skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
America can't help itself. We can't outlaw cigarettes with a direct deterministic study linking it to cancer, we couldn't unhook ourselves from cable news even when the internet threatened to make it obsolete. It's the same people exploiting the same vulnerable idiots from 20 years ago, with a new coat of paint and a few fresh staff members.

I can't help these people besides socially pressuring them in a reciprocal manner to how social media pressures them. I don't just scorn their usage of Twitter, I outright do not acknowledge their existence insofar as it pertains to members-only media platforms. If the image of their digital soul being owned by an online corporation does not motivate them to find healthier means of self-expression, they are a slave to regressive machinations I cannot change.
The fallacy fallacy is when you dismiss a conclusion based on a faulty argument. Him not addressing the argument isn't that. Him dismissing the conclusion of the argument is that.
It was bad engineering full stop.

Yes the root cause might stem from management but good engineering would not have the doors flying off... thus bad engineering. Regardless of everything else, engineers are responsible for their designs at the end of the day. (Yes when management only approves cheap unsafe designs)

Otherwise you are "just following orders" which is not a viable leg to stand on.
I've done the same thing, with the same results. These guidelines are impressive. 1Password created an excellent summary:

https://blog.1password.com/nist-password-guidelines-update/
You could add "marketing qubits".

But it won't work for what a large number of qubits are useful for. The point of having quantum computer is that qubits can be in a superposition, be both 0 and 1 at the same time. The consequence is that for some algorithms, the computing speed scales exponentially to the number of qubits, while it scales linearly to the number of classical bits.

But in order to get that exponential speedup, the qubits have to stay coherent, which mean you have to combine them to execute the operation, but with zero disturbance from anywhere else. It is really hard to achieve, a single stray photon could completely destroy your calculation. And the more qubits, the harder it is. If you don't care about coherence, your qubits become no better than classical bits and having a quantum computer become useless.

A way to think of it is that a 30 qubit chip is a million times better than a 10 qubit chip, but three 10 qubit chips is just 3 times better than a single 10 qubit chip.
Aside from the reasons mentioned, I hate writing documentation because there are no standard rules. The rules are mostly vague, like, "Write only the documentation you need and no more." Really? How much is that? How do I know what someone else needs since that's who's likely to need it? The one that is mentioned is the deadlines. How do you find the time since it's not likely to be part of the project's scheduled time or it's minimal?

I think the documentation should be merged with the program code. The compiler should throw an exception if there is no proper minimum documentation.
There are far better word choices that could have been made that would have gotten the point across without the hyperbolic language.
Just slapping WAF in front of your services without configuring and maintaining rules is bad.

Without someone dedicated for maintenance of WAF it is just a waste. Where not many companies want to pay for someone babysitting WAF and it can be full time job if there is enough changes on layers behind.
Criticism of the F-35 is not politically polarized -- critics exist on a broad political spectrum. "Western peaceniks" and "pro-Russia/China/etc" are a small subset.
Something as simple as 1080p60 H.264 playback may be beyond the capabilities of that machine.

A 1st-gen i7 (2008) can decode 1080p60 H.264 in software in realtime. Been there, done that.
The algorithm makes several false assumptions AND misses some crucial points about harmony that affect chord naming. One of each below:

- Chords are definitely not always built on thirds. Mainly the traditional western sounds are.

- Even more importantly, chords are never named in isolation, they are named with respect to their musical context. An Am7 could more correctly be called a C/A depending on the overall harmonic picture - the melody, the chords before and after and even the emphasis created by the performing musicians. Voicings are basically ignored but could be said to come under this point.

When I teach harmony to students I always point out the key thing to understand is how the harmony is changing, and to look at it dynamically not statically. It's more about the relative motion of notes comprising chords than names although names are obviously a useful construct.
> you can reach ~75% of peak performance for same matrix config

Not on the same computer, CUDA doesn’t run on the integrated GPU of the Apple M2 Pro.
I like this approach, because it lets everything Just Work without anyone outside of the implementation having to think about it at all, and only incurs meaningful overhead if you're doing something really silly, but crucially still won't break — it'll just be slightly slow. That feels like the right trade-off.
hn's favorite passtime is perpetuating hype.
Parallels still offers a one-time purchase for the most limited edition. If you need to give VMs more than 8GB RAM then you'll need a subscription-only edition, but you can get pretty far with 8GB and 4 cores for a VM that's only running Windows 11 and one application.
You’re saying if the triad E G C is played in a piece in C major it doesn’t sound like a C chord??

Ok. Then what do you call it?
I recently dug out a 2013 MacBook and I’m surprised at how slow it feels. “Unusably” is of course a subjective measure but I think if I was using this day to day I’d get annoyed.
I do hate the game. I hate it so very much.
Looks weird to do a "youtube" video about it.
Looks like a desperately needing attention marketing stunt.
Tor is substantially more mainstream, in terms of awareness and perception.
Note, though, that "the government" (NIST to be specific) says that requiring passwords to be changed every 90 days is counterproductive and shouldn't be done, yet many corporations (including my employer) still mandate it. Corporate bureaucracy can be as backward and counterproductive as government bureaucracy.
From TFA:
>In 2015 or so, my employer had layoffs. One of them was the only contributor to part of the codebase that made money for our company.

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see the author mention what came of this. I'm very curious: did someone else take it over, or did the employer go down in flames?
Back in 2012, TLS was not enabled everywhere yet. OAuth 1.0 was based on client signatures (just like JAR, DPoP etc., but far simpler to implement) and it was a good fit for its time. One of Eran Hammer's top gripes with the direction OAuth 2.0 was going for is removing cryptography and relying on TLS. I think this turned out to be a good decision, in hindsight, since TLS did become the norm very quickly, and the state of cryptography at IETF during that period (2010) was rather abysmal. If OAuth 2.0 did mandate signatures, we'd end up with yet another standard pushing RSA with PKCS#1 v1.5 padding (let's not pretend most systems are using anything else with JWT).

But that's all hindsight is 20:20, I guess. I think the points that withstood the state of time more is about how OAuth 2.0 was more of a "Framework" than a real protocol. There are too many options and you can implement everything you want. Options like the implicit flow or password grant shouldn't have been in the standard in the first place, and the language regarding refresh tokens and access tokens should have been clearer.

Fast forward to 2024, I think we've started going back to cryptography again, but I don't think it's all good. The cryptographic standards that modern OAuth specs rely on are too complex, and that leads to a lot of opportunity for attacks. I'm yet to see a single cryptographer or security researcher who is satisfied with the JOSE/JWT set of standards. While you can use them securely, you can't expect any random developer (including most library writers) to be able to do so.
WTF I've never heard of this. I hope you're getting compensated well.
Shame McAfee didn't live to see this, his celebration would have been cut short by the realization that he still has to castrate himself on live television.

*sigh* ...who am I kidding...
This appears to be a sandbox game / engine, which probably has a lot less reason to use an existing engine like godot than a normal game since it would probably end up duplicating a lot of the development tools provided by something like godot anyway.

It also appears to be in pretty early development.

So, even if it's a big project I'm not sure it's notable in the same way it would be if a major commercial game that had already been released using godot was switching off it of for some reason?
I completely agree. I didn't talk about it in the post but I have done a lot of therapy over the last couple years. I'm painfully aware of the ways I've projected my past pain onto my present.

My attempt with the article was to simply reflect how things have felt and leave analysis largely absent. I realize it's left folks with a lot of questions and rightly worried about me.

I'm in a much better place now.

Thank you for taking the time to write this comment.
As far as I'm concerned this is the only correct way to do it. I believe illumos does this, which is why its env functions are thread safe and have been for decades.
You say "might be" like I'm not describing a thing I've experienced :) You're going to have a tough time convincing anyone that having real time updates on train status is a net neutral. I am excited you have not yet had an issue, though. I had train trouble yesterday, the Q only ran to Times Square.
The way I've used to describe this to people is, most people's mental model is:

<doing a poor job> --- <doing a average job> --- <doing a good job>

Whereas the more accurate mental model is:

<doing nothing> --------------------------------------- <doing a thing> -- <doing the best thing>

The former mental model is intellectually satisfying because you get to infinitely yak shave over every little tradeoff and doing nothing isn't even on your mental radar.

The latter is deeply humblingly mundane and doesn't get to center us as masters of the universe which is why we all initially resist it. Even for the people who become great at it, they become great against their inclinations, and still have to fight the urge at every step.

This doesn't just apply to tech, look at it in politics. How much time do we spend in politics debating policy? Which of our different political philosophies lead to different tradeoffs that are a deep expression of our values? How much time in politics do we spend debating state capacity? A state that can do none of the things, it's irrelevant which of the things we want the state to do. A state that can do more things, almost always just the sheer option of things they can do means they can find a better policy.

And yet policy arguments are just so fun while state capacity arguments are incredibly wonky and depressing.

But I've drawn that same diagram on 100 different whiteboards in front of 100 different juniors and said the same words of "before we figure out how to do the best thing, let's just see if we can even do a thing first" and it seems to have gotten through to an appreciable number of them enough that it feels like a high converting meme.
In 2008 the i7 branding had only been used on desktop chips. Were you running your desktop with a 35W limit?
> were popular and common on the radio in the 80's

You're grossly mischaracterizing this.

> recorded a track in their garage in 1977 and sold a few cassettes to their friends
You also don't want the enemy to find the plane (crashed or not, peacetime or not, attended or not).
That's one incident among many. Don't judge the situation by a singular incident. Google's move to realtime scanning of apps upon install is not because there is no risk.
"Smart money" ended up wrong.
IMO the mistake was using the test in isolation without considering other criteria. Let’s say you have somebody in a village who travels to visit a clinic. Chest xray positive so sputum samples taken. They don’t convert for 3 weeks, but contact is lost with patient. Maybe in this scenario the blood test adds the additional factor needed to start treatment sooner.

There’s a lot of other diseases there a blood test can diagnose immediately, and I don’t blame health workers for the confusion, quantiferon is a unique test, but a countrywide education campaign could have worked to keep it as part of the diagnostic tools.
Ask HN: What's the definition of AGI for 2025?
1. Maybe validating that client actions are legal?
... don't do it at work?

If your company owns your free time as well, you've fucked up and should talk to HR.
I... I don't see what's special about the Mona Lisa.

daVinci's drawings, on the other hand, teem with life.
>Well apparently their strategy to ensure survival didn't do too well since we're discussing an extinct civilization here.

Not necessarily. They could have existed hundreds of millions of years ago, and become victims of the Chixhulub asteroid impact or other huge natural disaster after successfully maintaining an advanced civilization for hundreds of thousands of years, FAR longer than our probably ill-fated civilization has managed. They might have also left the planet. Or they could have transcended into energy beings.
I'd rather see two animated maps: global heat map and global sea level map. This should speak for itself.
Can someone recommend a long form guide that covers best practices for handling authentication and the like?
"legal tender" is a term of art that specifically means a creditor must accept it, and your big quote clearly supported this, discussing only the common misconception that legal tender means it can't be refused in an offer to purchase. You are arguing backwards yourself.
I understand your concerns around 10x Dev. May I suggest a different term more specific to this discussion? "Tool builder", as in, one who builds tools for them self, and possibly shares with others. I have worked with programmers that were not outstanding in terms of pure computer science, but could build a tool or two to get leverage, especially around system transparency/debugging, etc.
That might make sense if you valued the life of a pilot more than an F-35, or even a large number of F-35s, but at the end of the day, that simply isn't true.

Sometimes you will save the jet, sometimes you will lose both. Military policy is not "better safe than sorry". There is some number of jets, perhaps less than 1, where it is better to have a dead pilot than an unnecessarily crashed plane.
If your daughter or wife decided that she didn't want to be tracked by you any more, would you happily accept her wishes, or would you assume that she had "something to hide"?
Yep, and you also don't want your enemy to find the crashed plane before friendly forces have the opportunity to destroy it. If an F-35 crashed over foreign soil, an actively transmitting transponder would be a nightmare scenario for friendly forces that intend to scuttle the remains. Nobody wants another RQ-170 incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_RQ-170_Sentine...
I enjoy watching them not answer.
A supertanker costs more and it’s just empty tanks.
It wasn't.

It's the painful truth of how I felt. I'm not saying it's good. In fact, it's _very bad_.
The vulnerability, as another commenter mentions, is extremely hard to exploit and requires both physical access and the specific accounts to clone the key for.

That may be too much of a risk for enterprises, but as a personal security key? That seems like a completely reasonable choice to make.
Why Is ML Runtime Infra So Hard
That site loads incredibly fast. Wonder whether it’s a physical proximity thing (I’m in the uk too)
Does Ukraine have the capability to blow it up?
While we're on this tangent, I found Audrey Hepburn's "How To Steal A Million" rather entertaining.
Interesting. What does "MIDI Port Wrapper" mean?
> “As a commander you serve at the pleasure of the commandant,” Del Pizzo said

I think us software engineers should remember the same :P
I think you'd have to go outside what's on the screen to draw any conclusions about how much time everyone else spent reading the prospectus.
Yeah, I think TFA gets a lot right about doing software engineering in large orgs.

We call this role something like "lead developer" and it's as much about people, relationships, logistics, and documentation as it is about technical systems — but like TFA says, it's also your job to have the best holistic understanding of the technical system. A lot of more junior engineers are likely to work on a large project, and they will inevitably need guidance to satisfy the constraints of other parts of the system. You are responsible for knowing those constraints and, as much as possible, preventing mismatches when different components come together.

Meanwhile, the non technical staff (whether it's a manager or someone from the sales team, documentation team, customer support team, etc) are going to need someone who can explain the technical system to them in plain language. "Can it do this? How fast? Why can't it do this?" You tend to become their main interlocutor.

It's kind of your job to anticipate problems before they happen, to look into the future so you see what's coming and solve it in advance, and then to show up all the time when something needs help around launch, which it always does. It's very undefined but there's always something that needs doing.

This role doesn't sit well with some engineers who think their job is basically about coding and staying within their lane — those engineers don't get to be lead dev too much, because they don't do well with the organizational side of things. (It depends, of course, whether there is a hands-on project manager who can pick up a lot of that slack, but where I work, we don't always have that.)

(Context: I have worked in a large tech company a little more than 3 years and shipped some things. And before that I shipped a lot more things in smaller places – I like to think that shipping in small shops was a good prerequisite for shipping in large ones.)
They probably don't, especially if you're in California. Employers love to intimidate with unenforceable terms in contracts.
Seems to be broken for me on Chromium (desktop xubuntu), but it works in firefox.
1) java shell starts
2) read getenv into a java hashmap
3) evaluate shell input - any sets update the hashmap, any gets read from the hashmap
4) when you get to a point where you need to exec a process you use the hashmap to pass envvars into process builder - which is going to call execvpe for you.

So yeah you definitely could (there'd be other reasons why java wouldn't be a good choice).

TBH reading that folks were calling setenv before an exec to propagate env vars to a child made me sad. I would guess that other use cases were leveraging environ as a poor man's global variable - which is also unfortunate.
execve(2) and friends allow you to specify a new processes's environment variables. How Java may choose to expose that I don't know. Assuming they do, that is all a shell needs. You do not strictly need to call setenv(3) to change a variable that gets evaluated with $, etc. You do need to pass the modified environment to a child process.
As someone who is lactose intolerant, with a kid with dairy allergy your last sentence is more apt than probably intended. Dairy allergy is different to lactose intolerance and not helped by lactaid at all...

So I read your last sentence as:

"It's like seeing the problem but instead of taking the time to understand and resolve it, you just take some vague voodoo-like mitigation action and keep going through the motions."

Which to me, sums up most people's approach to using AI. Maybe VoodooAI would be a good brand, it's about as far as most people understand it...
Frameworks recent dig at "upgradeable" storage in the new m4 mac mini made me chuckle, upcycling an old macbook shell is even better.
I am not sure it is one of the largest projects.

The reddit subgroup has 300 members: https://www.reddit.com/r/themirrorspace/

The YouTube channel has 700 subscribers: https://www.youtube.com/@TheMirrorEngine

This doesn't come across as that big of a project in terms of user base.

For example, this Godot-based game on Steam has 12K reviews. It is definitely much bigger than The Mirror: https://store.steampowered.com/app/1637320/Dome_Keeper/

And another with 24K reviews: https://store.steampowered.com/app/2218750/Halls_of_Torment/

(Also is the guy in the video okay? His eyes are really red.)
The problem I see with this scenario is: if you're a biological being, planets with a compatible biosphere are probably extremely rare. Just having a biosphere might not be sufficient, if the makeup of the atmosphere is poisonous to you or it's too hot or cold for the way your species evolved. So why would alien civilizations agree to such a thing instead of just adopting a planet and staying there? The whole premise seems to agree that the aliens are all biologically compatible with each other, despite evolving on different worlds. Perhaps they bio-engineer themselves each time they settle on a new world?
https://www.youtube.com/@StrategyPage/videos

Mostly military capability related. Powerpoint level but knowledgeable. Austin and Jim are pretty elderly now though. Beware their over-reaching opinions. I can't believe 'What the Arabs think...' from anyone who can't speak the language.

https://www.youtube.com/@dancarlinpodcaster

Dan Carlin needs no introduction. Not as active now.

All I can think of. Social media has been over-run by bad actors with deep pockets.
Avremu: An 8-Bit AVR Microcontroller Simulator Written in LaTeX
For me, it didn't work. The artists and tracks on almost all of the tracks I pasted were incorrect. I suppose it would only be compatible with mainstream music.
It might be good to follow your own advice and read legal judgements more carefully.

The company doesn't have to do anything. And certainly not actively provide employees with tools to engage in union organizing communications amongst themselves. That's laughable, I'm surprised you believe it.

The ruling is that companies can restrict employees from using the company's assets to communicate about union activities, if they have other means to do so. Employees generally have other means to do so. That is light years different from "the company must provide some means of doing this".
Yeah, that's right. Though one could fantasize about a corporate prediction market where people are betting part of their yearly bonuses...
What I wish someone told me about Postgres
Hire the Most Expensive Engineers You Can Find
We've already gone through a couple of iterations of tools hyped to relieve programmers from the "tedium" of writing code. First, CASE tools with code generators, then UML was supposed to make it possible to draw diagrams telling the tool how to generate the code to implement the ideas.

Spicy autocomplete isn't going to solve the writing vs. thinking steps any better.
Follow the link in the article. They do actually say explicitly that, with no tempering statements.
Give us back our gods': Inside Nepal's Museum of Stolen Art
Or make a little JNI class.
Some people don’t like that YouTube knows too much about them
This is a great way to use those digital rewards Amazon gives if you delay/combine shipping if you haven't dropped Amazon yet.
Wonder if businesses trading in used mining gear existed in the gold boom era. I'm sure it did.

Surprising how reckless these dotcoms used to spend just because money was cheap. Have lived thru that era seen some of it first hand. Almost like burn it or you'll lose it.
Hey Noj! Thanks! I certainly am getting some good rest. Things aren't as bleak as they may appear from my article.