skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Well it got the flags right, but it's kind of wrong too. I mean it's true that GNU tar will not handle a Zip archive, but libarchive BSD tar is more than happy to handle most common archive formats, including Zip archives.

$ tar -a -cvf file.zip a.exe
a a.exe

$ file file.zip
file.zip: Zip archive data, at least v2.0 to extract, compression method=deflate

$ tar xvf file.zip
x a.exe

This may seem like a silly catch-22, but the truth is a lot of people who will need to ask questions like this are in fact likely to encounter BSD tar. macOS ships with BSD tar with Zip support, and I believe even Windows does nowadays. I don't think you'll have an unzip command in vanilla Windows so that could easily waste someone's time if they didn't realize it.
> Unelected officials = experts

What? Not in the commission. It's a 100% politically appointed body made up of politicians, it's just not elected.

Also even on the lower levels being an "expert" EU apparatchik has absolutely nothing to do with dedicated your life to science.

In any case it's a deeply flawed system, minimum oversight and a lot of money to spend/waste can't ever lead anywhere good.
Catches up? Canon is perceived as a laggard at this point. Sony, Panasonic, and even Nikon are more vital than Canon today.
The Gift of It's Your Problem Now (2022)
That's not all. But it's long overdue.
Some of them are even chefs! But you can't point out this association anymore: people who don't like it will be angry and hit the downvote button.
I do miss emacs frames.
The Future of Storytelling: Crafting Audio-Visual Narratives with AI-Driven JSON
Fixed. It's live now. please check – https://spotlight.thisux.com
Everywhere. I would bet this place is a particular target for bots just because of the connections people have on here to real life money.
I’m bilingual since a child but didn’t really use one of the languages much after age 12 to about 30. When I do speak the second language I can fool locals into thinking it’s my first language, but it takes exactly 1 mistake or mispronunciation and they ask “oh are you actually English?”. The bar is that that high for passing native fluency in another language, if you somehow could fake the accent perfectly as well (there is absolutely no way).
Thanks for the reply. What is a "battle royale shooter?"
this is so cool! I'm recommending this to my friend who DJs for a living.
To add some more detail to sibling's answer:

The optimal size will depend on the application. It's certainly reasonable that in some applications, many/most strings would be under 24 bytes and thus the small string optimization in many of these implementations would be beneficial. Perhaps in some other application strings are closer to 32 bytes (or something else) and then a larger stack size would be warranted. And in yet other applications, strings are large and no small string optimizations will make any difference, and if anything will slow the application down with unnecessary bookkeeping.

I do find it surprising that none of the implementations in the various comments linked in this thread seem to provide user-tunable sizes; or at least I haven't seen it. Because I can certainly imagine cases where the optimal size is > 24.
>It is protected by if the request uses JSON or similar.

Only if the server checks that the Content-Type header is JSON. If the server ignores the Content-Type header and simply decodes it as JSON, it's not protected. I think there are probably a lot of servers that simply decode the body as JSON without first checking the Content-Type header and thus the same origin policy doesn't protect them from CSRF.

>The point is still that this is the target problem that it is trying to address.

It doesn't seem that way to me. The same origin policy successfully prevents one website from reading the content of another website. It's fully addressed. It seems to me that's the primary problem it's trying to address. The problem of one website sending requests to another website is only partially addressed, so it seems to me that's considered a secondary problem.

>I think demonstrating how full of holes the default policy is is a great way to emphasis that you should not rely on the default protections.

The default policy is full of holes for sending requests, but not for reading the response. I agree you shouldn't rely on the default protections for sending requests, and should implement your own CSRF protection for all state-changing handlers. But I think it's fine to rely on the default protection for reading responses, and thus I don't think it's necessary to recommend CSRF protection for non-state-changing handlers.

The reason I always first describe the same origin policy and CORS in terms of reading responses is that I think it leads to less confusion. If I first explain about sending requests, I have to explain that it doesn't really work, and people thus are confused about what the purpose of the same origin policy and CORS is if it doesn't even protect against the thing it was designed to protect against. Either that or they mistakenly think it does protect against sending requests, and implement sites with CSRF vulnerabilities erroneously thinking the same origin policy and CORS will protect them. By explaining first about reading responses, people quickly understand that. I then explain that it doesn't protect against sending requests, and thus state-changing handlers need CSRF protection to be implemented.

>CORS and the same origin policy are the same thing, two sides of the same coin. They express what is allow and what isn't. CORS is a configuration layer for the same origin policy, allowing you to change the default policy.

I guess I can see that, but the names of them don't really lend themselves to that understanding. The same origin policy is about same origins. If it starts allowing cross-origin communication, then it's no longer living up to its name. So I see that as it being disabled. Similarly CORS is about cross-origin sharing. If it starts blocking things, then it's not doing sharing, and thus not living up to its name.

According to Wikipedia the history backs up my understanding. It says the same origin policy was created in 1995, and CORS came later, first proposed in 2004.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-origin_policy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-origin_resource_sharing
Not every post office has a "back," albeit many due.

Many of the ones with backs still have keyed fronts; apartment complexes are notorious for front-access break-ins.
Has almost 800 upvotes and 600 comments, only 8 hours old, and nowhere to be found on the front page...
"In three years, Cyberdyne will become the largest supplier of military computer systems. All stealth bombers are upgraded with Cyberdyne computers, becoming fully unmanned. Afterwards, they fly with a perfect operational record. The Skynet Funding Bill is passed. The system goes online August 4th, 1997. Human decisions are removed from strategic defense. Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug." -Terminator 2
Actually no. All tar implementations I know of support "old" style options.

https://www.gnu.org/software/tar/manual/html_section/Styles....

I don't know the exact history of how this options style came to be, but I assume it's probably some really ancient UNIX thing.
> Then conclude that as it's not a one-dimensonal spectrum, it must be a binary property?

I can see how you made that interpretation but that's not what I was saying. Free Speech is an ideal (not a binary property). I doubt that that you will find any human society with a system of laws that puts absolutely no restrictions on speech. That still doesn't mean that you can talk about Free Speech as a 'spectrum'. It's an ideal that ppl strive for, to varying degrees and across different domains. (Perhaps similarly to how Truth is an ideal that ppl strive for; Truth is not a 'spectrum'.)
I also wasn't there, but I think this actually wasn't to help authors and instead was a workaround for the warts of SQL. It's a pain to write

SELECT * FROM (SELECT * FROM ... GROUP BY ...) t WHERE ...

and they decided this was common enough that they would introduce a HAVING clause for this case

SELECT * FROM ... GROUP BY ... HAVING ...

But the real issue is that in order to make operations in certain orders, SQL requires you to use subselects, which require restating a projection for no reason and a lot of syntactical ceremony. E.g. you must give the FROM item a name (t), but it's not required for disambiguation.

Another common case is projecting before the filter. E.g. you want to reuse a complicated expression in the SELECT and WHERE clauses. Standard SQL requires you to repeat it or use a subselect since the WHERE clause is evaluated first.
Experiments with speech compression/processing. The modern approach to this (and pretty much everything else) is to transform the input data into a high-dimensional space, throw it into a neural net and cross your fingers. (the 'Whisper' STT runs in 512-dimensional space!). It works, but it's hardly elegant or compute-efficient. There's a certain art in doing things the 'old way', even if a million years of evolution decided neural-nets were the one true path.
I've used this one but the lack of touchpad gestures and the window launching bugs meant that I had to move away from it.
There is also Fix Inventory, which is a graph-based security tool:

https://github.com/someengineering/fixinventory

I'm one of the people behind Fix Inventory. What scares a lot of developers away from graph-based tools is the graph query language. It has a steep learning curve, and unless you write queries every day, it's really cumbersome to learn.

We simplified that with our own search syntax that has all the benefits of the graph, but simplified a few concepts like graph traversal.
https://i.imgur.com/xvHD8fK.jpeg

This would be really useful in GeoLocation GeoGuessing games - and in order to ID a location based on any limited text you can discern. Wonder how hard it would be to apply it to other locations.
Well, maybe in russia but not in the USA. At least not yet. Check the history of PGP as an example of strong encryption the government was not happy about.
> If it's not a single disk system, not necessarily.

Again, you miss the point. 95%+ of Linux systems are single disk. That's the expected case.

>> If you've hit EMFILE

> I'm not sure why you keep sticking to this example

You brought this up initially, saying it was difficult to handle. I'm demonstrating that you're wrong, it's actually quite trivial to handle. Handwaving about "edge cases" is FUD, if you have some specific point to make then make it

> I'm not sure what's the ambiguity that you're claiming that I've invented.

You claimed it wasn't possible to be sure SIGBUS is from an I/O error. That's wrong.

> non-disk faults can still result in SIGBUS with BUS_ADRERR, so that alone isn't enough to identify EIO errors or EOF coming from memory-mapped files

Wrong. You can resolve that ambiguity from the cited address and si_errno etc. Try it next time.

> I'm trying to tell you that not every system is like that.

The fact you think I need to be told that is amusing. You're completely missing the point.

Let me try one more time:

Don't make things hard when they don't have to be. 95% of the time, they don't have to be. Saying "no, this is actually really hard, and you need to care about these normally irrelevant things" without first acknowledging the simple case is FUD in my book.
You can always turn a HAVING in SQL into a WHERE by wrapping the SELECT that has the GROUP BY in another SELECT that has the WHERE that would have been the HAVING if you hadn't bothered.

You don't need a |> operator to make this possible. Your point is that there is a reason that SQL didn't just allow two WHERE clauses, one before and one after GROUP BY: to make it clearer syntactically.

Whereas the sort of proposal made by TFA is that if you think of the query as a sequence of steps to execute then you don't need the WHERE vs. HAVING clue because you can see whether a WHERE comes before or after GROUP BY in some query.

But the whole point of SQL is to _not have to_ think of how the query is to be implemented. Which I think brings us back to: it's better to have HAVING. But it's true also that it's better to allow arbitrary ordering of some clauses: there is no reason that FROM/JOIN, SELECT, ORDER BY / LIMIT have to be in the order that they are -- only WHERE vs. GROUP BY ordering matters, and _only_ if you insist on using WHERE for pre- and post-GROUP BY, but if you don't then all clauses can come in any order you like (though all table sources should come together, IMO).

So all in all I agree with you: keep HAVING.
Is there a place where one can get familiar with your work on this?
Show HN: Cookbook for the Mistral AI CLI – Practical Examples and Recipes
When I think of "Computer Science" I definitely think that it respects "build great things from a small set of first principles" as much as any field. In fact, I might argue that CS is just a subset of pure math. It's those pesky Computer Engineering concerns, warts like memory locality and branch prediction, that make CS "less pure" than it could have been :) [no offense to CE, I personally love those warts]

> most people just remember or know the skills set of the abstraction layer without ever understanding how that abstraction comes into the field in the first place

This sounds like you're describing pragmatic software development, or "software engineering" if you insist on sounding fancy. My degree was in SE and in retrospect I would have enjoyed CS more, but it really didn't matter in the long run. But I digress... the point is: a course that focuses on using an abstraction is a programming/SE course, whereas a course that focuses on the principles one might use to build such an abstraction is a CS course.
I would describe it more as a limitation of mmap than a liability.

Modern async models have their origin in addressing serious shortcomings with the traditional POSIX APIs, particularly with respect to mmap and kernel schedulers. You can’t mix the models easily, many parts of POSIX don’t play nicely with async architectures. Traditional async I/O engines use direct I/O on locked memory, and if you use async you need to be cognizant of why this is. Half the point of async is to have explicit control and knowledge of when page faults are scheduled. Async is a power tool, not something that should be used lightly for casual tasks nor accidentally pulled in as a dependency.

The issue here appears to be that it is far too easy for someone to inadvertently mix models, not async per se. Async has substantial advantages versus native kernel threads, so getting rid of async is not a realistic solution. No one is going to give up a several-fold performance increase versus native kernel threads because some developers can’t figure out how to not mix models or the ecosystem doesn’t protect developers against inadvertently mixing models.

Async is used heavily in some C/C++ domains but it doesn’t seem to cause many issues there, perhaps because dependencies are much more explicit and intentional. Async has also been idiomatic for certain domains in C/C++ for decades so there is an element of maturity around working with it.
Sony makes cameras that do both quite well. With Nikon's acquisition of Red, they may also up their video game.

Canon is clinging to laurels that are long gone. And this is coming from a longtime Canon shooter who likes their still-image quality. They need an FX3 killer, pronto.
> "The average time to upgrade an application to Java 17 plummeted from what’s typically 50 developer-days to just a few hours."

*blink*

...why are they boasting about migrating to Java 17... in 2024?

...and from what versions were they migrating from? Java 17 didn't introduce any significant breaking-changes (IME) for users on Java 16 or even the next previous LTS version, Java 11 - I don't work at Amazon, but surely Amazon isn't in the habit of running on unsupported JVMs? - so assuming these Java projects were being competently maintained, then the only work actually required to migrate to 17 is changing your `org.gradle.java.home=` path to where JDK 17 followed by running your test suite. If Amazon was using a monorepo then 1 person could do this in 5 minutes with a 1-liner awk/sed command - whereas I expect it would likely take an AI far longer to do this, if it's even able to make sense of an Amazon-sized monorepo - they'd also likely re-prompt it for every separate project for reliability's sake. So after considering all that, the "50 days" number he gives, without any context either, is a nice shorthand to communicate his disconnection from what really goes-on inside his org... or he's lying - and he knows he's lying - but he also knows there won't be any negative consequences for him as a result of his lying, so why not lie if it gives you a good story to tell for LinkedIn?

In conclusion: these remarks by leadership unintentionally make the company look bad, not good, once you fill-in-the-blanks to make up for what they dind't say. (What's next...? Big Brother increasing our chocolate ration to 20 grammes per week?)

-----

One more thing: the comment-replies to the post on LinkedIn are utterly derranged and I genuinely can't put my sense of unease into words.
Sicario

Fight Club

The Matrix

Seven/Se7en
Generally a mass player "there can only be one" fight to the death last player standing wins game.

As opposed to, say, team orientated Capture the Flag scenario's.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Royale_(film)
When I was in college it was all about forums. I belonged to many, and it was my favorite era of the internet. There were people I talked to everyday for a decade, and formed many real life friendships as a result.

Facebook and Reddit really killed forums. Some our still around, but most are a shell of what they once were. The ones I was really involved in all shutdown after members started to spend more and more time on Facebook.

HN is really my only outlet anymore. I was on Digg until v4, then spent many years on Reddit, but it never had a sense of actual community. Reddit also became intolerable quite a while ago; I haven’t been there in a couple years.

It feels a bit sad to say, but the collapse of forums left a hole in my life and I’ve had a lot of trouble trying to find someone to fill it.

Sorry I don’t have many helpful suggestions, but I can tell you you’re not alone. I think the formation of these mega sites really hurt the internet. When sites reach a certain size the individual disappears and users all blend together.
> The theory is known as "three cueing." The name comes from the notion that readers use three different kinds of information — or "cues" — to identify words as they are reading.

> The theory was first proposed in 1967, when an education professor named Ken Goodman presented a paper at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association in New York City.

> In the paper,5 Goodman rejected the idea that reading is a precise process that involves exact or detailed perception of letters or words. Instead, he argued that as people read, they make predictions about the words on the page using these three cues:

> graphic cues (what do the letters tell you about what the word might be?)

> syntactic cues (what kind of word could it be, for example, a noun or a verb?)

> semantic cues (what word would make sense here, based on the context?)

This is interesting because this is fairly similar to how LLMs do next-token prediction, but using exclusively backwards-facing clues from the text (although perhaps also the graphic cues if you are talking about multimodal models).
I don't agree that it is insufficient, it's not 100% absolutely fool proof, it doesn't have to be.

A kitchen knife isn't foolproof, you could convince someone with a sufficiently low IQ to stab themselves with it.
There may be trademark issues, but even if not, doing sufficient violence to the original thing argues for using a new name for the new thing.
I replaced Bartender with Ice[0] after its new owners[1] did some things I consider sketchy[2].

[0]https://github.com/jordanbaird/Ice

[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40584606

[2]https://appleinsider.com/articles/24/06/05/bartender-apps-ne...
Make can't (at least that I've seen) enumerate it's own commands/targets. Yes there are recipes that you can cargo cult into your make file to do that using sed/awk but natively it doesn't have a way to enumerate it's commands/targets.

By the logic that since make exists, and can do everything, then we really shouldn't build any new command runners. Since C exists and can do everything we really shouldn't use rust, zig, java, python.

Make is great, I've used it for nearly 30 years now, and it's really good at certain things, but it's not particularly good as a generic command runner. It's difficult to debug, it requires a lot of extra boilerplate text to be an ok command runner.

Just is a more ergonomic tool than make to use as a command runner, zsh is a more ergonomic tool to use as a shell than sh.

Yes make, when combined with some other tools like sed/awk can do everything that just can do, just not as easily, and it definitely requires a lot more depth of understanding to write a well formed Makefile than it does a well formed justfile.
I'll be more nuanced.Doing operational security can enhance your security posture, but the real trick in cybersecurity isn’t just putting measures in place, it’s keeping them up over time. That’s where checklists come in.

A lot of companies get it wrong. They think the checklist is the security. But really, the checklist is just there to remind you that you did something right before and you need to keep it up. Treating the checklist like it’s the goal is where things go off track.
What Is a Golden Image?
Just me, I work on it in my spare time. I’ve contracted out for some of it - some of the UI elements and models, and the soundtrack.

All in all I’ve probably spent $5000 max on it.
Yes?

The retro computer museum in Leicester has a few of the Virtuality systems, which are still great fun.

Loads of people hack on old hardware.