skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There has always been multiculturalism, even hundreds of years ago.

One example was Córdoba, where Muslims, Jews, and Christians lived together. They even had different laws, because the Muslims had what they called "dhimmi" status, which meant that different groups had their own jurisdiction granted by the Muslim rulers.

This ended because of many factors, one of them being the collapse of the Caliphate due to internal strife. So I grant that it is difficult, but not impossible.

Our descendants will see if this form of living together can be sustainably established in the future.
That's a very separate matter -- I was mostly here talking here about the philosophical question of "it's copyright, so if there's a copy made, we can use that as a guide to whether this is legal or not." There's no risk to what you're describing, mostly because there are -- as others have pointed out -- clear statutory exemptions for these situations.

I do disagree with your assessment of the legal strategy, but wouldn't want to get into that here. IANAL (and therefore learned NOTHING in law school), but I worked at EFF when IA was a client, and I do know enough to not want to accidentally breach professional ethics and/or privilege regarding a client.

I feel that this is actually a challenge in discussions like this -- there's usually a whole bunch of stuff going on in the background (pro and con) that determines these strategies, but everyone involved who knows that background that can't really talk about it. But you know the same gang of lawyers as I do, so you can probably get their assessment more privately.
It's installing additional packages which may not have been included in your base image.

> Debug Shell works by injecting a debugging environment using:
> NixOS for a large package collection, and flexibility with filesystem paths

https://orbstack.dev/blog/debug-shell?utm_source=relnotes
Why not just use make? I am constantly confused by people reinventing the wheel with new syntax and little benefit
> There's a saying among lawyers, "bad facts make bad law".

One of the problems here is that there is a flaw in the legal system where if the law is unclear, there is nowhere you can go to request a definitive clarification. If you want to find out if you're allowed to do something, you first have to do it and only then find out if somebody takes you to court over it so the court can rule on whether you were allowed to.

Worse, they did CDL for a long time before COVID and nobody took them to court. To get a definitive answer you not only have to do it, somebody has to sue you. And they're not going to do that if they expect you to win, because that would cost them money to pay for lawyers only to set a precedent they don't like.

So in order to create the possibility of a precedent saying it's allowed, you have to push the envelope enough that your opponents think there's a good enough chance that you'll lose to take the risk of bringing you to court. That's preposterous and unreasonable, but it's how the system works.
I don't know anyone who has been affected by "traffic violence".

As big of a source of death it is, it's still an infinitesimally small one in he grand scheme of things.
Better article on the subject: https://rosszurowski.com/log/2022/makefiles
They already made the investment playing king maker for TSMC; I doubt they want to start that over for no real reason.
> it works and, what's important, it works for him.

Until it doesn't. And then you really have to learn about PHONY targets, why and when there must be a tab and not spaces - good luck with an editor that doesn't treat Makefiles special and is configured to convert tabs to spaces.
I've been buying laptops with AMD CPU's but they always come with these trash MediaTek RZ616 Wi-Fi cards, why is that? I've been replacing them with Intel Wi-Fi cards, now I have a pile of RZ616 cards ready to become future microplastics :-(
> I’d argue it’s a waste to use separate files here

Fine. Write a `make.sh` that parses the arguments; that would be better.

> How so?

Well, read the comments here. Do you sense that Make is a beloved tool? Most of the complaints are about some details about syntax, and those complaints are completely valid. If you use Make for its intended purpose, then it's still easily well-worth using, despite that. But if you use it as a glorified script, then all you see is the warts, without any upsides. And you then tell all your friends that "Make sux!" Which is a huge shame because Make is awesome.
Is the WAL 1:1 with a TxMap instance? Is the TxMap 1:1 with a node? For a distributed transaction with distributed storage and multiple nodes how does a transaction get coordinated?
Right but writing dependency management (of targets, not package management) in shell seems like a nightmare compared to just leveraging make. Why complicate things? It's dead simple to debug, the interface is dead simple, what's the downside?
I've opted out every time I've flown. It's very quick.
> Still it's one of the things I detest on an aesthetic level about make

There's a little-known variable called .RECIPEPREFIX that lets you switch from tabs to anything else. Probably a bad idea to use it in anything shared with anyone else.
Disclaimer: I'm not even remotely a biologist, and this is a vague memory of some announcements (albeit by reputable scientific sources) a year ago.

This gist of what I remember was that viruses mutate some "percentage" of their envelope on average annually. It's somewhat predictable for more than six months into the future, which is how flu vaccines are developed and manufactured ahead of time before the next flu season.

This unpredictability accumulates, so after three years the viruses become nearly totally unpredictable, not just to vaccine manufacturers, but also to the human immune system. If you get the flu every year, each year the new flu might only be 30% different than the one before, so you have some lingering immunity to it. If you catch it every year, you'll generally get mild cases and refresh your immunity each time. If you skip three years, the viruses become 66% different, which might be sufficient to evade your immune system and give you a really bad case.

There were also a few coincidental compounding issues recently, such as particularly virulent strains of viruses such as RSV going around.
I use Docker Desktop on both my macbooks, despite shunning IDEs in favour of a decent text editor and the command line. I use it for 2 reasons: to manage the Linux VM, and to twiddle the occasional setting. For running the containers themselves, or running `system prune` when everything gets cluttered up, I use the CLI.
We'll never know because nobody tried. The internet is too broken now to bother searching. For a group of people that claim to love empirical analysis people on this site sure do love writing off anything but the current state of affairs.
Something that every PocketPC user rapidly learned to be adept at because without the boosted Chinese batteries the thing didn't last that long. Amazing for the time, but looking back, what a primitive device. And you had to pay for OS upgrades!
oh i have no problem at all installing stuff in my own environments, i'm all about having cool new tooling -- it just starts to get a little rude to ask others to do so in order to use something you're distributing (and therefore absent coreutils-ii-electric-boogaloo installed everywhere, i'm much more likely to reach for make, unfortunately).
Either I have deja vu or this is the severalth time this has happened. Maybe, like another poster (u/RedAuburn) has noted, they always identify them as painted dogs.

Pretty funny either way.
If having security vulnerabilities in code you wrote or reviewed is a sign of incompetence, then there has probably never been a competent developer in the history of the industry.
If you like this kind of urban exploration of infrastructure, but you can't get out and do it; I cannot recommend the game INFRA enough.

I believe the company who made it originally did 3D visualisations of infrastructure for companies/goverment, and their environments are incredibly immersive because of it. Perhaps the best looking Source1 engine game in my opinion.

You are an engineer tasked with investigating issues with a particular dam, but as you dive deeper, exploring operational water infrastructure, train stations, power plants and abandoned facilities, you begin to unravel a story of corporate and government corruption and espionage. There's no combat, your main goal is getting through the different facilities, fixing stuff along the way if you want, and taking photographs of all the stuff that is broken.

It really hits all the exploration and engineering nerd itches.
Can the OP's link be changed to the original source, not the advertisement it currently links to? The exploit is documented https://blog.coffinsec.com/0day/2024/08/30/exploiting-CVE-20...
> Honestly, if the Chinese were that far ahead they wouldn't depend on industrial espionage to the extent that they do.

Honestly, if the Gringos were that far ahead they wouldn't depend on industrial espionage to the extent that they do.
A way to tie transaction success to another system's transaction success is a powerful ability to have.
Think Kafka watermarks and just general 2-phase commit transaction systems.
You can get a combo 5G hotspot plus power bank and tape it to the back of your device. Then you can keep using your device on WiFi alone.
Porsche's idea for a six-stroke internal combustion engine
I get directionally what you're saying, but on the specifics of always pursuing growth, that isn't true. Ironically, one of the people that I've heard argue most forcefully for the idea of steady-state non-profit is actually Brewster Kahle, though it wasn't about IA. I remember him arguing that a particular goal may require a institution of a certain size, and if you started bringing in more cash, it might make more sense to spin off another, independent organization.

(Now I must say, I've also seen that strategy pursued in practice among businesses, and let me tell you, it's a lot easier in the non-profit world!)
Tracking build targets is not dependency management except with handwaving
Hey, thanks for the feedback (:

The second article is still shaping up, but I felt like publishing it to get some early feedback. What you mention are a couple of the reasons.

At this point, I find it too dense (and it was even more so in first drafts) hence missing information. Maybe I should cut some parts, like the rip intro, and accommodate for more details about flags and conditions.

This is good signal for me. Thanks again for taking the time
We are not arguing whether not declaring phony targets is worse than using comments in `package.json`?

But anyway, comments in a Makefile or `package.json` are not documentation anyway, that's what the `README` or `INSTALL` (or whatever) is there for (in projects like the one the Makefile is written for).
I learned about Qanat reading Desmond Bagley airport thrillers written in the 60s. It's part of a plot line dealing with middle eastern drug trafficking. When I met Persians in Australia 40 years later it was interesting to realise they were still significant in their culture. Keeping on top of the maintenance was a social capital exercise in frustration, endless mañana.
Circling around the idea in a response describes what I see in a lot of LLM output quite well. I haven't tried o1 myself, but it does seem to fix that problem.
Not OP, but its not just that C/C++ lacks modules. I think that is missing the real issue. Any complicated program probably needs a custom developed tool to build it. As a simple example, imagine a program that uses a database - you want to keep the sources as SQL and generate classes from them. Thats a custom build step.

Its just that in some languages and build systems (Node, Maven), we have abstracted this away by calling them plugins and they probably come from the same group that made the library you need.

No such pluginsystem exists, as far as I am aware, for makefiles.
Saying Google provides examples of being rather nice about it.

Firebase ACLs are a constant source of vulnerabilities largely because they are confusing and don't have enough documentation around them.
Developers build insecure software in part because themselves and in part because of the decisions made by their managers up to the CEO.

So when you write "developers" we must read "software development companies".
The author also seems not to have discovered 'make configure' and the horrors of the automake/autoconf toolset and the m4 macro language.
The fact that people so many have to be explicitly told they have no expectation of privacy by people online kind of proves that opposite, that the average person does expect some natural right to privacy and has to be instructed otherwise.
> However, if this is even partially correct I'd like to understand how the "formed memory" and the base model cohabitate during inference, because this would create memory pressure on the GPU.

Not really. RAG loads selected data into the neural network which changes the state of the existing "neurons" (aka parameters), so the memory usage on GPU is only the size of the neural network.

You will hear about "context size" a lot. This means the amount of tokens a particular model can have loaded without becoming saturated and starting to lose things that were previously loaded.
No, the world's infrastructure has never been rebuilt from scratch to higher standards, not in the last few thousand years. We have always built on what already exists, grandfathered in anything that seemed ok, or was important enough even if not ok, etc.

We often live in buildings that far predate any building code, or even the state that emitted that code. We still use bits of infrastructure here and there that are much older than any modern state at all (though, to be fair, if a bridge has been around for the last thousand years, the risk it goes down tomorrow because it doesn't respect certain best practices is not exactly huge).
Are there? I’ve advocated for such constructions in the past, but I’ve never seen an actual proposal. Do you have a link?
But those are things that he’ll learn about as he keeps using make. And why does it matter that some editors don’t know about makefiles? The one he is using handles them just fine so what’s the problem?
> What we do know is that the 5,000 affected pagers were ordered by Hezbollah and issued to its members.

Even if that is true, the fact remains that "Hezbollah members" and "combatants" are not, even to a first approximation, the same thing; Hezbollah is a political party that has an armed wing and also has a substantial civilian social services (including healthcare) operation.
Meanwhile gradle people are like: just run these included gradlew or gradlew.bat files, they'll download the actual gradle from somewhere online, pollute some folders in your home dir, and then execute the build stuff.

I notice just has some pre-built binaries that could be used for the same thing. I find it a little beyond rude what gradle normalized, but hey, it "works", and it removes the source of friction that's present any time you violate the principle of least surprise with your choice of build tool.
In short:

Person puts short shell scripts "build", "deploy" and "dev" in a single makefile as targets, instead of putting each script in a separate well named file. Then concludes that make is a great build tool as long as you don't use it as a build tool ("nothing complicated").

Please do not do this. make is not a shell. Also, consider reading (and writing) build docs, instead of running make with random targets as soon as you see a makefile
> It’s hard to seriously argue that you could lawfully photocopy books whole, then make a lending library out of the copies, or that such a thing has any similarity to reselling used books.

Suppose you have a rare book, so to keep the book from being damaged while allowing people to read it, you make one photocopy and then store the book in a vault and allow patrons to read the photocopy. That seems entirely reasonable, doesn't it?
This seems to be a new device, should be a matter of weeks to have a similar tool show up in Amazon, etc

There are alternative devices one could use, or you know, just use the tools you have, as long as you keep the pressure smooth. Possibly a Juicero kind of device
If you had COVID (which you definitely had) you are now immune compromised. You can test your cell immunity to see this (CD3+CD4- and such). I had AIDS-level immunity after my infection. This resolves within 2 years, usually, unless you are constantly getting reinfected due to this lower immunity and not taking any precautions like masking.
Make has been my favourite unix tool for years and a really useful tool to have in your pocket. It’s simple, elegant, and powerful.
Ah the anime defense. No, she’s not a child. She’s actually a thousand year old witch who was cursed to have the body of a pre-pubescent girl.
Please talk to security. My machine is locked down so tight I need a director (or higher) override to get anything not in the default distribution or "blessed" by security installed, and I can't even be the one to install it. May you never have to work at The Enterprise. It sucks!
Maybe it's different kinds of projects then. For most of what I work with distribution would have nothing to do with the build system in the repo, only people who would ever have to deal with it are other contributors that likely have some environment setup to do regardless.
Thanks, I had no idea I was flirting with posting abusive content!
.... sure. And not the astronomy department either.

Neither departments studied areas like political economy which would affect Ma Bell's monopoly.
Volkswagen Polo production ends in Europe to prep for smaller, affordable EVs
Hollywood Can't Ditch Its Teslas Fast Enough:"They're Destroying Their Leases.."
That's for GNU make, not POSIX make [1]. For some people, they either won't, or can't, use GNU make.

[1] https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/utilities/m...
My list:

1. The mom test (already mentioned) - idea validation
2. Zero to one by Thiel - contrarian original thinking
3. The Hard Thing About Hard Things by Ben Horowitz - Operating lessons
4. Paul Grahams essays and pretty much all content put out by YC

Beyond this it’s all about the nature of the founder and where /how you see value
For years the classical solution has been Lucene / SoLR which by now must be in its 20s or so; so maybe that or a solution using Lucene under the hood
Why is this a horror story? Under certain assumptions of how the author intends to use this, this sounds like a sensible way to define a dynamic list of phony targets to me, without having to specify them by hand.

There are many reasonable scenarios why you might want to do this: determining at the point of calling make which targets to force or deactivate for safety, projects with nested or external makefiles not directly under your control, reuse of MAKECMDGOALS throughout the makefile (including propagation to submakefiles), ...
> Making truly secure software products is incredibly hard in this day and age

I politely disagree. Writing secure software is easier than ever.

For example, there are several mainstream and full-featured web frameworks that use managed virtual machine runtimes. Node.js and ASP.NET come to mind, but there are many other examples. These are largely immune to memory safety attacks and the like that plague older languages.

Most popular languages also have a wide variety of ORMs available that prevent SQL injection by default. Don't like heavyweight ORMs? No problem! There's like a dozen micro-ORMs like Dapper that do nothing to your SQL other than block injection vulnerabilities and eliminate the boilerplate.

Similarly, web templating frameworks like Razor pages prevent script injection by default.

Cloud app platforms, containerisation, or even just virtual machines make it trivial to provide hardware enforced isolation on a per-app basis instead of relying on the much weaker process isolation within an OS with shared app hosting.

TLS 1.3 has essentially eliminated cryptographic vulnerabilities in network protocols. You no longer have to "think" about this concern in normal circumstances. What's even better is that back end protocols have also uniformly adopted TLS 1.3. Even Microsoft Windows has started using for the wire protocol of Microsoft SQL Server and for the SMB file sharing protocol! Most modern queues, databases, and the like use at least TLS 1.2 or the equivalent. It's now safe to have SQL[1] and SMB shares[2] exposed to the Internet. Try telling that to someone in sec-ops twenty years ago!

Most modern PaaS platforms such as cloud-native databases have very fine-grained RBAC, built-in auditing, read-only modes, and other security features on by default. Developers are spoiled with features such as SAS tokens that can be used to trivially generate signed URLs with the absolute bare minimum access required.

Speaking of PaaS platforms like Azure App Service, these have completely eliminated the OS management aspect of security. Developers never again need to think about operating system security updates or OS-level configuration. Just deploy your code and go.

Etc...

You have to be deliberately making bad choices to end up writing insecure software in 2025. Purposefully staring at the smörgåsbord of secure options and saying: "I really don't care about security, I'm doing something else instead... just because."

I know that might be controversial, but seriously, the writing has been on the wall for nearly a decade now for large swaths of the IT industry.

If you're picking C or even C++ in 2025 for anything you're almost certainly making a mistake. Rust is available now even in the Linux kernel, and I hear the Windows kernel is not far behind. Don't like Rust? Use Go. Don't like Go? Use .NET 9. Seriously! It's open-source, supports AOT compilation, works on Linux just fine, and is within spitting distance of C++ for performance!

[1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-sql/database/n...

[2] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/storage/files/files-...
It suggest that insecure software should be simply called defective product. So the security audit should be called QA.

A product, which don't spend a lot on QA, profit more. Unless there will be a catastrophic incident.

Also, why haven't those so called security researchers jointly criticized EDR yet? A third-party closed source kernel driver which behave like, practically same as malware.
While still useful to have a native tool, you can use WSL to mount a sshfs path in windows.
I even use it for LUKS containers.
I have more than once considered writing a Makefile shim that would check for just, install if needed and proxy all commands to it...
I webscraped 12,000 SWE internships, made AI Resume comparison –>
Good luck writing Makefiles for Fortran, OCaml or (whenever they will really, actually work) C++ modules.

There aren't many widely used build systems that can handle such dynamic dependencies without some special "magic" for these, the only one that I know of (with a significant number of users, so not Shake) is Buck 2 (Bazel and all C++ build systems use "special magic", you can't write in user rules).
Not everyone wants to install a huge resource just to use one feature.
I guess there is a "that which is seen vs. that which is not seen" (Bastiat) argument to be made, but government investment into engineering research seems to be a pretty good deal.

I saw a quote the other day I liked: "If the rest of the world wants to emulate the US model, they should do as the United States actually did, not as they say they did".

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Entrepreneurial_State
That is hopelessly cynical. Sometimes people actually are dedicated to the goals of the organization and not just personal gain.

It also doesn't make any sense in this context. Soliciting donations only to spend them on lawyers doesn't yield any net money for the organization.