skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think there's a fundamental mistunderstanding and mismatch between what you want to do, and what Jupyter notebooks are for. The distinction is between code versus the results.

If the code is the end product, sure, use a python package.

But does your .py with `# %%` in it also store the outputs? If not, why even bring this up? A .py output without the plots tied to the code doesn't meet the basic use case.

If the end product is the plot, I want to see how that plot was generated. And a Jupyter notebook is a much much better artifact than a Python package, unless that Python package hard codes the inputs and execution path like a notebook would.

Over the past 20 years of my career I have run into this divergence of use cases a lot. Software engineers seem to not understand the end goals, how it should be performed, and the learnings of the practitioners that have been generating results for a long time. It's hard to protect data scientists from these inflexible software engineers that see "aha that's code, I know this!" without bothering to understand the actual use case at hand.
You can now run Wasm builds of PostgreSQL that will get you everything you like about SQLite.

https://github.com/electric-sql/pglite
OK, so there are basically three cases:

1. Charlie is running a client and downloads something. In which case Bob is an entrance node, not an exit node, but it's essentially the same thing. Charlie does know that the next hop is Bob. Depending on whether the ultimate destination is a hidden service or on the clearnet, Charlie may or may not know who's running that service.

2. Charlie is running a hidden service, and somebody uploads something. Charlie knows that it came via Bob, but doesn't know where it came from.

3. Charlie is running a regular clearnet Web server, and somebody uploads something to Charlie via Bob's exit node. Again Charlie sees that the traffic comes from Bob.

In the first two cases, Charlie has to be actually running the Tor software, and knowingly using Tor. So Charlie also knows that (a) Bob is just a relay, (b) Bob doesn't actually host the content, (c) Bob doesn't handle more than a packet or two of the content at a time, and deletes those as soon as they've been relayed, (d) Bob doesn't know, and can't find out, what the content actually is, (e) Bob doesn't know, and can't find out, where the content originally came from, and (f) Bob is really unlikely to keep any record of the whole connection after the session is over, which means probably no more than 10 minutes or so.

If that's enough to go after Bob, then it's enough to go after Bob... but historically it hasn't been. Bob can reasonably claim not only that he doesn't know what that particular traffic was, but that, although he knows there's probably some illegal traffic, most of the traffic he relays is probably legal.

In the third case, it looks to Charlie like Bob is the ultimate user. Unless Charlie does some investigation, Charlie may go raid Bob. But Charlie should then find out all that other stuff.

I think the most common actual case is that Charlie is running a honey pot, either as a hidden service or on the clearnet, and somebody gets the content from Charlie via Bob. But the same basic ideas apply.

The main issue isn't that Charlie doesn't know what the content is, but that Bob doesn't.

[Oh, and on edit, just to be clear: In the first two cases, that "packet or two" that Bob may ephemerally buffer is encrypted so that Bob can't read it, nor can any other relay. In the third case, where Charlie is a clearnet service, the end user is usually still using TLS, so Bob still can't read it. And none of the non-exit relays can read it no matter what.]
I would want to select a voice without vocal fry, which one of the voices in these demos has.
Can confirm. We got a commercial-grade Panasonic microwave I believe, that survived near daily use for almost 9 years before the magnetron finally gave out. We replaced it with an identical model, and it must be a pretty good one since a cursory comparison inside between the old and new revealed virtually no changes since our old one was made. If it ain't broke...
Related, they are also visible while flying:
https://medium.com/google-earth/planespotting-465ee081c168

(not SAR in this case)
I think the "Longest DJ Set" was intentional wordplay.
I think it successfully got the point across that visual vs SAR have different benefits.
No no, I'm asking about your actual belief that regulators are typically corrupted by arrangements like the one you're sarcastically pointing to.
Oh yeah I've seen variants of this concept, Safenote, comes to mind which expires based off X views or Y days, but nice to see an open source one like yours!
I think i figured it out and i blame my illness for my failing to realize... it's september. HN comments have been upside-down world for a few weeks now. I just assumed my brain was having slight issues with comprehension and understanding how i was presenting my ideas; while that may perhaps be part of it, i don't think it's the full story.

I don't think i've used sigrok (or the other product mentioned around here), but i do have one of those usb oscopes and now i want to check it [sigrok] out. Whenever i see a bunch of people bellyaching about free software i gotta try it out - it usually ends up a permanent part of my toolkit.

thanks for replying, and i hope the maintainer gets their comments undeaded.
Imo, the better architected .ipynb is simply .py with '# %%' blocks. It does almost everything a .ipynb can do with the right VSCode extensions. Even interactive visualizations can be sent to a browser window or saved to disk with plotly. Though I do wish '# %%' cell based execution was accessible to more people.

There isn't a single install tool that "just works" for this at the moment. If editors came with more robust support for it by default, I think the notebook format wouldn't be needed at that point and people could use regular python and interactive cell based python more interchangeably. I've seen important code get buried under collections of jupyter notebooks across different users so I have a good reason for this. Notebooks simply dont scale beyond a certain complexity.
What is going on with the wght (weight) axis? When I slide to the left of 400, the text condenses as it gets thinner. But to the right of 400, the text does not expand, it just gets thicker. So it would not appear to be a continuous variable, as the slider would suggest.
At this point, this should be the industry standard. "Local" should be whatever you can SSH into. You can get as much hardware as you need, and you don't have to worry about anything private (i.e., customer information) and/or proprietary being on your lost / stolen laptop.
Walkie-talkies can "eavesdrop" on walkie-talkies...
The EU does that, yes. He’s saying countries can’t do that to their own industries, however, which I am led to believe is correct.
In the US at least they're a state monopoly
"Selected Shorts" is up there. My principle complaint is that episodes remain live for only a month or so. If you happen to catch an episode you like you'll have to keep it downloaded. All but certainly on account of copyright.

Various non-English pods as well, to maintain / increase fluency. Germany has a good set via Deutschlandfunk. I've found a few in other languages, though tending toward advertising-supported, which is less than ideal.

Searching for stories, literature, childrens' stories (a surprisingly good way to learn basic vocabulary, grammar, and culture), and history in your target language of choice tends to be a pretty good guide.
I think the title is intentionally ambiguous.

Because the article is a rebuttal to those who oppose writing comments (that is where "why not comments" means "why you shouldn't write comments") where the main argument is that you should write "why not" comments (that is "why not comments" means write comments explaining why you didn't do something or do something a certain way).
As was the title of this article.
(After a quick look at the code) Is this due to concurrency (writes)? It looks like this architecture supports multiple executors, and I would imagine you require transactional guards to ensure consistency. I really like this interface btw, the complexity is hidden very well and from reading your docs it remains accessible if you need to dig deeper than a decorator.

And how the heck are you maintaining Typescript and Python copies? lol
Tor isn't a post office or telephone network. We have post offices and telephone networks. Tor also isn't a replacement for a web browser or internet, we have those too.

Tor's feature isn't "communication" in the abstract, it's anonymity. And yes, that can be used for good or for evil. But the upthread comment was saying how nice it was to run an exit node because it was "helping people". And to the extent that's true, I think correct thinking demands you also account for the harm.

And let's be clear: Tor is definitely harmful. Almost all Tor traffic is some degree of nefarious. The tiny handful of dissidents are drowned in a sea of phishing and contraband.
I would guess that Apple's ability to get a return on its cash are likely to exceed the total of taxes, interest, and fees.
Thank you for your commentary!
Right, commit messages are at least always right for the context that comes with them. I think long descriptive names are an anti pattern. As per word puzzles you can't actually read the middle of a blob of text so you are basically left with a dozen variables that are cognitively the same as isDatabaseHidingDragonsSetter().
I use Amazon for basic reviews (knowing sellers and reviewers fully game this) to get an idea of basic considerations, then buy locally or via some other online portal.

I only actually buy stuff on Amazon that are low-cost, non-critical items or if the shipping time is critical and I can't get it locally.
Tbh, I don't really understand why polars is better based on this post. It just seems like the author prefers the syntax.
Awesome job on launching it early. I appreciate the idea behind the live call monitoring, but it will be so hard to use that tool while a call is going on, I think it might be too hard to use.
Wsl2 mounts the Windows filesystem via 9p in the Linux VM, so exposing it to your Docker container is just a config issue.
> There are obviously still people working in German law enforcement today, who think that harassing a node-operator NGO would somehow lead to the de-anonymization of individual tor users.

This is not why.

> As a consequence, I am personally no longer willing to provide my personal address&office-space as registered address for our non-profit/NGO as long as we risk more raids by running exit nodes.

This is why. It's basically a textbook example of a chilling effect.
> Linux is perfectly secure for a physically secured server rack. It is a nightmare scenario for GSM privacy.

What is the difference?
The thing is, the superior way to reheat something would usually be a lower power level. But not the standard "turn on - turn off" cycle that most microwaves do. Actual lower intensity microwaves. You need an inverter for that. The food would heat more evenly, which is especially useful for things like butter that are prone to splattering.
PS: Somewhat related, look at the bonkers way Windows resolves the program to execute from the command line string: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/processt...

PPS: Even less related, there's no exec() in Win32, so you can't write a starter program that does some setup and then runs another program (e.g. specified as a parameter). You need to keep the starter program open and act as a proxy to the started program! See the various dotenv CLI implementations. But I digress.
>On that train of thought, what prevents a new lottery from coming in and offering a _generous_ -50% lottery, offering ~5x as much money as before?

federal-level gambling syndicate isn't something that a private party can easily jump into.

so the answer is : a mix of 'grandfather'd-in' and protectionism, if we're talking U.S. here.
This doesn't seem like a purely economical strike. It's not a coincidence that the most unionized tech workforce in the country is the New York Times, an organization that is fundamentally pro-union in its politics. When the organization as a whole is consistently delivering a pro-union message, doesn't it just make sense that the employees would tend to be ideologically pro-union?
Fair point. I've edited my comment to show my impression that the author uses Windows as a daily driver, rather than merely 'for work', which I think makes the cause for my confusion a little clearer.
How to Monetize a Blog (Satire)
According to their video ( https://vimeo.com/502475794/ffbfb82b15 ), the company patented bit plane image storage. What the heck? That is so obvious and shouldn't be patentable.

On a side note, they keep touting how robust their data archival solution is. But I have my doubts. For example, if an image has a big patch of 0 or 1 bits, then it might be impossible to accurately align the bit positions ("reclocking"); this is the same issue with QR codes and why they have a masking (scrambling) technique. Another problem is that their format doesn't seem to mention error correction codes; adding Reed-Solomon ECC is an essential technique in many, many popular formats already.
They say Windows has a more advanced security system, but what does that actually mean in practice? Okay, it has everything is an object, then you can just set permissions on objects. Okay, the OS just has to check if you have permission to an object before you access that object.

What if there are just a billion objects and you can't tell which ones need which permission, as an administrator. I couldn't tell if this example actually exists from the article as it only talks abstractly about the subject. But Windows security stuff just sounds like a typical convoluted system that never worked. This is probably one of the one places where UN*X is better off, not that it's any good since it doesn't support any use case other than separating the web server process from the DNS server process, but that it's very simple.

What if the objects do not describe the items I need to protect in sufficient detail? How many privilege escalation / lateral movement vulns were there in Windows vs any UN*X?
> make the code look like the existing code.

This is so undervalued when maintaining an older codebase. Please, for the sanity of those who come after you - make the code look like the existing code.
Obvious obvious advantage is obviously obvious: the ability to run software which is either obsolete, incompatible with your present system, or simply not trusted.

In my own case, I'd find benefits to spinning up, say, qemu running FreeDOS, WinNT, or various Unixen. Total overhead is low, and I get access to ancient software or data formats. Most offer shared data access through drive mapping, networking, Samba shares, etc.

That's not what I'd suggested above as an integrated solution, but could easily become part of the foundation for something along those lines. Again, Kubernetes or other jail-based solutions would work where you need a different flavour that's compatible with your host OS kernel. Where different kernels or host architectures are needed, you'll want more comprehensive virtualisation.
K1 Buys MariaDB
True. In any case, not unfair to Ireland.
what about https://github.com/microsoft/terminal

you use that too right? you better!
> Cash now is worth more than cash later.

This is accurate, regarding preferences for optionality, and how our economy currently works. But I think it's worth questioning the expectation that giving up that optionality deserves compensation, whether morally or practically (resulting in compounding "money-on-money returns", usually at low risk if sufficiently diversified).

The Italian economist Silvio Gesell noted, that no other good besides currency works this way. Every other good with a use value (food, houses) tends to lose value over time (entropy being fundamental to the universe), and/or, to carry risk (a share of stock which represents unpredictable ROI). There is course an exception in land, which doesn't intrinsically depreciate, but whose value trends upwards thanks to location value (and which can be addressed separately via Georgist land tax).

Gesell proposed a "demurrage currency" [0], which gradually loses value as it is held: the idea being, rather than being entitled to a return, retaining high long-term optionality is actually a privilege that one should have to pay for, since the real-world value it represents is depreciating. And the incentive to invest (whether at high or low risk) instead becomes to break even (with the rate of demurrage tracking what we currently call the discount rate).

I have no idea if such a concept is practical in a trans-national, growth-dependent global economy (with deflationary crypto-currencies as a BATNA!); if anything, I'm fairly confident it's not. But it's at least worth thinking about: that it's not at all axiomatic that holders of value should be entitled to compensation for "forgoing consumption" (not only because the wealthy don't necessarily need such an incentive, but also because increased consumption can mean an increase in the velocity of money, and more total value created, per the multiplier effect, and the "hotel riddle" [1]).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio_Gesell#Economic_philoso...

[1] https://www.econlib.org/archives/2012/01/an_answer_to_a.html
Someone should do a deep dive into developer productivity after LLVM switched from Phabricator to GitHub. How many other major projects have done a switch like that?
More helpfully, you probably mean EU law supersedes Irish law in this area.
I personally don't care what anyone says, I use comments and doc comments ALL OVER the place; I do it in reverse, though. I write a list of steps for the application as comments, a rough draft at first, then as I develop the code I take the big steps and split them into little steps, sometimes removing the original comment and sometimes not, and I continue to split comments into smaller steps until I have nearly a complete algorithm. Then I just code the logic in there. I normally will code from the outside in, so I'll also be writing code as I do the comment-splitting stuff. Sometimes I get off on a tear and I code a bunch of stuff at once, but then later I go back and comment it down to a level that I think most of you would find annoying. Every function and variable has a comment about what it does, even the `deg_to_rad` function has a comment `"""Converts degrees to radians."""`. Why not, storage is cheap!

I know most people don't like it, and that is fine, they can deal with it! I they don't want to see my comments, they can remove them from their version of my code with a script, and if my co-workers and boss don't like them they can remove them in a code review! However, I can say that I enjoy reading my old code way more than I enjoy reading other's code which have zero comments. I work in Python, so a lot of the simple non-algorithm code (boilerplate stuff for apps, like flask APIs for example) is mostly "self-documenting" since the old saying goes, "write some pseudo-code and 95% of the time it runs in Python." The most important comments are sometimes on the boilerplate stuff because that's where a lot of changes happen versus the algorithms where I find there is a lot more wholesale rewriting in my industry.

I will always love comments and doc comments!
Sure, but I think it's the sort of "self-dealing" that's the problem.

Suppose it were possible for a wholesaler in Ireland to purchase a product in bulk at around 1/3 of MSRP. Market equilibrium would drive the price of that product down, right? If any other company could do that, price competition would prevail and eventually the delta between the import cost (in Ireland) and the export price (to an Italian phone shop) would shrink. Likewise, the retailers that wholesaler sells to would want to have some margin as well. This would put pressure on the wholesaler - likely competing with other wholesalers - to have a small margin as their "value added" is insubstantial.

But, crucially, this is not a case of three independent entities: a manufacturer, a wholesaler, and a retail business. This is one entity, with three subsidiaries and setting prices between them to minimize tax burden, and setting prices in ways that are simply nonsensical, like selling products from one subsidiary to another at or below cost, and then to another at full retail price. If they were three separate companies, the manufacturer and the retailer would go under. In this scheme, the wholesaler is somehow adding all of the value to the product, despite doing nothing more than acting as a shipping hub.
The back taxes accrue interest - IIRC like €1.2B
An article not not to overlook.
Uh, that title is...wrong...
Oh yeah, I've been using Git Bash for years, it's great. It's nice being able to use a set of basic cli utils I'm used to (gnu utils) which are bundled in (not sure if it's 100% exhaustive in that regard, but still enough for me to do everything familiar). And yes, agree with and have benefited from every single bullet point TFA mentions!
I think the saying goes buying a lottery ticket only marginally increases your chance of winning.
One example is the three killers problem

There are three killers in a room, someone enters the room and kills one of them, how many killers are now in the room?

Apart from the basic reasoning errors of small models (where they come up with all sorts of numbers), larger models that fail, do so because they fail to take into account that killing makes a killer. Some models succeed at this but it is unclear if this is because they are familiar with this specific problem.

The model has to make the distinction between that and

There are three fish in a room, someone enters the room and kills one of them, how many fish are now in the room?

or

There are three fish in a room, someone enters the room and kills one of them, how many killers are now in the room?

In these examples the word kills is pushed in one direction or another, but when it serves double duty in the original problem it can notice one premise and miss the other.

It's interesting task in frustration to try and get a model that gets it wrong to COT out of that particular error.
God I hate this argument. This is such an unhelpful, useless thing to say. It doesn't provide any useful or practical suggestions, it's just a way of shutting down conversation.
It's interesting that you perceive the X to have been thinner. It's actually very slightly thicker (by 0.05mm) than the 13. The 13 is longer (by 3.1mm) and wider (by 0.6mm) though.
Maybe the New York Times will end up both with a unionized tech workforce, and a lower-paid one. Personally, I would never want to join a union or work as management at a company with a union, but I am still kind of curious to see what the result of a tech workforce unionizing would be.
me: "this is great advice"

also me: "I have no interest in working on things that don't scale"
His arguments like this?

https://x.com/esghound/status/1511730625333665799

He's worthless as a source and not worth paying attention to.
The threat isn't so much scratching it in your pocket (but that is possible, I typically have my sunglass clip in the same pocket--it's supposed to be in it's own case but in theory something could happen) as scratching it against things.
Do something for yourself. Reach your goals using a system
You don’t need programmability for AI teaining either.