skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I appreciated the article for emphasising memorising definitions and statement of theorems... But not for proofs. For proofs, a general outline would be sufficient.
> Proper tooling with C can prevent memory issues

So far this year, the Linux kernel has 849 overflow and memory corruption CVEs: https://www.cvedetails.com/product/47/Linux-Linux-Kernel.htm...

What is your advice to the Linux kernel developers who, by your logic, are not using proper tooling?

I’m not willing to tell them they’re doing it wrong because they’re experts in a very technically challenging field I don’t know much about. What is it you think they’re doing wrong, given your experience?
Some work is already done that way but it's quite expensive to go years without upstreaming. Keeping branches in sync is a lot of work.
What's really scary about autonomous weapons--and maybe this is obvious--isn't that they're deadlier than current weapons but that they allow offensive action with no real risk. There are things that both major parties (in the US) would like to do--say, confiscate everyone's guns, or shut down all abortion clinics--that can't be done partly because of the political fallout, but also partly because that sort of large-scale offensive initiative is too physically risky. It's very dangerous to try to take a building. Observe how numerous and well-armed are the members of a SWAT team.

The current calculus for taking large-scale offensive action against buildings therefore involves not only the necessary political will but also the ability to find enough people who are willing to put themselves in mortal danger. Autonomous weapons will chip away at this latter requirement.
I found this context via search https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42254608

It's a straightforward recounting of the events.
Vivid unlocks the full brightness of your MacBook Pro and Pro Display XDR
The service was intentionally left unnamed to avoid driving traffic to it.
See also:

The Denial of Death (1974) Ernest Becker — https://underconsumed.medium.com/the-denial-of-death-1974-er...
It's hard to write something that is both accessible and well-motivated.

The best uses of category theory is when the morphisms are far more exotic than "regular functions". E.g. it would be nice to describe a circuit of live queries (like https://materialize.com/ stuff) with proper caching, joins, etc. Figuring this out is a bit of an open problem.

Haskell's standard library's Monad and stuff are watered down to the point that they are barely category theory, but they are also quite useful and would not have been readily invented without category theory. See even if you have no taste for "abstract nonsense", maybe you can still accept the fact that its left a trail of more accessible "semi-abstract semi-nonsense" in its wake.

This stuff takes time. If it's not your cup of tea, no need to make yourself an early adopter. See also things like Lean where fancy type systems are finally reaching "regular non-CS" mathematicians with great success.
I was going to write more but I wanted to just simplify the comment. I think we agree more than disagree and that I've not communicated effectively. So I want to focus on my main point about the metric (and one other part).

In the intro when you reference Chomsky it says

| [Chomsky] make very broad claims to the effect that large language models (LLMs) are equally capable of learning possible and impossible human languages.

My objection here is measuring success of learning a language, not to the difficulty of the learning process.

What I'm trying to say is that in the shuffled languages that when we are doing next token prediction, the perplexity is necessarily higher. This must be true because of the destruction of local structure. BUT this does not mean that the language wasn't learned successfully. For example, in the next token setting, if we are predicting the sentence "My name is godelski" then certainly the perplexity is higher when "Name godelski my is", "godelski name is my", etc are also valid sequences. The perplexity is higher BUT the language is successfully learned.

My point is that we have to be careful about how we define what it means for the language to be successfully learned.

(I'm not sure there is a tractable measure for the success of learning a language, I don't know of a proof in either direction. But I do know that perplexity is a proxy and we must be careful about the alignment of any measures, as there is always a difference. Even in seemingly trivial things we cannot measure anything directly, it is always indirect (e.g. we measure distance with a ruler, which is an approximation based on the definition of a meter, but is not a meter itself. Though this is going to typically be very well aligned))

> a universal approximator should be able to learn to invert any one-to-one transformation we apply

I agree, but I think we need to be a bit careful here. Extending universal approximation theorem to discrete distributions introduces new conditions, which the usual form is that the function we're approximating must be continuous, closed, and bounded. But I think we also need to be careful with how we look at complexity. Yes, a bijective function is going to have the same complexity in both directions, but this will not hold if there is any filtering. But the part where we really have to be careful about is the difference in difficulty of _learning_ D and _learning_ T(D). Even if T is simple, these learning processes may not be equally simple. It's subtle but I believe important. As a clear example of this, we will often scale data (one might call this normalization, but let's not be ambiguous and let's make sure it is bijective), and it will be clear that learning the scaled data is simpler than learning the unscaled data. So while yes, a universal approximator is __capable__ of learning to invert any bijection, this does not mean that the difficulty in __learning__ to invert it is easy.

I do really appreciate the chat and the explanations. I'm glad to know that there is a followup and I'm interested to see the results.
I remember an ambitious project that spent more time on mechanics and infrastructure than content… Starbound.

And in the end, there was no game.
I’m not sure. One point I agree with the author is that it’s a complicated situation likely involving both social and technical factors.
RAII is really all about the deconstructors, not the constructors.
Wicket is the best library I've ever used. Not just best webapp library or best Java library, the best library anywhere. If server-side rendering is an option then I'd absolutely use that (possibly from Scala).
Many things are only popular for a relatively short period of time. If someone wants to wait until the copyright period is over to do an adaptation, the source material may no longer be that popular, and the adaptation, even without having paid a single royalty, will be unprofitable.
You're misreading. This wouldn't get the $1 fee. "We're giving you 20 TB (TWENTY) but don't you dare use more than 2 TB (TWO)"

It's a classic web host reseller technique of overselling and having it backfire.
I had a C64 as well. My school had a programming class and we all shared a TRS80 (I think). I remember writing a program to find prime numbers and thinking about various optimizations. Mine was fastest, and I was proud. Then the boy that wrote directly in assembly ran his... That was the moment I decided to get good. :-)
Article talks about it. Known Earth microbes.

If it was already there it would have been something novel
All of Apple's recent software is the worst it has released, both mobile and desktop. Bugs abound and are never fixed despite thousands of people upvoting bug reports. UX is terrible (someone needs to tell Apple UX people that it's not actually fun to have to randomly stumble upon useful functionality). Their laptops hardware really deserve better software. Their mobile hardware sucks so it doesn't deserve anything.
The article explicitly lists protein -> protein as one of the 3 prohibited information flows.
This is not his best post, granted (there are some good ones).

That said, I think this is a very uncharitable read and resorting to ad hominom (he's not a real dev!) is uncalled for.

If you think the argument is wrong -say so. Refute it on its own merits. It gets no better or worse from it being said by him.

That also goes for Asahi lina - I find it so incredibly tiring when people's hero-worshipping of this admittedly great developer extends to thinking they are simply right about everything.

Carmack is a great dev, he likes his C and C++. Alexis King (Lexi Lambda) used to be a top lisper (likely still is), now a great haskeller. Rich Hickey and so on and so on. Point is - how do ypu reconcile the fact that these people hold wildly different ideas on what makes good programming and programning languages, some of them even changing opinions over their lifetimes.

Will you create a programmer godhood pantheon and claim Asahi Lina is the smartest person ever or write it off as "systems programming must be Rust"?
I am curious.

Anyway, not aimed at singling you out, but the appeal to authority (Lina) as some way of saying " this is right, everyone else are wrong" is shoddy arguing.
A sibling comment [1] points out that the kernel recently gained some RAII-like functionality.

The typical alternative to RAII-based error handling in C tends to be goto statements. I'm sure those of us who have written C are used to writing goto statements in inverse order for their error handling -- and we've also made mistakes with them especially when there's a lot of branching paths (or at least I have). In comparison to that I personally appreciate RAII quite a lot.

Even with arena allocation, it may make sense to have a struct be composed of some memory that's borrowed from the arena and some that's owned by the struct. That works exactly as you'd expect in Rust.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42291921
On the pure math side, Locales (https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/locale) are so much more beautiful an axiomatization scheme than regular topological spaces, even if one is just doing regular classical rather than constructive math. We would have not discovered them except for category theory.
Don't you just love the idea of giving Big Tech and law enforcement literal x-ray vision. That'll go down very well...
You're doing it right now, i.e ask questions and seek answers.
Thank you, your feedback is appreciated.

The important design issue about building active-active multi-master on the base of raft protocol is about being able to apply changes locally without immediately putting them into a log (without sacrificing durability). MySQL implements a binlog, which is separate from a log, to ensure durability. OrioleDB implements copy-on-write checkpoints and row-level WAL. That gives us a chance to implement MM and durability using a single log.
This makes me think about Microsoft Access and why it never took off. It helps people create databases, forms, and reports. One might call it a no code solution as opposed to merely a low code solution. There are a lot of businesses that's ostensibly in the right place for Microsoft Access.

In my view there are certain aspects of app building that's hard. Some of it is in code, some of it is in design, some of it is in domain modeling. Every once and awhile you get stuck and your low-code solution is suddenly paralyzed at that one point. ChatGPT unblocks you until you REALLY need a programmer.

Low or no code did not make sense until ChatGPT.
Where I worked we got an early system as we made graphical desktops for workstations. IBM required that we have a separate locked room for the system!

Despite having over 20 different brands/Unix systems, AIX was the only one we had to pay a 3rd party consultant to come in and do installations and upgrades. That was back in the days of tapes. It used some convoluted volume management system where the tape contents got spooled into the disk and then the installation absorbed that.

smitty always felt so slow. There was a release where it was sped up. They didn't actually make it do the work any quicker - they just doubled the animation speed of the running man that was shown.
Why? What about it spoke to you?

Was it the messed up human anatomy? The letters and numbers being misformed? The lack of faces? The weird choice of unnecessary detail and bizarre scale?
Let's try to settle the Go/Rust debate in this AoC sub-thread ^_^
Indeed; Haskell is purely functional, and Category Theory is nothing but a purely functional language of mathematics.
100%

Whenever I eat somewhere new I ask what the staff would have if they were me. It's almost always a very good decision. They tend to enjoy making recommendations, and I often try something I wouldn't have picked myself.

Unless it's a Thai restaurant staffed by native Thai or Korean staffed by Koreans. I can't keep up with that spice.
I don't know if there's a specific k4 binary but you can run k4 through the q binary.
Studies like this are why I lost my respect for the field, and left it a long time ago. I have not since regained my respect for psychology as a general field. Things like this are published all too frequently.

It is demonstrated that playing piano has positive effects on neural development, a task largely analogous to typing. Learning / honing any novel skill will have that effect. If you are pushing your the limits of your knowledge or skill-set and are improving, then your brain has to be adapting to things.

If one group is simply typing characters, one at a time, using one finger, of course nothing is going on in the brain. What aspect of the brain at that point is begin challenged? If anything I'd expect this task to result in a reduction of connectivity.
Total weight is 1.6 million Sheila Broflovski's
I disagree. The author can make the "perfect argument" but it won't matter if the individuals who need convincing bounce before the first section.
Possible harmonization of the two ideas: the intuition that we go into math at high school level can help serve us at that level of math. We have some idea of geometry-like objects and 2d-calculus like curves from our everyday life

At university level the objects become more abstract, so the intuition we use in normal daily life may no longer apply. New kinds of intuition may develop but it takes work, including lots of time spent with the formal processes and calculations along with reflection on that time, and the active creation of new metaphors to drive the intuition. For example, I still remember a professor using "Ice-9" (from _Cat's Cradle_) as a metaphor for how proving some local property of a holomorphic function on the complex plane made that property true for its global behavior
In the latter part of high school, and in my early years in college as a computer engineer, I found physics and the philosophy of it really interesting. I remember the first time, in 9th grade, that our teacher showed us how to predict the bounce-height of a ball using some basic algebra. I was immediately in love with physics, and it was the first time that I realized math could be fun.

In my senior year, AP Physics C: E&M would become one of my favorite courses of my entire scholastic career (largely thanks to my teacher). While Calc 3 wasn't required for the AP test, he introduced the concepts so that he could properly walk us through the history of the field from the perspective of its founders, up to and concluding with Maxwell's equations. We read a lot of the original papers that introduced certain operators and equations, including works from Newton, Leibniz, Heaviside, Maxwell, Einstein, and Dirac. Ironically, I failed the AP exam (2/5) but had a very easy time with Calc III, linear algebra, and diff eq in college thanks to that course.

I really miss the feeling of wonder and astonishment I had when I was first exposed to these concepts -- it's been long enough that my memory of them is fuzzy now, but I don't get the same satisfaction from re-reading them.
But what does that buy you?
I know someone who paid for a pirate streaming service. They said it had anything and everything, and was only $15/month. That’s less than I’m paying for HBO now, and I only get access to the hbo catalog.
I played Chris Robert's stuff starting with Wing Commander in the early 90s.

A lot of us did.

He's not a scammer, we know who he is, flaws and all.

The project might fail, though I don't think it will, but it really doesn't make sense that he would be running a scam.

He wants this game as much as anyone.

Technical mistakes and all that kind of stuff make sense and aligns much more with what I have seen over the course of my career.

I do agree that they could move faster on the backend infrastructure if they had the right talent, but they started off really small over 10 years ago. They basically bootstrapped all their knowledge and talent.
A band, on a metric, indicates a minimum and maximum safe value. For instance, if you alarmed when your latency is below 50ms or above 150ms, that'd be your band. Being out of band is being out of that 'safe' window.

It's a totally valid and common jargon phrase from the web services world, apologies though, I assumed that it was wider jargon than it turns out it is...
A non-clickbait title. Science communication still hold some hope after all.
>It's definitely not a scam, just a highly ambitious project that spends more time on mechanics and infrastructure than content.

That's twice or perhaps triple the amount of money and time spent on Grand Theft Auto V. A great game that consistently scores 9 or 10 out of 10 on every single list you find it.

I found it easier to believe that is a scam that to believe they will put out a game twice as good than GTA V.
The blurb The Three Body Problem left me 110% sure that person never read the Three Body Problem.
what a clever trick it would be to persuade so many people it is actually more virtuous, to choose-rationally, to act un-virtuously, than it is to actually work at becoming virtuous. super-human cleverness at play there, one might say.

this phenomenon we're apprehending together isn't new either. history is full of guys who just spell it all out and try to warn us. you could take courses in religion and philosophy to find out who to read, but really, I just recommend starting with the ones murdered by their governments. the rest are flatterers anyway.

compliment appreciated and i hope this handle doesn't become a thing, but thank you!
Linus has already decided to accept Rust! A fork would simply not be practical. Disagree and commit.
I went on a work trip one time with co-workers. I'm not generally someone who is embarrassed by social gaffs (gaffes?). But when a fellow college employee looked at the waiter in a SUPER high end seafood restaurant in Maine and said, "oh no, I don't like lobster. I had that once in silver dollar City and it was really rubbery." I wanted to crawl under the table.
There's a Rust solution posted in the Reddit Day 1 answers mega thread which claims 22 microseconds part 1 and 10 microseconds part 2. (I haven't tried to verify):

https://old.reddit.com/r/adventofcode/comments/1h3vp6n/2024_...
That is exactly what the Rust for Linux project did: they made a branch of Linux, they did enough implementation work to demonstrate the viability, they maintained it for a while, they had a large number of developers (both volunteer and paid) enthusiastically improving it and building upon it, they talked to upstream about getting it added, upstream agreed and merged it, and the Rust for Linux developers along with many others continue to improve it upstream. That's exactly how the process should work.
The Chinese Gov still owns part of the factories (they were once Nationalized). This gives these factories an advantage because profit is not as important as employing people and expanding their catalog of goods. These same companies get credits in the form of payments to sell and ship internationally (10%-15% of the Bill of Lading).

I have dealt with quite a few Chinese factories since 2000 and they have always been able to provide machine goods below the price of raw materials in the USA/Canada. One area their machine shops aren't so great at is screw machines, they prefer to use CNC's for almost everything. I do remember a time when what they made was absolute shit but they got better and better over time as they learned and perfected the process (at my expense..lol)

There is also the chance they already make what you buy for someone else so your business is additional. If your item is unique they will add it to their catalog to sell to others. They are also willing to work at a small loss or break even to gain your business because they are heavily supported by the Gov.

Other countries don't do this because most businesses are private, there are penalties against countries that subsidize industry, etc. For a long time, the US allowed Chinese companies to take advantage of American Manufacturers. They were granted "Most Favored Nation Status" because they promised to buy from the countries that honored it but that has changed over the years and didn't work out as planned.

These days costs for materials in North America and Europe are higher since the Governments don't own steel mills and work at cost. So manufacturers pay more and labor is another big part of it along with energy costs. Everything in China is subsidized to give their manufacturing sector an advantage. It has worked out well for them until now.
Your analogy would be right if talking english would make people statistically vert likely to randomly open doors or windows and shout at everyone in the street the code of their safe and crash their cars into the building while the klingon speakers would not exhibit that behavior.
A pogrom with zero casualties. What’s next, a holocaust of taunting? When a government is committing genocide, you can expect people will have strong feelings about it.
Show HN: A generalized product-builder AI
I see this as the first step toward a future where everything we want is custom built on-demand for us by AI.
Currently works for apparel, accessories, and home goods. Would love your thoughts on the progress so far.
> Also Adobe's subscription pricing (per-month) is significantly less than the retail cost for a one-time purchase of their software without future updates.

And the per-second pricing is even less!
> Copyright, at least in the U.S., is automatic.

It is now, but back then a work was public domain if released without a valid copyright notice.

Charade, a 1963 film, entered the public domain immediately on release.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charade_(1963_film)#Public-dom...
Another win for the copyright mafia.

> It is estimated that the amount of financial damages suffered annually from the illegal service is a massive €10 billion ($10.5B).

Oh boo hoo, some billionaires are getting a couple billions less than they could have. How sad. And what a disingenuous framing to call it “financial damage” as if it somehow affected any ordinary people.
Nobody does. They pay for a unique service, not as a handout.

"Finally I can be at the forefront of a gaming community just how I dreamt of when I was a kid. And in this particular gaming community, I don't even have to waste a minute playing!" It's suspension of disbelief pushed ahead one more level, a simulation of a space ship sim game. Think virtual virtual skeeball in Futurama s01e02. Just how kids who dream of risking their lives in a space-Spitfire don't really want to risk their lives in a space-Spitfire, grown ups who dream of sinking countless hours in a game of space-Spitfires don't really want to sink countless hours in a game of space-Spitfires. Both just don't quite know it yet, and profoundly enjoy that.
It wasn't automatic in the past, which notably led to Night of the Living Dead accidentally becoming public domain on release.
Unlikely. Generative AI is foul and unpleasant to perceive.
There's a real math problem with MicroStrategy's obscene valuation premium
https://hashlock.com/