skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>but Microsoft botch Windows updates quite regularly

OK, please show us the proof then. If it's as regularly indeed like you claim then it must be documented somewhere as a greppable list.

Tech blogs would have a field day getting traffic on their site by keeping track and documenting on such regular mistakes if they exist.
WTF is "modern syntax"?
Yes, Jonathan Gorard is a Wolfram Physics alumni

https://x.com/getjonwithit
Look up signed distance fields. They are the most elegant CSG solution by far for procedural geometry. It's kind of like a functional way to describe and morph 3D shapes.

Highly recommend searching for Mercury Delight on YouTube for an idea of what people have done in the demoscene with it. Also lots of examples on shadertoy. It's amazing stuff.
They also let other companies prove the market had worth in North America, even if those companies failed

Rdio, LastFM, Rhapsody, and Grooveshark all existed well before Spotify entered North America. Some of them actually predate Spotify
Well, something could count as evidence that ghosts or ESP exist, but the evidence better be really strong.

A person getting 50.1% accuracy on an ESP experiment with a p-value less than some threshold doesn't cut it. But that doesn't mean the prior is insurmountable.

The closing down of loopholes in Bell inequality tests is a good example of a pretty aggressive prior being overridden by increasingly compelling evidence.
> A lot of the younger blacks are there because they want to be there: it's where all the cool people are.

That is insane ...
Disassociating from the first world is not going to work, just look at what happens with Ecuador.
> where have to pay for membership and can only use it for certain things

Just to clarify for people who might be interested-- this is not a perfect analogy in that you don't have to pay to participate in amateur radio. You have to pay a fee to take the license exams but it's a token amount, and you don't have to pay regularly to use any ham services that I know of. Apart from buying a radio, of course.
how to lay out a UI feels impossible without outright copying others.

Copy others then. Nobody will care and engineering is the art of not reinventing the wheel. Good luck.
But the blame wasn't misplaced before. People keep saying that macOS does things better by forcing third parties out of the kernel and instead offering APIs to do the same work in userspace. Microsoft tried to do exactly this for security software in Windows, but the EU didn't like that this change meant that any Microsoft-developed solutions would have an advantage over third party ones.
There is eBPF for Windows: https://github.com/microsoft/ebpf-for-windows

I'd hope security products in the future leverage this more than custom kernel-mode sensors.
I would hardly call hardware video decode/encode overrated. A hardware block will do the work with a fraction of the power that the CPU would take to do it, and in the case of something like a Pi 4 or Pi 5, you're now spending all of your limited CPU on video, rather than doing something useful.

Maybe not a problem when you're plugged into the wall, but for those of us using Raspberry Pi's (and other computers) in mobile situations (laptops, robots, drones, etc.), the power consumption is a huge concern.

My main usage of the Pi 4's video encoder was to record the video from the camera "for free" while the CPU was nearly maxed out doing stuff in OpenCV.
For one thing, being difficult to kill is huge selling point for EDR - move it to user space and it's a lot easier to kill.
Why not both?

Crowdstrike, for negligently not rolling out updates gradually.

And emergency services, if they don't have robust fallback procedures/systems for when their IT system goes down. I mean it's totally fine if regular doctor's visits get postponed, but 911 should never go down just because their computers down. Just like aircraft have redundant systems, so too should 911.

(The company that makes and sells the OS -- I don't see any negligence there, in this case. If security software fundamentally requires running at the kernel level and Microsoft allows that, I don't see how Microsoft can be at fault.)
Clearly you didn't understand what emplace does.

Go is simpler because it is limited in functionality.
If you want simple you can just you push_back everywhere. It's what everyone did for decades.
Do they make money? If they had to pay the true cost of GPT, would they still be in business?
Temu's email unsubscribe page claims your Wi-Fi is disconnected
Security Dependencies
It was also exciting to discover how deep the rabbit hole goes.

There was a stage where crafting recipes seemed logical, almost like you could make anything functional if you just could represent it accurately enough on a 3x3 grid with the limited handful of resources available.

Many state that the game is over after the first night, in a way they are correct. If you can survive one night, the game lacks a strong over arching motivation to do much more than simply live.

The rest of minecraft’s wonder is the creativity of the player.

Zero punctuation got it right and I don’t think Microsoft has meaningfully improved the game’s purpose.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xk5qbk
My understanding is that a larger cache can make SMT more effective, but like usual, only in certain cases.

Let’s imagine we have 8 cores with SMT, and we’re running a task that (in theory) scales roughly linearly up to 16 threads. If each thread’s working memory is around half as much as there is cache available to each thread, but each working set is only used briefly, then SMT is going to be hugely beneficial: while one hyperthread is committing and fetching memory, the other one’s cache is already full with a new working set and can begin computing. Increasing cache will increase the allowable working set size without causing cache contention between hyperthreads.

Alternatively, if the working set is sufficiently large per thread (probably >2/3 the amount of cache available), SMT becomes substantially less useful. When the first hyperthread finishes its work, the second hyperthread has to still wait for some (or all) of its working set to be fetched from main memory (or higher cache levels if lucky). This may take just as long as simply keeping hyperthread #1 fed with new working sets. Increasing cache in this scenario will increase SMT performance almost linearly, until each hyperthread’s working set can be prefetched into the lowest cache levels while the other hyperthread is busy working.

Also consider the situation where the working set is much, much smaller than the available cache, but lots of computing must be done to it. In this case, a single hyperthread can continually be fed with new data, since the old set can be purged to main memory and the next set can be loaded into cache long before the current set is processed. SMT provides no benefit here no matter how large you grow the cache (unless the tasks use wildly different components of the core and they can be run at instruction-level parallelism - but that’s tricky to get right and you may run into thermal or power throttling before you can actually get enough performance to make it worthwhile).

Of course the real world is way more complicated than that. Many tasks do not scale linearly with more threads. Sometimes running on 6 “real” cores vs 12 SMT threads can result in no performance gain, but running on 8 “real” cores is 1/3 faster. And sometimes SMT will give you a non-linear speedup but a few more (non-SMT) cores will give you a better (but still non-linear) speedup. So short answer: yes, sometimes more cache makes SMT more viable, if your tasks can be 2x parallelized, have working sets around the size of the cache, and work on the same set for a notable chunk of the time required to store the old set and fetch the next one.

And of course all of this requires the processor and/or compiler to be smart enough to ensure the cache is properly fed new data from main memory. This is frequently the case these days, but not always.
Ask HN: What to do with a 24 bay 4U chassis?
Last year I inherited a 24 bay 4U chassis with SAS backplanes from a customer as it was faulty - was the original motherboard which I tossed out and fitted a microATX motherboard into it but it was a very tight squeeze, and it is too short to fit a normal sized ATX motherboard into it. What are my options? Is it possible to extract the 24 bay SAS backplane and bays and transplant into a much longer empty chassis?
Don't use Go, use C#. The same code is even more terse:

List<T> lst = new();

lst.Add(obj);

Done. Sure go is nice if you only care about being hip and trendy, but C# is better in more situations than you'd think. Why bother with new languages and absurd syntax when C# has been around for decades and has perfectly clear syntax that spells out exactly what you want in simple English?

Don't be an asshole. "Just use today's trendy language instead of crusty old C++" makes you an asshole. Stop it.
My alarm bells would be going off for one reason only:

Support at google is non-existent. You would never get them proactively calling you about anything. Hell, phoning them and ending up with a human would be a miracle.
Okay but are you going to give your children nutraloaf if they’re misbehaving?
If you have a citation or more information on that, I'd be curious. Numerical relativity is outside my area of expertise. It doesn't seem likely to me, but I couldn't rule it out...
10 YOE. I don’t refuse timed assessments. I just don’t study for them.

If the company thinks inverting a binary tree is the best way to test my capabilities on a completely unrelated job, that reflects poorly on them. They might as well do a push up contest.
Great idea, and great execution of it! I mostly use a text file to get my thoughts down while building but I can see myself using something like this. My only feedback would be to maybe not use the Gemini AI icon for "Switching Panel Type", my feeling is that there are more expressive icons for such actions.
>Ultimately, it's a zero sum game and therefore there can not be shared interest between business owners and Unions.

The interests are misaligned, but is it really unbelievable that there's some minority of business owners actually

1. Do care about their labor?

2. Feel the best long term profit strategy is one of retention instead of the cheapest labor?

3. Whose primary goals are not to maximize profit margins?
What regulations are you thinking about that were so one sided? I may very well just be misremembering here, or have a blind spot as I try not to pay too much attention to politics unless something big is happening.

It has seemed to me thst both parties cut regulations selectively. The Democrats, for example, fully embrace big pharma and is happy to let them effectively buy the NIH and FDA. This may fit for the Republicans as well, but that woulf be another item on my list of how the parties seem way to similar in my opinion.

Both parties also attempted to ban TikTok, whether that pans out or not.
Technical hobbyists also have a genuine interest in technical work.

Contrast this with the flood of new college graduates who have minimal interest in engineering, yet want the high salaries that tech was famous for (until recently).
In the United States, social housing is the least popular form of housing and faces the fiercest opposition from NIMBYs. It would also require trillions of tax dollars to do at scale. For this and other reasons, it is a political nonstarter.

Yes, developers are profit driven and this a good thing. So are grocery store owners for that matter and that is also a good thing. Since developers (usually) turn a profit, they attract investment dollars, and in turn convert those dollars into new homes. These new homes, especially if built in desirable areas, give wealthier people options to buy, who are now less likely to bid up the price of older homes as they do now.
Increasing the block size is one potential solution but the projections that "the security model" is somehow compromised by no longer having exponential growth in value is a hypothetical thought experiment with no real backing. If you compare to real world mining of minerals of value those minerals don't have exponential growth in value over time. They have a steady growth and value controlled by supply and demand and augmented by inflation. Yet huge amounts of capital are spent constantly in order to mine these to sell them in this market that does not have massive growth like Bitcoin growth.

Even as growth tapers off because there is already value held there is incentive to maintain the integrity of the blockchain. What is the incentive to maintain the price of gold? The current price of gold has risen a lot but not at Bitcoin levels but it is far above the industrial use of what gold would demand. Those that own gold at a large scale, Banks and governments, have an interest in maintaining its value above its industrial use value so it can act as a physical store of wealth. Now we all know that alchemy isn't true but if we hypothetically say if you could control 51% of the gold market you could then be 51% of the gold market you could then be substitute an imitation product for the real thing and because of the control you have you could insist that it is still real. This is a disincentive to everyone who values any kind of market stability and capitalization. Because if you get caught doing this, which you will, not only have you destroyed the value of your imitation but you've destroyed the value of the real thing because trust is lost in it.

The only people who have an incentive to fundamentally break something like gold or Bitcoin or comic book super villains. The US government certainly has the budget and the power to be able to do a 51% attack and wipe out all faith in Bitcoin but they have no incentive to do it. Most other businesses or governments around the world that have the budget to be able to do that also have no incentive to do it.

So while there may come a time when increasing the block size is something that's required to make the network better I believe that is many years off. The doom saying about Bitcoin has been around for a long time, but people often put their faith into a thing and can create it as a store of value far beyond its worth. Why are diamonds worth so much? Why is gold worth so much? Why are many of the precious metals worth above their actual use case values?
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1817303994735419560.html
I'd be hesitant about calling us Germans well run. We're lacking money for everything and the past 16 years's greatest accomplishment was pushing maintenance further back to purse a balanced budget. Not spending money has its own costs as we now have to suffer through.
> about how some rich tech bros decided to revolutionize a correctional facility’s food system.

That would indeed be something.-
Has there been a consideration of making the flag button do nothing for users that abuse it?
He was a child prodigy and published world-class work on quarks, QM, and subatomic particles while he was still a teenager. More recently he has been more interested in an imaginary world that only exists in his imagination and on paper. He's made a lot of discoveries there and insists that the analogy between his discoveries and the real world is major big brain stuff. He's still very productive in math and computer science, but not in physics.
I am someone who initially really struggled with understanding whatever the Kafka team thinks their explanation is. Even after working on streams and pub sub messaging I still struggle with their explanation.

However, I completely resonated and understood what you guys have built. We actually built something very similar but it was over websockets with protobuf3 just to emulate this exact behaviour. We we're using it for IoT-esque devices which send their data constantly but we needed to keep track and update certain fields when devices would connect and disconnect.

We'll be open sourcing our implementation soon. I will happily want to rebuild it with this, and maybe add a sprinkle of protobuf3 to make sure messages are type safe.
This is either making a copy or storing things as pointers with an indirection penalty, how do you do in go if you want to add an object to a container without making a copy or without indirection
I contend that taxing higher earned incomes at higher and higher rates is not progressive. Real wealth is made via appreciation in property prices, and those mostly detractive and rent seeking members of society are the least taxed.
This is a good point. In a couple of years (or sooner) they’ll be looking for a smaller, cheaper API solution and someone will make a fortune providing it.
Not even wrong is a quip attributed to Wolfgang Pauli. This is where Woit got his blog and book title from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
I expect that one was probably a District Manager hoping to score points, rather than an executive edict.
Users of these kinds of tools should check that their marker genes are associated with the labelled cell types. There are known markers for many cell types across multiple organisms.
How I learn new skills quickly
I dunno, I would suspect that fish would exhibit patterns when averaged over a long enough period. They probably patrol the perimeter regularly, check the same spots for food every few hours, some are territorial and will patrol their spot. They're probably not all that random. Living things tend not to be.
Consolidating Spaces and Exposé is not one of the things they did that hurt Mac OS X.
They shouldn't. Microsoft should have APIs that enable security vendors to work in userspace.

The EU didn't say that Microsoft couldn't kick vendors out of the kernel, just that they couldn't do so without having the APIs available that would let security vendors operate outside the kernel.

Mac and Linux have such APIs, so CrowdStrike operates in user-mode on those platforms, so those platforms do not give security vendors the ability to crash the operating system.
Interesting to see some score about how this passes contribute to the game.
Great work!
Could you fit a mini ITX mobo in there? Alternatively, could you build a 1U system and use something like a PCIe riser to connect the drives from the 4U to the 1U system?
Would love if there was a way to instantly see an example url

Like a “try example button”

Lower friction to test
The paradigm he's using is too open ended. In quantum mechanics the mathematics is based on Hilbert spaces and unitary evolutions of state vectors. You might ask why this is the case and it is because of conservation principles. Unitary evolution preserves "information" in the state vector throughout its physical evolution. This is not the case for Wolfram's theories. There are no conservation principles in cellular automata other than explicitly forcing the evolution of the automaton to actually preserve the relevant information. More generally, most computational theories of physics are much too lax about the relevant conservation principles and that is why his theory does not predict anything. Turing machines specifically are not required to preserve anything about the initial state and so information can be destroyed and created ex nihilo, violating the main principle of physics which requires that all matter and energy be conserved. The equations have to balance out at the beginning and the end, whatever you start with can not be greater or less than what you end with (at least in physics).
Headline is sensational but why disassociate?

There be two systems and countries, companies can use both. Right now there is a monopoly but there can be a multitude of systems.
Yes, good observation. Why would that help, though? No matter what's at the top, you're turning the whole thing halfway around.
Yes. The problem is that you can write any physics in it, so you cannot use it to figure out anything about our universe.

This is a crucial part that many intelligent people somehow utterly fail to understand. If you can explain everything (including the things that are not true), you can explain nothing.

A theory that explains, is a theory that says "...therefore, X can happen, but Y can't happen". Like a mathematician who says that 2+2 is 4, but also says that 2+2 is not 5. Or a physicist who says "apples fall down from the tree, they don't fall up".

Compare that to a "genius" mathematician or physicist who simply says "yes" to everything. Is 2+2=4? Yes. Is 2+2=5? Yes. Do apples fall down? Yes. Do apples fall up? Yes. And then people on internet are deeply impressed that he can answer everything. Such an amazing skill! Ask him about gravitons, he has a clear answer. Ask him about dark matter, he has a clear answer. Ask him about time travel, he also has a clear answer. The only problem is that he can both write a physics that contains gravitons, and a physics that does not contain gravitons. Etc.

Ultimately, we want to know what is real about our universe. (Or multiverse, or whatever.) A model that says "yes" to both the things that are true and the things that are false, is useless. After you figure out what is true, you get "yeah, my model explains that". Problem is, the model explains the opposite just as well.

...then you take a step back, and remember that "can write anything" is simply a different way to say "Turing-complete". Yes, if you invent something that is Turing-complete, you can simulate a universe in it. Any universe. Both the ones that exist, and the ones that don't.

(And the idea of Turing-completeness was discovered a few decades before Wolfram was born. So we can't even credit him with inventing the concept. He just uses the concept to impress people who either never heard about it, or never connected the dots.)
The entire point of a well-regulated justice system is gradation. Heck, gradation is part of any workable definition of justice ...
Thank you, yes you understood what I was saying :)

> I'm not really sure it contributes to the discussion, but it's true

I guess maybe it doesn't, but the point I was trying to make is the distinction between modeling a problem and statements within the model. The original claim was "my theory is that probability is an ill-defined, unfalsifiable concept."

To me that's a bit like saying the sum of angles in a triangle is an ill-defined, unfalsifiable concept. It's actually well-defined, but it starts to seem poorly defined if we confuse that with the question of whether the universe is Euclidean. So I'm trying to separate the questions of "is this thing well-defined" from "is this empirically the correct model for my problem?"
Thought you guys might find this interesting:

https://www.pirateradiomap.com/

You can listen to ham radio in Brooklyn, NY, USA. Surprised it hasn't been shut down yet, since they're unlicensed. Shows an interesting part of NY that usually isn't discussed.
It’s good to know that I’m enjoying my vice but not overly so, usually a few beers over the weekend. I think the relaxation and decrease in stress might offset the chemical damage. I’m sticking with moderation I think. My rules are simple “no alcohol during the week, a little bit on the weekend”. I’ve been doing that since college, which was a bit back.
Anecdotally, mkp224o (.onion vanity address miner, supposedly compute-bound with little memory access) runs about 5-10% faster on my 24-core AMD with 48 threads than with 24 threads. However, I haven't tried the same benchmark with SMT disabled in firmware.
Was discussed on HN last week. Top comment notes the Windows support is still very limited.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41033579
>staff. The 2023 Hollywood labor disputes show that "the poor" can indeed last longer than "the rich".

Did it? What I read from the dispute is that it only slightly delayed AI while throwing Voice actors completely under the bus.i think the only reason it even settled was due to declining movie sales, another issue self inflicted by the rich.