skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
… I mean, in theory someone could craft some protocol that just starts with speaking Websockets or starts with some other handshake¹, I suppose, but the overwhelming majority of the uses of websockets out there are going to be over HTTP, as that's what a browser speaks, and the client is quite probably a browser.

> A careful reading of RFC6455 only mentions the handshake and its response must be a static string resembling a header in style of RFC2616 (HTTP), but a single static string is not HTTP.

You're going to have to cite the paragraph, then, because that is most definitely not what RFC 6455 says. RFC 6455 says,

> The handshake consists of an HTTP Upgrade request, along with a list of required and optional header fields.

That's not "a single static string". You can't just say "are the first couple of bytes of the connection == SOME_STATIC", as that would not be a conforming implementation. (That would just be a custom protocol with its own custom upgrade-into-Websockets, as mentioned in the first paragraph, but if you're doing that, you might as well just ditch that and just start in Websockets.)

¹(i.e., I grant the RFC's "However, the design does not limit WebSocket to HTTP, and future implementations could use a simpler handshake", but making use of that to me that puts us solidly in "custom protocol" land, as conforming libraries won't interoperate.)
I recently turned off memory because I’m used to opening a new chat to refresh context and I was tired of telling it to ignore memory.

So it told me I need to turn on memory to learn more about me.
Even pre-elon, twitter has always seemed like a data sinkhole. Not quite sure about the value of the trash there though...
Too bad we aren’t going to the moon anytime soon: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-10-17/michae....
> 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.

Inbound connections? You don't need to do anything other than make sure your fd limit is high and maybe not be ipv4 only and have too many users behind the same cgnat.

Outbound connections is harder, but hopefully you don't need millions of connections to the same destination, or if you do, hopefully they support ipv6.

When I ran millions of connections through HAproxy (bare tcp proxy, just some peaking to determine the upstream), I had to do a bunch of work to make it scale, but not because of port limits.
> This suggests that although autism has a strong association with genetics, neurophysiology unique to autism develops in the context of highly complex genetic associations that are likely subject genetic drift across population and time.

Wouldn't it be more likely local culture and brain plasticity are the cause of these differences?
It's particularly stupid when you realize a sufficiently motivated person can in fact just fire an upper. I have no idea where the bolt is going to wind up in this, but it will in fact shoot a bullet out the other end of the barrel
State of the Bird: Thunderbird Annual Report 2023-2024
Can you recommend books/courses that cover this new approach you’re talking about?
I've been using copilot for several months. If I could figure out a way to measure its impact on my productivity, I'd probably see a single digit percentage boost in "productivity". This is not life-changing for me. And for some tasks, it's actually worse than nothing. As in, I spend time feeding it a task, and it just completely fails to do anything useful.
That's the federal ban. The comment is about California law
DVC support multiple remotes. S3 is one of them, there are also WebDAV, local FS, Google Drive, and a bunch of others. You could see the full list here [0]. Disclaimer: not affiliated with DVC in anyway, just a user.

[0] https://dvc.org/doc/user-guide/data-management/remote-storag...
You could make the proposition that sequential code is inherently asynchronous in modern operating systems, because the kernel inherently abstracts the handling of blocking/unblocking your process.
This is why OpenAI and Anthropic provide date versioned models.

gpt-4o can change, but gpt-4o-2024-05-13 will always use the 2024-05-13 snapshot.
> trivially easy

Yes, I agree! for techies on here, they'll know that as well.

The target here is script kiddies —whose tech knowledge is limited to downloading a program from github and following easily laid out instructions — which it's pretty effective protection against.
Unlike the other slew of "memory safe languages", Rust aims for a middle ground of sorts where "unsafe" is more visible and acknowledged but also guarded against. It's a rather third way of treating the inevitable escape hatches. It's more about how it's taught and treated socially that makes Rust's unsafe a different experience from, say, how C or alternatively Java approaches "unsafe".
LLMs don't necessarily need to reproduce their source material to make use of it. They could summarize, analyze, condense, paraphrase, extract statistics or factoids. There's also the question of how the models actually store the source material or not. It's physically impossible for the verbatim text to live in the model weights, and so at the very least, it's compressed or abstracted. So any copyright claims will need to get beyond a simplistic allegation of copying, for sure.
It's much like the distinction between responsibility and blame. At least in English, it seems like a lot of different meanings often get blurred together.

At its root, responsibility is about who responds, rather than who causes.
Some overlay lots of really squiggly lines, average (most points in common) is the actual function you're looking for?
Malicious doesn't mean copyrighted.
Interesting but the videos show a lot of vibration of the parts during the print, which seems to be created by disturbance of the gel by the tool. As a result I assume that the accuracy/repeatability are quite poor. This assumption seems further confirmed by the absence of any numbers about the resolution and accuracy achieved.

I'm sure there's plenty of parts that can be made this way and that can tolerate whatever the limitations are.
I'd argue that having the descriptor of "asperger's" is much more useful than simply having a blanket descriptor of "autism". Low functioning people who are described as having autism, have very little in common with most of the high functioning type.
On the other hand, it might flag a code smell to you in that you’re injecting I/O into a code path that had no I/O before which forces you to either make annotations making that explicit for the future or to realize that that I/O call could be problematic. There’s something nice about knowing whether or not functions you’re invoking have I/O as a side effect.
Tim Tang Test – The Longest and Hardest Online Puzzle in the World
Eh, it's more like the DSM was written primarily with the concept of billing and charting in mind. If you track and bill medical conditions, you need a consistent language for things that will be consistent across medical providers.

It solves a problem, just not the problem most people think it solves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-5
> You could also check your itemized bill.

But only for the things you buy.

Note too, some big retail stores actually have a "license" or "contract" for customers hiding behind the service desk, and often, video recording is one of the things they forbid. It's not "illegal" to do so, but if they catch you, and insist you leave, and you refuse, now you're trespassing, and that has legal consequences.
Twitter owner needs a quick injection of cash
Governing AI for Humanity: Final Report [pdf]
No racing bike seats are padded. The leather ones are really just an aesthetic choice.

Those fat padded seats only come on those $200 bikes sold to people who don’t ride bikes because it looks more comfortable.
It's something when a ball of talent manifests in such a way that a forum of scholars and engineers look for someone to blame.
> except when it is because it's reading from a memory-mapped file

Where "memory mapped file" includes your program executable. Or any memory if you have swap space available.

And any operations can be "blocking" if your thread is preempted which can happen at basically any point.

So yes, everything is blocking. It is just shades of grey.
I think you’re right I always loved the spacesuits. I begged my grandma to make a silver Gemini suit for me for Halloween once. Loved it forever.

I felt the same about the space x suits though, boring. Look like pyjamas
What I find confusing with people raving about it as something different is the considering the following scenario:

refactor/a # should be merged as independent PR
feature/a-b # depends on a; should be merged independently, after
fix/c # independent

Then I will probably have some local `dev` branch checked out with a combination of all of the above and maybe some.

How else than "stacked diffs" would you submit all of this for review concurrently while still working on all of them? It sounds like a new word for what we were always expected to do? What's an alternative which doesn't rely on compromising merge-strategy?

At this point I'm suspecting "stacked diffs" is just a crotch for people still barely coping with DVCS but I could be missing something.
Dvc is great tool!
This might seem a little odd, but I’m trying to “find my tribe” of interesting thinkers to bounce around ideas with and your comments on this thread suggest you’d have some great/thoughtful/interesting takes.

If you’re open it would be great to connect (email in my HN bio).
You haven't used them enough. Everytime an LLM reduces my search from 1min to 5s, the LLM pays.

Just summary features: save me 20min of reading a transcript, turn it into 20s. That's a huge enabler.
There already are ebike conversion kits like that. The problem is they generally aren’t legal since they aren’t capped at a certain speed. And the battery packs have a history of exploding in flames
> I see a pattern of open source leaders being judged more harshly than proprietary software leaders.

I will only speak for myself, but I find this to be baloney. I'm not judging "open source leaders" more harshly - I'm judging a single open source leader, Matt Mullenweg, harshly solely due to his own actions and statements.

You say "What WP Engine has done is be soulless." That's kind of my whole point - I don't give a fuck, at all, that WP Engine is "soulless". First, they're a hosting company, not a church. My fundamental issue with Matt's behavior in the first place is that just because a company is "soulless", i.e. whatever line he has in his head that is the "minimum" a company should have to contribute back because they use open source software he first created, that he gets to do a shakedown, take over what was their largest open source contribution in the first place, and then demand 8% of their revenue.

Frankly, I don't believe any of this moralistic framing in the first place. I think he saw WP Engine as an "unfair" competitor to WordPress.com, and his actions are simply to cripple a business competitor.
Facebook censoring broadband claim, despite agreement on facts
The Narcissist’s Prayer (by Dayna Craig)

That didn’t happen.
And if it did, it wasn’t that bad.
And if it was, that’s not a big deal.
And if it is, that’s not my fault.
And if it was, I didn’t mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.

I for one and very much starting to feel like I'm in an abusive relationship with WordPress...
It may be that a typical well-written C program for an algorithm is more concise and/or elegant, but how exactly do we scale developers writing C programs well? For that matter, forget algorithms, what about C string handling? Yes, Rust has a gazillion string types (offtopic: I don't really understand those complaints, as usually you only need a few), but whether in the standard library or a third-party library, I don't get the sense that I need to be very diligent. And I don't think people should need high diligence for using strings.

As an OS nerd, this is what I like to use as an example: yes, the seL4 verified microkernel is impressive and if it was written in a language other than C, it wouldn't have both the practicality and the assurance. It was specified in Haskell but ultimately the C is what is deployed, so C it is. A Rust version might not be verifiable even in the next ten years. But the people who can't use seL4 and need an 80% "reasonably secure" or whatever OS have a strong case to use Rust over C. The formal verification for the C code of seL4 is partly a crutch for C's lack of safety and correctness by default.
It seems to me that I don't know how to use the Google AI Studio.
There is this youtube video with music lines at the top the video. I want to extract those music lines and put them in images. This is what I did: download the video with yt-dlp, get all the points of time at which I want to get the music line, use ffmpeg to extract frames at those points of time, use imagemagick to crop the music lines in those frames. It works but the tedious part is that I have to get all the points of time when there's a new music line.
Does anybody know how to ask AI to do that?
I'm sure this won't lead to people flooding X with the most racist, sexist, and otherwise offensive content they possibly can in order to ruin the value of that training set or anything. No, surely... no one would do that, right?
Safe and practical are not orthogonal with aesthetically pleasing!
Was this the last version, or the version released today?

I’ve been pretty skeptical of FSD and didn’t use the last version much. Today I used the latest test version, enabled yesterday, and rode around SF, to and from GGP, and it did really well.

Waymo well? Almost. But whereas I haven’t ridden Waymo on the highway yet, FSD got me from Hunters Point to the east bay with no disruptions.

The biggest improvement I noticed was its optimizations on highway progress.. it’ll change lanes, nicely, when the lane you’re in is slower than the surrounding lanes. And when you’re in the fast/passing lane it’ll return to the next closest lane.

Definitely better than the last release.
Thank you! This is handy as hell, after firefox send gone.
BH -> by
That's a dangerous line and I don't think it's correct. Software I write shouldn't be relied on in critical situations. If someone makes that decision then it's on them not on me.

The line should be where a person tells others that they can rely on the software with their lives - as in the integrator for the end product. Even if I was working on the software for self driving, the same thing would apply - if I wrote some alpha level stuff for the internal demonstration and some manager decided "good enough, ship it", they should be liable for that decision. (Because I wouldn't be able to stop them / may have already left by then)
Let's toss a whale on land and see if it can communicate and collaborate with peers 10 ft away on anything. I don't think being tuned to communicate underwater makes them more intelligent than humans.
> Both believers and non-believers should agree on the scientific evidence about this particular object.

Sure, you would want that, but what does the science actually say at this point? Recent news stories are claiming that the shroud cloth may date back to the 1st century. That calls the earlier dating tests of the shroud cloth into question that might have proved scientifically that it was a forgery. Apparently science also hasn’t adequately explained how the image was created either. So all science really seems to say is “we don’t have any clear answers yet”. So has science actually proven that it’s fake? It starts with that assumption of course because miracles cannot exist, but evidence of an obvious forgery is thin. That is why you will get a disconnect between believers and the non-believers. The believer doesn’t start with the premise that a miracle cannot exist so in lieu of other obvious forgery evidence, their faith in the existence of miracles creates the possibility.

I am interested in the controversy around the mystery more than the object itself. I personally believe it’s a forgery—not because I don’t necessarily believe in miraculous things (I am a Christian) but because I am familiar enough with the shenanigans of the church throughout the centuries to know that creating a relic is a means to an end towards increasing the power of the church. I find the emotional reaction to it of some non-believers more interesting than those folks who believe it’s real. That fiery motivation behind the desire to disprove the validity is fascinating. Why do they have that desire to prove a forgery of something that even the Catholic Church doesn’t take an opinion about?
I noticed that this happens when the triangle on the map is slightly offset from the road, which I've attributed to miscalibrated GPS. It happens consistently when I'm in the right lane and pass an exit when the triangle is ever so slightly misaligned.
For those interested in the history, this is in fact the Neural Network research path that predated LLMs. Not just in the sense that Hinton et al and the core of the "Parallel Distributed Processing"/Connectionist school were always opposed to Chomsky's identification of brain-thought-language, but that the original early 2000s NSF grant awarded to Werbos, Ng, LeCun et al was for "Deep Learning in the Mammalian Visual Cortex." In their research program, mouse intelligence was posited as the first major challenge.
I just laughed out loud reading that. He’s absolutely brilliant. Told my wife that too and after laughing she said, “I miss you reading Pratchett in bed. You used to constantly giggle and jiggle the mattress!”

Time to get back to reading his work again, if not because it’s fantastic, but because Terry deserves it.

We miss him greatly.
Apparently there is the https://store.ui.com/us/en/products/us-xg-6poe from Ubiquity. It only has 4 10GbE ports but they all have PoE.
My question is better rephrased as "what is legally considered an accident that needs to be reported?" If the car scrapes a barricade or curbs it hard but the airbags don't deploy and the car doesn't sense the damage, clearly they don't. There's a wide spectrum of issues up to the point where someone is injured or another car is damaged.
Linkedin is doing the same: https://www.linkedin.com/help/linkedin/answer/a5538339

LinkedIn AI Opt-Out link: https://www.linkedin.com/mypreferences/d/settings/data-for-a...
It's "patently" and maybe understand the definition of "average" before using it.

Once you've figured out how to use language, explain why this is important and to who. Then maybe what the upshot will be. The fact that someone has proven something to be true doesn't make it important.

The comment I replied to made it sound like it's important to the field of AI. It is not. Almost zero serious researchers think LLMs all by themselves are "enough". People are working on all manner of models and systems incorporating all kinds of things "not LLM". Practically no one who actually works in AI reads this paper and changes anything, because it only proves something they already believed to be true and act accordingly.
we (the ISP I worked for in the late 90's) used sparc 5 clones for desktops and mission critical things like DNS, sparc 10 and 20 clones for hosting and account management.

they were workhorses for what we tasked them to.
A union worker forgot bolts on the door plug on the Alaska plane, and workers from the other union (SPEEA) designed MCAS, which was one of the causes of the two 737 Max crashes.
certainly draws some impractical inspiration. I wrote that years ago, before I ever read ASOIAF
This.

I could understand a trademark issue if he had done this the second WP Engine opened business, but it is WAY too late to claim they are now defending their trademark. His legal council must be externally contracted yes men getting paid by the hour because there is no way a lawyer with equity would have said this was a good idea. I also suspect he did all this without talking to legal first :slapforhead:
I _really_ have to dispute the idea that unit tests score the maximum on maintainability. The fact that they are _so_ tightly tied to lower-level code makes your code _miserable_ to maintain. Anyone who's ever had to work on a system that had copious unit tests deep within will know the pain of not just changing code to fix a bug, but having to change a half-dozen tests because your function interfaces have now changed and a healthy selection of your tests refuse to run anymore.

The "test diamond" has been what I've been working with for a long while now, and I find I greatly prefer it. A few E2E tests to ensure critical system functionality works, a whole whack of integration tests at the boundaries of your services/modules (which should have well-defined interfaces that are unlikely to change frequently when making fixes), and a handful of unit tests for things that are Very Important or just difficult or really slow to test at the integration level.

This helps keep your test suite size from running away on you (unit tests may be fast, but if you work somewhere that has a fetish for them, it can still take forever to run a few thousand), ensures you have good coverage, and helps reinforce good practices around planning and documentation of your system/module interfaces and boundaries.
I know right? Once I got something in my eye so I couldn't see at all, but I decided that since I couldn't do anything about it the best thing was to keep driving. I killed a few pedestrians but... eh, what was I going to do?
> that says bugs are inevitable and there’s nothing you can do to prevent them

I don't think people believe this as such. It may be the short way to write it, but actually what devs mean is "bugs are inevitable at the funding/time available". I often say "bugs are inevitable" when it practice it means "you're not going to pay a team for formal specification, validated implementation and enough reliable hardware".

Which business will agree to making the process 5x longer and require extra people? Especially if they're not forced there by regulation or potential liability?
not just the moral piece, but the passive nature. Once I do this, then it goes to the next person. I don't need wait for the taxpayer to come by and demand ransom for my work to send money off to the capital so they can fund wars in far away lands, it just comes right out of my paycheque
please, if your article is behind a paywall, post a version that everyone can read.

https://archive.is/2P9Z2
Sounds like you perfectly understood the article. I don't get what you're complaining about. You agree but don't like the language?
> Memory leaks are not just possible in Rust...IME I see more leaks in Rust in the wild than in C, C#, Python, C++, ...

Perhaps, but data here would be nice. Yes, Rust has Rc/Arc and whatnot. If we're talking anecdotes, I mostly see "we rewrote it in Rust and it uses less memory".

> You can absolutely have data races in a colloquial sense in Rust, just not in the sense of the narrower definition they created to be able to say they don't have data races...

Sure, although it's not a contrived Rust definition. Race conditions are far more general and harder to prevent. Race conditions often arise in higher levels of abstraction, so it's not so much Rust's focus. I don't know what to say about your comment on atomics except that Rust isn't making them much harder than C++ is.

> Unsafe is a kind of super-unsafe that's harder to write correctly than C or C++, limiting its utility as an escape hatch...

This is definitely important for anyone considering or learning Rust to know. However, how often is this a problem compared to what would be done in C or C++? Someone upthread mentioned enhanced greppability/auditability, Rust has much stronger prevention of memory corruption by default (even if unsafe can poke holes), and the culture is generally more averse to "unsafe". This seems more like a theoretical concern with little practical grounding. I highly doubt this is a real problem.