skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Same thing I have settled on.

Sqlite for quick and easy postgres for scaling.

For simple frontends I just use the built in go templates.

If I need complex frontends for larger apps I use sveltekit/svelte5 for frontend data I just export a single instance of a class that has state/derived fields for data and an isInitialized field that returns a promise for loading the data. Then methods for reloading data, changing data or any actions I need.

So all i have to do is await classInstance then use the class data in whatever way I need. Everything is reactive and simple due to states. you can use and update the fields directly like regular js but with global reactivity built in.

The data automatically loads the first time the module is imported. due to how esmodule files work. I just have a classInstance.LoadData() after the export.

Svelte5 isn't as good with LLM's but with some small instructions about how states, derived, and effects work it works pretty well.
>If that becomes the new sota you are again left behind.

It's why Europe is being elft behind technologically compared to the US and also loosing worldwide share of GDP. Thousands of small local companies scattered across several countries can't compete with the scale the likes of FAANG can achieve in the US and worldwide.
> How often do you fly and how often do you drive by car

I think I fly on average a bit more than once every two weeks. I'm in a car about every day, mostly for short trips--in the last month I probably spent about as much time in a car as in a plane. Pilots probably fly more hours than they drive.

You really have to fuck with the statistics to get driving to come anywhere close to commercial aviation in terms of safety, they're so far apart.
"Prompting is not enough, test-time fine-tuning is needed

Clearly this competition has shown that LLMs need test-time fine-tuning to do new tasks. Few-shot prompting is not enough for the model to learn novel tasks."

pretty interesting. However, only a pretty small model was used Qwen2.5-0.5B-Instruct. Bigger models were not available because of competition runtime constraints.
If you drove the same distance, you’d have more crashes. So you get more safe miles of travel on an airplane. Trip count is irrelevant, it’s how far you go.
So if I take two 100km trips by car, one takes 30 minutes and the other 2 hours both are equally safe?
Are the timings with language runtime startup, or only the procedure calls of the actual code?
"Pray, Mr Babbage, if I ask an LLM a question that isn't in its training set, will it give the right answer?"
Not really. It's fixed at "compile time". Eg "A4" or "Letter". I guess it "changes" according to zoom level, but that's just enlarging or shrinking - no reflow required.
EDIT: markup broke my operators

In combinatorics and discrete probability, `0**0 = 1` is a useful convention, to the point that some books define a new version of the operator - let's call it `***` - and define `a***b = a**b` except that `0***0 = 1` and then use the new operator instead of exponentiation everywhere. (To be clear, `**` is exponentiation, I could write `a^b` but that is already XOR in my mind.)

So one might as well overload the old one: tinyurl.com/zeropowerzero

This causes no problems unless you're trying to do real (or complex) analysis.

1/0 can cause a few more problems, but if you know you're doing something where it's safe, it's like putting the Rust `unsafe` keyword in front of your proof and so promising you know what you're doing.
I think implicit broadcasting in numpy made it difficult for a lot of people to grasp the concept. When it works, it works like magic. Sometimes it is intuitive. But then it stops working and because you actually never learned the logic behind it it turns into a mess. I had been (mostly successfully) using broadcasting for years before I started playing around with Julia and only then the concept clicked. I think their choice of being explicit here makes a lot of sense.
There you go, I just learned a new term.. autological.

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/autological
Pico-fractional-pll: Turn RP2040 into a FM wireless transmitter
galaxy brain: `number` already includes `NaN`
The repository looks like it's in protest of the NaNoWriMo organization and its stance on allowing AI-generated work.

https://www.wired.com/story/nanowrimo-organizers-classist-an...
> the computer system was incorrect

There's a little more to it. Most of the comments here are focusing on
"correctness". And yes, the amendments to section 69 do something
towards tempering its ridiculous and dangerous "presumptions".

But the (UK Post-Office) story is that the Horizon system had
back-doors in it. Fujitsu denied this. "Corrections" were made to
systems without operator knowledge - to fix actual errors caused by a
terrible database sync script full of race-hazards, faulty locks and
duplicated state.

The cover-up began life as engineers trying to hide up technical
mistakes. It escalated to senior executives trying to cover up
financial and political mistakes. It ended with the Crown colluding in
covering up judicial mistakes. It is an exemplar of hubris, pride and
egotsim resting on a refusal to give up a religious belief in
technology. Were it not for the courage of a few (including judges and
MPs) they would have gotten away with it (if it weren't for those
meddling kids)

The case stands as an important landmark that you cannot "hide behind"
technology as a means for abuse and injustice.

The amendments are welcome but insufficient. They open up a good
opportunity for cybersecurity people to work with lawyers now.

There are two outstanding problems:

Proprietary code. If you cannot examine the system then the right to
challenge it is meaningless. This requires changes to investigatory
powers/discovery if anyone wants to use "technical correctness" as a
base for argument.

Malicious function. While the discussion revolves around correctness
it is incomplete. Many systems (perhaps not the Horizon system) are
not faulty, they work perfectly well to deceive, manipulate and
swindle.

I'd still push for a complete reversal of presumption [0]. Where software
is part of a legal dispute it should "take the stand" as its own
witness, in that formal proofs of correctness (a very VERY high bar in
software engineering) need to be brought in front of the
court. Otherwise the reasonable presumption is that an error or hidden
malicious coding "cannot be ruled out".

[0] https://cybershow.uk/episodes.php?id=23 https://cybershow.uk/episodes.php?id=24
>How do you attract and ignite the talent to start a research with that amount of money

That's the neat part, you don't. </Omni-Man>
To say that this discussion is replete with zingers would be an understatement.

Here's one:

ROTA: Philosophers are needed today more than ever to tell the AI engineers some unpleasant truths. The philosopher's role has always been that of stating facts that may have been on everybody's mind but that no one dared state clearly. Eventually, engineers will reluctantly acknowledge that what the philosopher says is the truth, but they will then get rid of the philosopher.

and another:

ROTA: Creativity is a bad word. Unfortunately, we must leave it in the books because the people in power believe in it with sanctimonious credulity. It is a dangerous and misleading word.
You’ll align your bits towards falsity and ineptitude?

It is a big deal that computers don’t always do what they’re told in this case. STOP perpetuating lies
I call myself a programmer. It's not engineering or maths or anything else. It's managing complexity and I contend that it's very low cost complexity or we wouldn't be able to afford all the software we use.
The reality is that both can be true at the same time. Yes they're next token predictors, but sometimes the only way to do that correctly is by actually understanding everything that came before and reasoning logically about it. There's some Sutskever quote that if the input to a model is most of a crime novel, and the next token is the name of the perpetrator, then the model understood the novel.

Transformers are arbitrary function approximators, so there's no hard limitation on what they can or cannot do.
Xcode terminal build script for Cursor AI
Show HN: SeekStorm – open-source sub-millisecond search in Rust
The complexity of current life could have still formed from incredibly simple means over time.
Good article but this misses the obvious - but slightly more distant - eventuality: the no-code vendor goes bankrupt meaning no further support or security fixes, or is bought out by some other firm which means exorbitant future licensing costs and no further features.

Again, some people might not care about that but it seems kind of a biggie to me.
Are you solving all puzzles? I find usually that the parsing isn't my problem, but some of the puzzles puzzle me (ha, couldn't resist), because they expect some kind of graph knowledge or some mathematical trick or so. Last year got stuck at day 17 for example. Usually some learning in it then, but parsing, while possibly annoying day after day, wasn't usually what stopped me from completing puzzles.
I keep wondering how much of these problems would go away if IPv6 adoption were outright enforced by government (and on top of that static IP addresses as well). You suddenly have sufficient IP addresses, don't need NAT, know where you're supposed to connect to, and the need for central servers is much diminished. [1]

Possibly it's a bit on the late side to push for this though, since people have now already gone down the centralization path; as opposed to natural peer-to-peer. But OTOH maybe better late than never?

Put it this way. If we could go back in time and make a Minimum Necessary Change to history: possibly forcing IPv6 adoption early might have given us a more privacy-compatible timeline. [2][3][4]

[1] This is not necessarily The One True Way to achieve this, but certainly a way.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Eternity

[3] https://www.reddit.com/r/MandelaEffect/comments/51f584/reali...

[4] I really wish Minimum Necessary Change had made it into regular vocabulary. I think more people know what an Outside Context Problem is, or Psychohistory.
> provides a much higher social benefit than a single behemoth

In capitalism, companies don't exist to provide a social benefit, that's what the government is for. Companies exist to provide value to the shareholders, that's it. And the US is far better off with those trillion dollar behemoths than without.

The amount of prosperity the US working class sees because of those behemoths puts them at much higher wealth and disposable income than Europeans even after you account for the higher education and healthcare costs.

>even if it doesn't make the magical GDP number go exponential

That "magical GPD number" is also what pays into the welfare services the EU desperately needs. Where do you think the EU will afford that level of welfare if that GPD number will keep stagnating?
> The Germans have aptly called Sitzfleisch the ability to spend endless hours at a desk, doing gruesome work. Sitzfleisch is considered by mathematicians to be a better gauge of success than any of the attractive definitions of talent with which psychologists regale us from time to time. Stan Ulam, however, was able to get by without any Sitzfleisch whatsoever. After his bout with encephalitis, he came to lean on his unimpaired imagination for his ideas, and on the Sitzfleisch of others for technical support. The beauty of his insights and the promise of his proposals kept him amply supplied with young collaborators, willing to lend (and risking to waste) their time.

Taken from Gian-Carlo Rota in The Lost Cafe, a quote I found here http://www.romanpress.com/Rota/Rota.php
No.

ARHGAP36[1] stimulates GTP catabolism. And since MC1R is a g protein coupled receptor and uses GTP as an energy source, changes in the levels GTP will change the response of MC1R[2] to MSH and ACTH. It will react less strongly when there is lower GTP, and more strongly when there is higher GTP[3].

[1]https://www.uniprot.org/uniprotkb/Q6ZRI8/entry
[2] https://www.uniprot.org/uniprotkb/Q865E5/entry
[3]https://www.nature.com/scitable/content/ne0000/ne0000/ne0000...
I have heard this before. But before we assume incompetence, first we need to understand what the IT is producing. Anyone in IT can also build the application in a very short time. What the business do not fully understand is the effort required to implement all the other non-functional requirements they need but they don't know yet. Once the quick and dirty solution is done, and they are happy that the feature are done, they realize it is not compliant. Now they spent some effort for compliance and after that they realize that there is no backup. If the data is corrupted, all is lost. So then they call up their business analyst to implement that. And after a few such iterations they give up and hand it over to IT. Now IT has a shitty application that is not secure, partially compliant and terrible disaster recovery. So it has to be rebuilt. Now it costs much more than if IT had implemented it in the beginning.

The costs of the IT department exists because we have experience on the real costs of implementing production grade software.

For minor throwaway apps, there is always excel and MS access.
> It couldn't have been, because it was designed in 1986.

It was possible to read on computer screens at the time.
I had driving lessons last year and I was taught this. My teacher said the CBR examinator will watch how you open your door when after you drive back to the CBR location. It's not just for checking your blindspot, but also to have more control over the door when there are strong winds.
Just FYI I do want to support this. Rather what I would support is being able to order physical flash cards with my selection of n<=~10 language of translations.

I think this would work better than this. I would totally pay for this tomorrow (not sure how much). Maybe $5 per language?

With this interface and it showing the translations to you it's not conducive to recall, which is the process by which we tell our brains to connect/build more neurons for this particular datum.
I've personally found newer slightly slower movies like Villeneuve ones are really good.
Imagine being on a website called Hacker News and not knowing history and the legacy behind it. It was a different time back then and a small group of people were trying to resist the internet of becoming yet another place controlled by various governments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Declaration_of_the_Independe...

Of course, not every fight is won, so here we are.
I have mentioned the unencrypted traffic between the camera and hub here: https://github.com/privastead/privastead/blob/main/HOW_TO.md (Step 4, second paragraph)
There's also extra radiation exposure due to less atmospheric shielding (and there's no minimal safe levels for ionizing, anything extra increases your cancer risk), so it probably won't work out to a positive outcome.

Oh, and risk of catching an infection in the plane or airport is higher than in your own car - and that outweighs both crash and radiation risks..
Welcome to the messy real world! There are no "standards of the industry", do you don't need to meet the "highest" ones.
There are, broadly speaking, three genres of Misinformed About Computers:

The deeply interested, but informed by charlatans. I cannot affect their beliefs.

The immune to information.

The person who believes computers are scary, arcane objects. I cannot misinform them more than they already are.

Meanwhile, everyone else understood the point is that abstractions amplify computer problems whether they're human error or ghosts in the machine. Your model of misinformation spread needs work.
Not until 2025
> If you like maths, do physics and if you like philosophy, do maths.

Seems like I made the right decision! (I did maths.)
Does this apply to voting machines?
Diversity is about enjoying the benefits of a team filled with different perspectives.

Discussing how those perspectives might vary is very, very prohibited.
Kemetism
I don't know whether anyone's designed a spectre soccer ball, but someone has designed a soccer ball based on the hat tile.

https://youtube.com/shorts/_Rruxxrz9nY
It was my understanding that the company they bought it from didn't have the rights to sell it in the US. As such, there's no real difference between buying from them and buying from someone that stole it and sold it to you.

Now, you can argue that country-specific licenses shouldn't be allowed; but they currently are.
Enshittification was an indictment of for-profit social media, but they're already irrelevant as they've been out-competed by state-sponsored social media like tiktok and twitter.
Tangental: Came across an app aspiring to be 'duolingo for math', could the same be possible for music. I played guitar for ~10 years yet if I hear two tones, I struggle to tell which is higher and which is lower! (unbelievable that it would be so hard, when others have relative/perfect pitch!). So you could do duolingo for tones, or duolingo for modes etc.

Very Tangental: I had another idea for a 'music' game. Years ago, I used to mumble. People couldn't always understand me. So I randomly made a collection of phrases I struggled to say crispy to practice them 10 times each per morning. It improved my articulation a lot. I sometimes do the same (as a form of vocal exercise) but I made it way more fun by putting on one of my favourite rap tunes and cranking up the playback rate. For example chance the rapper's 'no problems' or 'angel' at 1.5 speed is a great vocal exercise. Perhaps this could be gamified. (I guess technically, it already is, as it's already a fun way of doing a boring task).
Yes, true today and the opposite for many: they don't want an expensive bundled subscription to subsidize sports when they don't watch sports themselves.
Here's how to do it:

Say "David Mayer de Rothschild" but replace the spaces with nbsp
There are actually quite a few nice features that go beyond memory safety:

- Type-safe generics (sorry C, `void*` doesn't count)

- Compiler errors that try to give you the root reason why your code isn't compiling and a solution to the problem

- Procedural macros to automatically generate boilerplate code for arbitrary structs/enums

- Solid package management tooling built into the workflow that doesn't rely on what Linux distro you're running

- consistent and easy-to-use macros for writing code meant to be used across OSs or architectures. I've written system-level packages compatible with Windows/Linux/MacOS/Every BSD flavor/Solaris with relative ease.
Yes. For example, in humans, being red haired correlates with fear of dentists.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2740987/
Can’t stop the signal, Mal.
You'd still be allowed "wild experiments" - just not where they could harm people.
Cyberpunk have a massive problems caused by success of Witcher 3 a lot and i mean A LOT of people move to western studios and they were best engineers in the company.

They still have people problem as pay in CDPR is pathetic compared to other studios and not much top talent want to work there.

Cyberpunk 2077 budget was overblown thanks to that + ~50% of that was spend on marketing I would assume there were also a lot of IP "costs" so overall "production" cost was probably about ~30-40% of the budget.
> and put together with the finest art, in the shortest way, the best form, the lightest manner, and most practicable shape

Yeah nah. Ask any doctor or biologist. Humans and most other organisms are definitely not put together like that. It's pretty cool and it works very well, but many things are just... why? There's lots and lots of hacks, questionable cable management, backwards design, dead code, and leftovers from previous iterations.

Just because we're a pretty successful organism does not mean we are anywhere near the pinnacle of what can be achieved.
> And the US is far better off with those trillion dollar behemoths than without

This is stated over and over by people who like big companies, like an axiom. And like an axiom, it's impossible to prove - because the only way to prove it would be to compare it against something that doesn't exist, a United States without trillion dollar companies. So you're supposed to just believe it because of how often it's repeated. But I don't believe it, on the contrary, it smells like bullshit to me. It reminds me a lot of another financial axiom we were all supposed to believe: trickle down economics. And look how that turned out.
I think the difference between the textbooks and AI is that the AI can answer exactly your question without providing the necessary context/reasoning behind how it arrived there.

When you are drawing connections between SO posts, textbooks, whatever you do a fair amount of reasoning yourself.

Now that I think about it it isn't AI specific (more knowledge specific) - I'd say the same if you wait a few hours and then look up the AOC solutions on github. Sure you'll have "solved" the problem but you never spent the time to actually figure out the solution.

> And at the start, novice body builders will of course watch other body builders to learn how it's done.

"Learn how it's done" - not get bigger. This is the important difference. If those novice body builders watched others and learned how its done without putting in the reps themselves they'd get nowhere.
Yes but I'm talking about several alternative systems existing in parallel, not something that can be blamed on time.
That's why I said insurance to cover it. And the insurance would be dedicated to covering that; it wouldn't be accessible to pay off other creditors.
“Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assaults of thoughts on the unthinking.”

—-John Maynard Keynes
It’s more than a planning topic. A plane trip is atomic, you can’t cit it in pieces (it just becomes “more trips”). Once on a plane you are there till the end of the trip and flying 1mi or 10000mi is still one trip. The length of the trip has very little statistical impact on the outcome. Statistically most crashes are on takeoff or landing, length of flight doesn’t impact this.

The point is that whether you crash in the first mile or the last mile, you still crashed on a trip. Since you can’t count 9999mi safe, and 1mi deadly then you’re realistically doing statistics on trips, then multiplying by miles but this just inflates the numbers and muddies the waters.

The multiplication by miles isn’t obviously wrong but it’s definitely misleading. It’s the kind of thing that sounds relevant but isn’t really.
The linked piece by Stephen Mason sets out all the interesting context for the law portion (not the postal service fiasco).

https://read.uolpress.co.uk/read/3a219939-14d3-45c9-9fe0-9b4...
China takes aim at energy replacement with plan to rely on renewable,reduce coal
I agree with these sad facts, and they are important for me personally, but, well, so did many other countries unfortunately. Including the United States and Canada (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis).
Show HN: Self-Hosted AI Server for LLM APIs, Ollama, ComfyUI and FFmpeg Servers
> take every chapter of the textbook and rewrite it, filling in all the intermediate steps of every proof, those where the author writes "it follows that ..." or "from which it's obvious that ..."

I recently-ish had a read through some of my old fundamental/pure maths notes from Uni, including plenty of proofs. The damned things are littered with steps which were "obvious" to my smug self-satisfied 20 year old self but impenetrable to me reading without much context 20 years later.

Git.
You could apply the LaTeX algorithm to each rendering. The rendering might jump and it would be a change from before but it can be done.