skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
My wife and I had CPS called on us (in Texas, no less) because I had some construction leftovers inside my fence, waiting to be taken to the dump, and my neighbor was concerned that my kids would be hurt playing around it.

We were interviewed, they found there were no issues, and the case was dropped. Very stressful experience, though.

And for what? I grew up on a farm in Nebraska. We had endless fields and roads around us to explore. The only off-limits area was an abandoned hog confinement, which to be fair, absolutely could have killed us (by falling into the open trench of porcine waste) – naturally, we still went there.

I know that reeks of survivor bias, but given the length of time Homo sapiens have survived, I think it’s a reasonably safe assumption that kids, when left to their own devices, are unlikely to be seriously injured or killed. Though, that’s probably only true if they’ve been exposed to it gradually over time, and are aware of the risks.
I think a standard set optimises for usability over aesthetics.

I think this artwork optimises for aesthetics over usability.

Both sets are aesthetically pleasing and usable, just to different degrees.

I think that’s ok? I’ve seen many chess sets whose primary function was aesthetic rather than to be played.

The thing with aesthetics is that it’s highly subjective.
No you're not seeing it from the management perspective. They've already selected their model and assumed that performance depends on the worker involved. There isn't any "they’re all performing the same within the margin of error" because that would violate a model assumption. It has a probability of ~0%, there isn't any point checking for it.

You're working from a model where the performance could be the same and then doing the obvious statistical checks. Typically in the wild management have sufficient knowledge to do those checks if their model allowed for performance to be equal. But they don't have a model where that is a reasonable possibility so there is nothing to check. They're doing the correct statistics for the wrong model. And the model happens to be really stupid but that is managers for you.

You can teach them all that theory and they still won't apply it. The problem isn't usually a gap in statistical knowledge. Take another look at how Deming framed his experiment - if you look closely he is imparting statistical knowledge but that isn't where the real focus is. He's actually attacking the idea that the workers have any influence on outcomes.
Well, it's Zed specifically that I want to be able to use, just with at least Emacs keybindings, and at most a skunkworks Emacs.
I don't mind passkeys and Bitwarden will take care of them for me. I enrolled most important stuff with hardware tokens and it's the same services now offering passkeys so I haven't migrated but probably eventually will.

Microsoft only started supporting webauthn in the last couple years so it's surprising they're actually rolling out passkeys. Maybe they finally gave up on smart cards
Ok, "think of the children" again. If it were about the children, they'd simply forbid phones and unsupervised Internet for anyone under 16. Problem solved.

The issue of course is that the Internet is too valuable of a propaganda instrument. Children need propaganda, but they need our propaganda.

The offense list is in classic CoC style. Vague terms like terrorism have been abused in the U.K. for a long time and applied against journalists like the husband of Glenn Greenwald, who had been arrested in London for communicating with Laura Poitras.

Many journalists have been stopped and digitally stripped searched in the U.K. while traveling.

So what are websites to do to escape that? Perhaps put up permanent banners like "NATO must be prepared for a great patriotic land war with Russia" and "We need more immigration" in order to be safe.
> Spray foam insulation can seal essentially any structure, and it doesn't require much more than a small hole drilled into the wall between the beams which is easily spackled over.

A hard maybe on here. Done right it can of course, but you are depending on it filling the cavity without so much pressure that is breaks the walls. The industry as figured a lot out, but this is still compromise and some guessing and so it won't always work (it usually will). There are also many ways they used to put voids in old houses that would not be reached by this.
Most of the leading models are currently pretty bad at estimating their response accuracy. Difficult questions have confident wrong answers or they bounce around how confident they are (if you express skepticism) to the point where the response is useless. I know it is one of the limitations of how LLMs work but I feel like it is one of the blinders right now with respect to how dangerous the models can be socially and in work settings.

At minimum, the companies should do better to train users on how reliant they should be on their models or how to prompt in a way that provide a rigorous response. Unfortunately doing that reduces the hype around LLMs so they have little incentive to work on that problem.
That article is terribly vague.

Electric cars are causing exactly the same problem.

Also the "recs" appear to be based on a lie. Overall, an increase in load can only be green if there is added new green generation to service that load.
You've built a paid search engine? I'm curious about the underlying technology—what tools or frameworks did you use to develop it?

Additionally, how is it different from simply asking an AI something like "Explain X in 5 words"?
It's an unwritten rule in social interaction that when you discuss a topic, you question it by asking for data on it. Signalling scepticism.

You can replay this in an LLM and ask how common people would interpret such a reply as you made. I believe you'll find it's exactly as my reply stated.

The real issue is that you are questioning an academic consensus. It's not you, not me, not the baker down the street. It's a very large, global, group of academics with many years or research to substantiate their claims.

If you want to investigate the topic it's on you to find the data and study it. I'd question your sanity if you actually did that. Because I'll wager you're not equipped to interpret the data, so you'd first have to train for the maths and science, before moving on to interpreting the data and deciding whether or not you agree with it.

For most people it makes more sense to respect the academic consensus. Even knowing that it can change if new discoveries are made. Because that's what science is about.

Has the consensus ever failed?
The question belies the false belief that it shoudn't ever fail.

The entire idea of science is predicated on it failing and leading to new discoveries.

Hence it's on you to provide new data. That's science.

Sitting in an armchair questioning if science is accurate is exactly like questioning whether gravity exists. You know nothing either way, unless you measure it and provide data,
Yeah I only ever get started after I've been on holiday for a bit.
Building the steepest cable car in the world 85-ATW Stechelberg-Mürren [EN Sub.] [video]
You have mostly made my point.

You have also touched on why I oppose historical districts. Historical buildings should be something people are required to learn about in their history class.
New Crisis Hotline for CEOs? Governor of New York Wants to Protect CEOs
The funny part is that engineers and doctors typically think they’re the smartest one in the room. To prove this, they over think and over explain their deposition responses. All this does is give a skilled interlocutor more avenues to question and develop inconsistencies. At which point ego is triggered and they become super-defensive.
> 1. Aren’t such threats already covered by existing laws?

The Online Safety Act isn't about making these things illegal. It's about making it more difficult to do the illegal things in the first place. To take an analogy: money laundering legislation exists to make it harder to use the proceeds of organised crime in legitimate life. Being a drug dealer is already illegal, yet we don't use that as an argument against such laws and regulations.
They can "reproduce" only in very specific environmens where there are similar non-malformed proteins nearby. It would be very hard to have a similar problem with a mirrored molecule that picks one type of normal molecules and mirror them.
But then this is also an argument against spontaneous emergence of life, right? Sicne mirror-life could just emerge on its own, instead of evolving from regular life.
I’ve really been getting into Lean, and these tutorials are fantastic. It’s always interesting to see how many hidden assumptions are made in short and informal mathematical proofs that end up becoming a (very long) sequence of formal transformations when all of the necessary steps are written out explicitly.

My guess is that mathematical research utilizing these systems is probably the future of most of the field (perhaps to the consternation of the old guard). I don’t think it will replace human intuition, but the hope is that it will augment it in ways we didn’t expect or think about. Terence Tao has a great blog post about this, specifically about how proof assistants can improve collaboration.

On another note, these proof systems always prompt me to think about the uncomfortable paradox that underlies mathematics, namely, that even the simplest of axioms cannot be proven “ex nihilo” — we merely trust that a contradiction will never arise (indeed, if the axioms corresponding to the formal system of a sufficiently powerful theory are actually consistent, we cannot prove that fact from within the system itself).

The selection of which axioms (or finite axiomatization) to use is guided by... what exactly then? Centuries of human intuition and not finding a contradiction so far? That doesn’t seem very rigorous. But then if you try to select axioms probabilistically (e.g., via logical induction), you end up with a circular dependency, because the predictions that result are only as rigorous as the axioms underlying the theory of probability itself.

To be clear, I’m not saying anything actual mathematicians haven’t already thought about (or particularly care about that much for their work), but for a layperson, the increasing popularity of these formal proof assistants certainly brings the paradox to the forefront.
> and the main reason German copyright is so long is due to their domestic publishing and newspaper industries

This is surprising to me.

Not domestic publishing (I understand how that could have happened) but why would newspapers even care about protecting what they wrote about 30 years ago — how are they expecting to monetise today on how they reported in 1994 on such things such as the United Nations accepting Palau as a new member, or the Swiss Federal Assembly's approval of the Marrakesh agreement, or whoever won whichever sports events?

Today's headlines are tomorrow's fish and chips wrappers, as the British say.
I'm not sure that's true. A LLM can code because it is trained on existing code.

Empirically, LLMs work best at coding when doing completely "routine" coding tasks: CRUD apps, React components, etc. Because there's lots of examples of that online.

I'm writing a data-driven query compiler and LLM code assistance fails hard, in both blatant and subtle ways. There just isn't enough training data.

Another argument: if a LLM could function like a senior dev, it could learn to program in new programming languages given the language's syntax, docs and API. In practice they cannot. It doesn't matter what you put into the context, LLMs just seem incapable of writing in niche languages.

Which to me says that, at least for now, their capabilities are based more on pattern identification and repetition than they are on reasoning.
It sounds like I use HA in a similar manner. For me, I make HA available to Google Home and HomeKit. HA is just glue to hold everything together.

I tried do make a dashboard some time ago but it felt rather complicated. Google Home and HomeKit integrate the best into my life and the lives of my family that there is no way HA can compete. Maybe that will change if I find myself in a house that I own… Maybe spending time to make a dashboard will have a better value prop.
Great indication of the power of linear algebra! One little nitpick: not all transformations can be expressed with matrices, only the linear ones. Once you homogenize, you can get the affine ones (like linear, but allowing for translation, so that you don't need to respect a fixed origin). However, you can't, at least not without considerable violence to your coordinate system, express a transformation that, e.g., scales distances quadratically instead of linearly. Fortunately, as you suggest, this doesn't seem to be a transformation that's needed a lot in routine graphical editing.

Also, if you wanted to, you could juice up your discussion of the importance of performing transformations in the right order to introduce the idea of conjugates (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_automorphism) and commutators (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commutator). Although in your context introducing these explicitly might just make the exposition more complicated, they are useful tools to have in your general toolkit. (Conjugacy in particular, as you implicitly discuss, is practically built to express the idea "change from inconvenient coordinates to convenient ones, transform in convenient coordinates, then change back.")
You made a lot of assumptions in your post just so you could wag your finger at the GP.
In terms of speed, yes. In terms of functionality, hell no. Compare the following in Racket:

(define (add-2 x)
(+ x 2))
(add-2 z)

Where the result is an error without the possibility to provide a value. Compared to in SBCL:

(defun add-2 (x)
(+ x 2))
(add-2 z)

Where we are dropped in the debugger with the following possible restarts:

* Continue, where we retry the operation (best to first define z),

* Use Value, where we can provide a value to use,

* Store Value, where we can set z to a value and use the value,

* Abort, where we just cancel the operation.

There's also setf expansions, so in SBCL we can do, for example:

(setf (car some-pair) 3)

Whereas in Racket we can't do the equivalent:

(set! (car some-pair) 3)
https://web.archive.org/web/20241217125401/https://parametri...
> They weren’t murdered on Twitter, so I fail to see how the Online Safety Act would have helped prevent this.

I mention that because in some online communities threats of rape and murder are bandied about jokingly. That 12 year old on Fortnite voice chat isn't really going to fuck your mom! That twitter joke trial where someone threatened to blow up an airport was ridiculous. Some might wonder - why can't these twitter-using politicians ignore a few murder threats from neo-nazis and islamists, like the rest of us?

The reason is the real, non-joke murders by neo-nazis and islamists.
> Anyone have a link to a non-javascript version?

https://archive.today/CJes4
You need to get it to re-run, which I'm not sure there is a standard way to do during runtime. Can it even do all its job without a reboot?
Given they're a VC backed company rushing to claim market share and apparently selling well below cost, it's not clear that that will be the case. Compare the ride share companies for one case where prices went up once they were successful.
They convicted him for (not the right legal terms) :

- disturbing whaling acitivities (his defense is that those activities are illegal in regard of international treaties japan signed)

- Injuring on purpose a Japanese mariner. His defence is a (public) video where you can clearly see the pepper grenades are sent on the boat floors, never in direction of mariners. The you see that mariner rush to get a grenade on the floor and throw it back at see shepherds. Too bad: wrong wind direction and everything come back instantly in his face. That is the guy that Japan accused Paul to volontaire injured.

Denmark court rejected the defence requests to show the video during every trials.
I can agree with this. Growing up in the UK, with an Irish mother, I was taken to funerals as a child that I really did not want to attend. Like the author I now always go the funeral, and have found it strange this attitude is not more pervasive.
Dan Moore went from sci-fi to DevRel (2020) [audio]
I saw this via Lobsters yesterday and enjoyed reading it. The animations helped me understand bidiBFS.

But I'm confused by the example showing the buggy version of the algorithm fail. This is in the section "Finding the Wrong Path".

Consider the state of the algorithm after the first step. We've explored S and added its neighbors to the queue, Q = [T, a1, b1].

In the next step we explore T, the first node in the queue. We add its neighbors , a3 and b2, to the queue.

Now, I would expect the new value of Q to be something like [a1, b1, a3, b2] (depending on the order we add T's neighbors). In this case we would process a1, and b1 next, notice that b1 is adjacent to b2, and correctly find the shortest path S-b1-b2-T.

But the animation actually shows that after step 2, Q = [a1, a3, b1, b3]. In other words, a3 didn't join the back of the queue but jumped in front of b1. This is what leads to the buggy behavior that is shown.

So as I understand the example, this would have worked fine if Q were actually a queue. But as shown it is not.

Why is this?
Just beautiful. We are experimenting with ceramic gelcasting lately[1]. It involves the use of a gel-based slurry, typically made by mixing ceramic powders (such as zirconia, alumina, or silicon carbide) with a liquid binder and a gelling agent in a 3D printed mold. It is a versatile manufacturing method used to create complex ceramic parts.

Upon reading the article it occurred to me that the same method could be used to make those kinds of "dune core" pieces, with sand instead of ceramic powders. There must be a sand-binder-gelling solution formulation that can handle the task.

[1]https://voxleone.com/2024/03/05/3d-printing-im-making-a-500c...
This is cool summary of building editors. And good summary of linear algebra.

But don't all editors use linear algebra?
When my best friend from high school took his own life, necessitating that I travel to a county I hadn't been to in over a decade, when we gathered to remember him, I started things off by introducing myself as I would have liked to have thought he would have introduced me to everyone else present --- that seemed to afford a structure which bridged the gap between people I hadn't seen in decades (including his eldest niece whom I had not seen since she was a babe in arms) --- we went around the room with everyone declaring their connection and sharing some memories.
In another thread, the_snooze wisely pointed out that "your actions are a reflection of your values"[1].

If you want to be a person who is part of a community, who cares for the people around them, and doesn't look at everything as a transaction, then you maybe go to a funeral even if you can't measure some benefit for yourself.

[1]:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42436832
As a rule, interpreted code has a smaller memory footprint than natively compiled programs.

Even interpreted on a several hundred MHz classic RISC microcontroller, Lisp will chew through a million cons cells a second or more - an order of magnitude or so faster than the old Lisp machines in the 80s were and they used to run giant CAD systems on those to design aircraft and stuff. (Albeit slowly...)
Computers should be controlled (primarily) via a programming language (aka the shell). That way you are "learning" every time you want to do anything on your computer, and anything you do can be programmed.

I prefer Lua for this purpose (and am extending it to be more suitable), but almost any "simple" language will do. Sh/bash are the original and IMO we should try to move away from them (pipes are still cool though)
> Not all use-cases are faster with virtiofs

Aren't they though? Do you have a counter example?
Anyone hiring and want to join a recruitment software pilot program?
We're rolling out a pilot program for hiring software that 1) isn't such a horrible experience for candidates, 2)gives employers more confidence they're hiring the right candidates, and 3)reduces the ton of manual candidate management work for recruiters.

Even if you're not hiring but want to provide feedback, I'd love to hear from you!

Cheers,
Chris
Very much addressed by tools like bullet, prosopite, strict_loading and others
I feel much the same. I hope that when I die, the people around me will remember the many times that I have asked to have my body disposed of as quietly and cheaply as possible, and to not perform a funeral for me, and if they wish to use my death as an excuse to gather, to make the event as joyful as possible and as little about me as they can.
That's just the slippery slope of neoliberalism. The ends do not justify the means, no matter how you spin them: A company will not fail if you continue to employ parents of many children, employ a regional candidate, or write fair performance reviews regardless of strategic goals. If any of these cases appears to lead to the downfall of a corporation, there were much bigger problems looming that actually caused the failing in the first place.

A company is literally a group of people working towards the same goal. The people are just as important as the goal itself, it's not a company otherwise.
So you want to live in a world where someone thinks they can get what they want by creating an incident serious and dramatic enough to garner media attention and that will wake people up? That’s not how you get things done. In fact I’d say it’s probably counter productive.

How about you work to persuade people why your opinion of copyright law is better than the status quo? Put the work in, attract followers and funding, get big enough so your voice has real political and democratic power.

This is how you affect change. But it takes work. Making a scene might feel good and is easy but don’t have any meaningful effect.
Regarding smart phones, iPhones have had a bunch of features which they objectively do better, but these are never considered by reviewers or many buyers, who just look at paper specs and features. Just because these features are never articulated. Things such as user interface lag, long time usability, finger print sensor reliability. These were mayor problems with Android phones in the past (I have no idea how it is now), but since these features are very difficult to advertise, Apple focused their advertising in another direction.

And as a consequence people like hackers, Europeans, and such believe that the public are only getting iPhones because it's fashion and a "status symbol".
You seem confused. We replace devices every 5 years about. We generally don't need to touch them between replacements, that includes the current HP units we are running which costs significantly less than a MacBook.

The difference is if we ever need to make a call regarding upgrades the current HP units can be stretched even further with ram and drive upgrades if needed, a MacBook cannot, despite also costing more initially.

All devices get recycled when replaced, if your argument is that the MacBook would be sold to defray costs, well a 5 year old MacBook hasn't held much of its value and we will now need to spend manhours decommissioning second hand MacBooks instead of just ripping out the drives.

I've done this math, Apple is always more expensive unlesd you were going to be buying a workstation spec laptop in the first place and in that case the decision is regarding software compatibility and not hardware.
Amusingly, the author write out Boyd's Observe -> Orient -> Decide -> Act loop almost exactly, although the author has it as Act -> Observe -> Orient -> Decide. Some of the 4 Boyd steps are broken into 2, so slightly more granular.