skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Another thing that was/is very hard to replicate on common modern setups is that feeling of instant feedback you can get from quality (certainly not all) games at the time. The inputs were polled, there was no room for a 3 frame output buffer even if someone had wanted one, the displays didn't add a bunch of image processing time on top of it. You press fire and things fire, you dodge right and you move right. It wasn't truly instantaneous but it tended to be a lot better than a typical console+TV setup today (even in "game mode" on the TV). Worth noting Star Fox in particular was not one of these games... it was... struggling to do the output 3D at a fast or consistent rate even with the extra chip :). Again, not that all games were like this just it can be hard to replicate the feel of the ones that were with different technologies. Run-ahead is one way to bridge the last bit of that gap on many average systems these days.

And you're 100% right there is no "correct blurriness" for CRT. When I say "don't take this one CRT to be gospel of what every CRT output from all of time looked like" I mean it - some CRTs, particularly for computer style displays instead of TV style displays, were relatively sharp. And a high end barely used CRT from the late 90s is probably a lot less blurry than a low end and heavily used one from the early 80s, everything else equivalent about them. That said, Star Fox had expectations of both being output on consumer TVs as well as through the SNES video output which wasn't particularly sharp itself anyways.

Another classic example of this in home game consoles is the waterfalls in the Genesis era Sonic games. If you play them on a modern display it looks more like a sharp set of blue and white door bead curtains. If you play it on a typical CRT television it looks more like shimmering water falling (not perfectly but the bright single pixel whites are not so perfectly contrasted and there is some blur between the vertical lines with the background instead of a straight alternation).
Most companies these days will only hire you if you are friends with the management or if you fit in with their culture
That's all the more reason for tech companies not to call their jobs creative.
they were clear, but nearly every instance of that clear opinion I have considered illegitimate once i learn the rationale.

Using the following words for simplicity, not to be inflammatory;

It typically amounts to "AI stinky" or "I don't want big brother to have my data"

I consider "AI stinky" variants invalid because this is one of many software development paradigms. simply because the market is overhyped, it doesn't mean that all applications are automatically useless.

"big brother" fails to consider the incremental big-brotherness. we, when using tools like this, expose our data already. The incremental risk from an LLM provider seems small.
> because people like you are going to keep insisting that somehow this was a good idea,

Woah, there cowboy, you're mischaracterising my position.

When, and where, did I "insist that this was a good idea"?

Me pointing out that the real world is filled with null references is irrelevant to whether or not I think they're a bad or good idea.

> The whole point is the ergonomics, which you are ignoring whether out of ignorance or because you think you'll get away with it rhetorically.

Which bit made you think I'm ignoring it?

The sad fact of life is that programs are written to interface to the real world, which is filled with missing values. Regardless of the programming language you use, you'll still deal with them.

Some programming languages make it easier to deal with, and some harder. Regardless, you'll still have to deal with them, and IME the best way for a program to deal with the outside world is by doing Parse, Don't Validate at the system boundaries.

Since that is, and was, my position before this conversation took place, it seems to me that you've set up a strawman (i.e. my position is something other than what I now stated) so that you could destroy it to make your argument for Rust stronger.

In reality, if you're doing Parse, Don't Validate, then its really irrelevant if your language has compile-time-checked nullability types or not.
Bug squash: An underrated interview question
“defend democracy” has become a rhetorical device unrelated to actually doing so. Expanding your power and censoring people is tyrannical no matter what spin you put on it. And tyrants always have a spin, no one ever says I’m looking to end democracy.
It's mentioned, but we can still point out that its importance is at best overstated, and that the article headline mentioned it in a deceptive way, and that it most likely had nothing to do with the actual incident (again, plenty of bigger issues).

So then the most important question relating to the gamepad remains: why do people keep mentioning it? The specific sub thread we're under started with a pretty good theory IMO.

In the meantime, the correct thing is in fact to dismiss the gamepad until any evidence appears relating to its role in the vehicle loss, and not to get to excited for that to happen.
Boost your brain with boredom (2022)
It is made for mobile apps with React Native and Expo. Your mentioned boilerplates are made for websites.
Now I could be way off here, but could you hash/salt the users password in 2 different ways:

- the first way would be used before sending the password to the server. This would then be hashed and salted again to be used for authentication with the server.
- the second way would be used locally. You could have the user create a pin to go with the password that would be used to create this hash. This hash would be the key to decrypt the contents. It would never be sent to the server.

I haven’t actually done the thinking or research to validate or invalidate something like this though. My uses of encryption have all been rather standardized.
There’s nothing in this post, why does HN continue allowing twitter links at this point? I guess it’s not really feasible to detect whether or not it’s a thread (in which case author should consider an actual site not this nonsense)
https://archive.ph/Szb59
Soft Robotic System with Continuum Manipulator and Compliant Gripper
another good one in development is http://zymo.tv
Whoever wrote this twitter post is irritating beyond my will of reading their rambling. Closed the window real quick.
There are a lot of differences between storage formats. It would be incredibly difficult to create a universal query language. It would need to either a) change the storage formats so much that they're not really following their original standard, or b) create so many different versions of the query language that it's not really one standard.

Off the top of my head, SQL can't do lists as values, and doesn't have simple key-value storage. Json doesn't have tables, or primary keys / foreign keys, and can have nested data
The difference is some humans exist that can be trusted with business critical tasks but no AIs exist with that level of competence.

This is actually a great example of what I'm talking about. All this talk about how useful AIs are, and how humans have flaws and yet the conclusion is always the same. AIs are only useful for tasks that are relatively easy and have a higher tolerance for failure.
Using pointers feels horrible as a workaround though because it completely muddies the intent. Is it a pointer because it could be zero or <not set>, is it a pointer for performance reasons, is it a pointer because the function mutates it? To me it flies directly in the face of Go's desire to keep things simple and easy to reason about.

> You’d be surprised how infrequently that’s actually a concern though

I admittedly don't write a huge amount of Go, but I run into this fairly often any time I'm dealing with user input. Something like an optional numeric input is not at all uncommon.
If you’re charged with a crime why is it called preventetive custody?
You put the organization that funds it at arm's length from the actual government.

Positions in it, all the way to the top, are regular jobs that get hired for, not political appointments. Write something into its charter about the funding never being conditional on content, only on some proof of ability. Make the amount of funding (for the organization as a whole) indexed to something meaningful—like inflation, or Congressional salaries, or something like that, with a multiplier based on national population—rather than having to be appropriated annually or at some fixed level.

It's not perfect, and it can't be, because Congress can always decide they don't like what it's doing and go back and meddle. But there are many safeguards that can be put into place to reduce the amount of direct government interference with such an organization—and those above are just what I could come up with off the top of my head in a couple of minutes. Given a committee with an actual mandate to assemble something like this, and people who are genuinely interested in doing so, I'm sure a much more solid framework could be ironed out.
I've absolutely had this happen with some US bank in the last 4 years. I can't remember which one, but they had me essentially type in my password over the phone in the same way, with * being the button for any non alphanumeric character.
Oh wow. I did watch some of his movies in the 80s, they were pretty good. But for some reason I assumed he had died a while ago.
What is the definition of “success” you're using here? It seems like a solo game dev could operate with their own unique definition of success since they don’t need to convince others to adopt their approach.
The movie "Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai" was inspired in the film "Le Samuraï".
You raise some good points. I will reflect on them. Thanks!
Show HN: AdalFlow: The library to build and auto-optimize any LLM task pipeline
Open-source tools to secure LLM systems
> Go is actually randomising the order EVERY time you try to iterate

Which is 100% perfectly within specification of the hashmap concept. It may not match your expectation of what a hashmap is, but it is what it is, and that's what a hashmap is.

IOW, there is no guarantee, and a library that randomises the order that it returns hashmap elements when iterating is perfectly correct!
That's a good one. One of my personal favorites was a device that truncated long passwords in the set password function. Didn't take too long to figure out what happened but I was worried for a moment I wouldn't be able to unbrick that device.
The law you're thinking about is GDPR. It does allow to host data outside of the EU if the rights of the data subjects are not weakened.

Source: GDPR articles 44, 45, and 46.
I don't think so, that's a good point against it.

It's heavily used by AWS and Azure though.
I hope one day we all can realise that all of the pontification about the defining qualities of a 'senior' engineer, or the height at which the bar should be set, whether the bar has slowly been lowered over time, etc is all pointless. Senior or not senior is a lens useful only to HR and insecure engineers.
> Except the password manager becomes a central point of failure. If someone gets your phone, opens your password manager, boom they have keys to the castle. Because let's be honest, the password manager is on the phone, and there's no way keyloggers or screenshot backdoors get on there, and there's no way someone isn't looking over your shoulder with the latest iPhone Pixel Galaxy supercamera across the room.

Password managers usually are either password-protected themselves or have biometrics, which suffice to deter random thieves. In fact, password managers are not going to show your password in the first place, they are going to silently fill in password prompts. The password cannot be clipboard-stolen, screen captured, or key logged. It is even more difficult to fish you (if the password manager doesn't detect the right program id/URL, it won't fill your password in -- unlike you).

If someone is looking over your shoulder with a supercamera he can get one password. If you are using a password manager, that's it. If you were using "an algorithm" to derive your passwords it is now possible he can now easily guess ALL your passwords. Most people aren't that good remembering good "algorithms" anyway. Maybe he needs to capture two passwords to do so?

Unless your algorithm is truly good, in which case you likely have to store it somewhere and that becomes your "password manager", which shares the same cons as a password manager itself. You are even at risk of your "algorithm" being guessed through a couple big password DB leaks, which are sadly ridiculous common, and this by itself puts you more at risk than worrying about supercameras.

I however don't have anything good to say re password managers that sync passwords over a centralized service, or worse, do so without proven E2EE.
Why Car Companies Still Spend Thousands on Clay Models
> especially when using the AWS SDK, which requires pointers to literals everywhere

On the plus side, at least the AWS SDK provides `aws.String()` and friends.
XML attributes come to mind
This is great. Reminds me of the writings of Khatzumoto (All Japanese All The Time). On that note, do you know how to contact him? His site got deleted recently and I have an idea for restoring a static version.
Before OCaml multi core it was a non starter for many applications. Now, OCaml can be used for almost anything!
Microsoft had FORTRAN and COBOL compilers for CP/M. I have used them on both Intel 8080 and Zilog Z80.

The MS FORTRAN compiler was decent enough. It could be used to make programs that were much faster than those using the Microsoft BASIC interpreter.

Even if you preferred to write some program in assembly, if that program needed to do some numeric computations it was convenient to use the MS Fortran run-time library, which contained most of the Fortran implementation work, because the Fortran compiler generated machine code which consisted mostly of invocations of the functions from the run-time library.

However, for that you had to reverse-engineer the library first, because it was not documented by Microsoft. Nevertheless, reverse-engineering CP/M applications was very easy, because an experienced programmer could read a hexadecimal dump almost as easy as the assembly language source code. Microsoft used a few code obfuscation tricks, but those could not be very effective in such small programs.
Chargebacks are in many cases the outsourcing of proper consumer-protection regulation and everyday customer service.

When the merchant fails to deliver or underdelivers -- "my fries were cold" -- appropriate customer service should be meeting the customer at that point and addressing it directly.

Modern systems of unempowered on-the-ground employees and endless loop self-service support stand in the way of that. Consumers naturally respond by pulling the levers that remain, which is invoking the wrath of American Express.
His sister is in Le Samuraï as well.
> It is only the "Masters" who have a way of directly getting to the heart of the matter in the simplest manner possible.

If this is true, why are three of your four references secondary references? Surely if the master said it in the 'simplest manner possible' you would be reading Newton, Maxwell and Turing directly, rather than the paraphrasing/annotating by Chandrasekhar, Simpson and Petzold?
You've probably just solved a mystery with my Minecraft account. A good while ago it got "hacked" while having a strong password (random and unique), plus all security answers were filled with gibberish, which I diligently kept backed up somewhere. At that time I also hadn't logged in for over 2 or more years. Eventually I got it back through a proof of purchase process, but I couldn't ever figure out why it was taken over. Since no other account got compromised, I could reasonably assume my computer wasn't either.

So I guess in the end their recovery process was susceptible to some good old-fashioned social engineering.
My understanding is that the science is pretty clear that it's not able to.
Because actual scientific studies that have been conducted on such efforts have shown, over and over and over and over again, that it's true.

Some people, when given the resources to thrive without having to work, take a bunch of time off in order to heal from long-term burnout. But even most of them will eventually return to doing something productive of some sort.
This is great, thanks for sharing. I think I will give a multichannel headset a try and attempt to train some models that map neural activity to cursor movements.

I came across this article today: https://medium.com/@kevinjycui/of-mice-and-mind-creating-a-s...

It sounds as if this individual had some success with the Emotiv INSIGHT (5 Channel) but the data quality was a limiting factor in creating an application usable for everyday activity.
That article, disapointingly, doesn't provide any arguments as to why we can't build AGI.
Anecdotally, I feel like OCaml is growing in popularity, probably due to ecosystem improvements. Stuff like dune and other OCaml Platform tools becoming mature, multicore support, recently first-class Windows support, etc.
And you're sure it was a Profile 5, not 7/8 file?
Like a ML model I would prefer being scored with cross entropy and not right/wrong. Like, I might guess wrong but it might not be that far off in likelihood.
If You Can Do This, You Can Do Anything (2021)
This is about optimizations affecting timing of cryptographic code, not correctness of computation, the argument for calling this a correctness bug in the compiler is quite weak I think.
Because it's a study about injecting mice with bpa which doesn't necessarily give us that much additional information about how dangerous bpa exposure actually is to humans in the real world beyond what we already knew?

But there are enough concerns about bisphenols that they should probably be phased out anyway to be safe.
I'm probably a bit younger, but I remember Rocks'n'Diamonds having Boulder Dash and Supaplex levels in it too.
If the devices are on the same network I prefer LocalSend. It is cross-platform and there are phone apps. Works very well:
https://localsend.org/
> Spring is for when doing projects with teams of several digits team size, with offshoring and several consulting agencies.

It’s a better fit for smaller teams, especially with temp staff joining and leaving frequently, so the fact that you can hire Spring skills on the street becomes helpful.

“Several digit team sizes” have different needs, but larger teams often are polyglot + microservices based, and Spring adds less value there.
Removal sounds right up their alley
People who are good at something have done it in may different ways for a very long time, perfecting the optimal way. Shocking.

Edit: this appears to be from 2006, so maybe that was a marginally more novel idea then?
Something tells me those kind of mistakes are not done "by engineers" / "by developers" – who rarely have any saying at all and if they do they are ignored more often than not – more likely that's incompetent pseudo-architects and/or product owners/managers.
The last wave of companies trying to save money on programming labor was outsourcing the jobs to India.

Deisteve appears to be claiming that LLM-based techniques for automating programming will be cheap and effective enough that even that kind of outsourcing will be unprofitable by comparison.
What shader’s that? Tried CRT-Royale[1]?

[1] https://emulation.gametechwiki.com/index.php/CRT-Royale
> This is Henry Ford / Steve Jobs talking about faster horses. You’re not asking your customers what to build. You’re asking them to help you understand the reality against which your logic plays.

There's also this joke that the absolute scariest thing ever is an user with an idea. As in:

"I need to go from A to B", so far so good, that's what we need to know an act on. Then the user has an idea: "What if midway I could change to a fresh horse?".

I mean, sure, yup, it's been done (changing horse midway to quickly deliver a letter)... But that's not how cars were invented.
> I've personally witnessed a case where a team member went out of his way to propose a rewrite of an important feature and reached out to a couple of senior members to do a system design review and provide feedback. They initially told him the design was good as is and required no feedback and change, but once the project was about to be deployed they suddenly became very opinionated and critical of each and every tiny detail, including on the need to rewrite the component.

I think I've probably been on both sides of this coin. It takes some experience to recognize, and I don't think it's entirely on the individuals.

I think it comes about when the people being asked "if it's fine" probably have a completely separate set of day to day concerns than the people doing the asking. They probably have not enough context on why, or the impacts. And they probably don't have the time or support to ask for more time to give a real answer.

It's on management for not asking for more analysis or aligning needs or overextending the staff.

The term 'ownership' has also done a disservice. 'Stewardship' would be better.
Very culture based. In my country giving people unsolicited advice is basically a national sport.
Because it’s probably not the real number. The reason why they wanted to release at least _some_ specs is probably because congress / parliament
This gave me a good laugh! Perhaps a better title would have been "Tearing Apart a Toy to Obtain EEG Data". Regardless, I am glad you found it interesting.
COM requires that you call AddRef()/Release () methods at every single point the set of owners might change, including as function parameters and return values.

This is so error prone, that naturally there are smart pointers that keep track of this.

Like Apple did with Objective-C, and Cocoa's retain/release, VB 5 and 6, Visual C++, Delphi also have language extensions that keep track of this instead.

In Microsoft's C++ world, these language extensions are seldom used, because of the internal riot that killed C++/CX, replacing it with C++/WinRT.

So you still have the choices of using the smart pointers from MFC, ATL, WRL, C++/WinRT, WIL, or rolling up your own.

All of them with the caveat, that the Objective-C/Swift optimizations of removing needless pairs of calls does not take place.

So anyone that already knows the COM usage relatively well, tends to take shortcuts in the ways we are supposed to call AddRef()/Release (), as means to decrease the call count.

In .NET land, the runtime takes care of being more clever, via CCW/RCW infrastructure, caching instances and such.

Additionally there is the issue that a COM component can run in-proc, out-proc, or in-proc but hosted by specific Windows services, thus add OS IPC on top of each method call.

EDIT: Some of the guidelines, https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/learnwin32/c...

Better way is to get one of those COM programming bibles, "Inside COM", "COM+ Unleashed", " .NET and COM: The Complete Interoperability Guide", "Windows Runtime via C#"
I'd disagree with parent a smidge and say Google turned evil when it became a platform.

When it was a disparate group of products... incentives were generally aligned with the users of those products.

When they began to look at themselves as a platform company (Google search-on-everything, Android, Chrome), that fundamentally broke and they started making sound-platform-business but user-hostile decisions.

So I guess the moral of that story is that platforms will make you rich, but you have to be very careful to enunciate your value priorities clearly to users. (E.g. Apple: "privacy"; Google: "openness"?)
Yes to 90cm being used for identifying the class of a ship. But probably no for 90cm being used for identifying a particular hull, which may only be determinable with higher resolution imagery to confirm a hull-specific feature such as an upgraded radar or gun.
I don't know if it was an intentional choice or not but that's pretty much the general performance range of Star Fox too.