skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> It's hard to understand why people care so much about someone's personal political opinions.

People care because he has power and money, which he uses to shape the world in alignment with those political opinions.

The same is true of anyone else with power - Xi, Putin, Gates, Thiel, Zuck, and the countless others with influence over business and government. A lot of money is spent to analyze and alter their political opinions.

What's hard for me to understand is why this isn't plainly obvious to you.
Are you perhaps thinking of Tesla? SpaceX was founded by Musk.
You can't really draw an equivalence between a grocery store cashier and their director of pricing in terms
of agency. It just doesn't make sense, what do you want them to do? Complain to their manager who also doesn't set the prices? The thoughts of a random rank-and-file employee fall on deafer ears than a customer. You have a better chance of getting a meeting with an executive with decision making power than the cashier. If the cashier makes noise they'll be fired and replaced, they can't fire you.

Berating literally the lowest-ranked employee at a company who if they had any agency at all wouldn't be working that job will accomplish nothing except making their day worse.
OrangePi AIpro (20T)
> the people who are already believing the bogus

This encompasses 100% of people so you would have been better of leaving it off as it downplays the severity of the situation we are in.

> and when you see someone trying to be specific you confuse it for 'pedantry'.

This is what ~smart people typically go for if one includes too much detail or accuracy in the context.
What? From my recollection, when it was decided to admit China in the WTO, every problem was set aside for the asserted belief that growth would result in democracy, human rights and hence the solution of those problems.

By the time it became clear that things wouldn't have gone that way, the west had bound itself to China too much to be able to do something about Tibet (without reshoring the manufacturing).
They had things like this in the 80s before VFX became the norm when making movies. Although not wireless back then the puppeteering rigs were very fluid and sophisticated. Nowadays we have teleoperated robots for surgery. There is a video online of a person folding origami with one of those and the dexterity is incredible.

Edit: https://youtu.be/MOSTAvsQpdM
Since you ignored my question, I’ll ignore yours.

You are aware you can’t tell a hard unsolved problem from an impossible unsolved problem, right?
Glad to hear you've got a great music scene. Americans still dominate the box office:

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/2023/?area=RO&sort=rank&s...

Though it looks like there were a few extremely popular Romanian films in the top ten.
No, you use it to simulate things that we don't have efficient perfect models of -- like the actual world. Everyone is correct that using this to simulate counterstrike is pointless. This is not video game technology, this is autonomous agent technology -- training robots to predict and navigate the real world.
I'm sure there are many hardening processes - from the modified COTS parts, all the way to presumably much more expensive custom substrates like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_on_sapphire
We just needed more people like Elon.
If so, it was because the customers thought "beauty" would translate into less training.
> I'm hoping this is satire.

Me too. It's one thing to accept single LFs in protocols that expect CRLF, but sending single LFs is a bridge to far in my opinion. I'm really surprised most of the other replies to your comment currently seem to unironically support not complying with well-established protocol specifications under the misguided notion that it will somehow make things "simpler" or "easier" for developers.

I work on Kestrel which is an HTTP server for ASP.NET Core. Kestrel didn't support LF without a CR in HTTP/1.1 request headers until .NET 7 [1]. Thankfully, I'm unaware of any widely used HTTP client that even supports sending HTTP/1.1 requests without CRLF header endings, but we did eventually get reports of custom clients that used only LFs to terminate headers.

I admit that we should have recognized a single LF as a line terminator instead of just CRLF from the beginning like the spec suggests, but people using just LF instead of CRLF in their custom clients certainly did not make things any simpler or easier for me as an HTTP server developer. Initially, we wanted to be as strict as possible when parsing request headers to avoid possible HTTP request smuggling attacks. I don't think allowing LF termination really allows for smuggling, but it is something we had to consider.

I do not support even adding the option to terminate HTTP/1.1 request/response headers with single LFs in HttpClient/Kestrel. That's just asking for problems because it's so uncommon. There are clients and servers out there that will reject headers with single LFs while they all support CRLF. And if HTTP/1.1 is still being used in 2050 (which seems like a safe bet), I guarantee most clients and servers will still use CRLF header endings. Having multiple ways to represent the exact same thing does not make a protocol simpler or easier.

[1]: https://github.com/dotnet/aspnetcore/pull/43202
I don't know about the best movies, but certainly the most popular ones. Worldwide box office is dominated by American films.
GitHub can't be hacked? (o;
It was more than a slight. Biden pointedly ignored Tesla when conducting an EV summit and handing out subsidies. Then there was the FCC fiasco where the FCC snubbed Starlink.
Right, you don't need to search that hard for a device which interprets 0xA as a line feed, just set your terminal to raw mode, done.

But given the very first sentence:

> CR and NL are both useful control characters.

I'm willing to conclude that he doesn't intend A Blaste Against The Useless Appendage of Carriage Return Upon a New Line, or Line Feed As Some Style It, to apply to emulators of the old devices which make actual use of the distinction.
Remotely controlled humanoid robots are pretty cool though, aren’t they? Like, potentially hugely valuable?
https://archive.ph/J5jpe
Browsing without dependencies is a bit tricky due to a) deduplication, b) encryption and c) compression of restic's backups.
With typst you can get autocomplete for symbols imported from packages or defined locally. And your bibliography can use the same .bib files as latex if you want to. I’m pretty sure the typst editor plugins also know which mode you’re in and give you different autocomplete suggestions depending on the mode. But yeah, it’s probably still not quite as mature. But it is, in my opinion, much better designed.

What features do you want from cetz that you think are missing?

(And yeah making something with it is a good idea. You’ll get much more of a sense of it by playing around with it.)
> How come are this specific for Haskell and not universal?

The author says as much. There's overlap for sure, but all the monad stuff, for one, is mostly Haskell-(or functional language rather)-specific.
Hrm, this is what I get for logging in to HN from my phone. It’s possible I am confusing this with one of the other exploitable HTTP/1.1 header parser alignment issues.

Maybe this was so widespread that ~everything already handles it because non-malicious stuff breaks if you don’t. In that case, my bad, but I still would like to make a general plea as an implementer for sticking strictly to specified behavior in this sort of protocols.
What? Which crazy non-binary format makes a distinction between CRLF(EOF) and just (EOF)? Apart from a plain text file, that is.
They use the parts of wordpress that are specifically built in to make modifications, as any other site maintainer would hosting their own install.

You are mistaken.
Musk is just a front man. He's just an actor like Trump. God knows who is behind them. Banks, "The Matrix" , can anyone fill it in ? The front men are certainly just reading scripts, it is obvious.
How frustrating. Hopefully my comment above didn't lead anyone to miss any part of that historic event yesterday. Mea culpa!
They do indeed enjoy it. And yet they also decide it as being classless, flavorless, and otherwise gross.

The contrast between what they say they like, and what they actually seem to want, is striking.
What a simplistic and reductionist ad absurdum strawman argument you've constructed! Congratulations! Also, congratulations on twisting the Golden Rule into a colloquial and negative formulation! Innovative!

If we obstinately persist in willfully misunderstanding how religion, obedience, and sacrifice operate, then we will always reach the same conclusions and be met with a cold shoulder from people who get it.

As we discussed very recently in another thread, priests and priest-scientists were the original scholars and intellectuals, and they knew astronomy intimately well. The astronomers indeed worked out among themselves how the heavens operated. The reason that ordinary laypersons should not learn this was because it was (1) useless to them, (2) quite complex and error-prone without collaboration and a solid background, and (3) extraordinarily perilous to their own well-being, and to the social order, if they should acquire skills and notoriety with it -- "knowledge is power -- absolute power corrupts absolutely". It was treason to be a heretic or usurp the power of clerics.

Galileo and his ilk weren't condemned for "trying to learn" it. Far from that. That's another red herring and canard that's perpetuated by scientism.
Yep that’s my reading too. I like to see it from a dynamical systems perspective: as a system approaches an attractor, the phase flow slows down, while the wall time marches on steadily. If we consider the “perspective” of the system, which is wall time divided by phase flow, we get the time speeding up part.
To be honest, that's a very BMW problem. Good enough reason to stay away from BMW (or any German car really).
I seems to remember some article mentioning the Falcon 9 using radar (+ presumably other sensors) & even having a landing site map uploaded (mainly for the return to launch site scenarios) with prioritized exclusion zones in case of a landing failure.
ZWEI is no longer in the base system. EH does not exist, a Window system does not exist. Dynamic Windows is in the base system.

> The target processor is not that important from the users point of view

It's important for the operating system and the processor was used for very different machine hardware: standalone workstations, headless systems, embedded in a Mac, embedded in a SUN, embedded in a network switch, ...

> Lambda and CADR shared the exact same source code, and microcode.

But not the 3600, which was a 36 bit architecture and not the Ivory, which was a 40 bit microprocessor. A lot of the core routines were different on a 3600 and an Ivory machine. The VLM was even different, running on a 64bit microprocessor, implementing the emulator in C and assembler. There is low-level functionality which has two or three different implementations.

The Ivory machines could be very different from a LAMBDA and a CADR, for example as an embedded CPU in a very different host machine (Mac & SUN). That had a lot of consequences for the operating system.
I checked, and you don't even have alt text for images on your own landing page.
Strategically this is huge for the US and NATO. Being able to put orders of magnitude more payload in orbit at a fraction of the cost of the competition is a huge advantage in controlling space. Starlink and starshield are already years ahead of what china and russia has, starship is going to widen that gap even further.
I'm way too late for this to be meaningful, but here's what I think! tl;dr -- gravity is the problem, we should focus on experiments and observations for a while, bring in some better mathematics, and continue the long range program of developing quantum theories that include or even produce GR.

I'm just a physics enthusiast. When I became interested in physics, I was initially a sort of partisan in the "realist" camp -- pro Einstein, anti Bohr; liked Verlinde's entropic gravity, distrusted the graviton -- but have come full circle to the opposite view. GR has massive explanatory and predictive power, and an extremely satisfying aesthetic quality, but obviously breaks down behind the curtain of a black hole's event horizon, where we cannot make observations. I say obviously because it predicts a singularity, which is just another way of saying it makes no prediction at all. On the other hand, many of my complaints about QM I now look at as unanswered questions, opportunities for inquiry. QM is based 100% on experimental observations. The theory came together in a rather ad hoc fashion at the beginning of the last century, but as it was more carefully studied theoretically and experimentally, also proved to be highly predictive, even more that GR. Yes there are big ugly, outstanding questions -- measurement collapse, the transition from microscopic quantum behavior to macroscopic classical behavior, the intractability of all but the simplest calculations -- but those are huge areas of knowledge that the future will gradually (or suddenly) fill in, as our understanding moves forward.

So, gravity, not QM, is the problem. We should start with the axioms of quantum mechanics, and look for ways to observe where QM and GR can be measured at the same time. LIGO offers opportunities like this, as the sensitivity of the instrument is well within the quantum regime. Continued study of QCD could make a testable prediction for what exists inside of a black hole. Or continue to study the very fine transitions between energy levels in the nucleus. Mathematically, maybe the Langlands program, with its rather weird, Fourier-like sums of L functions will allow us to model non-linear behavior.

And yes, string theory sort of "jumped the shark" at some point. I'm sure Ed Witten regrets saying that other pursuits were a waste of time. But the thing is, the string theory program is centered on QM, and has shown that QM can naturally produce GR, given certain unrealistic assumptions. That's mathematical progress.
I Perceive NSFW content in the middle of this thread :P
We use ACF with WP Code auto insert. ACF has prepend and append (in presentation tab) and this can be used to wrap the value with classes or other tags such as IDs, JS or others. When the ACF name changed, the prepend and append broke because prepend/append text showing must be configured in functions.php like this:

add_filter('acf/format_value/name=mysnippet1', 'mysnippet1acf', 20, 3);

function mysnippet1acf ($value, $post_id, $field) {

if(!empty($value)){

$value = trim($field['prepend'].''.$value.''.$field['append']);

}else{

$value='';

}

return $value;

}

Long story short, if you are using ACF with advanced features, including logic and presentation, this hostile takeover breaks it.

Doesn't even matter if you use prepend/append for the fields, our logic-based ACF fields are also broken.
Use Prolog to improve LLM's reasoning
Elon is into politics because it’s politics who stood in his way of progress first.

He’s imho afraid and rightfully so, Twitter was a clear example of why.
It’s a lot easier to model and simulate too.
My opinion as well as many as my peers is that ACF could have been rolled into core or bought by Matt long long before it was acquired by WPE, which most of us found as a good thing, being that its a critical plugin and gained long term support.

Plugins have bumps, that's part of the growth, and some of the changes ACF have made as of recent years, even the ones I disagree with, seem well intentioned and not malicious. I can't say the same for what is happening right now.
I have seen Kopia mentioned from time to time but never as often as borg. Does it have a good reputation?
The federal government smartly invested in SpaceX after being sued by SpaceX to fix rigging (things what the system working looks like).

Now taxpayers have a 10x return on investment.
They are extraordinarily useful for this! "Blah blah blah high level naive description of what I want to know about, what is the term of art for this?"

Then equipped with the right term it's way easier to find reliable information about what you need.
I feel it necessary to have an obligatory 'Would someone think of banking?' before we 'abolish'(however we eventually arrive at defining it )anything.

I mean it is all cool to have this idea, but real world implications, where half the stuff dangles on a text file, appear to be not considered here.

For clarity's sake, I am not saying don't do it. I am saying: how will that work?

edit: spaces, tabs and one crlf
The difference is that Mars Direct was a conservative plan, wrt rocket technology. It just used existing Shuttle parts and was meant to fly from Shuttle pads in between Shuttle flights. It didn't require developing anything new, that's why they were sure it would be cheap and fast, and flight rate would make it possible for it to be reliable. SLS is that idea turned into a jobs program.
> I'd prefer to see lua; it just makes more sense.

To you. To me it wouldn't. If it was Lua, I'd still use Fennel. If it was Javascript, I'd do it in Clojurescript; If it was in C, I'd probably find a way to use Common Lisp or Jannet; If it was Python I'd probably use Hylang or something; if it for whatever reason used JVM (like IntelliJ) or .Net CLR, I'd do it in Clojure.

You see, once you actually grok Lisp, at some point you do become a true "polyglot programmer" - for me switching between different runtimes - JVM, Node, Browser, Native, Lua, etc., is as simple as picking up a different Lisp dialect. Even switching between JS and TS for most programmers is not as simple as for me jumping between different Lisp dialects.

I'm not some indentured servant of one particular programming language, your favorite bits of syntactic sugar and "design patterns" made for one particular PL don't amaze me, don't annoy me, don't make me feel bad or good, I simply don't care. I just want to build shit, and I want it to work. I'm sure if there's an actual God, and he had to explain the universe in written form, it would be in homoiconic scripture - anything, yes, just about anything can be explained in functions, neatly wrapped between parentheses, anything beyond that is fluff made by human pride, simplicity requires less not more.
The answer is already known, and it is a multi billion dollars business: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41680116
and now it's a new portable VLM (DEC Alpha, x86-64, ARM64) with Genera 9.
But he’s the catalyst for it all.
There are other billionaires in this game too, why can’t they replicate his success? Why can’t they hire his engineers? Why can’t they deliver the results?
This would be the same as Google replacing Spotify with Youtube Music on Play Store and pushing Youtube Music in its place on all Android devices. Its insane.
No. It all depends on cheap computation, reliable/free satellite location systems, and other stuff that weren't things in the (60s, 70s, 80s - pick your own starting point for "all along").
Matt also bans anyone who asks about it.
Feel's like we're finally conquering the gravity well!
Karabiner Layouts for Symbols and Navigation
Can you say more? That’s not my experience of it.

I think it’s more like latex is like c++ and typst is like zig. C++ & latex have been worked on for decades, and has all this design baggage it carries around. An ugly macro system, weird “compile it 3 times” things. But it also has decades of work filling out the 3rd party package ecosystem and decades of stackoverflow questions and answers.

Zig & typst are rewrites from scratch with new ideas. The core is better designed, since they have been able to learn from what came before and have a do over. But they’re missing the decades of incremental work fixing bugs and filling out the ecosystem. So, yeah, I’m sure the eMacs plugin is worse for typst and latex. It’s all just … newer.
I never thought about this element of cross language structure before. Text direction, diacritics, punctuation, sure - but I always assumed that chunking was universal. Turns out no:

“the typographical notion of the paragraph does not really exist in a Tibetan text the way it does in European languages. As a result, Tibetan texts often need to be processed as a long stream of uninterrupted text with no forced line breaks, sometimes over hundreds or thousands of pages. “
Yeah. It's weird how Unix picked LF given its love of terminals. CRLF is the semantically correct line ending considering terminal semantics. It's present in the terminal subsystem to this day, people just don't notice because they have OPOST output post processing enabled which automatically converts LF into CRLF.
Generally, humanoid robots are not preferable to other, purpose-built robots that (for example) you'll see on factory floors. Boston Dynamics already have adaptable, quadrupedal robots that can be remotely deployed too.

The tasks Tesla suggested included babysitting, and now that we know that the robots are built for remote control first, I would feel pretty uncomfortable with letting my child alone in the same house with a robot like that. Vacuum cleaners are bad enough.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/ecovacs-robot-vacuums-hacked...
But why are you frustrated with Musk’s politics? The fact that one of the smartest people chooses to demonstrate their view is very remarkable. It does warrant critical thinking and examination. After all he could have kept quiet and ponder to both parties equally.
Far greater is very debatable, you get a similar number of killings only if the organ harvesting allegations are true.

The Arab-islamic world is made up of autocracies; they don't need to care about a lot, and they indeed showed extremely little concern for the Palestinians as well.
> "engineerable" to the extent they exist in brains anyway

Can you please enlighten us then since you clearly know to what extent quantum effects exist in the brain.
> I would like to get my electrical engineering degree and focus on power systems

Do you really like this and want to work in it / have friends or family you could ask about this career?

Because if not FYI, it's likely LESS salary than your software engineering job, plus less likely remote work is feasible if that's important to you.
There are a lot more cities with good public transport...
I did push two commits, I think they got squashed on the merge

https://github.com/victorqribeiro/isocity/pull/26/commits/67...
It's so easy to miss a tiny but important detail when working with or discussing Node streams and come out the other side bamboozled by bugs. This whole thread exemplifies why I tell people to stay as far away from streams as possible. Though in the case of stdout/stderr we can't avoid it.
You should take a look at what Von Braun was planning for the Saturn V by the mid 1970s.

IIRC they were talking about 100+ Apollo launches to get a real space station, moon base, and expedition missions to Mars by 1980 and with that would have come a real drive to innovate and improve on the Saturn V.

Without the computational power that we take for granted today they would have definitely brute forced their way to elegant solutions and got somewhere close to where we are by the mid 90s.

This would have lead to tremendous innovations in solar panels, batteries, and metallurgy much sooner than we ended up getting to them.

Instead we chose a different path and made ourselves completely dependent on oil.