skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> That it's OK to use the user's filesystem (particularly directories owned by the user as opposed to the OS) as their dumping ground for all this metadata.

There are more of this type of offender than I can possibly count that dump myriad dotfiles and dotfolders in your home folder on nixes instead of adhering to platform conventions or XDG or anything, really. Worse, these programs won't function properly if you set your home folder to be read-only (leaving subdirectories writable) to keep it clean. Drives me nuts.
Totally agree! That one has burned me a lot. I generally use 'curl -LO' now instead of wget.
Wow, some people really can't stomach the idea of the Arabs and Persians saving Europe, do they?
Thanks. Miniflux could not find it. I did not know that this can happen.

Even authors are probably not aware of this.
FYI there is a tool on macOS called `dot_clean` that will "Remove dot-underscore files" https://ss64.com/mac/dot_clean.html
Compared to Black English, the Grammar of Standard English Is Basic
Let me edit the question to reflect home-targeted. Good callout.
I use NFS over WireGuard. That way I can mount my resources wherever I go and it's encrypted whether I'm at home or out.
The paper that is the basis for the article and which it cites in the second paragraph (https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01446-z) uses time series data going back to 1985 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01446-z/figures/3). And the study looks at a large number of streams within the Brooks Range, not a "specific river". And it makes a strong case that the changes are due to climate change-related permafrost thaw.
This is just a PowerPoint slide at this point.
This is a really interesting observation that makes a lot of sense to me. I can relate to this and it really helps to explain my own skepticism about LLMs "helping" with programming tasks.

I've always thought of software development as an inherently solo endeavor that happens entirely inside of one's own mind. When I'm faced with a software problem, I map out the data structures, data flows, algorithms and so on in my mind, and connect them together up there. Maybe taking some notes on a sheet of paper for very complex interactions. But I would not really think of sitting down with someone to "chat" about it. The act of articulating a question "What should this data structure look like and be composed of?" would take longer than it would take to simply build it and reason about it in my own brain. This idea that software is something we do in a group socially, with one or more people talking back and forth, is just not the way I operate.

Sure, when your software calls some other person's API, or when your system talks to someone else's system, or in general you are working on a team to build a large system, then you need to write documents and collaborate with them, and have this back-and-forth, but that's always kind of felt like a special case of programming to me.

The idea of asking ChatGPT to "write a method that performs a CRC32 on a block of data" seems silly to me, because it's just not how I would do it. I know how to write a CRC function, so I would just write it. The idea of asking ChatGPT to help write a program that shuffles a deck of cards and deals out hands of Poker is equally silly because before I even finished writing this sentence, I'm visualizing the proper data structures that will be used to represent the cards, the deck, and players' hands. I don't need someone (human or AI) to bounce ideas off of.

There's probably room for AI assistance for very, very junior programmers, who have not yet built up the capability of internally visualizing large systems. But for senior developers with more experience and capability, I'd expect the utility go down because we have already built out that skill.
Practical elements:

1. Most founders end up putting a lot of their network/personal workflows on the company domain. Create copies/downloads/backups of everything so you have it. You can parse out what to keep once a termination agreement is formed. Shift your communications to your own email/domain or at least CC.

2. It’s challenging, but now is the time to shift to a “never split the difference” approach where you get really clear on the story your co-founders have, what it reveals about their motivations, and what they might reveal about what it is they really want. Chances are you a breaking up because they want different things than you do, that’s very useful in negotiating agreement where you win what you want without the cost of them feeling like they lost it.

3. If you’ve lost confidence in the business, selling your equity (or claim to it if you don’t already have an agreement on that) is very high leverage for you. They have to get it back if they want to raise capital in the future. No one likes ex-founders on the cap table except in very rare situations.

I’ve never looked back on a co-founder breakup and wished I’d put more energy into it. Get yourself a therapist/coach to help you let go of the struggle and put your energy into moving forward.

Good luck.
Though not at all part of the hot path, the inefficiency of the mask generation ('bit_mask' usage) nags me. Some more efficient methods include creating a global constant array of {-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1, -1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1, 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0, 0,0,0,0,0,0,0} and loading from it at element offsets 16-m and 8-m, or comparing constant vector {0,1,2,3,4,...} with broadcasted m and m-8.

Very moot nitpick though, given that this is for only one column of the matrix, the following loops of maskload/maskstore will take significantly more time (esp. store, which is still slow on Zen 4[1] despite the AVX-512 instruction (whose only difference is taking the mask in a mask register) being 6x faster), and clang autovectorizes the shifting anyways (maybe like 2-3x slower than my suggestions).

[1]: https://uops.info/table.html?search=vmaskmovps&cb_lat=on&cb_...
Note that the walled city is just a small part of Kowloon district. The famous Kai Tak Airport was also in Kowloon (now converted into an event space), where airliners flew scarily close to buildings on final approach.

I lived in Hong Kong just under 10 years, and a friend of a friend grew up in the walled city.
I feel compelled to defend Las Vegas as a permanent resident: all things considered, we're doing pretty good. Water gets reclaimed and treated before being pumped back into Lake Mead. Massive solar power adoption. Desert living is perfectly fine so long as you're not using all your water rights to do something dumb like growing alfalfa.

(All the air travel for tourism is another story, climate-wise, but that would apply regardless of whether it took place in the desert or anywhere else :P)
> Nienders concluded that this was due to the difference in the information available. Sophy had information about the track curvature of the upcoming 6 seconds of track, based on the current speed. TMRL, however, only had distance measurements from the LIDAR. While the TMRL program could plan for the next turn, it could not plan two turns ahead, and this fundamentally limited the program to mere safe driving, avoiding walls and crashes, but never optimizing.

I think that point is an important one. ML algorithms work better when they are given better context. Especially in programming, it is clear the models are trained on code, rather than repositories. They know about files and repositories, but i always get the impression that they are totally clueless about whole programs.

What could be done better in code, is provide in training more data about where each function is located in the project, some other files where similar functions are defined or called and so on. In general before each code is fed into the training, to do a little bit of data mining in the project like the tree-hugger project [1] enables. Tree-hugger however is a little bit older code, and tree-sitter has advanced a lot the last 4 years.

In my opinion 5x to 10x in code, is within reach, with no need to increase GPU compute or electricity.

[1] https://github.com/autosoft-dev/tree-hugger
Meh? I think a more mercenary approach to learning prerequisites is fine, and frankly better. Use Mathematica or Alpha to show you how equations get from one place to another - those tools are great at the fundamentals. You can skim a calc book, use Mathematica/Alpha to fill in your gaps, and play with toy problems to convince yourself well enough to continue.

The basics are the ones with the most different approaches developed to teach/use them, so they can most easily be skimmed by with cheap modern trickery.
"The early bird gets the worm -- but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Of course students are using ChatGPT. It helps them to write assignments.

But it isn't translating into better across the board test results and at least in Australia we would be able to tell because we have yearly standardised testing.

And so schools are looking at it as more of a form of cheating and simply moving back to in-person, hand-written tests.
I have similar feelings about the Finder and also don't quite get the love for Windows Explorer. It's just ok and if it were practical to replace it with just about any common Linux file manager on my Windows boxes I'd do so without a second thought.

NeXT/Mac column view are great and should be table stakes in a file manager in my opinion.
Dreamlike pig-hunting scene is the oldest figurative art
There's also the .fseventsd directory which I've also seen on non-UNIX systems.
FWIW, I think you can add some of those options to .curlrc if you wanted them to be added every time you invoke curl.
Yeah I did a similar thing.

I was a math major and I used to be adamant about reading the chapter perfectly before starting my problem sets.

I mentioned this to my math professor and he’d always say to not be afraid to jump into the problems, that my time was better spent that way.

My take on it is that a) it’s true and b) it works because reading with a purpose is very different than reading as a way of surveying something before you jump into a problem.
White noise was claimed on YouTube[0].

When is someone going to copyright .gitignore? You could register gitignore.me right now! Fame, riches, lunch with Myhrvold[1][2]!

[0]: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42580523

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures

[2]: https://www.amazon.com/Modernist-Cuisine-Science-Stainless-S...
Odroid HC-4 is only $73... and lightyears ahead
https://www.hardkernel.com/shop/odroid-hc4/
Those aren't ideal rounds, but you're getting piled on so I'm gonna point out to all the pilers-on that 20+ rounds of 5.56 at bear-attack range is sufficient to kill any bear. It's not what I'd want, but we are talking about 20-30 holes in an animal. Not to mention the arterial damage from the impact shock. Anyone that's shot an animal with a fast round knows just what that can do to a circulatory system.

As someone that routinely arms themselves against grizzlies and has had hostile encounters where I have scared them off with gun shots, I basically refuse to carry anything smaller than 10 mm with Underwood Dangerous Game rounds, and even that is a tradeoff. There are plenty of stories of people killing grizzlies with smaller rounds, but what there aren't are stories of people shooting grizzlies with very big rounds, and the grizzlies not dying. Whereas 357 magnum, 9 mm, etc, all take a lot of rounds to kill on average. 44 magnum is pretty much "sufficient" and if you go to rifles, center mass from a +P hardcast 45-70 will drop any grizzly in one shot. Even out of an 18" barrel. The Marlin 1895 has grown a reputation among bush pilots for that reason.

These debates rage on endlessly because they're entertaining, but ultimately the human with the gun is 50%+ of the equation...not the gun.
I consider myself to be fairly senior, and use it all the time for learning new things. I work with some brilliant senior developers who lean on it heavily, but I do think it doesn't mesh with the cognitive styles of many.
Not just the Kowloon Walled City, but other locations in Hong Kong inspire lots of cyberpunk scenes. After living in Hong Kong for a few years, I re-watched Ghost in the Shell and was surprised to recognize the final scene as taking place under the circular pedestrian overpass on Queens Road, just east of Victoria Park.
Oh, yea. I didn't mean to give Linux/Unix a pass. Those systems can be equally cavalier about leaving their configuration droppings all over my filesystem, too.
I'm sure it's no where near good enough yet, but a legal model getting the answer right 83% of the time is still quite impressive imo.
Alternatively, you can use Crystal instead of Go. Its syntax is almost Ruby one, except mostly for some typing. Standard library is also similar. Binary size and speed is also go-like
There are 2 million people in the military. All the president would need to do is find a handful of existing personnel and organize them. He doesn't need to "raise" or "provide" anyone.
Mountain House.

https://archive.ph/0sOQt

They aren't alone!
Once you pushed an app beyond the level of usage the developer
had performed in their initial tests, it would crawl to a near-halt

With HFS (unsure about HFS+) the first three extents are stored in the extent data record. After that extents get stored in a separate "overflow" file stored at the end of the filesystem. How much data goes in those three extents depends on a lot of things, but it does mean that it's actually pretty easy for things to get fragmented.

A bit more detail: the first three extents the resource and data forks are stored as part of the entry in the catalog (for a total of up to six extents). On HFS each extent can be 2^16 blocks long (I think HFS+ moved to 32-bit lengths). Anything beyond that (due to size or fragmentation) will have its info stored in an overflow catalog. The overflow catalogs are a.) normal files and b.) keyed by the id (CNID) of the parent directory. If memory serves this means that the catalog file itself can become fragmented but also the lookups themselves are a bit slow. There are little shortcuts (threads) that are keyed by the CNID of the file/directory itself, but as far as I can tell they're only commonly written for directories not files.

tl;dr For either of the forks (data or resource) once you got beyond the capacity of three extents or you start modifying things on a fragmented filesystem performance will go to shit.
Oh, and there is a new interpreter although probably it's not production quality yet
Most informative post ever on Hacker News. Now I know!
Bourne and POSIX shell:

for x in *.txt; do echo $x; done

for x in *.txt
do
echo $x
done
We've traced Aboriginal settlement of Australia back 60,000 years. It's possible there were humans here before them, I guess, but we haven't discovered any sign of them so far.
What he's describing seems quite similar to the term "presence" in VR.
The article describes the allegations of such support -- alongside their debunking.

That's why it has the word "Allegations" in the title.
Below here. It has been determined that discussion is not required.
No, not at all! The headline and case is strange!
What’s a real world thing or two that this could solve vs writing code
At this point a lot of my initial prompts just have to be dedicated to explaining published research to date that counteracts model system prompt/fine tuned limitation BS.

It's very frustrating.
Programming and just about every other job is an art as well with that argument. If we aren't allowed to automate away that then we aren't allowed to automate anything.
Are you suggesting we can't make any claims about this hurricane?

Or that we can only assess weather in millennium level increments?

Trying to understand the point behind your comment.
This reminds me of something that I heard once from a Chinese teacher. I can't vouch for the accuracy of it, but he was definitely on to something: In the West, it is assumed that it is the speaker's job to make himself understood to his listeners. In the East, it is the other way around.

In recent times, it seems like we've gotten even more extreme. The speaker or writer must not only spoon-feed the understanding, they also have to provide the motivation and the entertainment. Which I find sad, because some things you can't get unless you go to the effort of extracting them yourself. (See many reproducible psychology findings about retention being highly correlated with depth of processing, for example.) It's like the information equivalent of highly processed food.

I find myself falling into this trap on sites like this. An interesting but difficult article will be posted, I won't immediately know what to think or where I stand on the topic, and I'll flip to the comments so that I can get some part of the collective to tell me what to think and how to feel about it. Which is also sad.

In paintings, it is known that the viewer can get out more than the painter put in. It used to be the same with writing, but it feels like that is becoming more rare and less acceptable. If a reader can't follow the argument, it's automatically the author's fault and a waste of the reader's time. Heaven forbid the reader might need to exert some effort and grow in the gleaning.
More than that, you could write a tool which checks the consistency of your indentation against your #{ and #}.

This has advantages over using a generation tool that has to strip away braces to produce valid Python.
Agree on the virtue signalling, but whatever works shrug. It makes no sense that it's called Perth, because that's already a place on the other side of the planet. They didn't even bother with "New Perth".

And yeah, I suspect that Boorloo is one choice of many. But I think we let the Elders work that one out.
Mac stopped shipping Ruby some time ago.
Thanks for offering your time!

1. How do you/y'all feel about the ethics of publishing this kind of detailed instructional material for self-replicating machines on the open internet, given the potential risk of behavioral singularities from as-of-yet-uncharted intelligence explosion dynamics? I mean this question in the most friendly, least “gotcha” way possible — feel free to answer flippantly!

2. What would you say was the “frame problem” of this work that blocked progress, either recently or in your historical readings? I’m just starting to examine this literature after intentionally not engaging while designing my own systems, and it seems pretty damn robust in a post-frame-problem world. What might I be missing out of naïveté?
It's a little more concrete for things that are not elementary particles such as neurons
Well part of it is you likely won't see the problem until a long time after it happens. But on servers with ECC and reporting I saw several different patterns:

a) 99%+ (or something) of the servers had zero reported errors for their lifetime. Memory usually works, no problems experienced.

b) Some of the servers reported one error, one time, and then all was well for the rest of their life. If this happens without ECC, and you're lucky, it's in some memory that doesn't really matter and it's no big deal. Or maybe it crashes your kernel because it's in the right spot (flip a bit in a pointer/return address and it's easy to crash). Or maybe it managed to flip a bit in a pending write and your file is stored wrong and the zfs checksum is calculated on the wrong data. If you're really unlucky, you could probably write bad metadata and have a real hard time mounting the filesystem later?

c) some servers reported the same address with a correctable error once a day; probably one bit stuck, any time data transits that address, that bit is still stuck, and that will likely cause trouble. If it's used for kernel memory, you'll probably end up crashing sooner or later.

d) some servers had a lot more ram errors; sometimes a slow ramp to a hundred a day, once or twice a rapid ramp to so many that the system spent most of its time handling machine check exceptions, but did manage to stay online but developed a queue it could never process. Once you're at these levels, you'll probably get crashes, but you might write some bad data first.

Ram testing helps on systems without ECC, but you won't really know if/when the ram has gone from working 100% to working almost 100%. I have a desktop that was running fine for a while, tests fine, but crashes in ways that have to be bad ram, and removing one stick seems to have fixed it.
Flynn Nicholls, you meant? The author of the many non-stellar articles and IMDB.com author; his strength lies more in his work as cartoonist, animator and illustrator.

It is easy to cherry-pick out a seemingly salacious quip out of context from a large document and expansively narrate and skimp on its overall goal with an intent of "poo-pooing" its document.

Probably should have started with one of its goal and drill down in a critique manner, rather than go from within outward.

But hey, this is a sensationalist way to go.

No surprise that Newsweek selected him.
Show HN: SVG-Mask-Icon
This is a Web Component that uses CSS mask-image. It allows you to specify the color of local SVG icons using CSS, similar to icon fonts.
“Drop the ‘the.’”
Ah I see. Yes I totally agree.
No, but pilot wave theory is a bit weird since the wave contains all the same decoherent timelines as in many-worlds.

They can both be true. Then there’s a single timeline which happens to have particles following it around, but everything else is still there and there’s no way from the inside to determine where the particles are, other than the assumption that only the particles create conscious scientists.

But that’s a really weird assumption.
Help me understand the terminology. I thought alternative data streams were just non-resident attributes. Attributes like "$SECURITY_DESCRIPTOR" have reserved names but, conceptually, I thought were stored in the same manner as an alternative data stream. (Admittedly, I've never seen the real NTFS source code-- I've only perused open source tools and re-implementations.)
LLMs are undeniably remarkable, but their wheels start to fall off once you go beyond the basics and a few party tricks. The cynical part of me thinks this tracks pretty well with our society's tendency to favor appearance over substance. Yet, if my burger order gets messed up, I don't fault the restaurant; however, if an LLM messes up my order, the same cannot be said. As a seasoned human, I feel confident saying that we humans love blaming other humans, whether it's justified or not.

So while I initially thought customer-facing roles would be front and center in the "AI revolution." Today, I tend to think they'll be bringing up the rear, with entertainment/smut applications at the forefront along with a few unexpected applications where LLMs operate behind the scenes.
This is tangential, but have people really not seen a mustard seed?

Seeded/whole seed mustard was commonplace in my family.
As it starts about 32k in, the ISO 9660 superblock doesn't inherently conflict with an Apple partition map which starts at the beginning. Apple also had proprietary ISO 9660 extensions that add extra metadata to the directory entries much like the RockRidge extension does. Those would get ignored by non-Apple implementations of ISO 9660.

Microsoft went a different route with its long filename extensions (Joliet) – they simply created a whole different (UCS-2/UTF-16 encoded) directory tree. An ISO 9660 implementation that's compatible with Joliet will prefer the Unicode directory hierarchy and look there for files.
Physicist working on QM here. At the macroscopic scale we are led to believe that the properties of a system have a value regardless of whether that value is “known” externally to the system. Then a measurement process would simply reveal the pre-existing value. But we can concoct a QM system such that it is impossible to assign a pre-existing value of a property in a consistent way (look for GHZ game to know more). This leads to true randomness in the most literal sense possible: there can exist no cause for a given value. That value materialized out of thin air.