skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There is Servo webview for Qt, so it should be possible to replace QtWebEngine with https://github.com/KDABLabs/cxx-qt-servo-webview.
Seconded, there's no tangible nor financial benefit to him for releasing the information to the world. Also: how would publishing the data "make the world a better place"?

At the same time it'll incur a non trivial amount of reputational and professional risk.
Morals towards faceless corporations that would do anything and everything to keep their profits growing indefinitely? No, I don't realize why anyone would have those.
BS you can't use teleportation to transfer information faster than the speed of light.
Maybe they can use 'quantum teleportation' to do something useful but this article doesn't explain what..
Not necessarily. A string in C is usually a char. If you have a struct with a char and you copy it, you copy the pointer to the backing memory. This is analogous to Go which also has a String be a pointer to the heap, but the behavior is different.

Go’s String is a char* that behaves like a char[] when copied.
Sin and cos are typically defined as the far edge of the right triangle over the hypotenuse, and the near edge over the hypotenuse.

The infinite sums give us ways to calculate their approximations, and show some of their properties as functions.
The semantics of when stuff is copied, moved, or passed by reference are all over the place in language design.

C started with the idea that functions returned one int-sized value in a register. This led to classic bugs where the function returns a pointer to a local value. Compilers now usually catch this. C eventually got structure return by copy. Then C++ added return value by move, and automatic optimization for that. It's complicated.[1]

Most hard-compiled languages only let you return values of fixed length, because the caller has to allocate space. Dynamic languages where most things are boxed just return the box.
Rust makes you declare boxed types explicitly. Vec and String are already boxed, which handles the common cases.

More dynamic languages tend to let you return anything, although there can be questions over whether you have your own mutable copy, a copy-on-write copy, a read-only copy, or a mutable reference to the original. That's what got the OP here, at

thing := findThing(things, "record")
thing.Name = "gramaphone"

They thought they had a mutable reference to the original, but they had a mutable copy.

There's a good argument for immutability by default, but many programmers dislike all the extra declarations required.

[1] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/17473753/c11-return-valu...
Not sure I want to take advice from someone who keeps their keys on their back pocket.
In theory they’re not above the law. In practice, they are.
Did you test the MiniCPM (v2.6) released last week ? It was able to extract (and label) most complex examples I gave it on their huggingface space:

https://huggingface.co/spaces/openbmb/MiniCPM-V-2_6
solutions can't hold anything, they dont have hands.

i thought it was going to be about how to hold a pen.
"Refactoring for Growth" sounds like layoffs to me, as does the section of this post going into team structure, and yet there's no layoff announcement. Why not just "Growth for Growth"?

Also, from the FAQ:

> What happens when cars ship with openpilot-quality ADAS?
> Have the auto manufacturers even shipped you a CarPlay-level infotainment system? How about OTA updates?

This level of snark is fun, but I don't want the hardware/software driving my car to be "fun" I want it to be serious. So much of Comma.ai feels unserious like this, it's interesting on a technical level, but the vibe is just way off. They charge $1000 to talk to their VP of business development... like they don't want to, err, develop the business? Wouldn't partnering with car manufacturers be a great idea here? Isn't it weird to be so against that sort of partnership? And they're seeking donations for getting their software to work on Toyota cars.

Everything sounds like it's just a bunch of hackers, which, again, is cool, but not something I'd drive and I consider myself somewhat in that category. Why would anyone without a GitHub account and a soldering iron in a drawer somewhere use this?

This annoys me because I think the product is a great idea, particularly for low/mid-range cars that might not have the functionality built-in. It just seems to be hampered by weird marketing.
And the article linked clearly says

"There are many potential solutions to the duck curve. The lessons learned from SETO’s projects will be critical to improving the flexibility of the grid and addressing over-generation risks as solar grows throughout the country. According to the Energy Information Administration, the installed amount of PV is expected to triple by 2030—potentially migrating the duck curve outside of California."
You replied to my comment about logging in just fine.
>but I mostly found it disappointing when someone uses a comic from 2013 to argue against the kind of tools which have been getting built in the subsequent decade to prevent those kinds of failures

Practically speaking everything in the comic is still correct. The fundamental problem is that apps aren't sandboxed from each other, so once a malicious program gets on the machine it's game over. VBS tries to protect specific parts of the system, but without app sandboxing it's useless. For instance even if you use VBS to protect a service that can encrypt/decrypt on behalf of apps, all of that's useless when the system can't be assured which app is asking to decrypt the secrets.

Even in the case of windows hello, I'm not sure what VBS is trying to protect. If a malicious program is running on your system, it doesn't need to bypass the lock screen. I guess it's better for privacy because your biometrics are more protected, but it can always control the camera to capture a fresh set of images next time you sit in front of it.
Facebook (PHP) is not very Kopenhagen (2009)
Some history, by way of earlier HN submissions:

"Everyone’s favorite Android launcher just got acquired by an analytics company" (2022-7-19) <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32153506>

"Nova Launcher, savior of cruft-filled Android phones, is on life support" (2024-8-9) <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41205497>

"Nearly everyone working on Nova Launcher has been laid off" (2024-8-10) <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41210291>
As an acceptable compromise we can separate all punctuation and put it at the end of the paragraph Although some oldfashioned enthusiasts of the Chicago Manual of Style will object But I think its good to bring some fresh ideas to our old and worn orthographyevery now and again,.-…’—.
It's a car blog, so I think most of their readers already know there was never any such Olds model as "Incas", so it must be a very rare prototype.
Per app/site theming - Built in 'Dark Reader' for PWA/web pages
Make development/programming apps intuitive/fun to tinker with things for new people coming in to development. (For local development)

Make memory management more controllable for firefox, multiple tabs with bloated JS pages using 7GB of 8GB total system RAM gets.. fun (manjaro+xfce, does it on different installs, has for years)

A service level worker for push notifications with the ability to run a local push server easily for testing webapp creation. (Won't work if firefox isn't running, but not that big of a deal, but is, if firefox is using all the RAM.)

Per tab/app containers with bandwidth/resource limitations. Ability to save window sizes, volumes, etc. 'Save States'

By default, nothing outside of the browser address bar hitting 10.* 192.* 0.0.0.0 127.0.* addresses in scripts/apps without user permission/knowing.

Apps accessible only through DoH/DoT only.

Bookmarks manager shouldn't close/minimize when you click a bookmarks link.

Incentive to create FREE web applications and keep them free without micro transactions/some other hidden/rabbit hole fees.
Do you think the situation for real engineers is different?
Ha! Similar idea to mine, but I use an open-wide-shallow basket/bin instead. My saying to my family is, “Everything has a place to go.” The ones that don’t go in their place quickly enough land in the basket/bin.

Now, during the weekend cleanup chores, the items are preferably placed in the right places.

Growing up lacking access to good stationery, I kinda get anxious and panicked and tend to over-buy stationery items for my kids and mine. So, I have a pretty large basket container just for the stationery.
It’s phase 2, not peer review published yet but results are out -https://www.morningstar.com/news/globe-newswire/1000985090/l...

Sounds significant. Phase II is typically not enough to tell if a drug is good because most drugs aren’t that effective compared to current standard of care- you need the large numbers of phase iii to see the real difference. But looks like this drug shows a marked improvement in phase ii itself so it’s actually quite impressive. Last time I read such a story was for imatinib. Expecting good things from this.
Surely you mean:

“Tarski was a mathematician” is true if and only if Tarski was a mathematician. [1]

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-schema
Email is a two way street. If she sent a damning email, the recipient would have it. If she received a damning email, the sender would have a copy. Yet somehow no example of such an email has ever surfaced, despite it being something that would have carried a lot of weight when Trump was president.
I just end up buying enough of the item to be within arms reach of nearly anywhere I'm likely to use it.

I used to never be able to find a screwdriver when I needed it, so now I have seven screwdrivers: three regular ratcheting, three stubby ratcheting, and a ratcheting one that lives in my pocket. I keep a regular ratcheting on my desk, in my living room, and in my bedroom, which are the only places I would realistically ever use these things.

As a result there's really no reason for me to lose it; it's already contained into the area that it already lives.

I do this with a lot of stuff now. Separate chargers for my laptop for my desk and my bed, separate iPhone chargers, and a bunch of other stuff.
In the philosophy world, Modern Western Philosophy typically means circa 1500-1600-1700 or so and a class in the subject will include Hume, Locke, Descartes, etc.

Here’s a typical syllabus from Rutgers:

https://philosophy.rutgers.edu/syllabus-repository-2/spring-...

Contemporary doesn’t really mean anything other than “somewhat recently”; there is no established set of thinkers considered contemporary ones.
I used to agree, but there’s so much software that is just so bad. Wrong DB, bad framework, crazy abstractions, black box magic, no security, behavior that is just wrong, etc.

The dev team going away for 3 months to rewrite is probably a bad idea, though. There are definitely good ways to rewrite and then not good ways.
If you assume at the start of your proof that π is rational, it's not clear that you can then still make use of concepts closely related to π. If those concepts depend in any way on π being irrational, then you can't use them to cleanly arrive at the contradiction.
I spend almost no time getting around them. As you say, it takes 10 seconds to install a malware filter to block them.

There is no contract with me at all. It is not theft. It is preventing others from misappropriating my computing resources, and in fact the US government recommends citizens use ad blockers. It's basic computer security.
> Also: how would publishing the data "make the world a better place"?

For example, schematics of Apple devices would help people fix them on a deeper level than Apple wants (Apple doesn't do board-level repair, one 3-cent component fails and you're getting your entire motherboard replaced). Diagnostic software would help with that too. Documentation about any artificial limitations Apple imposes on these devices for its own profit, like part pairing, would make these limitations easier to bypass. Documentation about software or proprietary network protocols would help with adversarial interoperability. Even documentation on manufacturing techniques might be useful for someone building hardware — if not to copy, then to learn from it.
I wonder when people mention Moores law do they use that vernacular literally or figuratively. IE literal as having to do with shrinking of the transistors, figuratively with any and all efforts to increase overall computational speed up.
Please try this -- add a recurring weekly calendar item, “Chore: Clean up Holding Pen.” It can be a SAT/SUN around 8AM in the morning. ;-)
I used to be bad with keys. Now, in addition to having an AirTag on them, I have a hook for them right by the front door which I pretty much use religiously. I do have to go searching for my iPhone sometimes but not my keys.
This was so fun!! Kudos to your grandma.
SIMD workloads generally imply that you're doing the same operation repeatedly. It's literally in the name; single instruction, multiple data. There are occasional cases where that happens but doesn't parallelize well. TLS is probably a good example because you might have to encrypt a network packet and it's big enough to benefit from SIMD but not big enough that the overhead of splitting it across cores is worth it.

But most of the time if you're doing the same operation repeatedly you'll benefit from using more cores. Even for TLS, the client might not split the individual connection across multiple cores, but the server is going to handle multiple clients at once in parallel. Heavy workloads like video encoding make this even more apparent. In general the things that benefit from SIMD are parallel tasks that benefit from multiple cores.

Compare this with, say, a browser running JavaScript in a single tab. There is nothing to put on another core, you don't know what instructions will be executed next until you get there. This is where people actually care about single-thread performance, and where processors achieve it by using branch prediction etc. But these exercise very different parts of the CPU than SIMD-heavy workloads. The latter can easily fill the execution units of a wide processor that would be stymied by the former.
Ask HN: What is the longest amount of time you've read in one sitting?
There are books so interesting that I just want to keep reading in the curiosity of what'll happen next. People read for hours in one sitting.

I read Kane and Abel for like 5 hours straight and finished the book in 3 days, nice book if you are looking for a new book.

I wonder which book caused you this and how fast and long were you reading it? Don't forget to mention some crazy stories if you have...

That feeling just hits different.
This is exactly what we are doing with Mutahunter, AI is exceedingly good at writing edge case tests to test code and will only continue to get better at this. Check out Mutahunter here https://github.com/codeintegrity-ai/mutahunter
Property isn't the only thing that can be stolen.
Nice! There is also Servo webview for Qt: https://github.com/KDABLabs/cxx-qt-servo-webview and Servo webview for Tauri: https://github.com/tauri-apps/wry/tree/servo-wry-demo

Hopefully we can get more web browsers with embedded Servo engine (e.g. as a QtWebEngine replacement).
They also want to be the Saudi Arabia of solar power (the panels)
This is still so many steps to recreate what Flatpak / mobile app models / etc are already close to, but with less freedom for developers by still being restricted to the web stack.
India isn't one timezone. It has many timezones, some of which are 1/2 hour off.
You don’t need a github account or a soldering iron to use this.
> Wouldn't partnering with car manufacturers be a great idea here? Isn't it weird to be so against that sort of partnership?

They aren't against this at all. They think their product isn't good enough for this and would prefer to go it their own way for now.

> Why would anyone without a GitHub account and a soldering iron in a drawer somewhere use this?

They largely wouldn't, yet. geohot et al are aware of that and don't care.

Not sure what the problem is. The product isn't good enough, they're working on it, they want open source + bounties to improve the product, and yet the product is profitable. It's early.

Furthermore, nothing is stopping anyone from developing a competitor and getting into the driverless / ADAS field themselves. But no one has. So I'll take the man in the arena over... well, nothing.
$251/month is unaffordable? Tesla Model 3.

How about $95/month? Nissan Leaf.
> It's a little unfortunate I didn't hear more about it as I was writing it...

This is usually because most people find it faster and easier to ping the random access memory that is you while you are there instead of serially reading the documentation. I have found a non-linear correlation going in the wrong direction between the comprehensiveness of the documentation written, and the amount of requests for live assistance on the very matters covered in the documentation, when the requestee is the author of the documentation.

This is where an effectively-segmented Table Of Contents comes in handy. As the author, instead of rewarding unwanted organizational behavior by giving the requestor the spoon-fed answer they seek even if the requestee knows it off the top of their head, encourage the organization a "teach them to fish" posture by pointing them in the right direction by the chapter section.

"It will be somewhere in Chapter Foo" gets the requestors to familiarize themselves with the documentation structure at least in piecemeal fashion.

Junior engineers who make a habit of asking questions already addressed in documentation and don't take the "LMGTFY"-type responses as a hint they should search first, ask later, I start helping by asking, "what keywords did you try searching upon in the documentation", and start a conversation about why they used only such keywords. I'm excited by the RAG-family generative AI I am able to start loading documentation into that will let me ask, "what prompts did you try upon the documentation fine-tuned AI", as these AI's are powerfully effective with functionally fuzzy keyword searches. I'll fine-tune the documentation when it looks like various terminology is used over and over by searchers, but in general this approach works great to teach juniors how to search for information.

Engineers who don't quickly learn and keep asking for spoon-fed answers, enter an endless loop where they might occasionally help fine-tune the documentation, but otherwise are only pointed to the general area to search, and delegated to their colleagues who have learned to search for peer-led instruction. In over 20 years of applying this strategy, I've yet to run into an engineer who would not eventually learn, though if I did, they probably self select out of this field.

In a dog fooding fashion, when I ask someone for help, after my specific ask of them, I tell them what documentation I tried availing myself of first, what terms I searched upon, how I reasoned through to the point where I'm stuck, and what my theories/models are of what I think is happening. This helps rapidly prune the tree of responses, and 80% of the time the response is along the lines of, "oh, yeah the official documentation is out of date, use this technical note instead".
You can say that “comment” is a French word. But it’s also an English word. Every language that we speak today draws on the vocabulary of others.
A few seconds, yeah. I've seen fairly convincing reproductions from 30 seconds of reading text though.
This is my experience too. I switched about five years ago and haven't looked back but many people still feel strongly that Google is better so like you I'm not sure if I'm doing it right or wrong. What I will say though is that I do not feel limited in any way by my choice of search engine. Every time I try Google, I genuinely hope it will be better than DDG (otherwise why even bother?), but it isn't.
> think about it - what if I suddenly stopped you while taking a dump? It would have been easier to have stopped you before, or after, but not in the middle of it. Not sure about the analogy, but you got it.

Gold.
Computer has become accessible only last 1-2 decades. (Python) Libraries which allow for easy computation of stats have been popular for far less than that. (Wide availability of) People experienced with such methods having been around for even less. So I can understand why outsiders won't bother themselves with using mathematics to find insights.
My first typewriter didn't have a "1" key. You were supposed to type lowercase L when you needed a "1".

Underwood 255: https://typewriterdatabase.com/img/gunderwood%20_10166_15186...
In Firefox, cookies and "site data" have separately delete settings but definitely can be done. My browser is configured to delete everything (cookies, data, history) when I close it.
> There is no way to add a safety margin to code.

This is, in my opinion, an incredibly naive take.

There are currently decades of safety margin in basically all running code on every major OS and device, at every level of execution and operation. Sandboxing, user separation, kernel/userland separation, code signing (of kernels, kernel extensions/modules/drivers, regular applications), MMUs, CPU runlevels, firewalls/NAT, passwords, cryptography, stack/etc protections built into compilers, memory-safe languages, hardware-backed trusted execution, virtualization/containerization, hell even things like code review, version control, static analysis fall under this. And countless more, and more being developed and designed constantly.

The “safety margin” is simply more complex from a classic engineering perspective and still being figured out, and it will never be as simple as “just make the code 5% more safe.” It will take decades, if not longer, to reach a point where any given piece of software could be considered “very safe” like you would any given bridge. But to say that “there is no way to add a safety margin to code” is oversimplifying the issue and akin to throwing your hands up in the air in defeat. That’s not a productive attitude to improve the overall safety of this profession (although it is unfortunately very common, and its commonality is part of the reason we’re in the mess we’re in right now). As the sibling comment says, no one (reasonable) is asking for perfection here, yet. “Good enough” right now generally means not making the same mistakes that have already been made hundreds/thousands/millions of times in the last 6 decades, and working to improve the state of the art gradually over time.
Comparinging by volume produced/consumed, I think it's reasonable to pretty much ignore all non-borosilicate glass for the purpose of this discussion.

And the snark doesn't add to the discussion.
>persistence to disk, WAL, crash recovery, indexing, vacuuming (you're using tombstones for your deletes, right?),

The point of Raft is that you write your service like it was a single instance, using SQLLite or non relational equivalent, and then use Raft to run a distributed system that can have redundancy, all without additional infra involved, and for the vast majority of the use cases (i.e some backend or some web app service at a startup), this is more than enough, considering there is enough low level stuff in drivers and kernels to make data reliability pretty high already.
Model 3 is pretty simple.

You can literally hang a cloth over the screen covering it and still do pretty much everything, most of the time, if the screen bothers you. The car has a few physical hardware buttons that do what you need.