skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It makes a lot of sense.

Twitter is not the community that it used to be. Twitter used to provide me with new updates and cool communities of people.

Since the platform got repurposed to become X, the feeds became a negative in my day— so much ragebait, violence and other negative content that pushed me away.

Apart from the fact that the algorithm was tweaked to become Elon and Trump biased [1] and that link load times to “undesired” websites got artificially increased [2], the whole monetisation strategy attracted cheap, ragebait content [3]. The platform started paying out for 5M+ impressions. This incudes negative and positive impressions and essentially drives up polarising content more than anything.

I believe the issue isn’t about community notes at all, as some suggest, that is such a small thing and critical replies were always a thing. In contrast I believe the real problem is: 1) there’s no point engaging on a platform where every feature can and will be manipulated to serve personal agendas that you do not have control over. 2) Maintaining a presence on X has become a liability– it’s damaging to a set of brands both now and likely in the future.

I’m glad the Guardian and other accounts are moving away from X.

[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/elon-musk-trump-x-algorit...
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37130060
[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20230714080253/https://help.twit...
For Witcher 2 I did have a Windows gaming PC available so I just ignored the Mac "port". Mind, I was hackintoshing at that time so I actually had a decent GPU. But it was laggy and stuttery on Mac OS while it worked just fine(tm) on the same machine in Windows.

Generally, my gaming is very delayed as per this xckd:

https://xkcd.com/606/

So at the point i wanted to play Witcher 3 it was crypto price crisis then covid chip crisis and console availability crisis and I simply did not have a modern GPU in the house. I played W3 on a PS4 :)

Dunno about cyberpunk, I tried it on PS5 but all that inventory and menus are no good with a controller. One day I'll get the Windows version.
> you disable every single button that allows the user to do something else before the previous operation completes.

Wow you mean the whole program becomes unresponsive? Crazy!

To address your main point, yes, scrolling, hover, etc can continue to work. But now you genuinely have two things your program is doing at once, and these must be coordinated.

A gui framework typically handles this, with a separate thread (or separate OS process). So your thread that responds to events can block while the render/refresh continues doing its thing.

With this design the problem goes away. Instead of writing code that disables the ui, issues a callback, waits to respond, you just literally write:

If (!file.delete()) {
Showerror()
}

This is the kind of code you can read, and put breakpoints on.
> no motion data

How come there's no motion data?
Couldn't the browser simply internally turn this:

function f1() {
x = await fetch('something');
...
}

Into this:

function f1() {
fetch('something').then(x => {
...
});
}
> Are we the thread or the sword or the person sitting under it? […] This answer is clear. […W]e have survived, thrived, and progressed while hanging by a thread.

So the laptop class are the sword, put there by Dionysius (the political class), ready to fall on Damocles (the working class, whose sword, tellingly, isn’t owned or controlled by Damocles at all)?

If so, methinks the classical Greeks understood Marx far better than I’d ever have given them credit for.
I'd like to add to the OP's point that the classic Cold War logic was based on two superpowers or countries with comparable power. In this case, however, we’re dealing with a significant asymmetry in nuclear game theory, which may represent a historically novel scenario.

While it's not exactly related to this topic, the first song that comes to mind when writing this is "First We Take Manhattan" by Leonard Cohen [1][2][3].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_We_Take_Manhattan

[2] https://open.spotify.com/intl-es/track/6UEzGV76d96lYTA68iBO0...

[3] https://open.spotify.com/intl-es/track/6IRkoSxV526waQU14HQ3c...
I dont't think it is a meaningful barrier to adoption, at AWS's scale anymore.

AWS's growth doesn't come from courting small random devs working on side projects.
This also gets tiring after you learn that people don't stop talking about themselves and there is no turn for anything else. It's simply a game described as: "I'm playing the social interaction game where I do best, for the others, when they talk about themselves and I'm listening"
I wonder if the reason it's perceived as "easy" is because companies are flying under the radar. In my experience, you get a bit of leeway until the country you're selling into starts to notice and demands you start collecting and paying sales tax. Perhaps the fact the US is split across jurisdictions internally means tax authorities don't have a very clear picture until the company gets big enough.

Either that, or more companies are using third parties who mask the complexity for them. Kinda like a duck looking serene on the water but its feet are paddling furiously to keep moving.

When you're inside a jurisdiction, you don't really have the option to ignore the law for long because the tax authorities will come knocking sooner rather than later.
This is the reason I use AWS wrappers (render.com/fly.io) for small projects.
It may be more expensive but you can't pop the free tier/selected machine.
> other languages do not

Which ones? I think there's always some way to isolate, even if ugly.
There seem to be two distinct topics:

1) async programming vs. threading

2) infectious async/await syntax

Async programming is great. Coroutines are a powerful tool, both for expressing your ideas more clearly and for improving performance in IO-heavy systems.

async/await syntax may not be the best design for async programming though. Consider example in Julia:

function foo(x)
@async print(x) # some IO function
end
function bar(x)
@sync foo(x)
end

`foo()` returns an asynchronous `Task`, `bar()` awaits this task, and you can invoke `bar()` from whatever context you want. Now look at the Python version with async/await keywords:

async def foo(x):
print(x) # some IO function
def bar(x):
await foo(x)
# SyntaxError: 'await' outside async function

Oops, we can't make `bar()` synchronous, it MUST be `async` now, as well as all functions that invoke `bar()`. This is what is meant my "infectious" behavior.

Maybe we can wrap it into `asyncio.run()` then and stop the async avalance?

def bar(x):
asyncio.run(foo(x))
bar(5)

Yes, it works in synchronous context. But path to asynchronous context is now closed for us:

async def baz(x):
bar(x)
await baz(5)
# RuntimeError: asyncio.run() cannot be called from a running event loop

So in practice, whenever you change one of your functions to `async`, you have to change all its callers up the stack to also be `async`. And it hurts a lot.

Can we have asynchronous programming in Python without async/await. Well, prior to Python 3.5 we used generators, so it looks like at least techically it's possible.
Yeah sure llms that can’t write quicksort half the time will end the creation of new languages. They might also end home cooking because they’ll cook all the food right?
At the time I'm writing this, there are over 260 comments to this article and yours is still the only one that mentions the enormous energy consumption.

I wonder whether this is because people don't know about it or because they simply don't care...

But I, for one, try to use AI as sparingly as possible for this reason.
My point isn’t about these particular technologies. Pick any you like. But maybe not the flashy new ones, but the ones that make you the most productive and don’t change a lot. And then add the fancy new LLMs.
I thought the point of deploying to the cloud using higher level services was so that I could worry about my app and stop worrying about the minutia of managing load balancers or database servers.

Instead of interesting technical challenges I now get to worry about the minutia of Amazon's billing system. Neat! Where do I sign?
Well, technically Node is N:1. But concretely, what significant difference you see from a async/await runtime and threaded runtime, other than the former requiring yield points to be syntactically marked in code?
Please do not litter -
It’s the same in typescript if your io is exclusively always called from async functions.
Patient gaming is a virtue :) But do yourself a favour and get Cyberpunk ASAP, in the Christmas sale at the latest. As a deus ex fan, Cyberpunk has been the best game I have ever played, ignoring nostalgia. And it looks like there won't be a further extension or big patch, so nothing to gain by waiting now.

Ryzen 5 3600, radeon rx 6600 should be the performance baseline hardware for 1080p.
I very recently had a run away SageMaker issue that wasn't refunded. Wasn't much, only $50, but they said no.
Yeah typo. Corrected.
Also having trouble typing in terminal using firefox. Seems like keys are doubled or missing. I gave up after ten attempts to ping cnn.com
> Can we have asynchronous programming in Python without async/await.

Gevent exists: https://sdiehl.github.io/gevent-tutorial/
I think they feel like pure science fiction magic. I have multiple alien brains installed locally on my laptop.
You started in the right place with music theory. As for learning synths, you can do it in two ways - just start using them, fiddling and playing (whether its a software synth or hardware synth) or you learning actually the fundamentals by books, video and articles like these: https://www.soundonsound.com/series/synth-secrets-sound-soun...

I started the first way in the early 80s and did the second and have a life long love of synths ( I don't even know how many I have now but probably around 30-40 hardware synths, samplers and drum machines).
I said async functions can be treated as the IO monad. And I also said that I realize that promises are themselves monads but that wasn’t my point. The point was to use async functions as coloring in the same way Haskell does it with the IO monad.
For decades we have been using assert(input) and assert(output), so it's not exactly new. Forcing sanitary checks by the language runtime is an option, hence requiring contracts to spell out the range of valid input/output which is checked in debug mode. Otherwise, if it's optional, it will only be used by a subset of engineers. If its mandatory, it can cripple performance (unless we have unsafe scopes). Opt-out is always better than opt-in.
Use typedef?

Granted, the function pointer syntax is forever confusing (to me anyway). The rest is easily tackled by naming things.

Even for function pointers, it’s just one lookup and then you can copy-paste the typedef for any other function pointer types in the project.
A related concept is LLM-driven API design. First write the comment of what the API function should do, then let the LLM write the function call, it will pick the most expected naming and argument order, then you write the API using this function prototype.

And maybe if the LLM sometimes tries to use different naming, you could add an overload of the same API end point, as long as it doesn't clash with an existing one. So in the end for anyone using your library with an LLM it would appear to just work.
I believe you are right, but no tin foil hat theory needed just sound pricing strategy. Eg. factor in underutilization but also refunds. For a flat rate, a price point at 70% of total value of included volume still is better bottom line if you set included volume high enough that the average usage is 50%, yet it still feels more generous and less risky from customer point of view. OTOH very granular unit pricing lets everyone underestimate total costs and complicates comparison with competing offers, „bread and butter“ product prices mask more uncommon ones, etc. In IT underutilization is high, also on own infra, that’s something cloud vendors (and hardware and software vendors) can rely on. Paying for it at least incentivizes to improve utilization, autoscaling is better, sometimes the cloud vendor does it for you, sometimes you have to donitnyourself. In IT laziness is rampant, time is often seen as more valuable than cash out. Also someting the vendors can rely on. I‘ve seen a howto for Azure for a scalable LLM API Gateway. It cost me almost 2 hours to get an estimate for min costs - with default values it would have cost almost 10k per month, I could size it down to less than 1k. A simple loadbalanced reverse proxy on vms cost less than 400. Be especially cautious when everyone is in a hurry. The pre-made solutions may try to cash in on that. Over all: Pricing and pricing models are part of the product properties you buy, and looking for and dealing with psychological pricing strategies and tactics is part of doing business.
Migrating anything at least somehow complicated past Java 8 is PITA. When you are at Java 9, you are half done. Full done if you don't use some libraries that abuse JVM (like lombok). For most of those it would be enough to upgrade to newest versions.

BTW. Next year we will have Java 25.
Thanks for bringing up imgsrc.io!

While there are similarities since we're both OG image generators, gleam.so focuses specifically on making it super easy for non-designers to create beautiful Open Graph images through templates. I have different goals and target users.

Always happy to learn about other tools in the space!
That’s making a lot of assumptions about Person A
Tbf ROS is a pretty old project. ROS1 dates back to 2009 iirc. A lot of technologies didnt exist back then. Even ROS 2 is now relatively old. The way I see it is that we have since learned a lot about software engineering. I dont think using cmake with catkin and relying on debian packages makes much sense now a days. But back in 2009 I can see why we would have to do it. Heck using catkin to share c++ code by copying the code into a local workspace was so much easier than having to figure out which set of systemwide packages and which cmake incantations would work correctly. Today, however we know how to do packagemanagement much better via tools like cargo. However some core ideas like pub/sub,micro services, message definitions, message recording and playback will be part of your stack.

With regards to startups in general though. Having worked at a few Ive noticed that at the earliest stages the goal is for a few individuals to build quickly. Often this means certain framework choices that may not be suitable to scaling. As one scales one has to then evolve the architecture to ensure developer velocoty. This may mean rewriting everything. Im not surprised that people are rewriting ROS internally. At the end of the day there are a few good ideas in there, but at some point one has to acknowledge that implementations were lacking.

Personally if one were to write a middleware framework in 2024 Id go with rust, mcap, zenoh, rerun and possibly use ecs instead of topics.
> Whether my opinion is a minority position or not is not of relevance.

It is. That is the crux of the matter. Genocide deniers aren’t just a minority, but a shrinking minority, and more importantly, a shrinking minority at odds with the consensus among experts and international organizations who’s purpose it is to form opinion on these matters.

Here is a document that matters. A UN commissioned special committee, tasked with investigating human rights violation against Palestinians[1]. It concludes (para. 69):

> The developments in this report lead the Special Committee to conclude that the policies and practices of Israel during the reporting period are consistent with the characteristics of genocide

and adds (para. 70):

> The multiple violations of international law by Israel in its war on Gaza; its apartheid system of injustice in the occupied West Bank, within the broader context of its decades-long occupation-cum-annexation of Palestinian and Syrian Golan territories; and its ongoing defiance of binding Security Council resolutions and orders of the International Court of Justice, gravely weaken the international rules-based system.

This report was published last September by a special committee with a mandate to do so after a General Assembly resolution way back in 1968. It was not written by victims of genocide, but by mandated observers who have been illegally denied entry to follow their mandate. Why did Israel deny them entry, and break International law doing so? A good plausible theory here is that Israeli rulers are intent on committing a genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, and are attempting to hide their violations in the hopes they will escape justice.

1: https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/a79363-r...
Landline phone companies were always usage-based billing where you could run up huge bills by, say, making an international phone call for an hour.
I cannot speak for other VMs, in the case of CheerpX there is nothing fundamental preventing emulation/JIT-ting of 64-bit platforms, but it is an inefficient choice due to the current limitations of Wasm, in particular on the front of how much memory can be used in total. In the best case scenario it would be 4GB, but it's unlikely this can be achieved on all devices in the real world.

64-bit code by its nature consume more memory, each pointer is twice the size, which makes the memory limitation even more pressing for no advantage. Please note, that this is unrelated to the work on WebAssembly Memory64. The issue is not the lack of address space, but rather on the actual memory that can be allocated in practice.

For this public deployment of WebVM we have chosen to limit the maximum memory to 700MBs, which makes the demo work fine on the vast majority of devices, including mobile ones. This said, we do plan to support the 64-bit ISA in the future with the main use case of supporting all the existing docker images available on Docker Hub and similar platforms.

Appreciate your feedback on licensing and we will take it into account, but please notice that this article is specifically about WebVM, that is indeed FOSS. A separate article dedicated to the CheerpX 1.0 release will be published soon, and it will of course be very clear that the latter is proprietary.
Is there a language that's substantially free of gibberish?
It's not a technical problem but a paperwork problem, it doesn't matter how do you do it, the client will want to see the ISO certifications even if your app is fully secure.

Security isn't the same thing as compliance.
Your comment is significantly higher quality, and I appreciate that. It still has three problems:

1. I didn't make any claims about prediction markets†. I made claims about what prediction-market advocates like Shayne Coplan and Alex Tabarrok believe, because the question was what could motivate someone to operate an unprofitable one. Since I am not not currently operating a prediction market or working on a prediction-market project of any kind, it is wholly irrelevant which shit I do or don't believe about prediction markets.

Analogously, if I were to claim that the Nazis killed ten million people in death camps because they believed that Jews and Roma were subhuman, you could not validly argue that, in fact, Jews and Roma are not subhuman, and therefore the Holocaust could not have happened.

2. You do not present any arguments that the worthless comment by "FactKnower69" (!!) was itself worth posting, or even correct; you only present an argument about why you think prediction markets are not worthwhile.

Presenting any argument at all puts your comment head or shoulders above the comment I was criticizing. But "FactKnower69"'s claim was not that prediction markets were harmful; it was that advocates of prediction markets were both insincere and highly profitable, in particular the people operating PMs like Polymarket and Kalshi, and also that I am a fucking idiot. I concede that I am a fucking idiot; "FactKnower69" nailed that one entirely by chance. But, with respect to the rest of their comment, it is not only possible but actually common for people to sincerely advocate policies that are, unbeknownst to them, harmful, as well as to profit from those policies. So, even if prediction markets are not worthwhile, their advocates may be sincere and/or unprofitable.

Moreover, even if prediction-market advocates are insincere and/or profitable, "FactKnower69"'s comment contains no information tending to show that; it's just an unsupported assertion. Worthless unsupported assertions of both true and false claims are also common, so even if you were to show that prediction-market advocates were insincere and/or profitable (a task you did not attempt), that still doesn't rescue "FactKnower69"'s comment from the sewer it was born in.

3. Your argument is at least equally applicable to stock, commodities, and forex markets; "knowing" how much hard red winter wheat or aluminum will cost a year from now, or how profitable PPG Industries will be over the next few years, is even less of a "profound world wide tool for the advancement of humanity" than "knowing" who will win the US election, and those markets are also well known to cause suicide. So your argument is not a very strong argument; it would entail that those markets are also net harmful and should be eliminated if possible, which I am sure you will concede is a position far out on the fringes of extremism.

______

† Well, except that I did claim that it would be very profitable for an unethical prediction-market operator to disappear with everyone's money on the eve of a major event like an election, but that seems to be irrelevant to the rest of the discussion.
> Even having the option of a hard spend limit would be hazardous, because accounting teams might push the use of such tools

Tell me you're Shadow IT without telling me you're Shadow IT.

I know legitimizing shadow IT is still the value proposition of AWS to a lot of organizations. But it sucks if that's the reason the rest of us can't get an optional feature.
> Which ones? I think there's always some way to isolate, even if ugly.

Almost all of them? You need referential transparency (via laziness) too, otherwise your attempt at isolation will break at the first binding expression in a local scope for future processing elsewhere:

...
let arg = processData <$> ioAction
in ...

Do you want to wrap-and-call-later all of these cases into lambdas by hand? :)
Selfishness in AI
Thomas Kurtz, Co-Creator of Basic, Has Passed
As a child in the 70s, I spent endless hours at teletype terminals connected to the Dartmouth time-sharing system, writing programs in BASIC, the language he and Kemeny designed for ordinary people.
I don't get it, why have a human visionary CEO? Even the strongest critics of AI agree that LLMs excel at producing bold visions.
I don't think this science fiction writer deserves the credit of someone who is studying and/or influencing the real world

> You have one Steve Jobs-type at the helm, and then maybe a whole pyramid of AIs out there executing it and bringing him new proposals

Very interesting in a short story (or a side quest in Cyberpunk 2077 - yeah that one). Not so much for a description of our future.
Transformer Interpretability
It's not the LLMs doing it, it's the people using LLM with languages that work well with LLMs vs with new languages. To your point, it can write quicksort in python easily but maybe not in some esoteric language.
I found the conversation between Wolfram and Yudkowsky hard to listen to. In fact, I didn't make it to the half. The arguments presented by both were sort of weak and uninteresting?
How does it work with mainstream technologies that are being actively developed?

Did anyone try working with LLMs and Swift for example? Is the AI suggesting deprecated libraries from earlier iOS versions / generally having trouble? Or is it working fine?