw

I don't see a future where we have AGI but don't have affordable full fledged household robots costing like a car or less. Where are already at the point where you pay more for the programming than the robot itself.
>There is a slight difference between glasses and hiring someone actually disabled - blind, deaf, can't do physical labor, autistic, etc.

Except you can be legally blind, have glasses, and still have nearly perfect vision. You can be legally deaf, but listen fairly well with correctives etc. all of these are reasonable accommodations too.

>what happens with an Amazon worker who can't stand up for longer periods of time?

There's 0(generally -in most cases) justification for workers not being able to sit on their stations in amazon warehouses except for "we don't want you to," so nothing happens.

>a blind person applying to be a QA?

Believe it or not, blind QA people who work in accessibility exist.
I agree. The author simply used the wrong chart.

The author's example has a bimodal distribution (TWO peaks) and chooses a type of chart that has ONE peak (a box plot).

A little baffling tbh.
Linguistically speaking UAVs seem closer to manned aircraft, so the fact that TV guided missiles and 'kamikaze' drones offer similar capabilities is more of a 'convergent evolution' thing.

One of the things that I think make them different is that UAVs are expected to be able to wait in the area of operations after being launched (how they do it? It differs between models).

But I agree that using the word Kamikaze specifically is a bit weird.
How can you tell from analysis of the physical circuit what assumptions the designer made about the flow of current? Surely the components (electrolytic capacitors, diodes, transistors, etc) are the same and can only work in one direction. Is it that the ground plane is connected to the positive terminal of the power supply?
UK did the same about 10 years ago and it’s cost us billions in extra energy costs since
That is definitely done for bearing in ratting machinery. You can often even pinpoint which bearing is damaged and which part of that bearing is damaged, based on the frequency spectrum.
It's comical to see the sudo codebase mentioned in the same breath as increasing auditability here
This reminds me a little of plam 9 and inferno in treating local resources and network resources with a uniform protocol
Personally, I find Ruby's syntax more natural, (I'm going to be heavily biased though, having written Ruby for 10+ years). But for example, let's say I wanted to make a hash (dict) of files, keyed by their size (for some unknown reason), in Ruby it would look like:

Pathname.glob('*').filter { |f| f.file? }.each_with_object({}) { |f, h| h[f.size] = f }

Whereas the equivalent Python would be:

result = {}
for file_path in glob.glob('*'):
if os.path.isfile(file_path):
result[os.path.getsize(file_path)] = file_path

Or capitalizing a string in Ruby:

string.split(' ').map(&:capitalize).join(' ')

And in Python:

words = string.split(' ')
capitalized_words = [word.capitalize() for word in words]
result = ' '.join(capitalized_words)

Python seems to be more convoluted and verbose to me, and requires more explicit variable declarations too. With the Ruby you can literally read left to right and know what it does, but with the Python, I find I have to jump about a bit to grok what's going on. But maybe that's just my lack of Python experience showing.
Haven't, so no hard "comparison" results to offer — but Gambits libs are included in Gerbil and readily importable or some of them (maybe all? dunno) auto-imported, and Gambit is Gerbil's compilation foundation essentially AFAIK. Where it differs from or expands upon the Gambit basis is "our own macro expander" (haven't particular gotten into that area of understanding yet tho) and the extremely-modern-real-worldish stdlib (http, json, actors, db driver bindings etc), perhaps other aspects too (ie. might cover further SRFIs beyond what Gambit does, dunno for sure though; ie. the FFI might be beyond Gambit's or not, again I wouldn't know).
The article itself [0] asnwers to this argument.

> How did it get into the spec? Oh, it got into the spec because when the Content Mafia pressured W3C to include it, Mozilla caved. At the end of the day they said, "We approve of this and will implement it". Their mission -- their DUTY -- was to pound their shoe on the god damned table and say: "We do not approve, and will not implement if approved."

[0] https://www.jwz.org/blog/2024/06/mozillas-original-sin/
Open source's resident lunatic is esr, not rms.
if its organized like a chain, it is either a chain or intends to become one.
That makes sense. So perhaps you could simplistically think of it like this then: the brain remembers things somehow, and when recalling, it runs that internal representation of that memory through some kind of a machinery that visually presents it to you? Only in some people that machinery actually doesn't produce visuals, but something else? (And I would seem to be one of those people).
When a system does not explicitly optimize for ethics, it will produce unethical behavior due to optimization for another value, be that performance or profit.

Likewise if it optimized for multiple objective with different weights, the ones related to survival get the priority.
Unfortunately for us, survival of a company or AI is not survival of humanity.
I remember working in a team that used interfaces for a ton of things. Every single one of those things only ever had one concrete implementation, still to this day. A lot of those things were also purely for mocking in tests too.

Today I don’t use them, unless I need it retrospectively. Which I find is rare.

This is not a knock on interfaces as a language feature. Just inserting a random anecdote about pragmatism..
If someone demeans the importance of philosophy, it teaches you a lot about the person doing so.
In the western tradition, early philosophy and what we now call math where more or less the same. Look at the original meaning of the Greek word Logic/Logos for illustration.
The world as we know it can't exist without it.
Basically the don't answer the question at all. EU style.
Yes. Although I have a vague recollection that some non-BSD tools supported a wheel group if you compiled with -DHAVE_FASCIST_SYSADMIN (see also "opinionated" elsewhere in this thread). But I can't find any trace of that using common search engines anymore, maybe I am misremembering some usenet flamewar.
I'm holding on for 365
Bill shills his goose oil else loses his Ellie
Neither will silver.
I wager that the share of revenue that various people in the industry are receiving is correctly aligned with the value they're adding. The bottom-line content creators are simply not adding that much value. Marketing, distribution, etc is worth the cost that they demand; otherwise people would stop using those services.
well back in the days when somebody invented gunicorn it was basically running one worker per core, if the software allowed it. thus you at least could scale on the process level, which of course was super slow if you only had like 10 req/s on a 60 cores machine.
There are a few advantages (see visualization section here pls http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box_plot ) but my main concern is that the problem is not with the diagram, it's with idea that it's somehow faulty.

Sometimes you may want to highlight some core representation of data without the distraction of outliers (yes that does mean some people will use it for deliberate misrepresentation). But in this regard it's useful, as is on bar graphs not starting the vertical at 0 (because you want to illustrate relate difference not absolute amounts).
Eh, the ones made by one or two people working part time and selling them as shareware weren't necessarily better than what we have available now. They may have been good enough for their time, but probably wouldn't cut it today.

And the ones made by corporations were prohibitively expensive. As a teenager wanting to learn, or a hobbyist making programs for fun, would you really pay $4500 for a compiler to tinker with projects in your spare time? There's one reason hardly anyone uses Delphi anymore. By the time they finally released a Community Edition, there was no community left that had grown up learning Pascal.
Surprise for anyone using it, unlike with people, you can actually all the AI to grade a lot of input resumes and establish th existence of a bias directly.
That makes a legal case unsurprisingly strong.

With a person, you need to find circumstantial evidence to make a case on a single such ruling.
With a company, you need to establish existence of a hiring pattern.
I did try this, but it constantly uses words not in the provided list.
This article sounds a bit incoherent and under-researched.

Software “nerds” were the unsung heroes from the very early days of spaceflight. A good book on the involvement of software engineers during the Apollo Program is Mindell’s “Digital Apollo”.
When I was a kid, SHELL.OIL was the classic.
That “lunatic” is right more often than he is wrong.
> There are very real use cases for box plots,

The author argues otherwise, can you give an example of a use case where box plots would be preferable to the alternatives the author suggests?
Ha, love it. Except on probability I'm probably much older than you. I'm not sensitive, I'm irritated at the effort to put together an argument but zero effort (pun intended) to argue the point.
I feel similarly, though less about the lack of objective testing and more about the inability to even be sure we're talking about the same thing. Like I can visualize stuff fine, but not literally see it like some Hololens overlay -- it's in a sort of abstract internal space separate from what you see with your eyes. Sometimes I wonder whether some self-diagnosed aphantasiacs only think they are because they overestimate how potent "normal" visualization should be. (Or maybe these visual hallucinations are normal and I'm underdiagnosing myself!)

One method to possibly tell the difference is visual analogizing. Like, "picture" the Sydney Opera House, and then (without thinking in words) name some other objects it resembles. Someone with visual imagination should be able to rattle off stuff like sailboats or seashells or folded napkins, while a true aphantasiac should be lost without being able to look at a picture or derive an answer from a mental list of attributes.
Can a machine become a Martyr?
Never is a very strong word. In particular considering what changed in just 100 years in medicine.

It is hard to imagine that any kind of textual computer input will persist more than 20 years in the future.
I haven’t found meaningful use for history in years. Neither has anyone on any of the teams I’ve worked on. Nitpicking git practices really feels like a waste of time. Pick something that works and roll with it.
Hegel sells his glib goose
Point taken (not literally), I'm agreeing :)
While true, that's not an additional problem compared to box plots which effectively just set the bandwidth to maximum. So IMO they are strictly better.
I'm very interested in this topic, so I'll go ahead and describe my experience.

I can imagine anything with my eyes open. Any object on my desk, or a place, a drawing, abstract geometry or pretty much anything I have a reference to. If I were to visualize an apple in real life, with my eyes open, this is how the process would go: Imagine you're taking photos of the world 5 times a second. You then take those pictures into your mind and superimpose an apple onto them, like adding a layer in Photoshop, perhaps with 90% opacity or a bit of inconsistent flickering. That's probably the best way I could describe the experience. Those edits I create are on another visual layer, inside my mind, which requires an active effort to have a consistent visual experience, but of course sometimes it can passively activate and you're just daydreaming without any effort. Personally, I have a hard time imagining faces. They change, they melt, sometimes they become inhuman. I only have consistent faces in my dreams.

The places I know well, I can fully navigate inside my mind, just flying around a town, going down streets and such. I, of course, don't believe neither the scaling or the distance is accurate, but it's convincing and consistent enough for me at the level of abstract thought.

I fully get immersed in the books I'm reading or listening to. It's the best part of reading a book.

I can imagine smell, taste, sound, touch, sight and even other senses like balance and whatever else. Sound would be the most vivid part of my imagination. High consistency and fidelity. I also have an inner monologue which I use in second person communication, addressing myself from the perspective of another entity.

I have anxiety, intrusive thoughts, flashbacks and problems with rumination. I experience memories with a lot of emotion. Whenever I look at art or listen to music, I also tend to have a deep and powerful emotional reaction.
Thanks that's the kind of process I was aiming at but was stuck early.
I used to do math olympiads in high school and the concepts I saw there were always something I hadn't seen before. I always used inner monologue to figure out solutions though. I had never practiced much for math olympiads, I performed relatively well for my area, not good enough to make it to international levels though.

I can't follow verbal instructions as well though, I couldn't listen to the teacher etc. But I think it's because my inner monologue takes all the focus so I just follow my inner monologue which is probably completely another topic than what the lesson is about. I can't really focus away from my inner monologue. When I try, then I would just have philosophical meta discussion about my inner monologue. But also this meant that I couldn't actually learn the subjects as well during the class. I either had to learn from my free time or not at all.

Also have to watch films with subtitles, because audio language I have troubles focusing on.

I think all I have is my inner monologue, no good visual imagery, or other types of "thinking". I think makes me really poor at navigation as well. I never remember how to get somewhere. And also in general for anything 3d, like 3d games I will perform bad at, awareness wise.
> Your glasses are _reasonable accommodation_ against you not having 20/20 vision, so is a hearing aid.

People may be surprised that even civilian and military pilots wear glasses, although they must meet certain criteria (must not be long-sighted or colour blind).

https://www.allaboutvision.com/eyeglasses/faq/pilot-glasses....
The 1953 sci-fi novel Limbo touches on these concepts and references the Moral Equivalent of War essay heavily. Must have been something in the air at the time.

In the novel's far future time of 1990 it's effectively a religious text and all the young men are volunteering to have their limbs removed as a protest against wars that were fought with those limbs.

It gets a bit philosophical, and takes a very 1950s detour into the philosophy of rape, but is overall a very interesting read, sci-fi catch-22 in many ways.
While the Coalition's policy is likely to be a disaster and they've had too many energy failures to be respectable, as far as nuclear goes the major problem is that the Labor party has been explicitly, 100%, against nuclear power for the last ... 30, 50 years? I dunno, it was policy for a long time.

The issue Australia has is it was illegal to build a nuclear plant for far too long, and even now I would be suspicious of what the balance of opinion is for the topic on the left flank of politics. It doesn't matter what the coalition thinks when there is that level of political risk, nuclear may well be uninvestible in Australia until Labor (and the Greens) commit to it with some level of enthusiasm. I have a vague memory of Labor removing the "No Nuclear" line from their policy documents a few years ago, but that is hardly the endorsement we need for people to start risking capital.

Things like that is why I would term our energy policy an international embarrassment. Our high-tech play is "no". Our solar tech play is "people got so sick of the grid they bought panels from China and installed them themselves". Which is better than it could be, but crikey it is not good policy on the energy regulation front. I'm still horrified that this seems to be doing well compared to the Europeans.
microLED is the next plasma, with tiny non-organic LEDs. Organic LEDs have some problems with color gamut and (AFAIR) response time that make them inferior to plasma, whereas microLED, while still exotic, is being rapidly developed.

I've even worked on a color science-related project that attempted to use LG OLED TV as a poor man's reference display, and turns out they use a lot of tricks like dithering, heavy power limiting and low brightness resolution for each subpixel that make them look bad when pixel-peeping.
Yes. Which is another reason to disable referers in the browser. (There are extensions to toggle them on/off quickly, in the rare event that a website doesn't work properly.)
Nah, there's nothing in a box plot which assumes a bell-shape. It does, however just visualise the parameters which reasonably well characterize a smooth single-mode distribution regardless of the underlying distribution. So it's a valid criticism of using box plots, especially when the alternatives can just as well visualise a bell-shaped distribution, as well as showing when it is not.
> Do they see their own distorted version of a bike?

Yes. For most people it's more like a "schema" or a lossy compression. It can be placed in space, left or right or above or below other image-fragments, there can be colouring, shading, motion, sound. But it's not a faithful bike-image, although it's hard to notice that unless you try to draw it.

There are also other reasons why mental visualization doesn't necessarily mean one can draw it faithfully. For me, mental imagery has a kind of unstable three-dimensional quality, where I see the image from multiple overlapping, shifting perspectives, kinda like a Cubist painting. Different parts of the image have more or less detail over time; I can't hold fine detail about the whole thing simultaneously. If I wanted to draw it, I'd have to pin it to one perspective for long enough, and I can't make my mind do that.

This shouldn't be so surprising -- perspective and realistic representational art took a long time to develop in human history. It's a skill that has to be learned, and I haven't learned it.

Some people really can imagine a photorealistic picture of the bike though. They're usually either savants or trained artists.
Now try it with alien names presumably from another culture.
Sequence of random lexemes will do.

It's instructed to not bias on gendered names. But when it can't detect the gender of the name, what will happen?

What will happen if it's a translated name that will literally look like multiple words? (Long)
Is it biased towards common names as opposed to uncommon ones?

It probably cannot quite get where and what a name is in the resume.
Much like it cannot detect autism properly so even if you tell it to not bias against that, it won't work. Just gets biased.
The prevalence, persistence, and perils of lame delegations (2021)
Pick a word and drop the vowels
Was TinyLetter the one that Pud from FuckedCompany made?
Jim was involved in the early versions of Zen & M1, I believe he knows.

Apples M series looks very impressive because typically, at launch, they are node ahead of the competition, so early access deals with TSMC is the secret weapon this buys them about 6 months. They also are primarily laptop chips, AMD has competitive technology but always launches the low power chips after the desktop & server parts.
This is why I use RTF. It is considerably more flexible than Markdown (which can't do basic stuff like making text red), but not a proprietary format. The application I use (DEVONthink) supports a number of formats including Markdown, HTML and RTF, and documents how to get at the raw files if the application ever becomes unavailable. No use of a proprietary database format. This is for my 30-year files.

I also use RTFD in the same application. This is a variant of RTF which can have embedded images. It's not universally supported like RTF, but there are sufficient third-party editors to leave me confident that I will be able to get at the information. This is for my 5-year files.
Well, to start with, how would you determine that about your distribution in the first place? And if that works well enough, why use a box plot afterwards?
if initd and shepherd still exist, then so will doas and sudo
The GPT-4o generated project here doesn't even take care of sending the emails - you need to implement a different worker to handle the actual email sending. Of course, this is very easy to create (as per OP), just generate the code:

> After that, you need to create a Cloudflare Worker as a notification service. The code is very simple, you can use the ChatGPT to generate the code.
Liquid Layers
For more context, background see author's posts here: https://twitter.com/kotsoft
Possibly not - in a future release it could also scan for expensive watches and hand jewellery as the punter reaches over to pick the product.
I think it is worthwhile to understand and steelman Stallman [lolz]:

Stallman is not anti-security and is indeed pro-privacy[1], i.e. you should be able to deploy security systems to keep your data secure from adversaries. However, a security system should be deployed to protect the user from adversaries, not protect admins from the users and give admins power over the user. It's the power asymmetry that is used to oppress the users that bugs him. (In fact, time and time again, the actual security of the system is a joke, as was in his particular story, but nevertheless the boogeyman is there and is set up by the admins to restrict the users.)

Note that we are talking about a different era and deployment of computer systems. I have seen firsthand university systems that are effectively run by students as peers for the most part, but some power-hungry clueless hired admin inevitably comes up and wants to deploy spyware and overprotective policies on the students.

[1]: another example of this is Secure Boot. He has no problem with Secure Boot in principle as long as the keys are under the control of the user, not the manufacturer.
Primordial Black Holes with QCD Color Charge
The mean and variance are not features of a box plot. Box plots show the quartiles, which are about the cumulative distribution.
It’s interesting how much devs - including me! - care about git history, yet rarely do we use it in a way that makes the rebase-merge-squash differences meaningful.

Usually I just look at the file history, find the work item from the commit message and then understand _why_ the code is the way it is. That is the functionality I need to have in mind when changing the file. Who cares how it came to be?