skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You say you do a cost:benefit...but where do those costs come from? To me, that's just voluntarily doing your own ignorant, sloppy science I was mentioning above. If you only consider the blatantly obvious costs and benefits, you are completely ignorant of any 2nd or 3rd order...or even your own blind spots. You may radically under or overstate, or even calculate in the wrong direction.

I think a better position is that we should have a higher bar of what level of study or replication is required for a given situation...whether that be health, housing, infrastructure or whatever policy is coming in...what kind of monetary outlay and timeline of impact is expected. I don't think most people here would be happy with a 6-person study, unreplicated, deciding policy...so what IS the threshold?
Marihuana ruins millions of young minds.
macOS History: Why the "X" Never left [video]
If this can handle those sites where every section is behind an accordion that must be expanded (and especially where it collapses other sections when you expand one), then this is going to be awesome.
There are plenty of things to be offended by in the California real estate market. An agent describing the historical design features of the property is probably not one of them.

Spending weeks looking at x-million dollar shacks is offensive enough -- but that's the price of admission, for certain values of x.

At least the sunshine is free!
Does anyone know how Janus compares with rhymes-ai Aria model?
At a company I once worked for failure was anything but a barrier to getting offered newer, bigger opportunities. Those who did well often get stuck in the same place without further advancement.
Intelsat 33e breaks up in geostationary orbit
As soon as Svelte 5 stabilizes you can start porting libraries to work with it. In the meantime, you can play with the tutorial in a textarea in a browser and feel as productive as you want.
Microsoft isn't the only company to provide a service like this, and the others are cross platform.
I just skimmed the article but the author had a statement about JS being "working class" in that it didn't enforce types and that he dislikes TS for that reason. Rust is completely anathema to that attitude, you have to make a LOT of decisions up front. People who don't see the value in a compiler are never going to like working in Rust. The author is completely satisfied with optimizing hacks in the toolchain.
Zuck's gravity-defying metaverse money-pit (2023)
> I am surprised we don't see more "Dr. Doolittle" projects like this

Robots asking millions of birds to attack any hooman at sight in its own bird language, AKA the Tippi Hedren project. Seems pretty fly.
Going from C++ to Rust, I now really love how Rust implements "OOP". I highly suggest reading this chapter even if you don't care about Rust.

https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch17-00-oop.html
Most places in the US send you a property tax bill with a provision to challenge if you think that it's wrong. I don't understand why the IRS can't do the same.
> The middle road is simply a better engineering option, use a practical language that supports both paradigms.

I recommend reading "The curse of the excluded middle" paper by Erik Meijer on why this approach does not work.
The 3 things I mentioned counterbalance each other. And also notice I didn't say we should get rid of science or scientists. I said we have gone too far in the other direction of disregarding "Joe Schmuck" (or granny), which your comment demonstrates.

Also there are lots of Joe Schmucks that know better than a so called "nutritionist" that a steak is better than an Oreo. Not all Joe Schmucks, but a lot of them.
It does, because it is no longer a matter of substitutability. You are not intrinsically taking an X and modifying it to become a Y while also being an X. You are now just providing an X, and another X, and another X, and another X over there. You need to maintain the constraints of the one interface you are satisfying, but you are not also maintaining the constraints of the superclass, and all of its superclasses. You only have the interface to worry about, only the one dimension, not two (or more, depending on how you count in multiple inheritance languages).

You also can do things like take a subset of the interface and have things that implement just that. You can't do that to a class hierarchy; once a method is put in the hierarchy, it must be implemented by all children. (Note that if you're jumping up to say "But I can just implement an interface in Java or whatever if I want to do that", you're agreeing with me, not disagreeing. That's not a legal move in inheritance, though. Languages have been very, very slowly but very surely moving away from pure inheritance for a long time now.)

Having interfaces separated from reusability means you don't have to worry about all these things at once, just the interface.
This doesn't seem like an IPv6-specific issue. For most broadband customers, your external IPv4 address is also generally stable. Mine hasn't changed in years.
It's vented to the outside, just like a soffit or an attic. Insulating the interior door should not promote condensation.
> I would submit Incandescence as the best sci-fi novel ever written.

In a world with both Greg Egan and Ted Chiang writing sci-fi, one has to exclude their novels from any best-of comparisons just to give other authors a fighting chance.
Why don't we try doing that? Multiple backups sounds like a no-brainer "fix".
I'd forgotten the name of this Law for a long time - it's excellent.
While Erlang itself is pure, in practice it seems like a lot of practical mutation and state issues are tucked in other processes. Nothing wrong with it and it sidesteps the purity issues that the Haskell example in the article presents.
That's an electrically controlled optical switch, whereas this is an optically controlled optical switch.

Still very cool though, I didn't know the former existed.
If so, why do they keep jumping from one dubious domain and TLD from another?
The argument is that migrating to IPv6 isn't worth anyone's time. (Except for maybe CG-NAT operators.)
While this signature really looks atrocious, it doesn't make the programmer experience bad at all, because all these parameters have default values. So it basically works as an interface with many options with convenient standard values and you can change only what you need.
That may be the wrong question, though that might help avoid the sunk cost fallacy ("It's better to burn out, than fade away!"). On the other hand, sticking with things has its benefits, with an eye towards a pivot. The right question may have more to do with speed than scale. Best to try and find partners in your endeavor. Then you can succeed or fail twice as fast, and try more things. And have more fun along the way.
At this point I'm so sick of ads and so used to browsing without them, that I think if it comes to choosing, then I'll just give up on much of the internet instead of viewing it with ads.
The UI, retail pricing, and reliability reputation are not primary factors for large enterprise IT infrastructure and cloud decision makers. They look at:

1. Executive Support - can you assure me that MSFT will have my back when (not if) the shit hits the fan? Can I count on Satya or Jason Zander calling my CEO to reassure them if we’re working through a catastrophic issue? Because as an executive my career at this company is over otherwise when that happens.

2. Industry and analyst landscape - Which of my competitors / peers use your technology? I won’t be first in the pool. What does Gartner tell me about your company behind closed doors?

3. Competitive - Do any of your divisions compete directly with any of ours? Because I’ll be fired at the next board meeting if they read in the WSJ that we’re funding an adversary.

Cost is negotiable, what is a UI?, and sorry, I don’t care if all of the above is good but Azure isn’t the engineers’ favorite thing. Y’all work for me.
Well this would just make things worse.
Starbase Simulator
At this point it’s hard to have much sympathy when Firefox is literally right there, for free.
it's a tangent, but the title inflation and Years of Experience really are horrible metrics these days to judge engineers. Especially in an age where employers actively plan for 2-3 year churn instead of long term retention.

I have no clue how you get 5 years of experience in any meaningful way on any given tech. You sure won't get that only from the workplace's day to day activities. YoE is more a metric of how much of a glutton for punishment you have more than anything.
Author here! If you have any questions I'll try to monitor this today and answer anything I can
I would not recommend that you go down with the ship but you will want to have a good story for why you switched so often. It's hard to see "1-2 years for the last 2-3 jobs" and not get nervous as someone hiring. Even more so if I hear "The culture wasn't good so I left" or something vague for all reasons of why you left. It's going to take a month or so before they are contributing to the team and then a few months to a year before they fully understand the platform they are working on fully, it sucks to invest that time and energy into someone just to have them leave after a 1-2 years.

The old adage of "If everywhere you go smells like shit then check your shoe" applies here. That's not to say you couldn't have worked at 3 actually bad companies that you should have left but it's at least a warning flag. I've had people with short job tenures back-to-back explain the reasoning and I've been perfectly satisfied with it but I've also had people give me reasons that sound very fake. Interestingly, the people that come across as "fake" are also the ones that give off a slight whiff of "I'm better than this job" or "This is only a stepping stone for me". Those things can both be true but if can't at least pretend to care then I'm not interested.
Hosting something at a volunteer's drive, without any guarantees, is pretty useless. They can cease hosting, or have disk damage, and you lose data
Didn’t Douglas Adams have a bit about this? Once you figure it out you’d do anything to return to blissful ignorance. It’s all inane chatter about what’s for dinner, who’s looking hot today, and more than anyone would ever want to know about wind speed and weather conditions.
According to NHS:

A processed food is any food or drink that has been changed in some way when it’s made or prepared. Most foods we eat are processed in some way.

Processing can be used to:

make foods safe, for example milk is pasteurised to remove harmful bacteria
make foods suitable for use, such as pressing seeds to make oil
preserve foods or help them last longer, such as tinned or frozen foods
change how food tastes, such as adding salt or sweeteners
create ready meals and snacks

Not all processed foods are unhealthy, but many ultra-processed foods are high in calories, saturated fat, salt or sugar.

Eating too many calories, too much saturated fat, salt and sugar, and not enough fruit and vegetables and fibre is not good for you.

----

Like why should processing something make it inherently unhealthy? Do you want to eat raw meat?

> people love to poke holes in obvious truths, especially in well educated spaces like HN

Someone makes a statement that they say is obvious truth, yet it seems false or misleading. You can't get away by later saying that someone will try to counter this "obvious truth".
Thanks for the link to the other thread, I skipped that article the other day. (Barely keep up with my threads on weekends.)

Point on animals is that it isn't just the story telling that propagates religion and similar, but persistent story telling. Writing things down and learning the symbols of previous generations is a fairly uniquely human activity.
No way pip actually is a really inefficient SAT solver!
At least in the sciences, and in the US, there is also the issue that research professors tend to be on "soft money" -- that is they get a minimal salary from their institution but can increase it (up to a point) by getting grants that they can charge their time to. And they also tend not to be in the tenure track system. That being said, if they get large enough grants, they can make as much if not more than traditional tenure-track professors with defined salaries. But in years where they don't get much grant funding they don't make much at all (I used to be an non-tenure track research professor myself).
VPTQ: Extreme low-bit Quantization for real LLMs
API Keys are usually secrets and as such, if I wanted to commit those files to git, the API token would not leak to my repository.
My best college professor (who was also an Episcopalian Priest) found the time to review one paper with each student once per semester.

That strikes me as a workable bottom line.
It's not the current threshold, where you just need a single paper in a semi-prestigious journal to become "the science". This was my point.
Interesting! It seems to be that there would be a tradeoff between specialist subsystems (which allow you to excel at the specialized tasks, but which can't handle things outside the specialization well) and generalized subsystems (which allow you to integrate information across multiple specializations but which may not be great at any of them). Ultimately you likely need a mix of both, but it's not obvious to me how you would identify when it will be beneficial to "hard code" separations for different subsystems (as is done here for image generation & encoding) vs when the model should be left to "figure it out" during training and implicitly develop the appropriate subsystems within the network.
My favorite line "The emperors of antiquity are infamous for getting all weepy when they run out of lands to conquer."
I have zero issues with the design of Overcast. But rebuilding from scratch introduced so many incredibly disruptive bugs many of which are still not fixed even though the developer claims that almost all of the major issues have been addressed. Something seems fundamentally wrong with the syncing or data store. That's what sent me looking for alternatives after many years as a dedicated user.
Sure, but ESBuild is here, it works, and the subjective speed improvement is just fucking massive.

I’m sure you could get something with similar performance in JS. I’ve messed around with JS daemons, so you don’t care about startup time for programs like tsc and whatnot. The problem is that it’s just a pain in the ass to get any of this to work, whereas ESBuild is just fast.

Maybe these problems with JS will get solved at some point, because we haven’t exhausted all of the possibilities for making JS faster (like the author says). However, when you write the tools in Rust or Go or whatever, you get a fast tool without trying very hard.
> projects.priyavkaneria.com says You are seriously missing out on the website experience, I would recommend using a desktop device

I'm on a train. What do you suggest?
I think bad OOP is still better than bad functional code. Having seen what happens when a React codebase reaches >100k LOC are we really any better off than a class hierarchy?

The OOP model fits nicely into most people’s heads because of the analogy to the real world and OOP implementations generally seem to give better signals when you are doing something wrong. Rather than functional implementations which mainly rely on human expert code reviewers and linters to give negative signals instead of say exception hierarchies.

A lot of the time you don’t realize your codebase is bad until “it’s just a button how hard can it be” somehow takes 3 months and 4 rollbacks.

At least this is what I have observed working on large codebases.
> Last.fm came out 20 years ago (proving you don't even need AI for amazing recommender systems)

What makes that recommender system not AI? Wikipedia say it uses "collaborative filtering" which Gemini says is a form of AI. AI started nearly 70 years ago.
Ask HN: How Is AquaVoice Doing?
There was the AquaVoice project that had a very nice concept (fine-tuning a LLM to improve voice note taking), but there is not much news from them

I'm thinking doing an open-source collaborative version, like crowdsourcing a lot of training pairs of example rewrite, and fine-tuning a local LLM model with this?

I guess a "v0" of that product which works locally should be not too hard
Hmh, that's not what the dictionary says.
Show HN: Forward Looking News via Prediction Markets and Forecasting Platforms
Adjacent News is a new-age media venture that is focused on using prediction markets and forecasting platforms to add context to the news you already read, where you read it. Generate news that is driven by changes in the markets and provide trading and data platforms.
There was so much more variety in the 90's. At one company I worked for, we had Suns, SGIs, Alphas, HPs...
"Breathtaking" – Pepsi's 2008 logo design document is almost satire [pdf]
My property taxes (in NYC) are actually automatically paid as part of my mortgage payment. It requires literally no work on my end.

If the IRS already has my stuff, I don't see what TurboTax (and its competitors) is actually doing that's necessary. I'm confident my employer is sending the IRS my W2, ETrade is clearly sending over my stock trading stuff, my bank is probably sending over my mortgage information.

As I said, obviously some people are going to have more complicated taxes than the default thing that the IRS has access to, and for that then sure, TurboTax might be useful, but I don't think that's the majority of people.
Agreed, OOP became 10 times worse after the GoF book. People started to see these patterns everywhere, and mutated fine looking code to conform to that expectation. Just compare Java classes and interfaces when the language was created (most of that based on previous experience with Smalltalk) and the hot mess that was invented after GoF was released.
Sasan Goodarzi, CEO of Intuit, seems to not like being on the record about what his company has been doing in Congress.

Shouldn't that prompt introspection about what you're doing in Congress, sasan?
Buttercup: The Password Manager You Deserve
This seems like a trivial example though.

read_csv(options: Options)

All you've shown is that Options has a lot of configurability, but you'd have the same problem if you posted the whole class with all of its fluent API methods; it would be even more characters.

Also, you can use built-in control flow logic to modify options before passing them into the function rather than depend on a developer to implement a fluent API for every class.

But this isn't an example of FP vs OOP. Just replace `read_csv(options)` with `constructor(options)`.
For some context:

The same Boeing satellite bus already experienced a major issue some years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19658800
Famously, visual studio gets worse- not better, with time.

https://youtu.be/GC-0tCy4P1U
Agreed just because a company thinks my threat model doesn't require anything but letters and should be short enough to memorize, sure does not mean they are correct. Apple is collectively dumbing down complexity for selfish reasons and then not allowing you the user to change default complexity and length. Looks like the only problem they were trying to solve was reuse which might be a plus one for the Apple device population but I am not sure the trade off is really worth it. But hey it's free!
Yeah, I don't get these articles (with this one being pretty similar in tone to the 'Hetzner is 4x cheaper than AWS' one I saw on here earlier today).

If all you need is simple compute and bandwidth, and you can spare the resources to admin a server, of course you'll be able to find colocated, dedicated-server or even VPS solutions that fit your requirements and are way cheaper than AWS/Azure/GCS/etc.

The whole selling point of 'cloud' is that you can scale infinitely at a moment's notice and have a whole array of batteries-included services at your disposal. Don't need that? Don't do it, even if it's fashionable...
The experience is quite similar with DHL when you have a non-standard question. The chatbot is utterly useless and there is no way to contact a human being if you're not a business customer.
Ahh failing upwards - seeing this concept up close and so often early in my career really messed with my head.
Yes. Before the internet, my parents looked at the PG rating of every movie we rented at Blockbuster. Many parents did.
Pihole + ublock origin and you have made your browsing experience leagues better. Chrome phasing out Manifest v2 will reignite Firefox transition for many.
Microsoft is goat. Apart from BitNet for 1 bit quantization, they also had VPTQ for 1-4 bit(s) quantization!

The open source community has now released the full series of llama3.1 and qwen2.5, as well as the 1-4bit models of mistral large. You are welcome to try and evaluate them!

Demo: https://huggingface.co/spaces/VPTQ-community/VPTQ-Demo
Just because I listen doesn't mean I'm going to become.

I like making my own opinions, because that's how I become informed. If I'm just taking in what others say, I'm just an NPC acting along their programming.
Having worked for many bosses like you, I think the solution is clear: tech needs more unions and co-ops.
Learning takes time. And the fully trained/educated/skilled/expert human performance is higher than AI performance. But AI performance may be higher than intermediate human performance after 1 or 2 semesters. But you need to reach intermediate performance first in order to later reach expert performance. During that time you still need a learning "slope", you need to be tested on your knowledge at that level. If you're given the AI at the outset, you will not develop the skill to surpass the AI performance.

Calculators are just one analogy, there is no guarantee it will work out that way. It's just as likely that this over-technologization of the classroom will go the way of whole-language reading education.
This is a disingenuous question because you obviously know cooked meat is not what we usually mean by processed food.
OOP is not fundamentally bad or good. But I had some first-hand experience about how it's taught "wrong".

The following might sound ridiculous, but I swear I'm not making them up:

- In my highschool, students on their "Computer & Information 101" class were asked to answer what polymorphism is. Most of the said students had zero programming experienece at the time.

- In my sophomore year (CS major), students were asked to finish a mini game "with design patterns" and explain what design patterns they used. For most of the said students, that was the first time they wrote a program with more than 300 LoC. Before that, all the assignments they had seen are "leetcode-like", like implementing Sieve of Eratosthenes in C.
Software ate the world. Meditate on this and the points this article is making becomes clear.

Big tech no longer needs to hoard talent.
It is much harder to violate LSP by writing new code which simply adheres to an interface, than it is to violate by writing new code which is run instead of the old code (and all the old code's side effects)
Functional programming has found its way into Java, where it works ok for some tasks; scheme/kotlin might advertise themselves as FP in the sense of "even more FP-ish than Java" but they're really mixed paradigm too, and not just because of backwards compatibility with other JVM libraries.

We've made the middle road work. It is not the magical 10x speed upgrade that some managers hoped for if you just sprinkle some FP on top of the project like icing, but it works quite well in practice because you have the right tools for dealing with different kinds of subproblems.

Meijer's paper is what I would call "FP maximalist". (Or "Haskell maximalist", as even OcaML manages without hiding all IO away in monads.) It's a defensible opinion to have, but doesn't have anything to do with the work environments that I have experience with.