skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The syntax `expr :~ annot` is used to annotate the expression with static information. This is different from type annotations.

It's a general mechanism to associate an expression with "extra information" that can be used elsewhere (at compile time).

One can for example using static information to implement dot notation for an object system. Using static information, one can push name resolution from runtime to compile time.

The important part is that users of Rhombus can use the mechanism for tracking static information specific for their programs.

It will be exciting to see the creative uses of this mechanism in the future.

https://docs.racket-lang.org/rhombus/static-info.html
from my perspective that is a much lower standard because it is uncomprehending of the second order effects of any right that gives you something rather than stops others from doing something to you (commonly known as positive rights). Most notably this violates article 4 and 17 (but likely others as well) because it requires you to forcefully take from someone to be able to give that shelter to someone else.

Further, this type of nonsense rarely solves the problem it is attempting to solve because it doesn't address what is almost always a market power abuse by government or powerful corporations/people (in this case mostly government getting too agressively in the way of my right to do what I want with my property via zoning and permits. The solution is relaxing zoning heavily and requiring fast approval/ low prices on permits and then letting time and people's desire to profit maximize to build out the housing stock we want and need. This requires stealing from noone, instead it requires giving the people more of their freedom back to actually solve the problem.

Maybe saying it is a more restrictive and complex standard, which makes it likely to be garbage by design as it contradicts itself and leads to unexpected second and third order negative effects would be a more accurate (which is not to say constitutions are better, they also often suffer from stupid levels of complexity and contradiction, more it says positive rights are unintelligent and foolish).
More info please! Where in the world and which companies?
I’m constantly amazed at how differently I learned to do things from my father than from school.

My father had all sorts of approaches similar to this, and it’s how I learned to write essays (outside-in) and research (inside-out), and which I later applied to programming. It made school trivial and fun, and it’s what I’m teaching my kids.
Ah this is cool, yet to take a full look at the SDK, can i access data in pandas dataframes?
You can't call something "perfectly working" and then complain that it doesn't work. You're talking about machine contemporary to netbooks, the Lumia 900, the Nexus 7, etc. None of that stuff is perfectly functional out of the box in 2024, either.
Absolutely. Biointensive gardening blows conventional ag out of the water on yield per area, it’s just way more labour involved since you’re companion cropping everything.
"tax the wealth to remove about 25 trillion dollars globally." And what do you think happens once the tax is collected by the government? It is spent. And the money goes back into market, which will earn its returns and will be taxed again. Rarely a government has enough willpower to terminate the money supply collected in the form of taxes...
The concern I have here is that "unlimited free energy" is too good to be true. A bit of healthy skepticism is important in my opinion, and when a promise like that is made based only on theory and a belief that it can be done with enough research it raises alarms for me.

The 10 year, $6bn project is now 14 years old and already spent $20bn. Where did they get so far? Well they not apparently are confident that it was a 29 year, $60bn project all along. They simply can't know that and it seems likely that we would get further down the road with little to show for all the effort and expense.

By all means people should continue to research fusion, but that should be done on a scale more reasonable than asking for a blank check to build a full reactor when we don't even know how it needs to work. In the meantime, we could make real strides in reducing our total energy use if we really did care about that metric.
Can you even reliably verify the entire voting process? From individuals using digital devices to votes being counted and tallies confirmed?
All of it. But especially anything added after C89 that was not already there implicitly.

Edit: okay, not all of it. I was hyperbolic. Race conditions and data races should be UB. But anything that can be implementation-defined should be.
I believe they mean the sun.
We could do with a lot less grass lawns and a lot more gardens. Even just growing flowers adds tremendously to the local ecosystem of insects, while adding beauty to your life. If this gets more people thinking about gardening, I'm all for it!
One of the most important skills a person can have is to assess a situation, understand the actual context and constraints and build something based on this information. It sounds to me your team worked this way. You were playing within the given constraints.

Exactly the opposite of the one trick pony’s who just mindlessly apply what they learned or think is cool with a total disregard for context.
I was in the park with some friends yesterday and we took a cooler with some ice and beers in it. Not long after we arrived a lady came over and asked if we had seen a red purse she had lost. We hadn’t, but helped look in the immediate surrounding area for a few minutes.

She asked very shyly, if it wasn’t too much trouble etc., if she could look under the cooler as well. It might sound silly but I think it was completely understandable. While unlikely, she wanted to eliminate the possibility that the purse was in our area, before moving on.

I think a lot of tamper seals are like this. If you have a leak and need to decide if it was either from an unscrupulous employee in the office or from someone else at home tampering with your laptop then being able to definitively eliminate the latter will help you focus on the other possibilities.
> As we saw in 2020, over indexing on efficiency can lead to cascading failures that put individuals at risk

I don’t know what you mean here. By 2020 I assume you mean the covid-19 pandemic? I agree that the pandemic itself put people at risk. But what do you mean by “cascading failures that put individuals at risk”?

From my perspective society and systems of it kept on going despite the large scale upheavals happening. If for anything I would cite 2020 as evidence that things are not as fragile as we suspected. But maybe you have a different perspective?
The result of a binary search is undefined if the input is not sorted.

How do you expect the compiler to statically guarantee that this property holds in all the cases you want to do a binary search?
I assume you exaggerate the numbers but to your point: yes, but these people in my experienced are best replaced with nothing at all since they do more harm than good. Sute, you could replace them with LLMs but what us the point of fucking up your codebase faster for less money?

This is my main fear about AI: AI being used to do stupid things more efficiently.
It's not the academic culture in my experience. It's the most competitive subset of the academia. Things tend to be worse if there is top-anything involved, if the field of study is supposed to be important, or if the field receives a lot of funding. These factors all attract the kind of people who respond strongly to incentives and often try to game the system.

I have two home communities in the academia. One is string algorithms, compressed data structures, and things like that. It's a small community where people enjoy what they are doing and have somehow found a way to make a living out of it. The groups tend to be small, the atmosphere is friendly and honest, and the results rarely appear in top conferences.

Then there is a subset of bioinformatics and genomics, which often uses results from the other community. This is supposed to be important, so there are a lot of big well-funded labs from top universities involved. Stuff sometimes gets published in prestige journals, administrators from funding agencies (particularly NIH) are trying to direct the research, and even the Big Tech is trying to grab their share of something. I haven't seen fraud, but everything is so serious and competitive and there is a constant pressure to get things done before someone else manages to publish something similar.

I don't know how things are further downstream, and I'm not interested in finding out.
I run a service that needs some measure of L1 security (true randomness), and the servers that actually generate the random numbers get this sort of treatment. We get all the manufacturer's features like intrusion detection switches that tie into the TPM, but we also do some other tamper protection.

I am not going to detail everything that happens to these servers, but glitter epoxy and other annoying seals on the places the server might be accessed are some of the physical protection features.
By the looks of things we did make out of COVID-19 just fine (from a civilization standpoint even if not at the individual level for all individuals) so not sure this supports your point.
> I've seen very compelling results in small scale experiments.

Small scale experiments are approximately meaningless in ML. A lot of the clever tricks that improve results at smaller scales have their gains BTFO'd by the scaling you give up as you increase the size of the model.

The key insight from deep learning was that the gains from doing a smarter thing were dwarfed by doing a dumber thing a lot more.

For a smarter trick to be valuable, it needs to not only improve results at the small scale, it needs to not become a bottleneck in your system as you jack up the size.
I used to play with WER/Space (W forward, E left, R right, Space back) with Q as my jump button. That gave me Tab, A, S, D, F, G, T along with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 in a natural resting position. These days, I use the WASD scheme because of how ubiquitous it is.
Just a mild pruning: in natural/wild environments (I.e. not the sterile labs of monocultural agronomy), plants actually cooperate in the resources department, because each species and stage of maturity has different needs and resource extractive capacities. They’ll “use” their root systems and mycorrhizal connections (which are only reliably present in wild soil) as a medium of exchange.

We do plants a disservice by studying them when they’re grouped together by species and age cohort, and generalizing their behavior under those conditions.

You can recreate these circumstances in your garden by, for example, planting the three sisters (beans, squash, corn) together. You can also opt to grow perennial versions of your crops and stagger their planting / surround them with annuals the complement their chemical needs.
You're probably not allowed to discuss it here because the people who own this website are currently making a lot of money from content stolen by bots, to be ingested by other bots.
a.k.a. Python-like with macros
It doesn't return the data as pandas dataframes, I think pandas ai would be a better if you're looking into something more specific to pandas and chat with db.
> Using the web interface, the voter enters her credential and selects her vote. Her computer then computes the ballot, which corresponds to the vote encrypted with the election public key.

Like most (or all?) online protocols, this doesn't protect against vote selling or vote coercion.
So it should be possible to bridge wired USB wirelessly over 802.11n (2.4 GHz) and Bluetooth BLE 5.2 with two RP2040w, or one and software on a larger computer on the other side with e.g. google/bumble
>> being forced as kid to help tending big garden does leave some scars

Heh, brings back trauma memories :) But I guess it's countryside vs city life. I see my city-boy kid and his friends, bored, staring at screens whenever they can and generally having a hard time figuring out what to do with their free time. Having grown in the countryside, the answer to that was easy "tend to the crops". It's not backbreaking work but can take huge chunks of your time and it's not exactly enjoyable, I mean I'd definitely have done something else, even staring at a wall but that wasn't an option. And it wasn't just me of course, everyone I knew was doing that. I recall with some amusement a friend of mine, in the context of summer vacation (hence lots of crop tending to do), exclaiming at some point "man, I can't wait for the school to start so I can get some relaxation".
This sounds like what I see when an inexperienced filmmaker takes on a big project and hands me the “organized” drive to edit, but way way worse and more consequential lol
I am curious. Any reason why this post went from from front page to 156+ rank in a matter of minutes?
Its an easy mistake to make though. In 2022 many news outlets were reporting the minor fission advancement as a breakthrough that amounted to fission reactors having been "solved".
> That's assuming that we are somehow outside of nature

No it isn’t. You know what they meant, you are just one-upping them on a technicality in a way that doesn’t advance the discussion at all.
I feel like reading requires more active engagement of my brain than passively watching a TV show. Perhaps it's as simple as a mechanism similar to exercise, where spending a day walking is good for our bodies but sitting is not, spending a day with your brain in a totally passive consumption mode might be the equivalent for mental and cognitive wellness.
The interesting case is what should the code do if inlined on a code path where a is deduced to be INT_MAX.

A compiler will just avoid inlining any code here, since it's not valid, and thus by definition that branch cannot be taken, removing cruft that would impact the instruction cache.
So what? I don't let efficiency control my life or hobbies.
I once worked at a corp that sold software. For the exact same software product, maybe 10-20% of customers received so much benefit we could have charged 2-3x the price and they would still be very happy. On the other end, for maybe 10-30+%, the exact same product ranged from painful to a disaster. Often because they would try to force it to work the way their pre-existing paradigms worked instead of taking the time to learn how it actually worked.
Between the years 150 and 100 BC, the Seleucid tetradrachm went from 95% silver to 65%. As the name suggests, it continued to weigh four drachms.

Debasement occurs any time the government runs out of money and can force people to take the debased money. The previous ~150 years of the same government minted tetradrachms that were all silver, probably because their main use of the silver was paying foreign mercenaries.

> By the early fourth century the denarius that used to have 50% silver

This is already a heavily debased coin. Nobody starts by adulterating their coins down to 50% monetary content.

> It took Constantine's Solidus (basically solid gold coin - that will stay stable for almost a thousand years) to stabilize the currency.

This isn't plausible; gold coins barely transact (gold is too rare). Minting coins that nobody uses won't affect the currency that people do use.

Wikipedia notes that, on issuance, Constantine's solidus was worth 275,000 denarii. The denarius was debased, but it was also a coin that people carried around and used to buy things. Think about the number of transactions that might plausibly have involved one or more solidi. If we underestimate the 4th-century denarius as being roughly as valuable as a US penny... how much use would you have for a $2,750 coin?
I'm pretty sure the helium-filled hard drives are incredibly difficult to seal, and IIRC are welded shut. I don't see how you'd open it in the first place without a dremel anyway.
> we are a nation of shopkeepers, and no shopkeeper will look at research which does not promise him a financial return within a year. And so you will sledge nearly alone, but those with whom you sledge will not be shopkeepers: that is worth a good deal. — Apsley Cherry-Garrard, The Worst Journey in the World: Antarctica 1910-1913

What a quote!
Early Underwater Weapons
Why go through all this trouble if you already have physical access to the computer?
Speaking as an outsider... Your comment reads as a blatant ad-hominem attack and does nothing to support your point. You should consider toning it down if your goal is to convince anyone.
As an open source project it's tremendously useful. This is a start of new era in human history.
They might front the money, but don't own them.
Apple gladly lets someone else own and operate the fabs and take the risk (which is smaller with Apple as a client)
> Reading on the other hand requires a lot of concentration, without much immediate reward.

Depends on the book.

Also, the act of reading and being immersed in a new story is instantly rewarding for most readers.
My network blocks outbound ssh, so I use https.
It would be more useful if every RFC had a test suite of input/output and input/error.

Yes, those are potentially infinite, but a core set would be useful. As ambiguities come up, publish an addendum for clarification, and eventually, as the exceptions accumulate, a version step.

I don't understand how anyone can write a spec without concrete examples of pass/fail in their head. Perhaps there could be an informal example/counterexample syntax for those writing RFCs, which could be extracted into the 1.0 test suite.

The test suite must be a single open source repo, that accumulates acceptable edge cases until the relevant informed adults can make a call about revising the spec.

There has to be one approved, sanctioned, well-known and monitored test suite repo. It cannot be shrugged off into a free-for-all that makes it impossible to find a single canonical test suite. The interwebs are big and conflicted.

See Imre Lakatos 'Proofs and Refutations' for how this evolves.
Yes. That’s what “expected outcome” means.
Berkshire already sold these stocks though. They’ve been selling for the past several months. It’s not in their best interest to do a sudden dilution for exactly the reason you mentioned.

The current stock price is after the sales, but before the news of the sales. Any reaction now would be a reaction to the news and not the effects of the sale itself.
Topologically controlled synthesis of active colloidal bipeds
Not unreasonably so! I also like my privacy (or what's left of it) ... but when (if? no, unfortunately most likely when, and maybe even "soon") it goes at least I want to have some benefit for myself.

Arguably the current generation of school-age kids (genZ? genA?) already lost it. Because even if they don't have a phone, others do. (Though hopefully this trend can be reversed. Classic bullying at school is bad enough now with cyberbullying becoming the "norm" things are definitely not looking great.)
If one starts running a marathon without training, they will tire out quickly. Doubly so if they do it on a mountain.
I use it for OpenTelemetry traces. I wrote a parser using parser-combinators so breakpoint debugging is pretty useless because the syntax is highly recursive and each parser gets invoked at nearly every character.

Using traces, I can easily run a parse, and then do things like "look at the attempt to parse a hyperlink in the 2nd paragraph after the 3rd headline" pretty trivially using the tree structure that traces naturally are in.

But, depending on the size of the document I am testing with, each execution generates 50+ GiB of traces, so to avoid putting significant wear on my SSD and to keep things snappy (both recording the traces and viewing the traces) I launch jaeger in memory-mode so the trace doesn't getting written to disk.

Also, its super nice being able to casually use /tmp as tmpfs for basically anything without worrying much about space.
It's sadly not too surprising because the incentives push for flashy stories and easy to understand narratives, and "studies show that people are selfish monsters that will backstab each other at the drop of a hat" gets a lot more attention than "most people are pretty good and prefer to cooperate".

One gets the researcher a ton of attention and provides the basis for a cushy job and career, one probably gets buried 5 minutes after being published. Same reason we get so many studies making bold claims about other scientific topics, while the "no correlation" ones don't get much attention.
> 2. The only developer using branches with git when the co-founder asked (demanded) everyone to only use master.

I’d argue everything else becomes expensive quickly.

…but it is also imperative to remember any modification on checked out code is a branch, technically, regardless of the version control system used. This becomes important if your testing is expensive.
Looks like your OS thought it was a travel pass (but it wasn't). I think that's a buggy iOS feature, not some kind of cyber attack.
Sounds interesting. Can you provide some more examples?
This is a big topic but I can give you and rough way to make an educated guess. Develop your stack, content and configuration locally on a VM that has less resources than your physical server. Find tools to load test your setup. The most basic being Apache Benchmark but I am sure you can find other tools that would work with whatever you plan to do. Make many different passes / iterations of load testing, tuning application and web server configuration so that you find a balance of performance and keeping memory usage low. Keep this VM. When you are happy with the basic performance and security, deploy that setup to the web. Keeping the VM around you can test out any potential changes you wish to make and even test out deploying your web content before it is live. That could be "staging.yourdomain.tld". This is also useful should a provider for whatever reason close your account assuming you are colocating your server vs running it at home. Simply create an account somewhere else and push your configuration and content to a VM whilst you move your physical server. Nothing is lost, especially if you rsync your logs back to your local VM via cron or save them to a NAS or USB NVME. A VM is also a good place to test out security hardening changes, patches and so on.

You did not get into details of your stack, but I assume NGinx for the web server? The primary determining factor of memory and performance is number of workers and number of files and sockets each worker is permitted to open. This is a big topic however. It is unlikely we could go down the rabbit hole on HN. One of the rabbit holes is configuring things like vm.panic_on_oom = 2, vm.min_free_kbytes, vm.admin_reserve_kbytes and vm.user_reserve_kbytes so that the server reboots and self heals when people run it out of memory rather than depending on the OOM killa' though your goal should be to tune the stack so that the highest load is unlikely to do that.

If you want a personal challenge, configure the VM so that it has half the memory and CPU resources of your physical server. If you can make your site performant in the minimal VM, then it will surely perform on the physical server.
Well that's strictly limited by square meter. Especially based on your geographical location, time of day, and time of year. Solar power is basically useless in Finland for example. It makes sense why northern Europe would want to invest into fusion. Solar is a better solution for areas with higher solar incidence.
i8r doesn't work because it isn't pronounceable like k8s is
An army of robot peasants working the fields with lasers for eyes?

What could possibly go wrong? [1]

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants%27_Revolt
Yeah but CommonMark was carefully specced to make sure _foo_bar doesn't trigger that, and _foo_ is not a common style of identifiers -- where as /etc/ is a common convention, when you specifically want to refer to contents of a directory.