skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
more notable companies using svelte because this always comes up https://x.com/SvelteSociety/status/1260209026563858432
The point is that it's an overloaded term, which makes it easy to talk past each other.

If you wish to see usages like I described, have a look here.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
This only works for aerospace because everything and everyone is held to that standard. It's stupid to hold automotive autopilots to the same standard as a plane's autopilot when a third of fatalities in cars are caused by the pilots being drunk.
It makes everything faster, it's an evolvement of HTTP/2 in many ways. I recommend watching

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdb7M37o9sU
Rich said a blogpost will be coming on monday, presumably that will be the canonical link to actually post on hn
Where does the perception that signing a physical piece of paper with pen is an important part of a secure audit trail?

If a signature is meant to represent both intent and identity, what is it about the physical medium which makes it more ideal than a digital signature where you're prompted to enter in your login password or something similar?

Is it the belief that its less forgable, that electronic audit trails are more easily duped and spoofed while signature blocks and paper/pen is somehow immutable (despite the decades of forged signatures easily traced from other sources)?

Never understood this idea whatsoever, it just strikes me as a form of pearl-clutching over some nebulous hackers that could easily destroy our well-oiled pen/paper/document machines.
My understanding from Einstein’s book Relativity is that the four dimensions of general relativistic spacetime do not correspond to any one of the time or space dimensions of special relativity or classical physics.

It’s a great read, and short too. He explains it much better than I could.
Already did, but I still use forums like this site and Reddit in a mostly anonymous capacity. If you want to quit unfollow everyone and everything. It took time but one day my facebook feed just said "we don't have anything to show you.", and that was it, I was free.
There is still at least one niche for it: very simple circuits which requires >5v. Using 555 lets you skip the regulator and drivers.

But even there, it's high Iq limits its applicability.
Microsoft just did shit, whatever they wanted. Google has worked with all the w3c committees and other browsers with tireless commitment to participation, with endless review.

It's such a tired sad trope of people disaffected with the web because they can't implement it by themselves easily. I'm so exhausted by this anti-progress terrorism; the world's shared hypermedia should be rich and capable.

We also see lots of strong progress these days from newcomers like Ladybird, and Servo seems gearing up to be more browser like.
A major problem with TCP is that the limitations of the kernel network stack and sometimes port allocation place absurd artificial limits on the number of active connections. A modern big server should be able to have tens of millions of open TCP connections at least, but to do that well you have to do hacks like running a bunch of pointless VMs.
Edit: this whole comment is incorrect. I was really thinking about HTTP 3.0, not 2.0.

HTTP/2 is not "particularly complex?" Come on! Do remember where we started.

> I'm not entirely sure where you're coming from here, to be honest. Like, is your belief that there are no possible tradeoffs here? Nothing can ever justify even such minor amounts of complexity, no matter how large the benefits are? Or do you accept that there are tradeoffs, and are "just" disagree with every developer who made a different call on this when choosing whether to support HTTP/2 in their (non-Google) browser or server?

"Such minor amounts of complexity". Ahem.

I believe there are tradeoffs. I don't believe that HTTP/2 met that tradeoff between complexity vs benefit. I do believe it benefitted Google.
Law is code that belongs to all
> I use git on the CLI 99.9% of the time. I never used a GUI for git and don’t see a reason to.

Nobody needs a gui for git or a text editor but using magit is like a superpower compared to the command line. It is probably the best piece of software i've ever used. you can even drop down to the command line git inside of it if you need. i don't understand why anyone would prefer the cli over it.
I'm not indicting SpaceX at all. They've very obviously been very successful. My hypothesis is there isn't room or capacity for more competition. They caught lightning in a bottle and it may never happen again. I may be wrong idk why people seem mad.
in the high entropy world we have, we are forced to assume that the first thing that arises as a stable pattern is inevitably the most likely, and the most likely to work. there is no other pragmatic conclusion to draw.

for more, see "Assembly Theory"
So the normies have a way to explain weirdness and go on with their day.
Depends on how big the initial investment is. If you start with 1000 euros - unlikely. If you start with 5,000,000 euros - plausible. Large scale marketing costs heaps and returns only a tiny percentage of paying customers.
A major mistake in IP’s design was to allow middle boxes. The protocol should have had some kind of minimal header auth feature to intentionally break them. It wouldn’t have to be strong crypto, just enough to make middle boxes impractical.

It would have forced IPv6 migration immediately (no NAT) and forced endpoints to be secured with local firewalls and better software instead of middle boxes.

The Internet would be so much simpler, faster, and more capable. Peer to peer would be trivial. Everything would just work. Protocol innovation would be possible.

Of course tech is full of better roads not taken. We are prisoners of network effects and accidents of history freezing ugly hacks into place.
> During my life, I have met several people, especially among software engineers, who seem to be similar to me

This begs a question though: Since programming is mostly done with language - admittedly primitive/pidgin ones - why isn't that a struggle? Not sure if you're a programmer yourself, but if so do you prefer certain programming languages for some sense of "less-verbalness" or does it even matter?

Just wondering, not attacking your claim per se.
Object Equality in C#
How complete is it?

I looked at github and came away with the impression it's very much still a work in progress, but you seem to imply it's closer to being complete?

Does nrepl work well? Can I just load a relatively arbitrary cljc file?

This discussion made me check it out as I'd like to use it in conjunction with some C++ files/libs, but looking at the project left me really quite unsure as to it's current state.
You raise an interesting issue to which I offer just ONE counterpoint. That is, a 555 circuit often requires external circuits that involve useful theory beyond basic circuits.

I’m thinking RC timing and voltage dividers. These have practical application. Would it ever get used elsewhere? That is where my thinking merges to yours.

Forty years from when I started that journey, not sure it can’t be learned from a wiki.
Am I the only one that uses ChatGPT for boring technical work instead of looking into my soul?

———————-

I don’t have access to any personal information about you that you haven’t shared with me. From what we’ve discussed, I only know that you have an Azure App Registration for a web app that allows user logins and includes a stateless API. Everything else you can choose to share with me!
Social media has it's uses. For most people it's a way to kill time, which they usually have too much of. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Like you I find a lot of what people share boring, but I have had a few nice friendships made possible by social media. Without it we would have lost touch a decade ago. And there are many others who are only a click away because of it. Maybe some of these relationships aren't that important, but so what? Why not maintain ties?

To me the real enlightened view is to use social media as a tool while not letting it consume your life. Take advantage of the ways it adds, while avoiding the negatives. But to each their own, if people prefer to get off of it completely that's ok too.
Design of a 100 mile subway might be 2 lines in each direction a fast and a slow. Fast might stop every 10 or 20 miles and run in the center. Slow would run in an outer track that shares the other side of the fast track station platforms and would pick up and drop off at 1000 numbered stations on demand depending on what passengers enter on their smart phone ride apps.
With a prevalence rate of < 2% (at least in Australia) this seems like an incredibly mathematically flawed take. Whilst a broad/blanket diagnosis isn't useful for making generalisations about individuals in that group, it's certainly societally useful.
Love this tool and can definitely vouch for it! They also have an API and powering some new upcoming products like https://consensus.app/search/ which you may be interested in. Personally, I find consensus to be a bit more useful and the AI summaries are handy.

I'm also working on a similar tool that combines searching, reading and citation management of articles in a single platform. Here's the link if you are interested: https://tryhexle.vercel.app/
And you don’t need to a make three dozen shell/git aliases. The keybinds are already good.
I liken it to people who reach for kubernets and docker and microservices and cloud infrastructure when a simple LAMP stack running on a single box will do. And people who reach for a hosted javascript app when a native one that doesn’t require internet will do. They’re not wrong, just unnecessarily complicating things because they learned how to do it the complicated way.
Will I get into any trouble for starting a hosting site called WordPress Engine?

What if I licensed WordPress?
When I looked at it last week, it loaded fine in Chrome. Maybe try archive.org for an earlier copy?
I like this article. Randomness in system design is one of the most practical ways to handle the messiness of real world inputs, and I think random forests nail this by using randomness to produce useful outputs to various inputs without overfitting and adapt to the unexpected. Yeah, you can always engineer a system that explicitly handles every possible situation, but the important question is “how long/costly will that process be?”. Deterministic systems aren’t good on that front, and when edge cases hit, sometimes those rigid models crack. Controlled randomness (load balancing, feature selection, etc.) makes systems more flexible and resilient. You don’t get stuck in the same predictable ruts, and that’s exactly why randomness works where pure determinism fails
Ubuntu patches all the time. WordPress could have done exactly the same with patches! Good idea.

Sometimes a patch isn’t enough so there is something like SilverWolf. That’s kinda like ACF/SCF.
Are you sure it’s a life changing productivity booster? Sometimes I look at my projects and wonder how would I explain it to an LLM what this code should have done if it didn’t exist yet. Must be a shitton of boilerplate programming for copilot to be a life-changing experience.
> avalanche of smut on Twitter/X

I haven't seen this.

Maybe you only run into that sort of thing if you go looking for that sort of thing?
Is this something you could use ebpf for?
After spending last week at a house right off the boardwalk in Newport Beach I’d have to disagree here. I probably saw well over a hundred e-bikes zoom by during my stay and would say that most were either teenagers/young adults or people in their 30s to 50s that seemed perfectly capable of riding a standard bike.
Carl Sagan's Draft of the "Demon-Haunted World" [pdf]
I can't speak for anyone else, but the offer of a free trial made me bounce right off, despite my curiosity and the value such a product could potentially offer me. I want to know up front whether this is going to be useful to me before I sign up for anything. To that end, offering even a single no-strings-attached identification, even if the details are redacted, would go a long way towards conversion.
London, Birmingham and God only knows how many other cities in the UK. London in particular is the most obvious example of why accusations of paranoia and alarmism are either malice or stupidity - the city has changed from being over 95% aboriginal to <50% aboriginal in just 40 years. and it didn't even end there - now it's below 40%.

and when all the other cities in UK, France, Germany, Sweden and other "wir schaffen das" countries change as dramatically, the people who are currently saying "it isn't happening" will change their tune to "it's actually a good thing"
Why Arduinos in particular? We're in an era where you can choose any MCU (ARM, Espressif, RiscV e tc), pick a language you like within limits (C, C++, Rust, Python (sort of)), and make it happen. Open KiCad, design a PCB, and have it arrive from Shenzhen in 10 days. Or, order a dev board, and attach additional circuits to it. (STM32 Discovery, nordic dev kit, one of the cheap Chinese ones "pill" etc.) Design whatever circuits you want. Use passives, or string together ICs.

555 is obsolete tech. I see this as equivalent to suggesting someone buy an Apple II instead of a modern PC.
'I, Robot' Director Calls Out Elon Musk's Tesla for Ripping Off His Designs
Origin of 'Daemon' in Computing
> The 2024 NDTA highlights the dangerous shift from plant-based drugs to synthetic drugs

It's almost as if it was a mistake to spend decades throwing people in jail for using the plant-based drugs... But perusing the document, I see no such admission. In fact, in their section on marijuana they use scare-quotes around "legalize" and "legal", showing they absolutely haven't learned their lesson.

The DEA's War on Americans Who Use Drugs is not just an abject failure, it's directly responsible for much of our nations ills including the decreasing respect for fundamental rights, law and order, and the police.
Yes, Google found the loophole: brute-force standards complexity by hiring thousands of very competent engineers eager to leave their mark on the web and eager to get promoted. The only thing they needed was lots of money, and they had just that.

I think my message here is only hard to understand if your salary (or personal worth etc) depends on not understanding it. It's really not that complex.
I can’t speak for the majority, but for my team it’s because it’s not worth the distraction. We’ve got years of experience and tooling and “tradition” with one approach. Why do we want a second?

It’s also just not an interesting issue. In my experience, the actual coding (and later maintenance) of a web application is the least challenging, least interesting part of the project. At that stage, all the interesting problems have generally been solved in workflow, process, data structure design and general de-risking. Classes? Hooks? Binding style? Tabs or spaces? I really couldn’t care less. Just be consistent so you can all build and develop skills together.

I admit that when I was younger this kind of thing seemed to matter to me. I dunno if it’s because I’m now more focused on big picture or if I’m just tired and don’t care anymore. Maybe both!
There are two places a packet can be ‘in-flight’. One is light travelling down cables (or the electrical equivalent) or in memory being processed by some hardware like a switch, and the other is sat in a buffer in some networking appliance because the downstream connection is busy (eg sending packets that are further up the queue, at a slower rate than they arrive). If you just increase bandwidth it is easy to get lots of in-flight packets in the second state which increases latency (admittedly that doesn’t matter so much for long downloads) and the chance of packet loss from overly full buffers.

CUBIC tries to increase bandwidth until it hits packet loss, then cuts bandwidth (to drain buffers a bit) and ramps up and hangs around close to the rate that led to loss, before it tries sending at a higher rate and filling up buffers again. Cubic is very sensitive to packet loss, which makes things particularly difficult on very high bandwidth links with moderate latency as you need very low rates of (non-congestion-related) loss to get that bandwidth.

BBR tries to do the thing you describe while also modelling buffers and trying to keep them empty. It goes through a cycle of sending at the estimated bandwidth, sending at a lower rate to see if buffers got full, and sending at a higher rate to see if that’s possible, and the second step can be somewhat harmful if you don’t need the advantages of BBR.

I think the main thing that tends to prevent the thing you talk about is flow control rather than congestion control. In particular, the sender needs a sufficiently large send buffer to store all unacked data (which can be a lot due to various kinds of ack-delaying) in case it needs to resend packets, and if you need to resend some then your send buffer would need to be twice as large to keep going. On the receive size, you need big enough buffers to be able to fill up those buffers from the network while waiting for an earlier packet to be retransmitted.

On a high-latency fast connection, those buffers need to be big to get full bandwidth, and that requires (a) growing a lot, which can take a lot of round-trips, and (b) being allowed by the operating system to grow big enough.
Hm, you seem to be implementing the exact same kind of IR and bytecode that everybody does. There are a lot more possibilities that are rarely mentioned, and some I argue are better. I have an extensive list (/ wannabe tutorial), which I believe all VM writers at least think about, regardless of what actually ends up being implemented: https://gist.github.com/o11c/6b08643335388bbab0228db763f9921...

I will confess to being a strong opponent of stack-based VMs. Admittedly, function calls are the one thing that is notably simpler in them compared to register-based machines.

Instead of 32 bits per instruction, have you thought about 16 bits per instruction then doing something special for the rare instruction that needs more (either a flag for adjacent "extra data", or a function-level table to index, or even a special register)? Especially in a stack machine you're likely to have a lot of instructions with no argument at all.

You're doing label-based IR, but block-based IR seems to be more popular these days (though that is mostly with SSA). Regardless, think about the case where optimization leads to empty blocks / no code between adjacent labels (it's probably fine for your current approach, but only because you currently can't have large functions at all). Also, it doesn't make sense to use `unordered_map` when `vector` will do.
In the '90s, the miracle of fen-phen to lose weight was linked to valvular heart disease. Now, the new miracle drugs are linked to brittle bones. Does anyone know if it's the drug, or is it a matter of not getting enough nutrients and therefore losing bone mass because you eat less?

I think the body is too complex to have a drug target one area without having side effects in other areas. I suspect that a weight loss drug that does not have consequences is not possible.
There’s a quote from a German general:

“ I divide my officers into four groups. There are clever, diligent, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and diligent — their place is the General Staff. The next lot are stupid and lazy — they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the intellectual clarity and the composure necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent — he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always cause only mischief.”
To clarify, NBN is a monopoly on the last mile infrastructure which is resold to private ISPs that sell internet services.

The history there is that Australia used to have a government run monopoly on telephone infrastructure and services (Telecom Australia), which was later privatised (and rebranded to Telstra). The privatisation left Telstra with a monopoly on the infrastructure, but also a requirement that they resell the last mile at a reasonable rate to allow for some competition.

So Australia already had an existing industry of ISPs that were already buying last mile access from someone else. The NBN was just a continuation of the existing status quo in that regard.

> They even have a grey fibre box that looks identical to the NBNCo box except it's labelled LBNCo with the same font

Early in my career I worked for one of those smaller telcos trying to race to get services into buildings before the NBN. I left around the time they were talking about introducing an LBNCo brand (only one of the reasons I left). At the time, they weren't part of Opticomm, but did partner with them in a few locations. If the brand is still around, I guess they must have been acquired at some point.
If you're a kernel developer then turn -fdelete-null-pointer-checks off. There's nothing profound about this, just code compiled with the wrong settings 15 years ago.
> there'd be more researchers willing to take risks and build operating systems with new designs rather than modifying Linux.

I don't know if that would be the case. While Bell Labs and Xerox PARC produced a lot of very interesting/useful research a lot of it was tied up in corporate licensing for decades. The corpse of AT&T Unix has been haunting the industry for decades and cost many millions of dollars in lawsuits.

Linux ate the world largely because anyone could do what they wanted with it. Modifying or building on top of Linux will get you a very long way on commodity hardware you can get at Best Buy down the street for $200. You can spend a lot more time on your target of research rather than having to build the whole underlying system.

If you've got some genius idea for a process scheduler instead of writing a whole kernel and whatever hardware drivers you need you can just hack it into Linux. You can then distribute it easily to other researchers or testers since it's just patches on a kernel they've already got running.

I'm not saying Linux is the end-all be-all of OS design or systems research is pointless. It's just a pretty good starting point for a lot of research since it is free and quite capable on its own. As a researcher you get a lot of capability out of the box and a whole ecosystem of development tools all ready to use.
> When someone asks me to help them with some git thing

I point them at jujutsu (jj) and then they simply get on with using source control without the need for 8,000+ articles about navigating the insane Git command line interface.
Aging by autodigestion
ADHD is the "Im not fat I'm big boned" of stupidity.
The author has a very strange understanding of the idea of a "leaky abstraction". AppKit requiring you to call methods on the main thread is just not an abstraction at all, leaky or otherwise.
These are good points, and provide some good background for why SCOTUS believed that its CU decision was correct.

I'll ponder them carefully, and may respond in a day or so.
What is "the DIV"?