skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Makefiles are terrible tech. The problem is that they're slightly less bad than most other build system we've come up with, which makes them "useful" in a masochistic way.

Build systems tend to commit one or more of the following sins:

* Too basic: Once you try to build anything beyond a toy, it quickly becomes chaos.

* Too complicated: The upfront required knowledge, bureaucracy, synchronization and boilerplate is ridiculous. The build system itself takes an order of magnitude more data and memory than the build target.

* No standard library (or a substandard one that does things poorly or not at all): You must define everything yourself, leading to 10000 different incompatible implementations of the same build patterns. So now no one can just dive in and know what they're doing.

* Too constricting: The interface wasn't built as a simple layer upon an expert layer. So now as soon as your needs evolve, you have to migrate away.

* Too much magic: The hallmark of a poorly designed system. It doesn't have to be turtles all the way down, but it should be relatively close with few exceptions.

* Cryptic or inconsistent syntax.
Related Internet Archive blog response to the case: https://blog.archive.org/2024/09/04/internet-archive-respond...
If the nation state actors did intentionally backdoor it, then they would have wanted to make it look like incompetence. Here’s a link to the Simple Sabotage Field Manual from the US. It worked well in occupied Europe during WWII:

https://archive.org/details/SimpleSabotageFieldManual
This is a disease. It is not open source. No one who values open source will use it. For any task, for software that would run on my system, I would rather use open source even if it's five times worse.
Related discussion from earlier this month:

The Internet Archive has lost its appeal in Hachette vs. Internet Archive

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41447758
It doesn't help. On the other hand the court doesn't seem to think the arbitrary lending makes a difference to copyright, does it? I was under the impression it's only mentioned as a knock against IA.
They serve to show why random OSS projects are indistinguishable from corruption.

In other words how do I choose which projects to support? How do I detect when said support is above board or when there are other factors?

You may take issue with the specific example but "hiring OSS devs", or worse making OSS donations, look exactly like this (if not as blatant.)

As a business owner How do I know these decisions are made in good faith? As a shareholder how much of this am I prepared to tolerate?

Those businesses making "billions in profit" have very high levels of accountability. Lots of people care deeply about that money.
Aren't you being a bit pessimistic about the next gen? US got a couple years of moderately high inflation, and yeah buying a house is harder than it was 50 years ago.

But the hedonic index is still going up, it's insane how much more stuff we have access to now.

Even comparing to the yen is misleading, since Japan is the only country which has had nearly zero inflation for 30 years. A USD is still ~1€ or ~1CHF for example.
Could you use a PolyForm license instead? They have a set of standardized, source-available licenses that are much shorter and easier to understand.

"The PolyForm Project is a group of experienced licensing lawyers and technologists developing simple, standardized, plain-language software source code licenses. PolyForm aims to fill gaps in the menu of standardized software licenses, like non-commercial, trial, and small-business-only terms."

https://polyformproject.org/
It's funny how much easier GPU support, especially vendor agnostic GPU support, is in Julia.
People touted the safety of cars in the 1920s. Compared to today’s standards, they were wildly unsafe. The mere fact people were wrong before doesn’t mean they are wrong today. “What some people once said” is not as strong an argument as “designs are demonstrably better engineered”

That doesn’t mean there is no risk. It’s still ok to be scared of nuclear power for new unknown reasons. But let’s not pretend that designs aren’t wildly better now.
The FCC did not mandate the transition:

Why are 3G networks being phased out? https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/plan-ahead-phase-out-3g...

> As mobile carriers seek to upgrade their networks to use the latest technologies, they periodically shut down older services, such as 3G, to free up spectrum and infrastructure to support new services, such as 5G. Similar transitions have happened before. For example, some mobile carriers shut down their 2G networks when they upgraded their networks to support 4G services. Mobile carriers have the flexibility to choose the types of technologies and services they deploy, including when they decommission older services in favor of newer services to meet consumer demands.
Linear founder here.

We aim to build the product in a way that it works well for smaller/early stage teams as well as all the way to the enterprise. So I think lot of the “enterprise” stuff will be optional.
It pays (!!) to pay attention in math class.
There have long been multiple forms of professional software engineering in aerospace, rail, medical instrumentation and national security industries such as ISO 26262, DO-178B/DO-178C/ED-12C, IEC-61508, EN-50128, FDA-1997-D-0029 and CC EAL/PP.

DO-178B DAL A (software whose failure would result in a plane crashing) was estimated at [1] to be writable at 3 SLOC/day for a newbie and 12 SLOC/day for a professional software engineer with experience writing code to this standard. Writing software to DO-178B standards was estimated in [1] to double project costs. DO-178C (newer standard from 2012) is much more onerous and costly.

I pick DO-178 deliberately because the level of engineering effort required in security terms is probably closest to that applied to seL4, which is stated to have cost ~USD$500/SLOC (adjusted for inflation to 2024).[2] This is a level higher than CC EAL7 as CC EAL7 only requires formal verification of design, not the actual implementation.[3] DO-178C goes as far as requiring every software tool used to verify software automatically has been formally verified otherwise one must rely upon manual (human) verification. Naturally, formally verified systems such as flight computer software and seL4 are deliberately quite small. Scaling of costs to much larger software projects would most likely be prohibitive as complexity of a code base and fault tree (all possible ways the software could fail) would obviously not scale in a friendly way.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20131030061433/http://www.euroco...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L4_microkernel_family#High_ass...

[3] https://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~cs9242/21/lectures/10a-sel4.pdf
Yes, all good. My point was that you aren't being charged with having Tor in the scenario that was described. The existence of Tor on your computer might work as connecting the user to a drug sale.
“Free” market is a bad term. The options are regulated and unregulated. If you don’t regulate at all, you get monopolies and your market isn’t any more “free”.
> Clearly no

Please don't do this. I'm not talking about what the law is, I'm talking about what it can be. You are not responding to my argument.
I no longer use AI assistant
I agree with the fact that AI assistant are fast. They get job done while writing code or tests.
The reason I don't like it because they have no soul.
One should write code because one love to write code.
AI assistant will make us dumb as a programmer if we keep on blindly using it.
Those are good licenses, but lately I prefer LGPL for a wee bit more freedom.
This is hopelessly naive. Nonprofits exist to collect more donations next year than last year.
News from two weeks ago

Related:

Americans Face Credit Hit as Student Debt Goes Delinquent Again

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41491638
Show HN: Streaming-First Approach to Deliver Unified Data Processing for All
>AVIF is definitely not ahead for the high quality levels you'd use in photography.

I read the parent's point of comparison in terms of speed, not quality.
Newsom's deepfake election laws are already being challenged in federal court
Frontenders that need to run backends in my experience are such a cohort.
This came up a bunch on the last thread we had about this. There's a saying among lawyers, "bad facts make bad law". Courts are going to render a verdict, usually, based on legal principles and with broad applicability. But they actual process they're going to use to make that decision is going to be heavily influenced by the facts of the case. So if you're making a run at a well-established feature of law --- say, "copyright law says you can't make copies of other people's stuff and distribute it without their permission" --- you want to go into that case with the absolute best facts you can possibly marshal. IA came to this case with a really bad fact pattern!

I think a lot of different people could have told them they were going to lose, and especially that they were going to lose the appeal after they lost in the lower court. But they have no accountability mechanism. It didn't cost them anything to push the case as far as they could go, despite that doing so meant that the predictable result of their case probably dooms CDL under any fact pattern anywhere in the country.

People are understandably grumpy.
For me, make has two fatal flaws:
1) the lack of a builtin scripting language
2) poor recursion support

The problem with the lack of a scripting language is that I either have to do horrible shell contortions to do simple things like using a temporary file in a recipe or write a standalone script that doesn't live in the Makefile which is needless indirection. This is exacerbated by Make interpreting newlines in the recipe as a separate shell invocation, which I consider a poor design choice. It also requires needless forking for many small tasks which could be done more efficiently in process.

The lack of proper recursion means that I either have to use recursive make, which is largely considered an anti-pattern, or I have to use a flat directory structure.

What Make does have going for it is ubiquity and good performance for small projects. It is the tool most projects should probably start with and only switch to something more advanced when its scalability issues become a genuine problem.
Related:

Entire Annapurna Game Team Resigns

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41526074

Entire staff of game publisher Annapurna Interactive has reportedly resigned

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41528266
> Isn't that a tautology?

Not quite, because there are a few other ways to accrue liabilities other than someone extending credit (e.g., tort judgements), but, yeah, it's not very profound if you consider what "credit" and "debt" both mean.
> - Industrial robots do have very sensitive motor and arm feedback. However, these systems are bulky and unsafe to integrate into household robotic technologies. Sensors like AnySkin could be used as a powerful, lightweight solution in these scenarios, potentially by integrating with some exciting recent household robotics models like Robot Utility Models.

I bet having good touch sense would let you get away with much cheaper mechanical systems for the robots.
> but from just reading the paper, I could not spot the flaw.

Do you have 3 nice examples? During the pandemics my hobby was to read the ivermectin papers and try to find the error.
Please provide source.

Especially given that you would want to preserve some form of water resistance.

Meaning you either (a) have the entire back be removable or (b) a battery injection mechanism similar to a Leica SL3. Both of which would seem to need far more than 1% extra volume.
> frankly OSS funding delivers very very little bang for the buck

which is why companies generally don't pay anything for OSS. If the cost is zero, but the benefit is not zero, then the bang for buck is infinite!
Absolutely. OEM car parts suppliers have liability not just for their own product but whatever consequences happen downstream, like the cost of recalls, etc. And that makes sense becase liability is on the companies that are in the best position to ensure their product is correct.

Vendors of engineering software used by car makers, on the other hand, have no such liability. It's software so its the user's responsibility.
Surely if a thief argues against stealing we will not dismiss their argument just because they're a thief; might call them a hypocrite, sure, but the validity of an argument is independent by the moral standing of whoever is presenting it.

That's to say, one should read the report, especially the methodology, before fully dismissing it.
The law we're talking about does not in fact date back to player pianos or s's that look like f's; it's been continuously refined all the way into the 21st century. So I think it matters a great deal what it actually says now.
The Dark Side of Remote Work: Interview Scam Epidemic (2023)
Didn't they rope in enough libraries so they didn't actually overshoot on almost any book? The way they did that after the fact was cheeky but I don't think it's that bad of a fact pattern. Instead I think it was similarly doomed either way, and the real issue is that a lawsuit was triggered at all.
>Unlike the other IP KVMs I've used before, like PiKVM, BliKVM, or TinyPilot, the NanoKVM runs its own proprietary OS.

>And right now, at least, the source code isn't all open source. There's a long issue about it on GitHub, but the tl;dr? Sipeed said they won't open source the code until they either sell 10,000 units or get 2,000 stars on the repository.

Yeah, I'll sit on this one. Right now, the three listed are better options simply because they're Open Source.

The hardware is appealing. Should they actually open source the code early enough that their product still has a chance to be relevant, I will order a few.

Way to sabotage their product launch by not being OSS from the get-go.
It’s similar for Ubiquti:

https://community.ui.com/questions/CVE-2024-20017/b3f1a425-d...

There are vulnerable drivers for some chipsets used by UBNT hardware, but they have zero products that use those drivers.
> How do I detect when said support is above board or when there are other factors?

> As a business owner How do I know these decisions are made in good faith? As a shareholder how much of this am I prepared to tolerate?

Hypotheticals that I'm not going to bother trying to answer, because that's going to depend on the business, the business owners, the projects they choose to support, and a myriad of other factors. Good luck getting some generic answer to such questions.

> In other words how do I choose which projects to support?

You're right. Impossible to decide, so let's not even try.

Or, like, do some research and have a discussion to determine which of the various FOSS your company uses that could do with some funding. Evaluate them individually. Decide on a monetary limit. Re-evaluate regularly. You know, normal business accountability things, right?
I assume, then, that you do it because it's fun :) That's why I do open source.
In terms of JPEG XL Lossless, Camera makers are already or has plan to adopt the format as RAW. In that space I think the adoption roadmap is quite good.
> However, it's not fair use to copy material and redistribute it.

On the contrary, fair use often involves copying materials and redistributing them.
Oh there is value in moving civilization forward. It creates value for everyone including oneself.
From the Copyright Act:

> "Phonorecords" are material objects in which sounds, other than those accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work, are fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the sounds can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term "phonorecords" includes the material object in which the sounds are first fixed.

So the version of the work traveling through the air is not in itself a phonorecord protected by copyright law: fair use is not even relevant for it. (However, copyright law does protect the phonorecord in the CD from being performed publicly.)
> because a critical open source piece shut down.

unless they're using some sort of hosted service for free, this cannot be critical. After all, software doens't rot, and they could continue to use the existing release until a (new) solution is found.

Look at how crowdstrike triggered outage didn't cause bankruptcy - that is more critical than most OSS would be.
Technically all of these make targets look for files by the names of the targets. Each one should really be defined as .PHONY.

That said, I used to write makefiles like this all the time, but have since switched to just and justfiles in recent years which make this the default behavior, and is generally simpler to use. Things like parameters are simpler.

https://github.com/casey/just
>The ironic part being of course that Chrome used to support it way too early

Chrome never officially supported it and it was behind a flag for experimental role.
In those cases, what author really needs is just[1] not make.

[1] https://just.systems/man/en/
No?

> I think this submission paper is talking about reinforcement learning as part of/after the main training

Reinforcement learning to promote a particular type of self-correction response

> They might have done that for O1, but the bigger change is the "runtime train of thought" that once the model received the prompt and before giving a definitive answer,

Also reinforcement learning to promote certain reasoning trace

> o1 and this paper talk about using techniques to create a useful reward function to use in RL that doesn't rely on human feedback.

Exactly -> the same thing
Why is it so much of this hardware/firmware feels so much like deploying a PoC to production? Why can't they hire someone that actually knows what they are doing?
Linear founder here.

We look at AI as capability similar to any other technology. Instead of jumping on the AI bandwagon or thinking AI is a feature, we look if there is opportunity to reduce friction or help the user well in the workflow they are doing. Today like the AI can inform if there is duplicate issues being reported or improve the titles you submit from Slack conversion.
It's not as restrictive as you're reading it. This bit is fairly permissive:

> only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program.

It's basically saying that users are allowed to make personal copies of a digital work, but they aren't allowed to sell or loan out those copies separately from the original. For example, if you bought a game on floppy disk, you can make backup copies of the disk it came on, but you can't make "backups" for your friends to play while you keep the original, or sell your copy of the game while keeping a backup for yourself. This seems entirely reasonable to me.
Maybe shadows (length and direction) could give a sense of time of day, along with shading of sky and land.
You can use .ONESHELL: to switch to the shell behavior you are wanting.

https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/One-Shell...
The cost of the tools required to cut my lawn is far more than hiring someone to cut it.

Likewise for almost every home or car repair.

The whole point is that the tools are largely a once off purchase and repairing your phone is something you might do throughout your life. Therefore the initial costs should be spread over a longer period.
This for me yields a more general "generational" discussion:

It seems to me that the current youth generation is less "giving" than previous ones. 70s , 80s and 90s where full of "sharing is caring" mantra. We had people like Stallman, a lot of "crackers" removing copy protection and people just sharing their stuff on an individual level (via edonkey, soulseek, imeem, etc). Same with software, I would never feel "underpaid" for software I release as open source. It's just some code I share, with some open license. If I keep building it, is because I enjoy it.

But now, everyone is driven by monetization so much. Maybe it's the fact that it had gotten more difficult to make ends meet, and everyone is looking for a way ti squeeze a cent.

I just miss those days.
Agree with the sentiment here but I've been rewriting lots of things to use Justfiles instead

https://github.com/casey/just

Avoids lots of weird makefileisims
You may have heard that a black hole is the most efficient way to convert matter to energy apart from antimatter annihilation. This is that.

In the accretion disk, friction and collision between fragments, molecules, atoms cause things to reach incredible temperatures. The matter gets so incredibly hot that the radiation it emits is actually enough to offset the black hole's gravity and prevents more matter falling in faster. The innermost section of the disk is so ludicrously hot that matter dissociates into subatomic particles and becomes a plasma. This plasma is very energetic and moves very fast and creates a very strong magnetic field. This interacts with the electric field produced by the black hole. This plus the stupendous distortion of spacetime caused by the black hole's rotation causes the magnetic fields to twist up tightly in a vortex about the axis of rotation.

Again, the energies involved are impossibly huge. We're converting matter into energy at something like 95% efficiency. Just through gravity!

Because the plasma is so highly charged, the magnetic vortices are so powerful, and the twist is so tight, it essentially creates a particle accelerator on a galactic scale. Plasma from the accretion disk is sucked into the vortex by the insane magnetic fields. Particles spin round and round in the vortex until they get as close to light speed as is possible. The vortex also confines the jet into a cone, blasting out charged particles with impossible velocities along the axis of rotation.

These jets convert matter into pretty much every kind of energy. Radiation across the entire spectrum, lightspeed particles, magnetic and electric fields. It's really impossible to overstate just how much energy these things throw out. It's just a few degrees shy of a sustained matter/antimatter reaction on stellar scales running for millenia.

These things can extinguish entire galaxies. Not sterilize, extinguish. They can blast away any free gas in a galaxy, immediately and irrevocably halting star and planet formation. Not even just in the host galaxy. Exceptionally powerful quasars can extinguish galaxies lightyears away.

And again, this is only driven by gravity. Nothing else. All of the impossibly huge energies are produced by nothing more than matter falling into a gravity well.
> The law we're talking about does not in fact date back to player pianos or s's that look like f's; it's been continuously refined all the way into the 21st century.

It has been partially updated but not enough.

> So I think it matters a great deal what it actually says now.

I never implied otherwise.

A suggestion for change is by definition based on the current version.
This is eerily close to my situation several years back... I just want to say to you as I would say to past me: "you can do it", as I was able to climb the ladder and find success. 10 years after dropping of CS, I made it into a stable career after a lot of struggles, sketchy jobs, freelancing and life lessons. I finished school online and am working on my master's degree.

If you want to chat, feel free to reach out:contactme at myusername.com
It doesn't rot? I mean if it stops being maintained and the lack of updates makes it fatally insecure or something, it can become effectively obsolete.

Though I will note I'm agreeing that it's highly unlikely you can put a gun to the heads of corporations and get them to cough up, so I'm not sure what the point is here.
I'd start with this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtTCdT6e9-0