skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
In C and C++ a byte and a char are the same size by definition. Don't confuse a byte with an octet.
Thank you. It says: "Sorry, this post was removed by Reddit’s filters."
It might look much better if you picked a palette with a mood (https://lospec.com/palette-list). The resolution mismatch between the foreground crossbow and the sprites and background textures could be made less apparent too by reducing the resolution. For the monster sprites there's always scaling and palette flips. But yeah, with those sprites (and sound) defining the game's identity it's a bottomless pit.
In 2012 MySQL had several flavors of replications, each with its own very serious pitfalls that could introduce corruption or loss of data. I saw enough of MySQL replication issues in those days that I wouldn't want to use it.

But sure, it was easy to get a proof of concept working. But when you tried to break it by turning off network and/or machines, then shit broke down in very broken ways that was not recoverable. I'm guessing most that set up MySQL replication didn't actually verify that it worked well when SHTF.
What should they be broken up into?

And does Jeff Bezos hoard money or wealth? Also not sure how he is ghoulish but you are of course entitled to your opinion.
Hope you've handled this.

If not, there's a new alternative right now that seems to be solving this really well. They're early access though.
I think you mean pre-1970ish position. No-fault divorce wasn't introduced anywhere in the US until 1969 in California. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_divorce
Bad work practices create bad social dynamics. If someone on the team isn't pulling their weight by being lazy, I don't see a reason to like that person if I'm their team member.
Is
> For an invention to be patentable, the core inventive concept must be beyond the grasp of those with average powers of imagination.

Really the case? I had always interpreted the obviousness test as more ‘an average person familiar with the state of the art would not immediately think of the invention’, not that they never would.
Congrats! Great story. Is it without venture funding?
The entire field of maintenance engineering would like a word. Over longer periods of time it's vastly cheaper to regularly fix things even before they break, and software is no exception.

Amongst other reasons:

- Performing regular upgrades is an easy and cheap way to maintain a healthy knowledge base about the system. It's always easier to fix a system that is well understood than a black box which nobody has touched in 20 years. Upgrading regularly also leads to people being more comfortable with the upgrade process and it is likely to become a "regular thing" with checklists and other process improvements that make maintenance safer and more reliable.

- Doing preemptive maintenance means YOU get to choose when the system is unavailable and then you can plan accordingly, perhaps by planning it during a period with low usage or even arranging for a redundant system to take up the load. The alternative is leaving it up to chance when a system will fail, and that's frequently at high-load moments when you can least afford it.

- As a corollary to the previous point: a team which is in control of its systems can have more predictable output of feature work, since there will be fewer "unexpected" events.

Not maintaining your systems is only cheaper in the long run if you don't count the engineering time required to fix things when they break or need to be replaced. Ounce of prevention vs pound of cure and all that.
I think both are wrong.

Science has a word encompasses a broad variety of definitions and practices. The philosophical question of the relationship of empiricism to truth (because fundamentally the question has more to do with the relationship between observations and deductions than science in itself) is a complex one and overall of little interest to actual practitioners of science. It can’t easily be subsumed in broad aphorisms.

I would hazard that most modern sciences - and physics especially - are nowadays mostly concerned about building models and the resulting predictions. The question then often becomes: does the tool I have built allow me to correctly predict how observations will unfold? The answer to which is often more shades of grey than simply yes or no.
I can see what you mean. That was really not the intent. The feedback that we received when we first launched the product mattered a lot, and this was meant as a way to acknowledge it. Sorry if it came across that way.
Either latin1 or that absolutely horrible max-three-byte utf8 encoding that used to be the only available option for utf8.
Alphabet as globe-spanning empire of mediocrity is on the way out: it might take a year or a decade, but it’s too far along to reverse.

The hard-core of Google excellence will remain, by that name or another. It was called DEC (and Bell) before, and it will be called something in a decade.

These institutions have been so kind as to rebrand themselves when they went from excellent to awful: Google became Alphabet, Facebook became Meta, Twitter became X, OpenAI became, whatever they’re going to call the awful thing.

You fight back by waiting, and by voting for people who won’t fire Lina Khan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)

It’s entirely possible to be illegally anti-competitive while giving shit away for discount/free.
Ok, I’ll bite. What is your experience like on Firefox? What things convince you back to Chromium?
We've all read it, thanks.
People being fired/laid off have additional rights that quitting doesn't give them, so making people quit on their can be a way for a company to avoid the obligations.

And regardless of employment rights, this can be still questioned as being a dumb move, because such ham-fisted mandates will most likely make the best employees leave (those who won't have trouble finding another job), reducing overall quality of the workforce.
Can we have a month per year without ads? Like Stoptober, but for ads?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/stoptober-campaign-will-e...
IMO the OP has not understood the obviousness test. Its not that a person "skilled in the art" would never make the invention, but that it would require many attempts, thus justifying the reward of a patent for their efforts. Thus it's not
"obvious to a person skilled in the art" which construction will succeed.

These days, of course, most software patents should fail this test.
We Ran Over Half a Million Evaluations on Quantized LLMs
Native Cross-Platform Declarative Apps in Swift
Doesn't the concept of biopiracy imply that the products of millions of years of evolution belong to modern nation states?

What if, instead, we either observe that they simply exist, or imbue them with their own rights, or consider them the birthright of all humanity?

We've seen that attempts to consider them as intellectual property for the purposes of ensuring their conservation have failed. We can also see that it hasn't driven the anticipated licensing revenue flows to poorer nations. But which approach would lead to greater good for humankind over a long time horizon?
MySQL used to have horrible and very unsafe defaults for new installations that persisted well after the introduction of InnoDB. Those went unfixed for a very long time.
Use brave, a browser that's actually private by default.
> everyone in this thread just willfully ignoring what I've been saying about needing multiple (privacy incompatible) channels of data to be able to trust these login methods that aren't passkeys?

I have reread your top post a few times and I think I'm starting to understand your point. To highlight the core part:

> State of the art in industry is basically trying to understand every action that is happening on a device

I wasn't aware that this is happening. And I can understand why fintech companies engage in this invasive practice. However, I never used SMS as a second factor, because I know that it is unsafe. I use hardware tokens, because I care about security. I know that many people do not care about security and it is your job to catch them before they do something stupid. I understand why you like passkeys so much.

But the original point remains: Resident keys are not necessary. Big tech is propagating resident keys. But they could easily use non-resident keys and offer remembering the usernames for the different sites like password managers do it today. It would be an easy win for everyone.
Is there any way to use NotebookLM audio generation with an API?
I must be doing good because that site is broken for me. Null not/blocked and null total. (Ninja edit: Safari btw)
Net 9.0 LINQ Performance Improvements
% brew search postgres
==> Formulae
check_postgres postgresql@12 postgresql@15 postgrest
postgresql@10 postgresql@13 postgresql@16 qt-postgresql
postgresql@11 postgresql@14 postgresql@17 postgis

Looks like "user issue" to me.
I think you’re missing the broader point, which is that there is a lot to computer science outside of the purely mathematical formalism.

For example, distributed systems and networking are more like a physical science because they seek to make generalized learnings and theorems about real world systems.

The author’s last point around complexity theory also resonates because it demonstrates the value of designing experiments with real-world conditions like computing hardware speed and input sizes.
> zettelkasten memory prosthetic

You're really going to drop these three words without any context?
I recently wrote a static site generator from AnyBox's local database, since they currently only allow for backups via iCloud which is locked down on my work laptop. I was surprised by the peace of mind it gave me to have a nice, 100% portable version of my vast bookmark/website archives.
I fully agree. That's why I use this: https://github.com/pgautoupgrade/docker-pgautoupgrade

But obviously this is not suitable for all use cases. I don't know why pg doesn't invest in this sector.
+1. It's frustrating me right now, because newer members onboarding to our team are having all kinds of issues with Element amongst other software.
I guess patents are meant to reward above-average inventors. So isn't this a feature, not a fallacy?

Also it seems that prooving inventor capacity in this way is better than IQ test, suggested in the text.
I'm worried about https://beeper.com
In practice you still want to optimize for bandwidth, which you can.
Isn't it Chromium based?
There's an obscured close button in the top right corner. If you want to skip the welcome dialog just click that.

The second time it appears, you can uncheck "Show this every time" in the lower left corner and then click "New Document".

...or you could click Save on the first dialog and then click " Thanks!". You'll get the same dialog as above when you'd have closed it with the button in the corner.
Must be device dependant. I get

http://nationalcrokinoleassociat...
I want to thank you for your service. It is courageous and principled people like yourself that supplies enough eyeballs on chromium that incentivizes bigcorp adtech to keep things slightly less worse.
PHP 8.4 Introduces Array_find Function: Innovation or Gimmick?
Yeah. It’s more a case of “average person would only be able to come up with the invention after months/years of R&D”. What’s being protected is the effort (and corresponding investment of resources), not the intellectual prowess of the inventor.
I’ve been meaning to give it a try. How is tooling support? Drop in replacement?
Yeah. I'm not aware of any IQ test designed to measure inventiveness.

And I don't think it's about rewarding above-average inventors, but above-average inventions. That is, not every incremental change should grant an exclusive marketplace for over a decade.
I know three people personally that tried to solve their procrastination through Adderall and got psychotic episodes in the end.

I think a very recent study showed that Ritalin does not carry the same danger. Although having been on Ritalin for a long while I would recommend against it.

I solved (to a large degree) my procrastination in the end through abstaining from alcohol and meditating every day.
> So there’s a risk that you missed it but their dog will find it, and you’ll be on the hook.

No problem - you have a paper trail showing where you got it, that you were unaware of what was in it, and that you were not allowed to inspect it.
He also pioneered Ruby on Rails and Basecamp.
> Thus, the statement ‘An invention shall be taken to involve an inventive step if it is not obvious to a person skilled in the art, having regard to any matter which forms part of the state of the art […]’ (s 3 Patents Act 1977) is logically equivalent to ‘An invention shall be taken to involve an inventive step if the inventor’s powers of imagination are above those of a person skilled in the art’.

Um, no? First of all, if A is "this invention is not obvious", and B is "the inventor has higher-than-average powers of imagination", then the first sentence is A -> B, and the second sentence is B -> A. That is, if A is not obvious, it may be that the inventor is more imaginative; but just because the inventor is imaginative doesn't mean that every idea she comes up with is non-obvious.

Kind of stopped reading after that.

In any case, just because "this invention is not obvious" doesn't mean it can only be seen by people with higher-than-average powers of imagination; you can hit upon things either by thinking hard about the problem, or by just trying thousands of things until you hit upon one. However it's done, the idea is that 1) someone has invested a lot of effort to find a new technique 2) this technique is easy to copy once you've been told about it. We want to encourage people to do this work and then share it with others, so we reward them with a patent.

Whether the effort was purely mental, or a mix of mental and experimental, or pure brute-force experimental doesn't really matter.
But that’s OK because piracy isn’t stealing, amirite?
That's true. If you don't have prejudice you cannot talk about it since you don't know it.
I agree with this take. Securing a free society is serious, nuanced, and essential challenge.

The state needs powerful capabilities to provide credible defense. Unchecked, those capabilities can be used to reduce freedoms. The essential work is to build institutions and tools that can systematically navigate that nuance.

Personally, I think this all comes down to building high-quality democracy. The people constrain the leaders at the ballot box. The leaders constrain the institutions via policy. For a practical example, look at Sen Ron Wyden’s work.

If you care about this stuff, support things like FairVote.org
> Finishing, as in will power, focus, and vision, is like a muscle that you can take to the gym.

That's not true, at least not for many procrastinators. I've been a procrastinator my whole life. It wasn’t until my mid-30s that I found a method that made me productive (going from 2-3 hours of work a day to 9-10 hours). Honestly, when it comes to productivity, I’m killing it. However, it hasn’t trained my "finish it" muscle at all. As soon as I'm not body doubling, I revert to my old self and immediately start procrastinating.
The article addresses this: there's no systematic enforcement of documentation currency. It may accidentally and unbeknownst to its authors become outdated.

Anyways, as already mentioned earlier: unit tests are code and all quality criteria that apply to any other code apply to unit tests too. We expect identifiers used in code to help understand the code no matter if it's the name of a unit test or any other entity in our program.

NB. To me this argument seems as bizarre as disputing washing your hands after using the bathroom. Why would anyone think that they should get a pass on code quality standards when writing unit tests? This just doesn't make sense...
That’s the same point being discussed: who’s to say this podcast is more garbage than the average podcast listened to by users?
>reward of a patent for their efforts.

no, the patent is a reward for the disclosure of it to the public (and thus supposedly for sparing the others from the "many attempts" thus speeding up the public progress) no matter how much effort you spent coming up with the invention - be it half your adult life and the life savings or you just invented it in 10 minutes. If there is no value in patent disclosure, then it shouldn't be granted. That basically means that patents are obsolete these days as there is no value in the public disclosure anymore as anything invented by a person A right now, if not disclosed, will be invented half an hour later by a person B and person C and a bunch of others. The only thing patents do these days is preventing the persons B, C and the others from using the idea that the A just happened to file first thus blocking their progress - completely opposite to the original idea that the disclosure by A would speed up the progress of the others. I mean have you ever seen somebody saying "Thanks to the person A for their patent, now i know how to accomplish that thing and will happily pay to the A the license fee as their patent saved me time and effort." ?
You'll have to be more specific than that. For me what I point out is obvious: Prolog is not magick. Your program won't magickally reason if you write it in Prolog, much less reason correctly. If an LLM translates a Problem to the wrong Prolog program, Prolog won't magickally turn it into a correct program. And that's just rephrasing what I said in my comment above. There's really not much more to say.

Here's just one more observation: the problems where translating reasoning to Prolog will work best are problems where there are a lot of examples of Prolog to be found on the web, e.g. wolf-cabbage-goat problems and the like. With problems like that it is much easier for an LLM to generate a correct translation of the problem to Prolog and get a correct solution just because there's lots of examples. But if you choose a problem that's rarely attacked with Prolog code, like, I don't know, some mathematical problem that obtains in nuclear physics as a for instance, then an LLM will be much more likely to generate garbage Prolog, while e.g. Fortran would be a better target language. From what I can see, the papers linked in the article above concentrate on the Prolog-friendly kind of problem, like logical puzzles and the like. That smells like cherry picking to me, or just good, old confirmation bias.

Again, Prolog is not magick. The article above and the papers it links to seem to take this attitude of "just add Prolog" and that will make LLMs suddenly magickally reason with fairy dust on top. Ain't gonna happen.
The Turing machine is a realisation of what a computing machine could be in a logical sense. It’s not so much constructed to be easy to reason about as to be the simplest form of what such a machine could be.

The fact that functions computable with such a machine is equivalent to functions computable in the lambda calculus and Herbrand general recursive functions is the remarkable results.

The fact that it can somehow be linked to an actual computing machines outside of logic is merely a happy accident.

Having said that you could think I disagree with Vardi but the truth is: I think the point he brings is just void of substance. That’s only of interest to people who like university politics and how departments hire. It’s of no impact to the field whatsoever. Why does it matter what is or isn’t semantically TCS and if it is or not mathematics? The problems will still be there the same.
# calculator.py

class Calculator:
def __init__(self):
self.history = []

def add(self, num1, num2):
"""Add two numbers"""
result = num1 + num2
self.history.append(f"{num1} + {num2} = {result}")
return result

def subtract(self, num1, num2):
"""Subtract two numbers"""
result = num1 - num2
self.history.append(f"{num1} - {num2} = {result}")
return result

def multiply(self, num1, num2):
"""Multiply two numbers"""
result = num1 * num2
self.history.append(f"{num1} * {num2} = {result}")
return result

def divide(self, num1, num2):
"""Divide two numbers"""
if num2 == 0:
raise ValueError("Cannot divide by zero!")
result = num1 / num2
self.history.append(f"{num1} / {num2} = {result}")
return result

def get_history(self):
"""Get the calculation history"""
return self.history

def main():
calculator = Calculator()

while True:
print("\nOptions:")
print("1. Add")
print("2. Subtract")
print("3. Multiply")
print("4. Divide")
print("5. Get History")
print("6. Quit")

choice = input("Choose an option: ")

if choice == "1":
num1 = float(input("Enter the first number: "))
num2 = float(input("Enter the second number: "))
print(f"Result: {calculator.add(num1, num2)}")
elif choice == "2":
num1 = float(input("Enter the first number: "))
num2 = float(input("Enter the second number: "))
print(f"Result: {calculator.subtract(num1, num2)}")
elif choice == "3":
num1 = float(input("Enter the first number: "))
num2 = float(input("Enter the second number: "))
print(f"Result: {calculator.multiply(num1, num2)}")
elif choice == "4":
num1 = float(input("Enter the first number: "))
num2 = float(input("Enter the second number: "))
try:
print(f"Result: {calculator.divide(num1, num2)}")
except ValueError as e:
print(e)
elif choice == "5":
print("\nCalculation History:")
for i, history in enumerate(calculator.get_history()):
print(f"{i+1}. {history}")
elif choice == "6":
break
else:
print("Invalid option. Please choose a valid option.")

if __name__ == "__main__":
main()
Sounds a lot like what Wolfram is working on with categorizing cellular automota. Strikes me that a lot of his work is very biological in its search for axioms from experimentation
It doesn't really do anything. Adds one more crap belief to the list of all other crap beliefs one already have.
This is why I don't like bowling or pool. At high level, it's a game of "whoever makes the first mistake loses."
TSA detected 6700+ firearms in 2023, 93% of which were loaded.

I like that people can’t accidentally bring a loaded gun onto my plane and are deterred from doing it on purpose.

A committed attacker can probably get by TSA, but a committed attacker will also likely flag other parts of the layered defense system that TSA is only one part of. The intelligence apparatus can and does flag specific threats to TSA, which is way better than FBI having to figure out ad-hoc how to screen millions of travelers whenever they think there’s a specific credible risk.
>Rather than what many BigTech companies are currently doing

this BigTech strategy or perhaps also Big money strategy is a common feature of all hype bubbles, see XML as an example.

Perhaps caused by the people with the big money not knowing anything about the technology but having a feeling that this will produce some valuable things, therefore throw a bunch of money at everything, those things that survive will reward us, the other stuff we write off.
If there is anyone from Neon watching this thread, is there a way to suggest updates to the pgversions website? It currently pins Xata to 15.5, which is true for the shared cluster environment depending on the region, but one can start dedicated clusters up to 16.4 at the moment.
LLM API Showdown – compare the cheapest and fastest LLM API providers