skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It isn't just UB to dereference `ptr` after `free(ptr)` – it is UB to do anything with its value whatsoever. For example, this is UB:

void foo(int *ptr)
{
assert(ptr != NULL);
free(ptr);
assert(ptr != NULL);
}

Why is that? Well, I think because the C standard authors wanted to support the language being used on platforms with "fat pointers", in which a pointer is not just a memory address, but some kind of complex structure incorporating flags and capabilities (e.g. IBM System/38 and AS/400; Burroughs Large Systems; Intel iAPX 432, BiiN and i960 extended architecture; CHERI and ARM Morello). And, on such a system, they wanted to permit implementors to make `free()` a "pass-by-reference" function, so it would actually modify the value of its argument. (C natively doesn't have pass-by-reference, unlike C++, but there is nothing stopping a compiler adding it as an extension, then using it to implement `free()`.)

See this discussion of the topic from 8 years back: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11235385

> And you cannot set that MSR from user code, so what exactly is a compiler supposed to do?

Set a flag in the executable which requires that MSR to be enabled. Then the OS will set the MSR when it loads the executable, or refuse to load it if it won't.

Another option would be for the OS to expose a user space API to read that MSR. And then the compiler emits a check at the start of security-sensitive code to call that API and abort if the MSR doesn't have the required value. Or maybe even, the OS could let you turn the MSR on/off on a per-thread basis, and just set it during security-sensitive processing.

Obviously, all these approaches require cooperation with the OS vendor, but often the OS vendor and compiler vendor is the same vendor (e.g. Microsoft)–and even when that isn't true, compiler and kernel teams often work closely together.
If there was an estimate on the accuracy of the paper’s estimate, how would you judge the accuracy of that estimate?
Yeah. That's pretty much where I am at this point.
My pet idea is that when humanity commoditizes quantum computing, our simulation will be terminated because QC is a bug exploit. The superbeing running our instance will see CPU and memory usage steadily increasing, sigh, open their task manager, and kill another failed run.
Note that FlashFill is an example of inductive program synthesis, i.e. program synthesis from an incomplete specification, e.g. one in the form of input-output examples, program traces, or natural language descriptions.

Program synthesis from a complete specification is known as deductive program synthesis and the simplest example is compilation of a program in a high-level language to a machine code. A "complete" specification is what it says on the tin: it fully specifies the program to be synthesised.
It’s a cute story, it made me laugh.

If this story reminds you of the codebase you work on, don’t let its romanticism deceive you into thinking that suffering is somehow actually good.
Two years it not that old, and the topic is obscure enough that it could plausibly have gone unnoticed. Bell's inequality went virtually unnoticed when it was first published.

My money is definitely on parlor trick, but I would still like to understand why.
Could be worse when I’m really tired I copy the code from the question and fix that.
> The Milky Way is big, but not so big that it's impossible to traverse generationally.

Creating a self-sustained ship is not so easy. And there are tons of failures that can happen, especially over the course of multiple generations. And you won't be able to just "beam down" to some random planet once your interflux quantum capacitor and its two backups fail. Unlikely things happen given enough time.

And why would you want to do this in the first place? Would life on such a ship really be all that great? Sounds like the stuff of a depressing dystopian sci-fi novel more than anything else.

Dyson spheres seem completely impractical. Just the sheer amount of materials needed alone, never mind the construction effort and maintenance effort. Dyson himself didn't take it very seriously, and I have no idea why anyone else does either.
Works where archive.ph is blocked:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/he-skipped-college-to-beco...

Text-only:

https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA1o9nrN
"As anarchists, we must defend ourselves against police and intelligence agencies that conduct targeted digital surveillance for the purposes of incrimination and network mapping." (https://www.anarsec.guide/recommendations/)

I wonder who the anarchists are that are afraid of "incrimination and network mapping" and what it is they're doing them that makes them afraid of that
Doubtful we'll ever know for sure, but sometimes it's difficult to discern with cats whether they know what to do but are just letting us do the work for them or if they genuinely don't know.

I suspect the answer is somewhere in between. Our cats have an approximate model of the house and if they see something outside the window, they'll run out the door and to that window knowing where the object of interest was in relation to the interior of the house. But, this comes from years of conditioning. They've been upstairs and have looked out the windows, but when I've spoken to them while they were immediately below the window they've sat on, they started crying apparently having no idea a) how I got up there and b) where in relation to their known "map" of the house I was. (In complete fairness this could be because they spend very little time upstairs since, unlike most cats, they absolutely love commotion and socializing with humans.)
The full quote is:

> Although it strove to give programmers the opportunity to write truly portable programs, the C89 Committee did not want to force programmers into writing portably, to preclude the use of C as a “high-level assembler:” the ability to write machine-specific code is one of the strengths of C. It is this principle which largely motivates drawing the distinction between strictly conforming program and conforming program (§4).

This doesn't say that C is a high-level assembly.

It just says that the committee doesn't (at that point in time) wants to force the usage of "portable" C as a mean to prevent the usage of C as high-level assembler. But just because some people use something as high level assembler doesn't mean it is high level assembly (like I did use a spoon as a fork once, it's still a spoon).

Furthermore the fact that they explicitly mention forcing portable C with the terms "to preclude" and not "to break compatibility" or similar I think says a lot about weather or not the committee thought of C as high level assembly.

Most importantly the quote is about the process of making the first C standard which had to make sure to ease the transition from various non standardized C dialects to "standard C" and I'm pretty sure that through the history there had been C dialects/compiler implementations which approached C as high level assembly, but C as in "standard C" is not that.
An AGI could have enough value to run a country, or our whole civilization, optimally. Are you proposing to manage human civilization via chat?
Where suffer means "not be lazy, implement the assembly for your primitives in a lib, optimize it as best as you can without compromising security, do not let the compiler 'improve' it"
Maybe aliens just aren’t interested in exploring or traveling.

Maybe they reached space but upon finding it inhospitable, decided it’s not worth the trouble. Doing things because they are hard could be a uniquely human trait.

On the other hand, I’ve seen a UAP with amazing abilities. Maybe they are here already but aren’t in a hurry to say hello. Maybe they think we are too primitive to warrant communication.

Maybe their signals are all around us but we don’t have the means to detect or interpret them.

Maybe they only use lasers and fiber optics to communicate.
I suspect the head flying just above the surface has something to do with it.

A bar would need to be held at a fixed height above the surface. The flying head dynamically adjusts to both distortions across the surface, and temporal variations as the platter changes temperature. This height adjustment is entirely passive, dependant on aerodynamics rather than any electronics.
> and a ROM that holds its program code

Did you manage to dump the ROMs? (I understand from your article that article there are 3, a 4KB ROM on the CPU card, and two 8KB ROMs on the word processor card)
First thing I do when I am learning a new high level language is write Ackermann function and see what happens. Also write out plus and mult and expt in terms of +=1. I have seen people with O(n^4) code when they could have easily used O(log n) but never seen an Ackermann in the wild.
All models are wrong. Some (wrong) models are useful.

Computers can't represent 0.1 (in floating point), yet that hasn't stopped anyone from doing finances on their computer.

I don't think this is big news OR a parlor trick. It's just some obscure thing computers can't do that nobody has noticed for 70 years because nobody needed it.
For “anarchists”, read “Chinese/Russian dissidents”. How about that?
From Idea to Shipped Feature: How the Sausage Gets Made with an AI Assistant
1. https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/37021/why-is-it...

2. > it has 5 citations since May 2022 ... I have papers with more cites from this year ... In general people do this kind of thing all the time to get published

People also play games to get citations.
why is it impossible to decide whether x<0, x=0, or x>0 as in Example 1?
> Why is it astonishingly?

Git is still a baby as these things go. Software version control systems go back to the early 1960s and descended from manual processes used to manage documents in large organizations, blueprints, and such from the early 20th century. Don’t imagine the Manhattan Project functioned by just passing around bundles of paper! There were staffs of people whose job was to manage document control! And I don’t mean “control” in the sense of secrecy, but making sure everybody was on the the same revision at the same time.

And for a field so steeped in building its own tools and automating human effort in development it is indeed astonishing revision control took so long to be accepted.
Sure, but rings off to the ear: this 2 year old paper saying it proved a Turing machine could say if a Turing machine could enter infinite loop given a very particular problem class could possibly be big news, earth-shattering news, I need someone else to tell me if bounds checking is involved. thank God it made it to the front page, I submitted it so I could get someone else to tell me
> there may be a path forward that doesn't require it.

pray tell
> If I put a gun to your head and told you where to live, would you feel that I was giving, or taking away, your personal liberty?

Context: I’m in your living room and refuse to leave.
OK, I think we have it, finally: you think people are entitled to live on the street. Good to know.

"There may be a path forward" -- weasel words.
Tbf you can always ask an LLM to explain it /s
We need to legislate globally against single use disposable electronics.
Even organizing a labor union to strike can get you targeted by cops or even killed in some countries...
I remember someone explaining this to me years ago when IOmega released those removable Bernoulli drive cartridges. The (for the time) high densities were possible because even though the recording medium was a flexible bit of plastic, the head was designed to draw surface of the media up to itself using the namesake effect, rather than relying entirely om precision machine tolerances. And this effect was dynamically self limiting, such that there could not be a head crash as long is the unit wasnt disturbed during operation.

What I did not know is that this is still and effect that is relied upon in modern, ultra high precision, fixed medium drives.
DNSSEC Adoption Falls in 2024
We had the right corporate culture to make this attitude successful. By the time we were a couple of hundred people, though, and had hired some MBAs, that culture was mostly gone.

It requires a level of trust and a level of performance, that I now believe doesn’t scale. Note that we had only a single junior developer, an intern, who wrote our bug tracking system but didn’t otherwise interact with the code base. The rest of the team consisted entirely of experienced senior developers, including management. I think at up to about 25 employees, the shortest working experience on the team (apart from the intern) might have been 10 years of shipping code.

But I really respect Rich for taking this approach which is why I referred to him by name.
3 is roughly half of ten logarithmically. And in any business that uses software (to co duct the business) you always want engineering to keep in mind the doubling time, or if the business is shrinking. A lot of efficiency decisions are driven by doubling time. I worked where we had doubling time of 90 days when I started and there keeping everything scaled up so that your idle capacity was. On more than half made sense. When it had increased to a couple years, then your could tighten down to n/n+1 utilization. If it is shrinking, first of all that's a problem, but also you can make the infra much cheaper pretty easily, if the code is still modifiable.
The compiler cannot elide checks preventing UB, e.g. null pointer or integer overflow.

It can assume those don't happen, and use that assumption to compile code.
In 2010 or 2011, deviantArt was running on several hundred slackware servers. One of my projects at that job was converting everything to run on Debian with config management in Puppet to replace all of the old manually configured services.
The only real technological edge that OpenAI has right now (at least that I know of) is Sora. There are already some very good open source LLMs and the SoTA for image generation has always been Stable Diffusion. I don't think that Sora's some miraculous piece of technology that nobody else can replicate, so I doubt that OpenAI will be the absolute best in AI for long.
Well if the query is from an adversary it has undesirable results.
But then you're not writing C, except maybe as some wrappers. Wanting to use C isn't laziness. Making it nearly unfeasible to use C is the most suffering a C compiler can inflict.
Yelling 'Huh?' at people disrupts the flow of conversation a lot more by being hard to distinguish from something an online jerk would do.
Bitcoin would make an awful legal tender, because by its design supply decreases while demand for it increases. An ideal, 0% inflation currency (assuming that is ideal) would expand and contract automatically with economic conditions. Satoshi considered this problem but decided it was too complicated to implement, which is why he went with the fixed supply route.

Still, it's worth remembering that a fixed supply currency will inevitably fail just as the metallic standards (which were semi fixed supply) did, and for the same reasons: politics. Metal backed currencies fell because the political will required to coordinate the system fell apart. Newly-enfranchised workers didn't find the message "suck it up, the gold standard requires it" very appealing politically, so they voted for other things that entailed fiscal and monetary policy. Central Banks, seeing the writing on the wall, abandoned gold en masse, with the US retaining it only for other central banks.

Bitcoin would have the same problem. It would be inevitably deflationary - halvenings, for example, are tied to computational power. Presumably, more demand for Bitcoin means more computational power, so its supply decreases just as demand increases.

Deflation is even worse than inflation for working people. Investment dries up, because why would somebody take a gamble on a business if they can keep their cash in their closet and make money, risk free? Employment therefore drops, while people decrease spending - why spend $100 on something today, if you can buy it for $85 in a year? Additionally, loans get more expensive in real terms, wages decline, and a whole host of other bad things happen.

That's why central banks target +2% inflation, in part. Inflation is preferable because it encourages investment, discourages nominal (and only nominal) wage decreases, decreases the real value of loans to the benefit of the debtor class, and other benefits. Central Banks also have a pretty successful record dealing with runaway inflation - hike rates, cause a recession, wait - whereas they lack tools to deal with deflation. At its simplest, the solution to deflation is for everyone to get a check from the government, but this whole field is considered weirdo experimental land and has only barely been tested.

All that is to say: Bitcoin is fundamentally ignorant of history and is incapable of becoming anything other than digital gold. It has a floor value which it cannot sink beneath: online gambling, illegal things, and privacy advocates (in that order) guarantee it will never truly hit $0.00. But it would be an absolute catastrophe for any country to adopt as its actual currency.

Now that I think of it, Bitcoin is perhaps one of the earliest examples of technophiles assuming society should work according to computer code, thereby "cleaning" these imperfect human systems by replacing them with the inevitable future: A philosophically-driven (rather than pragmatically or empirically, for example) system, with clear and inviolable rules, limited to no exceptions, and a happy ignorance of why existing systems came to be. After all, why study the past when we're creating the inevitable future?
> Computers can't represent 0.1 (in floating point)

Of course they can. They just can't do it in binary [EDIT: base 2]. But they can certainly do it in (say) BCD [EDIT: base 10].
Program synthesis is also pretty much equivalent to generating proofs of propositions by the Curry-Howard Isomorphism. There was a post from a few days ago about using ML to generate proofs in Lean. I'm sure there's ongoing research to do the same thing with synthesis (which imo is probably going to be more effective at pruning the search space than brute force).
I think you’re parsing “the” too literally - plenty of Americans would say the same thing verbatim, too, without literally assuming the existence of one police force. Broad generalizations about American policing are reasonable - that’s why we can talk about “police reform”, and why the Fraternal Order of Police exists as an American organization. (I say this as a resident of a bright blue city with a police department under a federal consent decree, and with a police union founded by a card carrying white supremacist… who is perfectly capable of distinguishing that from ICE and BORTAC.)
From Terr_'s helpful digging up of the link: https://acoup.blog/2020/07/24/collections-bread-how-did-they...

See "Risk Control", "Banking the Yields", "Banqueting the Yields" for why currency was a terrible idea and relationships were superior.
You need it when an empty string is a valid value in your domain.

A better example is Int32Value. By default, protobuf will serialize int32 to 0 if it's not present.
The p5.js is a really awesome library because of their increased functionality and ease of use for artistic applications.

Last year, I made a p5.js and Ruby on Rails powered application [1] [2] for my Bachelor's degree that allowed the user to create generative art directly from the user interface, and the experience with that tool was straightforward.

[1] - https://www.facili.art/

[2] - https://github.com/murciof/faciliart
Rienmann geometry is smooth. Human perception is anything but. delta-p exists, and it varies in multiple way.
You may be thinking of McFly —- it’s very good.
>Note the distinct lack of Boeing design origins.

To add on to this, Boeing's F-15 and F/A-18 derivatives (F-15EX Eagle II and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet) have utterly failed to generate sales outside the US military, being defeated namely by Lockheed Martin's F-35 at every turn.

The V-22 Osprey has also had a crashing record, to say the least.
'Electric butterflies' create a charge to pull pollen through the air
Only x=0 is undecidable. It's because you have to check an infinite number of digits past the decimal point to see if all of them are zero, and that will not halt.
Less than 100 thou, I think. It's also a very rapid process, so the drum would have barely moved meanwhile.
> It should emit an instruction to access memory location some_array + i.

That's definitely what compilers emit. The UB comes from the fact that the compiler cannot guarantee how the actual memory will respond to that. Will the OS kill you? Will your bare metal MCU silently return garbage? Will you corrupt your program state and jump into branches that should never be reached? Who knows. You're advocating for wild behavior but you don't even realize it.

As for your example. No, the compiler couldn't optimize like that. You seem to have some misconceptions about UB. If foo is false in your code, then the behavior is completely defined.
So, $19 per visit or $39 if ad-free, and “Over time, ideally our pricing model will get cheaper as ads will subsidize patient costs”, says the founder.

Ads are already subsidising $20 per visit, with a single 30” video ad. Am I really the only one not on dope? There is no way anybody can charge $ 20,000 CPM for a video ad ($20 per visit, multiplied by 1,000 visits).

Oh, and there’s also no way a visit by a doctor can cost only $39 in the US. These people have hundreds of thousands of dollars of Med school to pay back. Wake up, people!
Quoting from the cartoon: ( perceptual jump) "Watch out for that tree." -George.
Before there was GitHub there was Sourceforge. Sourceforge supported several different protocols and git still won.

Gits internals can be confusing at first, but once you understand them there's really nothing you can't do. Being distributed by design also helps.
.NET’s decimal datatype for example represents a decimal floating point number
Recipes and Generative AI
Google Play for Android: "This item is not available in your country" (UK).
> Git[‘s] UI is atrocious.

Well, that’s in the eye of the beholder. Yes, I hate the ‘program command’ syntax (“git add”, “git commit” etc) but I just call git-add etc and for me those commands are pretty clear.

But I understand how git works. I imagine most people treat it as a black box and then its behavior probably is rather obscure. I don’t think it was intended for that use case.
Be afraid! Reading our article might save you.
I don't know. Maybe it is a coin toss. The CAFC is famous for being pro patent (idk about copyright). SCOTUS has actually been kind of reasonable, since Eldred which they messed up.
Costs successfully socialised
I wonder if Rome had similar disfunction prior to collapse

“1000 men to make 5 chariots/day?!”
> If foo is false in your code, then the behavior is completely defined.

That's the point. If foo is false, both versions do the same thing. If foo is true, then it's undefined and it doesn't matter. Therefore, assume foo is false. Remove the branch.
there's literally no such thing as theft. only bring an object to one location from another, all 3d planes are relative to earth/sun/galaxy's orbit. there is no such thing as location.
There's no reason that C should be suitable for every purpose under the sun.
Possibly, but there's almost no way to meaningfully weigh any of the factors -- we still can't say to any degree of certainty whether the emergence of unicellular life in the cosmos is common or exceptionally rare -- so it's useless as a predictive tool, and highly constraining as a thought experiment.
We'll never know. There are many things that could go wrong because VoIP over the public internet is inherently fragile. When I asked for logs so I could look into it, I got cursed at once again.