skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Fair.

even the original rfcs from 198x only write about domain name servers though, which is why the DNS server is still a misnomer of the same kind, even if my attempt of rationalizing it failed - as that's the only thing you've called into question with that.

Because if domain name system server makes sense to you, then language server protocol server has to make sense in the same way, as that's literally the same concept
i tried d&d during the pandemic and was taught what 'flavor text' is. a dictionary of one to many flavor texts would benefit me using this pattern because i need randomness to break through the anticipation. in fact, mapping to posix exit codes would probably be the only case i'd use - give me 1000 cute sayings for exit 0, and a dozen for 255, 1, 2, and a sensible default.

preemptively, to anyone telling me this is terrible, i'd say this is a toy and a subjective one, but that we're detailing our personal flows here, and not inventing interfaces :)
As a submarine veteran, I can already tell the U.S.S New Jersey is going to get the nickname “U.S.S Jersey Shore” by the crew one of my shipmates was on an SSGN and he said there was always some kind of intersex drama when there’s both male and female on a boat
there's lots of ways to succeed on youtube and in this world. MrBeast is only one form.

As one of many examples, the ww2 channel is quite different but also financially successful:
https://www.youtube.com/@WorldWarTwo
Honestly I could see it working in projects with inherently high complexity and/or set timelines like operating systems, compilers, video games.

There's often a clear goal in these cases, and there's no 'minimum valuable product' you can quickly iterate on.
Docker fixed two RCE vulnerabilities last week
While I prefer to crack my eggs from the little end, I insist on big-endian byte order. Sadly, modern CPUs are mostly made by barbarians (i.e. Little-Endians).
Some of the choices there make things harder to read.

For example, this machine takes two numbers and they are the numerator and denominator. Why on earth use ">" for the separator? That already has a mathematical meaning.
Yes, I'd much rather review a PR with the full unedited history, not the history that the submitter thinks is good or pretty. You often don't know what information you need until you need it. I'll take the entire, dirty history, and once I'm done with it it can be squashed.
If you consider this not as a binary choice, but "waterfall" on one end meaning that the whole design process has basically no feedback, and "agile manifesto agile" (not scrum or any other calcification of the process, but the true chaotic "just depend on your engineers to be smart" process), it's probably true there has never been a "true", all-the-way-to-one-end Waterfall design that went for multiple years, because such a thing is essentially impossible.

It is absolutely the case though that many projects were driven with management methodologies way, way too far to the Waterfall side, and that managers would attack developers for essentially failing the process if anybody ever had to incorporate feedback or backtrack or do anything other than 100% rigidly and correctly follow the previous plan.

I don't consider it a "strawman" so much as a "simplification". Nobody could ever truly do waterfall for extended periods of time but there were plenty of people who acted and managed on the idea that the ideal is very, very close to it and to the extent deviations were necessary they are all automatically failures. To the extent that one is trying to discuss management methodologies across an entire industry, if not arguably across multiple industries simultaneously, waterfall is not an unreasonable approximation.

And personally I think in the occasional interminable "oh wouldn't it be wonderful if programmers were real engineers like architects" threads, where people fail to understand those processes used by other engineering disciplines are contingent based on the nature of their work rather than abstract Platonic ideals all should strive for, and those other disciplines would love to work with continuous integration servers and automated testing and strongly-typed components, there are a lot of developers that believe even today that if we just tried hard enough, waterfall could not only work but be the optimal design methodology, and it is we who are failing waterfall rather than the other way around.
bRep apps can handle and work with meshes (though it's probably not the most efficient way to work with them) but no, generally speaking extracting the real geometry requires redrawing them. You can get a long way by decimating meshes and using various tools but you're going to end up breaking the result down and partly redrawing.

Plasticity (the sorta-CAD-sorta-modeller app) has seemingly just added some logic to the recent version to help with extracting the true geometry from meshes. I want to like Plasticity but it's not enough CAD for me right now.
If HN had a way to pin a comment, this would be the one :)
> And this is why we can't have nice things.

Indeed, and that's why OP wrote its list of counterpoints. In theory, a company can make a lot of money by creating products that are aligned with users' interests. Unfortunately, in today's world this is more difficult to do rather than taking advantage of users in some way. Still, if we don't oppose these practices there will never be a change, so it's worth fighting for our rights as users.
OK, I see what you mean and thank you for the clarification.

So I think here you're mainly talking about the process by which artificial intelligence can be achieved. I don't disagree that, in principle, it should be possible to do this by some kind of brute-force, big-data optimisation programme. There is such a thing as evolutionary computation and genetic algorithms, after all. I think it's probably unrealistic to do that in practice, at least in other than evolutionary time scales, but that's just a hunch and not something I can really support with data, like.

But what I'm talking about is testing the intelligence of such a system, once we have it. By "testing" I mean to things: a) detecting that such a system is intelligent in the first place, and, b) measuring its intelligence. Now ARC-AGI muddles the waters a bit because it doesn't make it clear what kind of test of intelligence it is, a detecting kind of test or a measuring kind of test; and Chollet's white paper that introduced ARC is titled "On the measure of intelligence" which further confuses the issue: does he assume that there already exist artificially intelligent systems, so we don't have to bother with a detection kind of test? Having read his paper, I retain an impression that the answer is: no. So it's a bit of a muddle, like I say.

In any case, to come back to the brute force issue: I assume that, by brute force approaches we can solve any problem that humans solve, presumably using our intelligence, but without requiring intelligence. And that makes it very hard to know whether a system is intelligent or not just by looking at how well it does in a test, e.g. an IQ test for humans, or ARC, etc.

Seen another way: the ability to solve problems by brute force is a big confounding factor when trying to detect the presence of intelligence in an artificial system. My point above is that we have no good way to control for this confounder.

The question that remains is, I think, what counts as "brute force". As you say, I also don't think of neural net inference as brute force. I think of neural net training as brute force, so I'm muddling the issue a bit myself, since I said I'm talking about testing the already-trained system. Let's say that by "brute force" I mean a search of a large combinatorial space carried out at inference time, with or without heuristics to guide it. For example, minimax (as in Deep Blue) is brute force, minimax with a neural-net learned evaluation function (as in AlphaGo and friends) is brute force, AlphaCode, AlphaProof and similar approaches (generating millions of candiates and filtering/ ranking) is brute force, SAT-Solving is brute force, searching for optimal plans is brute force. What is not brute force? Well, for example, SLD-Resolution is not brute force because it's a proof procedure, arithmetic is not brute force because there's algorithms, boolean logic is not brute force, etc. I think I'm arguing that anything for which we have an algorithm that does not require a huge amount of computational power is not brute force, and I think that may even be an intuitive definition. Or not?
Show HN: LiveImage AI – Transform Any Portrait into a Talking Avatar Video
This paragraph is the key:

> The QUERY method provides a solution that spans the gap between the use of GET and POST. As with POST, the input to the query operation is passed along within the content of the request rather than as part of the request URI. Unlike POST, however, the method is explicitly safe and idempotent, allowing functions like caching and automatic retries to operate.
> My team chooses the characteristics of the sprint. It’s not like they are randomly assigned...It’s not like there’s anything mandatory, so we set our release schedule and what a release means based on what makes sense.

Count your blessings. This is not the case everywhere.
Counterpoint: Why in god's name would I want to play a fantasy adventure in a "realistic" medieval setting?
Aramco and Groq Announce Building Largest Inferencing DC in Saudi Arabia
I worked at a place where, while it was never called "waterfall", it was absolutely the way things worked. I think it naturally evolves this way:

1) a software project, when finished, turns out not to fulfill all of the things people wanted

2) "we should plan more carefully next time, so that all the requirements are identified at the beginning"

3) the next software project starts to resemble waterfall, but still misses some requirements

4) "we should spend more time on the requirements phase next time, so we don't miss anything"

5) etc.

It is the natural method that large organizations end up with, in the absence of any philosophy saying otherwise. It's not the natural method that startups or small organizations end up with, probably, because it involves a ton of meetings first, before anything is done, and that is something that happens more in large organizations.

Waterfall is what you get when it is always the safer option to say, "wait, let's spend more time planning out and getting buy-in". There may not be many places that call it "waterfall", but there are a lot of places that do it. Some of them even call it "agile".
I grew up in russia mate, I've seen the alternative to capitalism, and I can tell you that capitalism is a damn paradise compared to what that alternative was.

Instead of doing drugs just read some history on how those things go. Once you start expropriating anything you'll get a violent pushback, that's either a coup or a civil war, during those you will get violent people take charge, then if your side looses you get Pinochet and a helicopter ride, if your side wins, you get Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc that will exterminate anyone remotely like you as class enemies.

>The anarchist movement lived on during the time of the Soviet Union in small pockets, largely within the Gulag where anarchist political prisoners were sent, but by the late 1930s its old guard had either fled into exile, died or disappeared during the Great Purge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Russia
When nobles did go into combat they were better equipped and protected.

In warring states Japan, common foot soldiers would be armed with pikes (wood shafts with a sharp metal point) but nobles might ride a horse wearing mail armor and armed with an huge and asymmetrical simple bow and be further protected by their position in the military structure.

This is more like Monster Hunter as you do not scale your ‘hit points’ by an order of magnitude but you do get gear and actual skills.
This will work on iPhone. You cannot add a profile using the sim slot of iPhone, but once the profiles are on there you can switch them find using the STK UI on iPhone. You can download using a USB reader and compatible app.
> Conversely, what if I want to import STEP files and modify them?

Right. OpenSCAD can import and mesh STEP files. But the process throws away the true geometry.

I agree that the raster/vector analogy is strong!
Can't say exactly why, but I had this suggested by IDEA (?) as well. Could be because background is a kitchen-sink of everything there is in a background including several different DSLs for gradients and such. So it makes sense to keep just background-position if there's a simpler background: the browser will spend less time processing it.

Whether that is measurable is a different story :)
The slowdown is a contributing factor, but is not the sole reason.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41343931
Musk Deletes Tweet That Asked Why No One Is Trying to Assassinate Biden, Harris
Perhaps they should have registered a trademark for Theme Parks to prevent that from happening?
What's wrong with making things for others' entertainment? The moralization of this is bizarre. Don't like it, don't consume it. This man has figured out how to create a ridiculous amount of value, whichever way you slice it.
This guy likes money more than being liked, got it.
Why Gauss wanted a heptadecagon on his tombstone
In my experience, people very rarely use [sic] when quoting on internet forums - readers will assume any quote was copied and pasted; and the quoted text is directly above yours.
I have never seen waterfall in pure form. Mostly some kind of big upfront requirements projects with implementations iterations and a lot of project change management during the dev phase. These upfront requirements periods could be anything from a couple of weeks to a couple of years. While, I don't doubt that long requirements phases can have some value in aligning stakeholders on a new direction, they often became a raison d'être for complete teams - often stopping other promising projects in its wake: "You have to align with project jabberwocky before we can sign off your project." Agile seemed like a way to start early and get reduce the inherent waste by building software on paper upfront.
Meanwhile, I had a hard time last week getting a machine with 8 gpus from azure.
Is this a generational thing? Or location? On the US west coast, I've never met anyone who cares about shiny bling like that. Granted, they're not old money, just well off tech types, but they dress and eat like the rest of us. Maybe drive slightly nicer cars, but still easily sub 100k.

Who's buying these things?
I don't think this post is quite accurate that Royce proposed the model just to critique it. Royce's 1970 paper describes a way of adapting normal project management practice to software.

Royce's criticism of the model touches on the brittle nature of specs in the face of discoveries about performance that mean a project could potentially have to start over.

Agile, however, has a lot more solid basis in the difficulty of estimating software development tasks. Using traditional project management tools, you would do a resource-leveled critical path analysis, which is a very heavyweight way of optimizing who does what and when, which then within a couple weeks is no longer useful because your task estimates suck. Instead you get. the team together every couple of weeks and decide who does what. Rinse and repeat.

Agile works better because estimates almost always suck but that's OK because that doesn't break your exquisiite schedule analysis because you're not making one.
Waterfall is a straw man, early descriptions by Royce were written specifically to criticize it. Waterfall is mentioned in relation to agile to sing agiles praises. No serious developer will claim to use waterfall.

There are however, a suite of scientific management approaches based on the work of Henry Gantt which have been used, and are used today, that fit under the umbrella of waterfall approaches, such as the program evaluation and review technique, critical path, critical chain, and earned value. These are still in use today, and in fact government contractors are legally required to use earned value for acquisition programs over a certain value.
I've been through 4 different calls with Amazon's outsourced to India Customer Support, taken high resolution photographs from 20 different angles for their incorrectly shipped product to me which shows they tagged products incorrectly.

Will probably take them to Small Claims Court. Worst Customer Support ever.

Such a scam.

My wife is happy with them though.
I mean… they don’t need to care that much with 200mio€ profit.

But yes a smother signup, potentially coupled with a prepaid credit (via 3-D Secure) and or eID would be the easiest and safest solution for everyone.

Atleast if it’s clearly stated how and why that is required.
I don’t understand the intricacies and much of what you said. I am sure those are legitimate concerns for a professional.

But as a hobbyist, this is the tool I have turned to time and again for making simple parts or objects. I found this to be more intuitive and easier to onboard vs. learning different visual designing tools each with its own quirks.

So it definitely has a place in my toolbox as is.
>toxic, useless brainrot

I assumed that's what all his videos were for years and hadn't ever watched any (given I am not a child, among other reasons), but I gave one a chance out of curiosity and found myself surprisingly enjoying some of the competition videos. The competitions are often well-designed and adeptly narratively structured.
> On the other hand, in my 50 years or so in this business, working with every size of company, I have never actually seen "waterfall" being done in practice. I'm sure it may have happened -- as you report -- but I don't think it was ever common

In my ~20 years of mostly startups and small businesses I have seen waterfall creep in at almost every company. You start by being small-a agile because there is no process. Then something happens – a few big fires ship, or someone misses a requirement, or an exec gets grumpy about feeling a loss of control, or internal users start treating it as just-a-job and want official training for every little thing, or you get engineers who just want to code – and your small-a agile process turns into waterfall.

Ah but we’re a startup, we can’t do waterfall! So you do a series of tiny waterfalls and call them Agile. Everything takes eons of planning, the management class feels super busy, the engineers become disempowered and widget factory like, and all the plans are wrong by the time you implement.

You start getting lots of “we’ll figure out the details then engineers just need to implement, it’ll be easier that way”. It is not easier that way.
The rear ender is guilty by default in the absense of other information. You can always prove otherwise if you have the evidince. Preventing other people from gaming this default to your detriment is arguably the main point of dashcams.

In ye olden days before 1080p everywhere it was considered somewhat common courtesy to hang around and make a statement to the police if you witnessed a rear ending that was undeniably the fault of the party who got rear ended.
the canary is there for a gas leak, not for an asteroid destroying the earth.

the canaries that are left are worth several million of USD combined, if there's any incremental progress towards cracking them, that's a strong incentive not to leave the money on the table.

if someone comes up with a full crack sponteously, then yeah the canaries won't protect you, or anything else for that matter.
> One important aspect of being a safe driver is being PREDICTABLE.

Bingo. (Emphasis mine.)

Design knowing full well that humans are error prone, and account for that. Wisdom popularized by Donald Norman's book Design of Everyday Things [1988].

We added a 3rd brake light, distinct from left & right turn signal lights, to reduce rear-ending. It worked, right?

Changes will be needed to accomodate robotaxis. For instance, one suggestion I read, repeated here without any judgement, is adding blue running lights, so that humans know a vehical is autonomous.

--

From the hip, because I don't know anything about robotaxis or road safety rules: Waymo could use those blue lights to signal when someone is tailgating too closely. As in too close for the robotaxi's own stopping distance.

Who knows? Someone will figure something out.
To be fair, it probably also works in practice, but by very definition post-scarcity is a necessary precondition. And that is still an ongoing effort that has never been realized. Granted, the UN has declared food to have achieved post-scarcity status so clear progress is being made, but we still have more work to do.
Two situations that Agile is great for:

1. You're a contracting house, your clients are hopeless, and you just want to start billing hours, and keep billing hours every 1-2 uninterrupted weeks of peace. Clients saying something different every 1-2 weeks is no significant harm done, since you don't have to care, you just want to keep billing hours.

2. Possibly in-house rather than contracting, stakeholders and developers collectively have little idea what they're doing, whether in the problem/system domain or in process, so planning is mostly pretend and counterproductive, and best minimized. Just do something now, and everyone will quickly see whether it looks in the right direction. And where this model breaks down, you can duct tape it with firefighting meetings that have some people looking like heroic decisive leaders with a bias for action (win).

That's fine, but these people should quietly enjoy their Agile, keep their heads down, and stop trying to evangelize Agile to people who don't have (or are getting rid of) either of the above two dynamics. Also, if they find themself saying "Waterfall", that's probably a reminder that they've accidentally started evangelizing, and in a parroting way.
Real scrum has never been tried!
At that time the waterfall model method was one solution to the problem of software quality. Other methods hadn't yet been developed (or at least not become well known yet), and waterfall was in use by the industry (not everywhere though - re sibling comment). The customer I mentioned was huge and lots of companies in lots of European countries, and overseas too had development contracts which demanded this process to be used. And the results were actually good, even though the process was heavy. That didn't mean that it couldn't be improved on, and that did happen later, with more agile-like (though not "Agile") methods modifying the approach.
I play plenty of them, on their original target platforms, also former IGDA member.

Oh Valve cares a lot, specially not having to pay for Windows licenses on SteamDeck.
That's not very practical if you have several operations to perform, you'd have to create a specialized function each time. So no, that extension is not an alternative to designing a new flow control feature. (And it is not new, other languages have it already.)
I think waterfall and waterfall-ish development is more prevalent in government contracting. You aren't building for yourself, you're building for a single external customer, and you have to build both the functionality and the interfaces that they want.

And I note that government contracting was probably a bigger fraction of all software engineering in the 1980s than it is today. (Still more in the 1960s.)

So, yes, it was real. It is mercifully less prevalent than it was.
Did not have it nearly as bad as you but do struggle with similar issues on occasion, ultimately concluding I am fortunate and have a good situation now. But you know who I feel very bad for, is the coming generations. I feel like our age group has been so lucky to be around when the computer/internet revolution blew up. But it feels like it kinda settled down now, and there is no more easy access to it for bright young people. I hope I am wrong.