skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm contextualizing that carriers are much more obsolete vs some force structures / hardware stack than others. They are signicantly less less defensible given XYZ adversary capabilities, like having proper ISR, and advanced AShMs. I didn't say navies were obsolete, but their roles may be greatly constrained in IndoPac scenario, hence US wants to preposition land missiles, harden air shelters in region, get TW to porcupine and build asymetric forces. But my feeling is carrier effectiveness specifically, are going to have bad time matching up against near/peer opponents. I've written elsewhere, but USN 11+10 carrier force is literally mandated minimum by law. We know USN + rest of DoD is pivotting hard to reorient force towards confronting PRC, and we know USN specifically are betting on distributed lethality and not building any more carrie than mandated in navy force design 2045. Also despite 10+ years of lamenting the sad state of US shipbuilding over last 10 years, little is being done. Maybe that's reflection US industrial scoliosis, or maybe it's indicator of how planners view navies, more specifically large manned surface combtants.
Thanks, this is something to consider at least. However, it doesn't convince me still. While I understand your problem, this problem doesn't really occur in my workflow, so a tool that encourages this workflow doesn't seem appealing and I cannot answer myself yet, why would I need to introduce this problem.

This is because I pretty much never use "edit". Well, not "never", but I avoid it, and it is perfectly avoidable in the vast majority of cases. Also, I don't like to deal with conflicts, as they are error prone, so I try to avoid them as well. Every time I want to change something in an old commit (on the same branch) I'll just add a new commit with barely comprehensible commit message, and I commit every little change. Also, if there is an atomic change in 2 files (function renamed), I usually commit them separately, including file name in the message. Then, after finishing some significant part of work, I'll rebase -i master, reorder commits and most of these "new" fixes will end up with "f" modifier after an olde commit, some I'll just drop. I'll do it in multiple iterations, to see which (reordering) operation results in a conflict, to keep conflict resolution operation as small and straight-forward as possible. So being modal is a good thing, as I'll run rebase a half-dozen times, before changes made up to the moment are all cleared up and I can move forward with committing new stuff. I never want to stay inside of one "rebase" operation for long, if I do, I'll probably --abort, and stop to reconsider what I'm doing here.

Even if "editing" past commit would be completely effortless, I just don't want to do that, because I don't want to think about how "later" changes might affect this place. When I do that, there is a whole new class of potential human mistakes one could make, that just doesn't exist when you always work on the "latest" version of the code. In worst case scenario, I might break some intermediate commit when carelessly reordering stuff, but the final code result must remain the same as before I did rebase. If this isn't the case, there is this uncomfortable scenario that I make some edit which is logically incompatible with a "later" conflict, which I won't notice if it doesn't cause a conflict: and it totally might not cause a conflict. I don't want to worry about that.
Not exactly but they give massive discounts and the tools are much more appropriate to use for late undergrads and grads.
Arguably Apple does prefer to use in-house models and their OpenAI involvement was said to be more "knowledge transfer" than any concrete plans to rely on OpenAI models. Microsoft definitely heavily uses ChatGPT, but also has their fingers in plenty of pies, including their in-house Phi series of SLM models and rumors of a ChatGPT hard fork (as the one company most allowed to hard fork ChatGPT when they feel like it).
I think it's fuzzier than that, both as a historical process (stretching across more than a millennium of development), and as a tool at any particular point in time. Here's some quotation from Robson:

The very earliest literate accounts – from late fourth-millenium Uruk – used commodity-specific metrologies with a variety of different numerical relationships between the units. Those original metrologies continued in use throughout the third milennium and beyond, whether essentially unchanged (for instance areas), or undergoing periodical reform (for instance capacities). They continued to be written with compound signs, which bundled both quantity and unit into a single grapheme, just as the preliterate accounting tokens must have done. Gradually, over the course of the later third millennium, scribes began to write those compound metrological numerals with a cuneiform stylus, rather than impressing a round stylus into the clay in imitation of accounting tokens. Throughout the Sargonic period, and even into the early Ur I period, impressed and incised number notations apear side by side on the same tablets – a phenomenon that has not yet been systematically documented or explained.

[...] But not every new metrological unit was sexagesimally structured. The smaller length measures, first attested in the Early Dynastic IIIb period, divide the rod into 2 reeds or 12 cubits, and the cubit into 30 fingers. None of these newly invented units of measure was recorded with compound metrological numerals, but always written as numbers recorded according to the discrete notation system followed by a separate sign for the metrological unit. This has implications for our understanding of the material culture of early Mesopotamian calculation, as well as for the shifting conceptualisation of number.

[...] At some point early in the Ur III period, the generalised sexagesimal fraction and the generalised unit fraction were productively combined to create a new cognitive tool: the sexagesimal place value system. This calculating device took quantities expressed in traditional metrologies and reconfigured them as sexagesimal multiples or fractions of a base unit, often at convenient meeting point between metrological systems.

[...] The SPVS temporarily changed the status of numbers from properties of real-world objects to independent entities that could be manipulated without regard to absolute value or metrological system. Calculations could thus transform numbers from lengths into areas, or from capacity units of grain into discretely counted recipients of rations, without concern for the objects to which they pertained. Once the calculation was done, the result was expressed in the most appropriate metrological units and thus re-entered the natural world as a concrete quantity.
If we're concerned with traffic throughput then shouldn't we just increase the allowed speed? Why even have a limit in the first place?

I don't understand your point about having to slow down to follow at a safe distance. If I pull onto a highway and find myself _right_ behind someone I can decrease my speed by one or two mph to fall back to a safe following distance. How is that not safe? The car behind me, who should already be either already at a safe distance or adjusting their own distance should have no issues here.

What I think you mean to say is that because you're assuming that everyone else on the road is behaving in an unsafe manner you believe that you, too, have to behave in an unsafe manner. This simply is not the case.
The semantics of LZCNT combined with its encoding feels like an own goal: it’s encoded as a BSR instruction with a legacy-ignored prefix, but for nonzero inputs its return value is the operand size minus the return value of the legacy version. Yes, clz() is a function that exists, but the extra subtraction in its implementation feels like a small cost to pay for extra compatibility when LZCNT could’ve just been BSR with different zero-input semantics.
Hilarious to me how this is basically, "researchers discover SEO techniques."
Even if you could control the arc of your career, I think doing so too much would not lead to optimal results.

An old business mentor gave me some excellent words of wisdom about starting and running a business:

When you start a business, you should have a clear idea of what you want to do and you'll have a vision of the path it will take. That's important. But it's also important to be willing to let all of that go.

Once your business starts running, it will have its own ideas about where it should go and what it should do. And the business knows the right path better than you do. If its trying to go a direction that you didn't have in mind, you're smarter to go with that direction than to try to force the path to the one you had planned.

I think career management is pretty much the same. Your career, after all, is really just a business in disguise. There are too many unknowns -- unknown risks and unknown opportunities -- for you to be able to lay out what your career arc should be in advance. Nimble is the key word here.

But I'm just stating what the article said in different words.
Every 4 years the migrant caravans start up again and get loads of news coverage. Thankfully they'll be done by mid November like they always are.
It uses indentured neural networks to write code for you. You're a neural network! You just have rights because you ain't digital (and way larger and possibly using quantum effects). Smh
try resophnotes as a good clean windows client for simplenote if you haven't already
What's crazy is that depending on how deep you want to go, a lot of the information is not available in documents published by Intel. Fortunately, if it matters for emulators it typically can be/has been reverse engineering.
Vision language models are blind because they lack the Cartesian Theater, which you and I have. Which you and I say we have.
I've not heard of QA in open-source projects... unless it's something peddled by a big corp (eg. Chrome, Go, VSCode etc.)

You are lucky if there's some automated unit testing, but that's as far as these things go. Programmers don't like, don't know and don't want to know how to QA. Also, they generally look at QA with contempt... so, unless forced to, they won't do it.
> But advocates worry that selling bullets out of vending machines will lead to more shootings in the U.S.,

How can you believe this with a straight face?
Hmm.. 47 people, 15 teams - indicates 3 to a team.

Yet the image has 6 gophers.
Probably this: https://mui.com/
Oh, hello Bioshock
I guess their growth strategy was mostly about hiring every Finnish person, or living in Finland (and then in other countries) with a PhD in some quantitative topic and then market the "we have xx PhDs as a consultancy for all your projects". So you probably are right that not all these are needed anymore?
> subject matter experts

That is a delightfully optimistic name for 'corporate lobbyists.'
I have recently been playing Cyberpunk 2077 in which ammo vending machines are legion. Up until today, I had thought that this phenomenon was just a poignant critique of a fictional dystopian future.
Skydio | Cloud / Web / Robotics Engineers | San Mateo, CA or Hybrid | Typescript / Python / C++

Skydio is the leading U.S. drone company and world leader in autonomous flight. Today our products are flown at scale in complex, unknown environments by a wide range of customers to capture incredible video, inspect critical infrastructure, and save lives in emergency response scenarios. We’ve raised $220M at a $2.2B valuation led by a16z.

If you’re interested in being a core member of a 150+ person world-class engineering and research team that is defining the future of a major emerging industry, dive in --> https://autonomy.skyd.io and https://www.skydio.com/careers

We’re looking for a diverse combination of engineers, researchers, and managers with strong SW skills and experience across complex products. We’re particularly interested in people with robotics, web, game dev, deep learning, streaming or cloud experience.

Senior Software Engineer - Frontend https://www.skydio.com/jobs/5666336003

Senior Software Engineer - Backend https://www.skydio.com/jobs/5848450003

Autonomy Infrastructure Engineer https://www.skydio.com/jobs/4544846003/

Senior Autonomy Engineer - Deep Learning https://www.skydio.com/jobs/6010156003

I am a Senior Director of Engineering there and a YC alumni, you can reach me at { vincent dot lecrubier at skydio dot com }.
> There are close to zero people who tend to think like that among actual engineers.

Oops. My apologies - I meant exactly that, that a significant number of engineers believe in correctness and sound approaches, but I had a brain fart writing that comment. It should've been "believe in the former".

No idea about how many non-software engineers take various shortcuts, though. But I think there's a non-negligible number of electronics engineers who do so - I'm not an expert in that field, but it's not unheard of skipping coupling capacitors or using a resistor divider instead of a voltage regulator to cut down the costs (because that still works... until it doesn't, of course).
Could it also be the case that some people just aren’t suited for small teams?

I don’t have any experience actually handling this sort of thing, so here’s some rampant speculation instead:

A small team of motivated rockstars might be the fastest way to solve a problem. But, there are a lot of non-rockstars out there. Maybe marshaling up a little talent from a lot of people is more feasible for some organizations/problems (in particular some types of problems might be boring, and not attractive to a team of rockstars).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom_%28text_editor%29#History...

I found the zed website unhelpful, but if wikipedia is to be believed, it's a successor to the Atom text editor
The nefarious angle is that this isn't actually going to pass. It's already July. Congress basically doesn't work at all in August or October, and there are a bunch of "state work periods" on top of that. And then there's the election.

This "bipartisan deal" is a bunch of Senators. It still hasn't passed the Senate, much less gone to the House, much-much-less gotten wrangled in reconciliation.

There's a possibility it'll be picked up and actually worked on during the "lame duck" session after the election. But most likely, this is the last you'll ever hear of it. Unless you live in one of their states, and you go to a campaign rally, where they tell you about the great thing they're working on.
Not so much. I believe in the wild there are less stock images in tech posts, as engineers would not even bother to search something generic.
Aren't judges appointed by administrations as well? Won't the bias change, but just for longer periods of time? Much like what is happening with these recent decisions?
Oncall health is another good reason to increase team size -- having a 4 person rotation where everyone is oncall once a month is much less sustainable than an 8 person rotation where you're oncall once every two months
CUDA is extremely simple, the classes might as well be on rails. OpenCL is like impossible without graphics and/or CUDA/distributed computing/operating system experience.
Nobody wrote a C++ compiler for this purpose; they wrote a Rust compiler (mrustc) in C++.

> I mean, who knows what kind of malware is transparently being injected in all Rust programs out there.

FWIW, using Guix it is very straightforward to build the rust toolchain fully bootstrapped starting from mrustc and gcc.
It's a compiler for the APL language, that generates GPU code. What's interesting about it is that it's also hosted on the GPU, and it also has a very original architecture representing trees as arrays of pointers.
I think every OS has this feature. Sometimes it is hidden in an accessibility menu and needs to be turned on.
Wow, that's a horrific way of proving that theory.
Smart, your joke is valid.
How did you get him on your podcast? That's amazing!
How is Otherbranch different from traditional recruiting?

(IE, the article talks a lot about how they are different from Triplebyte, but I never used Triplebyte.)

FWIW: I really like the idea of the recruiter doing in-depth technical screens and matchmaking:

When I'm in the US job market, the most frustrating aspect is dealing with recruiters. Most have so little "tech" experience that they can't evaluate companies or me. I often feel like I'm talking with a salesman, and it's a crapshoot if the job is a good match for me, or if I'm really what the company wants.

When I'm hiring in the US, it's a lot easier to work with overseas contracting firms. They all screen candidates very carefully, and only present candidates that are probably capable of doing the job. In contrast, recruiters for US-based employees perform very little filtering, so we end up interviewing a lot more poorly-chosen candidates.

IE, as both a candidate and someone who's hired: I want the recruiting firm to do more "work:" Better filtering, better matchmaking, and better technical knowledge. I don't want to deal with "salesman."
Especially since AMD and nVidia have similar costs for a GPU
> They have background in interpreting the law and in listening to and evaluating expert testimony.

Listen to one of the Flat Earth videos on Youtube. Flat Earthers have very persuasive arguments, and they can be very personable.

Now imagine that the opposing side is a tongue-tied bureaucrat who is afraid of public speeches. In other words, exactly somebody who would want to work as an expert for a government agency.

And imagine that it's not the Flat Earth that they're discussing, but a boring point about alpha-helixes in peptides, or PFAS in drinking water.

How would it go?

And we don't even have to imagine that. The infamous leaded gasoline hearing in 1925 went exactly like that.
In the morning vscode is ok, come noon, it’s the primary thing eating my battery and it’s getting slower and slower; day end it’s unusable. Sure, restart it, I know, but it’s fairly terrible though.
The military aged illegal immigrants have photo id. Let that sink in.
Helldivers 2 – Galactic Map
You know nothing about what I do. Keep editing code. You just grind on an infrastructure brought to you on a silver plate? Like an editor is the only thing we have fuck around with.

That script for the editor is code, too…
It's fascinating to read the platform; there is the unspoken assumption that they will be installing all of these partisan bureaucrats that can keep on pushing their ideology even when their guy isn't president. As if it won't just be that each incoming president instantly fires every last one of them and then spends their entire term trying to fill those positions. Perhaps paralysis IS the point.
Just a reminder that as far as Republicans are concerned it's the Democrats who are undermining the pillars that hold up our society. When everyone has a completely different list of those pillars I tend to assume that the system is actually quite resilient.
React is as plebeian as it gets, is the mass-adopted industrial tooling. It's a rote boring and commonplace way of doing software.

I generally agree that most sites are pretty bad, are way too big & usually with poor data-architectures (over fetching, re fetching, poor or no data caching). Data storage is notably something React nor very few other things have tried to tackle. GraphQL made a forray & for a while seemed ascendant but it's moment seems to be passing. The core issue of client-server model is still pretty informally handled.

But even that has nothing to do with the very obvious & bad issue, that many sites are loaded with obnoxious & heavyweight & surveiling ad payloads. But it's unclear to me again what React has to do with this. (Especially as few of these as systems use React.)
WSL is a pretty niche version of "Linux". I would guess that close to 0% of what makes it to the front page of HN had a QA team that explicitly tested it on WSL.
It's not as if judges are any more or less political. They're also not elected in most cases.

It's pretty easy for a company to pick a court district which will be favorable to them, regardless of the experts brought in.
On Naval deployments, it’s common for mechanics, who are planning on proposing or are engaged, to file nuts into pairs of wedding bands.

This can take weeks or months, depending on the material and method.

Since there are nuts available from peculiar corrosion-resistant alloys and superalloys, the product can be quite unique.
Looking forward to trying this when I have a phone that runs iOS 17+.
Microsoft has deep pockets.
Judges aren't objective.
More at 11.
There is the aspect of how AI works (unoriginal plagiarism, unconsentual data harvesting, intractable confabulation). On top of that there is the aspect of AI marketing (companies trying to fabricate demand for it, by gaslighting users into thinking AI is a breakthrough). And then there is the complex, emergent aspect of social affiliation: similar people choosing to segregate themselves based on the personal connotations that the previous aspects have for them. An author who chooses AI in this context doesn’t just accept the issues with the tech, doesn’t just entertain the marketing messaging, but also aligns with a specific sub-culture and with its values and norms. I personally found myself “vibing” more with the group of people who denounce AI.

I hope that gives you at least a slightly interesting angle on it?

Your other post is very spot on and the fact that you reflected on it gives you huge credit.
There is a similar project called NotDiamond, which is available on Hugging Face: https://huggingface.co/notdiamond/notdiamond-0001.
Recent studies suggest there are 2 trillion galaxies in the observable universe.
That works out to roughly 8 billion galaxies with intelligent life.
There are untold trillions more galaxies beyond our observable horizon.
Intelligence may be scattered sparsely,
but there's probably a lot of it in absolute terms.
Maybe in some corner of the universe two intelligent civilizations arose in the same galaxy,
within a few tens of light years from each other.

What is lonelier,
having no other intelligence for millions of light years,
or knowing there's another civilization tantalizingly close,
but still far enough to make the possibility of in-person contact daunting under known laws of physics.
> to literally throw out the US constitution and say that the US constitution does not apply to you or protect you and anyone on the border

That's not what the source you give says. It says the Fourth Amendment's prohibitions on searches and seizures do not fully apply at the borders. And even that is a questionable description of the actual state of the law. The Fourth Amendment prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures; the actual state of the law is that searches and seizures at the border for the purpose of preventing contraband from entering the country are not considered unreasonable, so the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit them.

And, as another response to you pointed out, all this was the state of the law before the Chevron case even began, so whatever issues you might have with it cannot be due to Chevron deference. Indeed, much of the state of the law is due to court rulings, not agency findings, so Chevron would not apply to it even if it had been decided earlier.
He probably knew how long the ferry ride was before he booked it.
https://archive.vn/yon3T