skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Well, I would have thought that once a temperature sensor reads 100 deg Celsius the clock would start. I'm sure there are good reasons why this wouldn't work well or is overly complex, but I would expect the article to discuss them.

From the article:
> Fumiko found that heating the water and rice to a boil and then cooking for exactly 20 minutes produced consistently good results.

That knowledge about the ideal timespan of 20 min seems to be completely irrelevant to the implemented solution.
Creating Interactive and Embedded Physics Simulations from Static Textbooks
You could run Far Cry 1 on a 1920x1200p screen within 162 MB of RAM…
I doubt it. The core logic remains unchanged: why have 1 feature that works well when you can have 10 features that don't work?
Why don't new Intel or AMD chips require painstaking reverse engineering with each release?
there isn’t an “official Matrix Client” any more than there’s an “official Web Browser”.

If you’re talking about Element, we just rewrote the mobile apps and fixed verification issues (although support for inbound verification will land next week): https://element.io/blog/deep-dive-into-element-x/
Maybe kindly add a license file to the repo? It currently seems unlicensed.
> I don't agree, though I guess it depends on how long long is.

HP started the Grand Experiment two decades ago to determine how long it takes to destroy a large company if every decision is either incompetent or malicious, with little assistance from network effects… and the experiment is still running.
You're basically describing the Lakehouse Tables architecture.
Store your data as tabular data in Iceberg/Hudi/Delta on S3. Save a bucket on storage. Query with whatever engine you like (Snowflake, Redshift, BQ, DuckDB, etc).
> Just let it fail

I guess that's what they will end up doing but let's pause for a moment and contemplate the fact that they are exploring the options. Intel's strategic importance is recognized and so it's obviously a good idea to explore the potential for making the situation less bad.

For me, this situation highlights the tension between laissez-faire capitalism and systems of economic planning where government interventions can be used to stimulate economies strategically.

I think that in the USA, gov intervention tends to be viewed in ideological terms. Whereas in Europe it's mostly seen as an important economic policy tool. This is a broad generalization of course.

I would like to see more insightful, strategic, long term economic planning. I'm keen on the ideas of Community Economic Development (CED) [1].

If CED is done properly then everyone benefits. The problem is that government bureaucracies have historically been terrible administrators and partners.

The Intel saga points to the need for enlightened change in all these areas: economic policy, civil service effectiveness, community economic development, etc.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_economic_developme...
Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42018119
It can certainly be done, but requires a lot more proactive effort on behalf of the company than in office because of the lack of casual encounters.

And I wonder if companies are motivated to invest in that and/or if once you’ve made that investment if wfh really saves money relative to hybrid work.

As the number of wfh jobs gets closer and closer to pre-2020, but the share of workers who want it doesn’t decrease equally, it’s much easier for companies to use it to exploit people (“want a wfh job? Then accept all these other things.”)
Snappy software requires the design of the system to be in sync with the engineering. Also the team needs to be aligned on snappiness being a priority.

Product designers not understanding how adding certain UI elements, animations or requesting certain features is the main cause from my experience. The fastest way to speed things up in certain cases is to just remove some elements.

I would expect the situation to get worse rather than better if LLMs can deliver any feature a product designer wants without limitation and if the product designer doesn't care about "snappiness"
Yup, I'm moving to a new ptimary checking account currently because I'm sick of my local credit union that is apparently so incompetent they can't handle sending email alerts correctly. Also, any bank or credit card that won't support Plaid seems not even worth considering at this point.
Maybe I'm being saved by uBlock but I didn't notice any scroll hijacking or right-click interference.

Edit: uBlock is blocking one analytics script and there are no other scripts on the page. Disabling uBlock doesn't seem to affect page behaviour.
I'm sensing a shift in the auth space. This is my very rough impression:

~20 years ago everyone rolled their own auth.

~15 years ago libraries like Passport started cropping up and gaining in popularity. I would guess this is when people started preaching "don't roll your own auth".

~10 years ago OAuth2/OpenID Connect became popular for UX reasons but only for centralized social login providers

~5 years ago Auth0/Okta was all the rage, though this is likely an HN ecochamber and maybe limited to enterprise.

The last few years it seems like self hosting is getting more popular, perhaps due to increased quality in open source offerings (Zitadel, Ory stack, many others[0]).

And very recently[1] there's been some excellent resources like OP focused more on teaching you how to roll your own again, incorporating the security lessons of the past couple decades.

[0]: https://github.com/lastlogin-net/obligator?tab=readme-ov-fil...

[1]: https://thecopenhagenbook.com/
I am indeed referring to Element: PC(Windows) and Android. I'll give the new version a shot next week.

I will note that another class of bugs (or single bug?) that put me off is related to messages and or edits to them sometimes showing up for some people, but not others, and/or on one client, but not another. (e.g., an edit will show on mobile, but the old version will show on PC)
Sometimes its more about numerical stability than absolute accuracy (numerical stability being defined as not have the property that small changes in input cause large changes in the output).
> You can usually gain something by losing some performance

This is a pretty canonical description of tech debt, right? "Get it working, ship it, we can worry about performance later."
I suspect that when they call it a 'wiki', what they really mean is a 'hypertext'.
I'm wondering big the prisma overhead is here. I know that historically, prisma has been very slow - the sidecar process and the generic protocol and database agnosticism come with a steep cost, and the numbers shown in the benchmark both seem rather low to me. 4x the performance of "very slow" isn't super impressive.. but of course, I can't verify this right now since I don't have access to machine where I can duplicate this and run some raw postgres queries to compare.
>Go join a company with less than 100 engineers and learn to be happy again. Let the enterprises burn, we’ll all be better for it.

But but then I won't be able to lease a new panzerwankmobile every 2 year to impress people I don't like!
As a current UK HGV driver (currently on my break at services in a max 44t unit+trailer) a range of 375miles would just about cover the longest shift I do but some range anxiety would set in.

Longest shift is London->Birmingham->London with 3 collections and 2 deliveries on the route, and comes in at 275miles (if there’s closures/diversions it could be 300+) and the longest I’m stopped at any one place is about 45minutes so unless everywhere had fast chargers on their bays so you could charge while being loaded/unloaded, it wouldn’t get charged, plus at our company the units are basically handed over to the next driver at the end of our shift, they don’t sit around the yard for hours as they’re not earning if they are.

Interested to see how this would work in practice, I think for a lot of hauliers electric for their fleet just isn’t going to work right now.
The 2010 version of Excel is significantly faster than later versions even for pure number crunching, e.g. doing some calculation over a big sheet with a million rows and a thousand columns.
And the article refers to “spark applications”, which immediately brought to mind the Apache Spark.
In [2], it's very surprising that the system is designed so that the worker must use steps to access bins on the transporter. Since this seems so obviously and counterintuitively bad for the workflow I assume there must be a very, very good reason for it. Would be interesting to know what it is.
I was looking at an overlay of VPU (energy utility ETF) and SPY (S&P500 ETF) and was shocked to see that going back to 2007 both married up exactly until the pandemic when the S&P went to the moon. I think a lot of retail short-term "investors" entered the market and they are all still there trying to get rich trading breakouts. There is precedent for this (1920s and 1990s) but not at this scale and level of ameture.
Thank you very much for taking the time to test it! I’ll make the updates as soon as possible based on your feedback. I truly appreciate your advice for improving the project.
Entirely possible, I'm on a work-issued laptop and I can't install extensions, because raw-dogging the internet is safer than letting employees block ads.
It just seemed so absurd wanting American diplomats to be salty about the Vietnam War.

Like, the Vietnam War. I don't even know where to begin.
That'd be a hard link though
GIT - back in the 1980s, I would use PKzip to archive up all my Turbo Pascal source code into a file, and put it on a numbered floppy disk to back up my source code.

SVN was a step forward, but GIT is the bees knees. I've used it to keep a workstation without networking up to date and synced with GitHub. The whole ecosystem is amazing.
Ken Griffin's money machine: market maker Citadel Securities
The scientific method explicitly requires peer-review and feedback, in part because methodological flaws may have been overlooked by those who designed and/or performed the original study.

Ad-hominem attacks against a person offering good-faith methodological criticism (such as calling them a "science denialist", or accusing them of being "misinformed" and/or "dishonest") is behavior that seeks to defend the results of a study more strongly than it seeks to discover the truth.

If you have a critique of my methodological criticism itself, by all means, please share it, but the entire scientific community would be better off if we could do away with this kind of emotionally-charged quasi-religious dogma that seeks to suppress legitimate scientific concerns through social ostracism.

---------------
Compare and contrast the above with what follows:
---------------

Your post reminds me of the reaction of the Catholic Church to Copernicus's assertions of a heliocentric solar system.

---------------
Notice how sticking to objective, unemotional, and impersonal language in the first section is more conducive to earnest scientific inquiry than the personal attack in the second section?
The Broken Promise of USB-C: We'll Never Get a Universal Cable
And now we have two problems...
Nvidia got ConnectX from their Mellanox acquisition -- they were experts in RMDA, particularly with Infiniband but eventually pushing Ethernet (RoCE). These NICs have hardware-acceleration of RDMA. Over the RDMA fabric, GPUs can communicate with each other without much CPU usage (the "GPU-to-GPU" mentioned in the article).

[I know nothing about Jupiter, and little about RDMA in practice, but used ConnectX for VMA, its hardware-accelerated, kernel-bypass tech.]
History of Jarvis and and a deep dive into recent π0 model from Physical Intelligence
Progress. The established norms keep getting rug-pulled. Hopefully we can get the replicators built before we all die off.
Location: London, England, UK
Remote: Yes, or hybrid or office
Willing to relocate: Yes, depends on the country
Technologies: Swift, SwiftUI, UIKit, AppKit, Combine, Core Data, async await, Cocoa, Cocoa Touch
Résumé/CV: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P-hJ4zX8bqBZFf73_EsnfiN12tJfrlBM/view
E-mail: It's in my CV
https://archive.ph/KkDPH
Hard to fault the customers for expecting that when that's how most consultants sell themselves, especially the shit ones.
SEEKING WORK

Location: London, England, UK
Remote: Yes, or hybrid or office
Willing to relocate: Yes, depends on the country
Technologies: Swift, SwiftUI, UIKit, AppKit, Combine, Core Data, async await, Cocoa, Cocoa Touch
Résumé/CV: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P-hJ4zX8bqBZFf73_EsnfiN12tJfrlBM/view?usp=share_link
E-mail: It's in my CV
Not a Wiki--there's no Edit button.

It would be great to actually make it a wiki (and have changes recorded in git).

From the Github readme:

> Crontributing

> Missing entry? Found a typo? Please don't hesitate to create an issue or submit a pull request.

> Edit on GitHub

> The content is located in src/articles. You can find the file and click the edit button (the pencil icon) in the top right corner to start editing.
Capex and Opex Supercycles in AI
The lower your performance requirements, the more you can loosen up what kind of programmers you hire. A dev who can only use <insert high level GC'd language known for being easy to use/easy to hire for> is relatively quite cheap! The language isn't necessarily the problem, but at the very least it correlates with the problem due to pricing. The code may suck, but most companies don't care, because most clients either don't care or there's not an incentive structure in place to communicate the care back up to the corpo decision-makers.
In traditional voting, the votes get counted by humans, supervised by other humans. If you want to spend the time and energy, you can be one of those humans.

It's completely different from a machine count. Humans have human failure modes, which are easily accounted for. Machines have random failure modes, and complex ways of being attacked. And all of the machines can be wrong in one direction at the same time, which is impossible for human counters.

Even random spot checks don't work for machines if the machine has some way of detecting it is being checked.
It makes much more sense to bundle a binary + web extension (w/ native messaging) to handle bridging the browser isolation in a sensible manner.

It's a minimal amount of extra work and would mean you cross browser isolation in a very controlled manner.
A previous discussion on the topic:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41949098
The automatic transmissions for all recent Subarus appear to use torque converters, which would normally have creep. Modern torque converters are much more advanced than older ones, so I'm not surprised the option exists to disable it. All models except the BRZ use a CVT with fake gears, which I find distasteful.
I think "software is a gas" is the better explanation. ("Software always expands to fit whatever container it is stored in")

Microsoft has enough engineer-hours on hand to make snappy UIs if they wanted to, but it's just not a priority for them. More/cheaper engineer hours doesn't really change that prioritization.
One Line of Code Triggered a $60M Meltdown
Location: UK

Remote: Yes (can do monthly UK on-site)

Willing to relocate: No

Technologies: C#/.NET, WPF (expert), Windows Desktop Apps, SQL Server, MySQL/MariaDB, Entity Framework, Azure, AWS, Telerik UI, MVVM, Prism, Avalonia, JavaScript/TypeScript, React (learning)

Résumé/CV: https://selfsimulate.com/richard.bowater.cv.pdf

Email: richard AT selfsimulate DOT com

Versatile Software Engineer with 10 years remote experience delivering high-performance, efficient, and scalable Windows desktop and backend solutions. Proven track record of working autonomously on complex projects.

Recent Projects: Developed comprehensive NHS management system for 22 medical practices across London Borough of Sutton, managing data for 200k patients; unified patient recall workflows with integrated CRM and BI features • Built clinical analytics platform with Bloomberg-style data visualization • Modernized legacy WinForms applications to WPF, enhancing performance and UX • Led development of client software for multifunctional kiosks offering print/scan/copy services • Developed telemedicine system deployed across 50 healthcare facilities in USA

Portfolio: https://selfsimulate.com/about

LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/richardjbowater/
Absurd Population Control – This Is How Logic Is Used to Trap People
There is no other answer than this. Silent failures are never acceptable, even if documented. Because despite what we want to believe about the world, people don’t read the docs, or read them and forget, or read them and misunderstand.
Making something Erlang-compliant is actually fairly heavy duty. It's more than just "you've got actors, I've got actors, let's play together!"... you have to support the Erlang term format specifically, so on the Rust side you would need to be able to convert to and from all the state you actually want into Erlang terms, including PID references, you need to support Erlang's linking capability, you need to support Erlang's name server lookups, you need to support Erlang's specific messaging semantics for out-of-order message handling and mailboxes, binary sharing, probably some other things I'm not remembering. It's not an impossible amount of work but it's not in the "couple of weeks of spare time for a motivated developer" range either.

Most people most of the time are just better hooking up one of the many, many other event busses that both Rust and Erlang can speak to and working across that.
One of the reasons expensive consulting agreements, especially those backed by strong brands, are so prized in large companies is because they offer career insurance paid for by the employer that covers the employee. If you are an employee who has decision rights you have far less to gain from 20% less cost than you do 10% more certainty and a strong name to hide behind.

In most large companies, they often talk about entrepreneurial spirit, efficiency, ruthlessness innovation, and all of the other behaviors that made the company great, but the reality is that the incentives are much different once the founders have left and career managers have moved in.

What’s left is a lot of people who make enough to not be hungry but are not rich enough that they will be okay if things blow up.

If you want to grow in middle management your best bet is lots of headcount, a large operating budget, and lots of promises that will take years to be validated.
At $dayjob I've taken to just implementing my own actor-like model when I need interior mutability across tasks. Something like:

struct State { counter: usize, control: mpsc::Receiver<Msg> }
struct StateActor { addr: mpsc::Sender<Msg> }
enum Msg {
Increment { reply: oneshot::Sender<()> }
}

impl StateActor {
pub async fn increment(&self) {
let (tx, rx) = oneshot::channel();
let msg = Msg::Increment { reply: tx };
self.addr.send(msg).await.unwrap();
rx.await.unwrap();
}
}

impl State {
fn start(self) {
tokio::spawn(async move {
/* ... tokio::select from self.control in a loop, handle messages, self is mutable */
/* e.g. self.counter +1 1; msg.reply.send(()) */
})
}
}

// in main
some_state_actor.increment().await // doesn't return until the message is processed

A StateActor can be cheaply cloned and used in multiple threads at once, and methods on it are sent as messages to the actual State object which loops waiting for messages. Shutdown can be sent as an in-band message or via a separate channel, etc.

To me it's simpler than bringing in an entire actor framework, and it's especially useful if you already have control loops in your program (say, for periodic work), and want an easy system for sending messages to/from them. That is to say, if I used an existing actor framework, it solves the message sending/isolation part, but if I want to do my own explicit work inside the tokio::select loop that's not strictly actor message processing, I already have a natural place to do it.
Microsoft Excel is probably also a good example for another reason.

Microsoft Office 2003 Standard Edition cost $400 new, or $239 per upgrade ($664 or $397 in today's money). If you wanted Excel alone, you could buy that, for $229 (or $109 if you upgrade from an earlier version). That alone would be $380/$181 in today's money.

Keep in mind that features were released every two years at the very earliest. Two years of Microsoft Teams costs $96 and gets you hosting.

The question of web vs native isn't "do you want fast software or slow software" but "do you want cheap software that brings lots of features or do you want expensive software that makes you pay again to keep up with the competition after two years".

Of course enterprise pricing was more generous and piracy was another factor that doesn't really come into play with Teams, but I'm not surprised all software has moved to quickly evolving web apps these days. In a time where paying more than $60 for a video game is considered controversial, $660 office suites simply aren't viable.

Another smaller issue with even modern Excel over old versions of Excel is that a lot of sandboxing has been added since, and even that is proving not to be sufficient by itself. The old happy-go-lucky Excels were a one-click way into infecting a whole network because no time was wasted on boundary checks where it was not absolutely necessary to prevent the program from crashing. Web apps especially have layers upon layers of security mechanisms to prevent viruses from spreading as trivially as they did twenty years ago.
> A fixed-price deal sets up the wrong incentive structure. It’s in the client’s interest to agree the lowest price possible, and then to squeeze the consultant for every drop of juice they can get. So that sucks.

>

> On the other hand, it’s in the consultant’s interest to do the quickest and cheapest work necessary to get the client to sign off on the job. After that, they have zero incentive to fix any problems that arise. It’s just bad news all round.

I don't agree with this at all. If you give a fixed price contract that includes bug fixes for a period, then your incentives are well aligned.

- You want to release robust code (to avoid warranty bug fixes), and your client wants that too.

- You want to finish quickly to get final payment sooner, and your client wants it finished quickly too.

- You set the price to what it needs to be and you'd be happy with, and if it's too rich for the client, you just don't take the job (does require you to be in a situation where you can reject underpriced projects, and requires you to be good at quoting).

- Client shouldn't care if you took half the hours you estimated, and they don't need to know. You both agreed to a price that works for you both, so ideally both sides have had a winning experience.

I have had experience with a client that tried to squeeze every drop of juice, and that sucked. They had no choice though because their budget was completely unmovable (came from grants). My thinking is that it's probably best to prune such clients when you can, and stick with those whose expectations align well with your way of working. Not every client tries to squeeze every last feature out of you.

Hourly is easy for the seller, but it's a sucky experience for the client. It builds distrust, and unlike fixed price, I think it's actually hourly pricing that misaligns incentives. I also don't like the social aspect. E.g., where people question how you're spending your hours, or you have a chat about the weekend don't know whether to make it clear that you're not billing for that time, etc.
This was the exact opposite, in my experience. Clients that want fixed-price contracts always have ridiculous deadlines and expected me to work 24/7. When I charge hourly, clients think very carefully before I work on something.

The 12 hour days to meet some crazy deadline also disappears pretty quickly when you are paying for all the hours. I won't even accept fixed-price contracts anymore.