skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think the issue is more than that though, because if the physical aspect were only the barrier, they should have disappeared by the time the Internet came along.

I think (and this is only my honest, outsider perspective) that the issue is, and always was, about trust. As in: who is this dude publishing this paper about high-energy particle physics? I don't know him, so I don't trust him. But I do know about Science, and Nature, and other Journals, so I'm gonna use them. That's why Elsevier and Springer and other publishers continued to exist.

Problem is, science isn't about trust. It's about knowledge, and more importantly, truth. But how do get the truth? Well, there's witnesses, and evidence, and Reproducibility™ of statements to produce facts. Y'know, science itself. If we could somehow resolve the reproducibility crisis of science, I think we would be one step closer to ending the parasitic mono-duo-oligo-whateverpoly of these publishers. Because then it would not be about who I trust to move forward the science enterprise. Instead it would be about facts themselves, and about confirming, via evidence and reproducibility of these facts, that would promote a piece of statement into knowledge. And that is how science should always have been, since the very beginning.

But the reproduction of experiments is a problem in itself, that might be the cause of the 'relying-on-trust' issue. Since not all experiments are a simple ./build-and-run.sh script, and some involve a lot of money (think anything in medicine, physics, geology, oceanography, and the list goes on to ∞), it ends up being about someone that is reputable and reliable that had money and did the experiment and published in some journal that I know.
Thanks for the tips, I'll look into this some more.
> It's a free market.

Free market is not magic.

Do you want to learn how network effects combine with coordination problem?
why would these auto generated subs be the apps purview? wouldn't it be YT platform doing all of this work and providing a CC button if the data is available. i can't imagine this being done in real time and not just some post process that is run against new content at time up upload processing.
> places of employment, which are generally highly concentrated.

This is not true and is one of the problems with getting mass transit to work in the US.

Most of the employment in the US is now smeared across the city. I'll give Austin as an example.

Austin employment has spaced out clumps. Downtown. The UT campus. The Domain (old IBM/NI area). The Arboretum. Oak Hill. The "new" airport.

Austin housing has similar clumps, generally dictated by how much you earn. You're probably further out than you would like since the real estate in the center is ridiculous. So, Leander, Hutto, Garfield, or Dripping Springs.

Now, plot the flows on a map. Note the massive pileup in the center as people attempt to change sectors across the city. Most modern cities are like this. There are not two or three obvious points that would get a big chunk of the traffic.

I chose Austin, but San Diego, Pittsburgh, Nashville, etc. all look similar.

And, the news is worse than that. The "white collar" jobs that could be concentrated have also been the most displaced by surburban office parks or by WFH. The types of jobs that most people are employed in (service and warehousing--Walmart/Amazon/FedEx/UPS/etc.) are generally specifically positioned where real estate is cheaper which is almost by definition off of any mass transit connector.
This one? “Marriott finds financial reprieve in reduced GDPR penalty” [1]?

They seem to have been whacked several times without a C-Suite Exec missing a ski-vacation.

If I’m ignorant please correct me but I’m unaware of anyone important at Marriott choosing an E-Class rather than an S-Class over it.

[1] https://www.cybersecuritydive.com/news/marriott-finds-financ...
But an advantage of digital texts could be that you buy a text in 2024, and it shows you all revisions of the text from 1948 to 2024…
This is simply not true. Funding agencies, revieweds and universities incentivize the researchers to publish in "high-impact" journals.

If researchers weren't pushed by institutions to publish more and more and in highly ranked journals things would be much better.

The problem is nobody wants to do the move (researchers, institutions, funding agencies), so publishers (Elsevier isn't alone, ACS, Springer, Wiley, they all do that) increase the prices as much as they can because nothing happened when they did. And even now, as was shown by a comment above only a tiny percentage of their clients take action...
> The tooling exists to allow such libraries and executables to be created and have the runtime linker pick the right implementation at link time, but support for it is spotty.

Attribute target_clones works quite well with gcc in my experience, but it is done all by hand for worthwhile functions and should interfere with inlining and short jumps.
How do these numbers work out though? MIT probably isn't the richest university there is, but I would expect it to be pretty far up there. Even if all 2000 unis spent as much as MIT did, it would only add up to roughly 80% of the profit — and I would expect most universities to have far less budget than MIT. So is there a set of big whale universities who are paying way more?
Not yet, but that's not a bad idea.
There are already examples of content farms generating websites based off of bad Reddit data. So other websites can start to pollute the model as well as they get crawled along with the primary misinformation.
Yes. Your comment adds nothing to the conversation. It's like posting on the incorrect use of your/you're there/their/they're. Mistakes in grammar happen all the time. When they happen, it is easy for the reader to see the mistake and move on. Corrective comments mean nothing in the end
Unfortunately these rules punish dogs and good owners, while they’re smugly ignored by bad owners.

A well behaved dog off-leash is not a problem - but the rule isn’t against badly behaved dogs or inattentive owners - the rule is against off-leash, period. It isn’t fair to the good ones.
Oldest person, Maria Branyas Morera, dies aged 117
What’s wrong with me?

I think you’re crazy.

I want a second opinion!

You’re also lazy!
There is a move in academia towards omitting the names of journals from CVs and a suggestion that perhaps hiring and tenure committees should be given copies of a candidates five best papers (without publication information) to use in evaluating rather than just using a list of publications in making decisions. It seems like a much more rational approach to me.
I knew you served ads :)

I'm not saying you're hiding anything it's just easy to see why you have this opinion. My example was not outlandish and is relevant. Vs the argument you made which was a purposefully dishonest analogy.

My hope is not to state that ads are evil as I don't believe that, just to point out that you are a person who serves ads, I also never state any of the opinions or beliefs you say I did, Have a nice day!
The key word is consider. If you wouldn't apply the pattern to the whole codebase, maybe you don't actually want to introduce it in just this one new place.
There are many other resources.

But this is an example https://archive.is/KShWY#9
Authors have to sign away all their rights when they want to publish with those publishers.
Can we go back to the spoken defense like Disputation or Rigorosum?
Any company that takes financial advantage of that should just fu
Isn't the comment you are responding to an example of: "When machine intelligences start inventing biological tools to overcome the limits of their silicon existence, you'll have a point"?
That reminds me of the 2007 incident when the Air Force meant to transfer twelve unarmed cruise missiles from North Dakota to Louisiana but loaded up six nuclear-tipped missiles by mistake. The missiles remained unprotected on a B-52 for 36 hours before someone noticed the missiles were nuclear. A whole lot of people including 8 generals got in trouble over this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_States_Air_Force_n...
The driver in the front sticks his hand out the window and waves to the one in the back
> It is really used much in companies?

Cisco seems to use Chez for something mysterious, a video game company scripted in Scheme, stopped and restarted again. I know a guy who does option trading in Racket, I have some large valuation models in Racket (most of the system is in and Common Lisp). I know a few guys who do vague data analysis and scripting in scheme (especially Guile or Gerbil for some reason) where their clients only care about the result. https://www.itasoftware.com/ is in scheme. There are some dead webshops(?) like https://www.greghendershott.com/2018/05/extramaze-llc-using-... or https://defn.io/2019/08/20/racket-ecommerce/

That's about it.
What do you see as your biggest wins using Claude?
It’s just the next TikTok/Douyin. One version for their country, another for the rest of the world.
Or perhaps lower quality.
The second code does not compile and introduces a new dependency.
Friend's "Always Listening" Feature Is Sketchy
with a name such as nirmel it sounds a bit like your just salty because garfield has tried to mail you to abu dhabi like 100 times
According to the article, Elsevier demands that the author signs over the copyright. So no, they don't retain complete control.
"works" is subjective: https://docs.pikvm.org/faq/#common-questions

> I am expecting to see 60fps and I am not, why?

"PiKVM receives the entire signal, but then the encoding is the bottleneck. For 1080p, this is no more than 30 fps. V4 throws out every second frame of 60 hz/fps, and 30 fps is encoded. V3 and DIY can't process 60 hz and is only able to capture 50 hz, and in the same way they take every second frame, all you get out is 25 fps. The reason why V3 and DIY does not encode 30 out of 50 is that the picture will be jerky, but smooth at 25."

The main website claims 1080p60 support, which is true on the input side, but that's not what you get on the output... a bit of false advertising IMO.
Private companies doing any kind of scientific research also have subscriptions. (A drug company for example.)
Roadkill armadillos are "non-human material"
User Y is still an employee of your company. Of course an employee can be malicious, but the threat isn't the same as anyone can do it.

Getting AI out of the picture, the user could still post false/poisonous messages and search would return those messages.
Nah, European GDPR fines are a joke.

I’m talking about the US class action. The sum I read about is in the billions.
Terrible article imo. You can’t approach UI from the perspective of a developer using the UI you just wrote, you need to think about it from a user’s perspective. That sometimes means having redundancy in the name of familiarity and legibility.

I agree YouTube example is pretty bad, but the gmail one is a really good use of a toast! What do you mean “you can see the email is removed from the list”?? Have you ever used email before? You usually have more than 3 messages, and seeing which one was removed, let alone that one was removed at all is not always obvious. And “undo” is incredibly important since you don’t have direct access to the removed item (and sometimes it’s a time sensitive action like undoing sending an email). The last one is not very helpful but not harmful either.

Also even if all the the examples were truly horrible and despicable uses of toasts, 3 bad examples are not enough to say a commonly used UI pattern is outright “bad”.
Did you think I would deny or hide that?

Are all ads, and are all sites that serve ads evil?

I know you visit sites that serve ads. And you may even block them, Gasp!
Everyone goes to subscriptions, because trying to get new customers every month at a rate that pays everyone's salaries, at a typical engineering level, plus everyone else on the company, and office rental, doesn't scale, specially in developer tools where many prefer to suffer with lesser tooling than paying.
the size is also a limiting factor for the cloverleaf; a 270 degree turn at reasonable speeds requires a lot of land cause the curve radius is so huge and you're going three quarters of the way around.

there is also the weave required between exiting off a loop and other traffic entering onto it. you could theoretically get rid of it by bridging one loop over the other but then you may as well just bridge more of it without the 270 degree turn at that point.

and there are also compromise designs like the cloverstack where only two opposite sides are the 270 loops to avoid the weaving problem.
I agree as this is also my personal experience. But I also see the usage of ChatGPT is falling down fast from 1.8 billion visitors to 260 million last month [1].

I am probably through some ETF an investor in MS, so I do hope the openai API usage is showing a more stable and upward trend.

[1]: https://explodingtopics.com/blog/chatgpt-users
Not really. Quick search just seems like the only notable thing is that it's allowed to be a class action.

But how consequential can it be if it doesn't event get more than a passing mention of the wikipedia page. [1]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriott_International#Marriot...
I appreciate that! A decent compromise I've found that would still result in most users consenting to analytics is to have it disabled initially, but on app startup a screen or modal displays the rationale for collecting data alongside a checkbox to opt-in and save their preference. And they could still go to the settings page to toggle it later, as it works now.

If it's a hobby project or backed by a small team, even I would opt-in to help the devs out after some trust in the project is established.
> I really dislike it when people have to first convince you that you should trust them.

> Either make a good argument or don’t.

Human beings can't evaulate the truth of things based only on the argument. Persuasive liars, cons, and incompetents are a very known phenomenon. Most of human history we misunderstood nature and many other things because we relied on 'good arguments'. Not that we need it, but research shows that human intuition about the truth of something isn't good without expertise.

When I need medical advice, I get it from someone who has convinced me that they have expertise; I don't look for 'good arguments' that persuade me, because I don't know what I'm talking about.

I have expertise in other things. In those fields, I could easily persuade people without it of just about anything. (I don't; I'm not a sociopath.) I imagine anyone with professional expertise who reads this can do the same.
> If you actually want practical and safe self driving cars widely deployed

I don't, though.

If we're going to propose a sci-fi future state of the world that will take a mind-boggling amount of investment, not to mention a giant leap of faith that we'll ever actually get there, I would prefer to reclaim all the space that's currently devoted to car infrastructure and be able to walk to everything.

> practical and safe

This isn't even enough; it would need to be cheap and universally accessible as well. I don't want to live in a society where we've agreed that cars are necessary despite a high and growing number of vehicle fatalities per year, and then provide miraculously-effective safety features [0] that only 1% (or 10% or whatever) of people can afford.

[0]

if about_to_collide()
dont();
Some random bits of context.

This conflict goes back a long time. In the early 1990's, with online journals just getting started, MIT was able to insist on principles like "anyone physically in the library has full access, even if they are not otherwise affiliated with MIT". A couple of years later, power shifted, and Elsevier could "our terms, take it or leave it". Then three decades, a human generation, of Elsevier rent-seeking, and so many people working towards Open Access, unbundling, google scholar, arXiv, sci-hub, and so on. Societal change can be so very slow, nonmonotonic, and profoundly discouraging. And yet here we are, making progress.

For anyone unfamiliar with "author [...] required to relinquish copyright [...] generous reuse rights", journals would require authors to completely sign over copyright, so authors' subsequent other-than-fair-use usage of fragments would be a copyright violation. Rarely enforced, but legally you'd have to obtain permission. While some institutions sign contracts easily, and struggle with the fallout later, MIT legal culture has been pain-up-front careful with contracts. Which is sometimes painful. But IIRC, we're today using X Windows instead of CMU's Andrew, because MIT could say "sure!" while CMU was "sure, err,... we'll get back to you... some mess to clean up first".
How did it "change your job description"?
I wonder how far we are from "Birth and death of JavaScript" making such a thing possible
Interesting recent history from Wikipedia: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RELX)

2019 UC system negotiations

On 28 February 2019, following long negotiations, the University of California announced it would be terminating all subscriptions with Elsevier. On 16 March 2021, following further negotiations and significant changes including (i) universal open access to University of California research and (ii) containing the "excessively high costs" being charged by publishers, the university renewed its subscription.
When I find someone claiming a suspicious data analysis result I can ask them for the SQL and investigate it to see if there's a bug in it (or further investigate where the data being queried comes from). If the abstraction layer between LLM prompt and data back is removed, I'm left with (just like other LLM answers) some words but no way to know if they're correct.
Sounds like they compliment each other. Save your most common boot images to ventoy, including netboot. Load netboot when you’d like to experiment.
Sure. But that's most users.
Wow, this is an incredibly detailed answer. Thanks so so much.

1- I hadn't thought about it. Maybe I was being too general.
2- Read it. Using it in all interviews so far.
3- Cool thing to aim for.

Again, thanks so much :)
Plasmo – A framework for building modern Chrome extensions
Same here, it opens the Maps app on my MacBook.
Isn't a toast just the tail of a message log that's visible for a few seconds after a new message is added? I don't always want the entire log to be occupying space on my screen, but I do want to see when new items get added.
Way ahead of ya, I don't have such a job and obviously wouldn't accept one since I have such a fundamental objection to that kind of "omg four alarm fire" outlook on work. SREs with pager duty have a more compatible mindset for that and frankly are just built different!
I thought some company had free SSO for Google and 365 only and advanced SSO on the enterprise tier. I don't remember which company though, so maybe I made this up.
Could you elaborate? Communication is itself a connection. The complaint isn't that the cars are connected to the internet, it's that they're connected and communicating with each other.

In an oversimplified system where Car A broadcasts "I'm braking" allowing Car B to slow down and avoid a collision, the attack vector is a simulated "I'm braking" message that causes car B to slow down/stop even though Car A is not braking (or may not even exist).
Show HN: I built a tool to easily monitor REST APIs, Solo in 2 Months
Hey HN,

This summer, I spent 2 months bootstrapping Palantly, a tool designed to monitor REST APIs with just a line of code.

I was frustrated by how existing analytics tools like Plausible or Google Analytics only track page loads but don’t show API errors, usage, or regressions.

Palantly solves this problem by giving you real-time insights into your API’s performance.

It’s built with Python and Litestar & Svelte for the frontend.

I’d love your feedback and thoughts to improve it!

Thanks.
Most CVE numbers are useful, but there are enough meaningless ones that will set off commercial security scanners to extort a sale to make them unreliable enough that you need to dig into most of them (rather than just assume they're security risks and treat them with the correct priority). Annoyingly, there are also plenty of security bugs that don't make it through the CVE system.

In a perfect world, you should be able to treat a CVE number in a scan or bug report as something of importance, but in practice you need to filter out the "time protocol allows reading the time" class of CVEs as well. CVEs might as well be links to Github issues if they're treated like this.
That sounds like science fiction. Do those machines exist today?
That's still among the strongest backwards compatibility guarantees in any major language. Maybe Java would be close? It's certainly better than C++ which is famed for backwards compatibility, and light years ahead of Python.
There was a post on HN recently about building software for yourself - forget the possible audience of millions. If you focus on yourself as the end user then the whole thing becomes easier.

I couldn't find it after a brief search. Maybe someone else remembers it.
https://pluralistic.net/2024/08/16/the-public-sphere/#not-th... talks about that
Against all odds, an asteroid mining company appears to be making headway
The biggest benefit to stack over a cloverleaf is that cloverleaves have this issue that the same lane needs to be used for offgoing traffic to decelerate and oncoming traffic to accelerate. There's a partial mitigation for cloverleaves, which is to lane segregate the ramps so that there's less pressure for traffic to have to accelerate to highway speed immediately, but stacks eliminate the issue entirely.
While this is true, I think you’re not appreciating the metaphor.

Humankind tried to break the 4 minute mile for hundreds of years - since measuring distance and time became accurate enough to be sure of both in the mid-18th century, at least - and failed.

In May 1954, Roger Bannister managed it. By late June it was done again by a different runner. Within 20 years the record was under 3:45, and today there are some runners who have achieved it more than 100 times and nearly 1800 runners who have done it at all.

Impossible for hundred of years, and then somebody did it, and people stopped thinking it was impossible and started doing it themselves. That’s the metaphor: sometimes we think of barriers that are really mental, not real.

I’m not sure that applies here either, but the point is not that progress is continuously exponential, but that once a barrier is conquered, we take on a perspective as if the barrier were never real in the first place. Powered flight went through this. Computing hardware too. It’s not an entirely foolish notion.
It helps me stay in flow by keeping me one layer up.

In pair programming, it's ideal to have a driver (hands on keyboard) and a navigator (planning, direction).

Claude can act as the driver most of the time so I can stay at the navigator level.

This is so helpful, as it's easy as programmers to get sucked into implementation details or low-level minutiae that's just not important.
I'm happy to highlight "obvious" knowledge, since really there's no such thing.

This particular one hits close to home because of the sheer number of "highly experienced" Swift developers I have interviewed who didn't know this.
Russian pensioners urge Vladimir Putin to rescue Starliner astronauts