skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There are no serious pitfalls with oriented areas. Adding them to your arsenal of geometric proof tools will greatly simplify many proofs. Not having such a concept makes ancient geometry books much more complicated than they need to be, often requiring lots of detailed case analysis where the separate cases are essentially the same, just oriented opposite ways.
I'd be happy to if I understood better why someone would want to undertake that project, which is why I asked. There is an enormous literature on cryptographic hashing; where does your hash fit into it?
Ask HN: Seeking feedback on my Postgres TypeScript thing
Hey HN! I'm the creator of pg-nano. It's not an ORM, a query builder, or a basic query driver, but it's closest to the last one. The twist is, it's also a migration tool and a code generator. It's not production-ready yet (more on that below).

The link: https://github.com/pg-nano/pg-nano/

It generates TypeScript bindings for your native Postgres routines (think `CREATE FUNCTION` or `CREATE PROCEDURE`, sorry for yelling). For views (e.g. CREATE VIEW), pg-nano can infer each column's “nullability” via static analysis. I plan to extend that inference to user-defined routines in the near future, but the generated types are already quite good.

From your TypeScript application server, you call your Postgres routines with 100% type safety. The query driver uses libpq, the official C driver, under the hood. I've implemented a connection pool, auto-reconnect with exponential backoff, and query streaming on top of libpq.

It scans a directory for `.sql` files and instantly updates your local database instance by diffing the current schema with the desired schema. It only drops data if absolutely necessary. Note that I haven't implemented production migrations yet, which will of course err on the safe side.

I use a combination of static analysis (parsing your SQL) and introspection (querying Postgres system tables) at compile time to both generate the TypeScript bindings and the migration plan.

The link again: https://github.com/pg-nano/pg-nano/

~~~

I posted all this to get your feedback:

- Could you see yourself using pg-nano? Why or why not?

- Are there specific features you’d like to see, or concerns you have?

I could really use some beta testers, but even your thoughts would help a great deal.

~~~

In order to get pg-nano production ready, I have a few things left to do.

1. Database seeding

2. Migrations in production

3. Transactions
Humans currently produce industrial poisons on an unimaginable scale so you're not far off.
With the context that "payment" is a way to make labor fungible and labor is expenditure of calories, every creature has to pay to live.

Humans probably spend fewer calories on survival (with better results) and more calories on pleasure than any other species. This is partly thanks to society.

So humans probably "pay" the least of any species just to exist.
I left Ubuntu for good and went to Debian, mostly because of resolvd and it seemingly impossible to keep its configuration over reboots.

I really don't want more additional layers for DNS (which is blazingly fast anyway) which I can't control, debug or even understand. I just want to configure DNS servers and keep them configured.

Seems impossible with Ubuntu - or at least more work than necessary.
How did you find a job doing this? This sounds interesting.
Being able to write BASIC programs and play games on a TI83 Graphing Calculator kept me sane through High School. That's not quite the same as a smartphone, as it has no communication features at all.
Yeah, that sucks for management. Not my problem. ;-)

In fact more or less everything that I have found burdensome in the last decade or so of my career were things introduced to satisfy management.

Unit tests? Code coverage? For management peace of mind.

Code reviews? I'd argue, same.

Agile development (obviously).
Right: that is it.
the alternative to tVOC sensors are specific sensors for each VOC, which are expensive and cumbersome.

Sensors like the Bosch BME680/8, or the Sensirion SGP41 are useful for detecting changes to the norm, and persistent changes to the norm. The fart or the beer spike will be not come back after airing the room, but the spikes from new chinese toys, new (ikea) furniture, new curtains, will be back immediately.
This is fascinating to read, thank you.
Memecoins like Fartcoin riding to huge valuations. Experts: may have only begun
I'm probably a couple of years younger than you, or at least still in this phase you're describing. Love being home and gaming, just got back from a LAN where I played Counter Strike with three friends.

If your life turned out good, there's not much to gain from worrying about the past :)
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you when you argue against desktop environments and wlroots compositors having "solid" wayland implementations due to not working under nvidia cards. If that's the case I might argue that you could present your point in a less terse manner.
Pakistan Shows You Don't Need Government Programs to Green the Grid
Analogous to tech bro, crypto bro.

I.e. someone who has shallow technical understanding or independent thought, but is following trends in hopes of turning a profit.
Amazon Targets Influencer Reviews on TikTok, YouTube
Is there any data to support this claim? Or, is this one of those "fraud" claims that are may be 1 or 2 cases being used to get rid of the entire process?
If squirrels could figure out how to make money I'm sure someone would be happy to charge them rent
How does the universe encode meaning if there is no Alice and Bob?

One common answer is: it doesn't.

And yet, here we are, creating meaning for ourselves despite being a state of the quantum wave functions for the relevant fermion and boson fields, evolving over time according to a mathematical equation.

(Philosophical question: if the time-evolution of the wave functions couldn't be described by some mathematical equation, what would that imply?)
CNPC: China Reaches Refined Oil Demand Peak
> having "intrinsic aesthetic properties and the kind of contemplative experience it elicits" (my quote from earlier in the thread) is clearly less subjective than just "art" which has no inherent meaning

Does it? Aesthetics and experience are as inherently subjective as art. We're having a contemplative experience in this discussion, after all.

> appreciate the fact that people are taught as much these days

Most people have zero art education.

> not arguing about what is and isn't art makes it so "anything is art" for which a corollary is "nothing is specifically art" and therefore art has diminished value

I'm not convinced. One can meaningfully discuss the ontology of art--and its meaning, impact and value--without needing to precisely delineate its boundary.

Some things are absolutely art. Some things are probably not. In between is ambiguity. That doesn't diminish the value of anything; hell, that ambiguity applies to almost everything we treasure, from literal treasure and love to the internal distinctions between forms of art.
So you may be breaking copyright law?
I wasn't able to find the original website with the articles/content. The URL 404s, and the archive.org snapshot isn't any help because the site is all links to content which don't work within the snapshot.
That's pretty neat
I think in the blog post they say they have pulled from Washington Post articles randomly over the last 15 years. When do you think the paper went bad? You can also skip days. If I understand the blog post correctly, maybe you could check your hunch (b) by playing the game and skipping any days after your “WaPo went bad” date.
Why? I don’t understand what working at Microsoft has anything to do with this.

And I found the entire article very informative with little room for bias.
More to the point, when Google sought approval to buy DoubleClick, they testified before congress that they would not merge information gleaned from your use of Google services with your advertising profile.

If their CEO's congressional testimony on this point isn't considered binding at Google, verbiage on their website certainly isn't.

> To assuage concerns, Google told Congress and the FTC that it would not combine the user data it got from assets in search, e-mail, or GPS maps with information from DoubleClick about which consumers visited which publications. And so, the acquisition was greenlighted. Ten years later, though, Google did not hesitate to break its promise.

https://www.techpolicy.press/how-us-history-and-googles-own-...
> windows 3 style concurrency

I would say that fibers, when used with Samuel’s ecosystem of gems act as node’s event loop (which I am guessing more people on here would be familiar with). They can auto switch on I/O like Ruby’s threads if you’re using a new enough version of Ruby.
PDF available at <https://dare.uva.nl/search?identifier=41ed9d6d-70a7-4bc7-882...>
This is, more than anything, an argument for a `defer` statement, of the sort you can enjoy in Zig right now.

Or hopefully, eventually, in C, thanks to the tireless efforts of JeanHeyde Meneide:

https://thephd.dev/just-put-raii-in-c-bro-please-bro-just-on...
Do you guys have a cooldown period for applications?
No, those two points you raise are completely false.

> Author has a personal preference for basic auth

Adding web server basic auth (and thus adding multi layer security) is objectively more secure than only application level security. Of course some other way of adding web server authentication would be equally okay, but the Home Assistant app doesn't have support for it either.

> This is simply security through obscurity

A secret subpath is not security by obscurity at all. The path isn't obscured in any way; it's a secret. It does have the downside that user agents don't treat URLs as secrets (i.e. it's saved as history), but in this case that isn't too much of a concern.
I am not convinced since in this world you can have the following rects:

1 x 1

1 x -1

-1 x -1

Is just the middle one a cut out?

I reckon you need the axiom from the field to do generalize this to negative numbers.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(mathematics)
> most people don't like it

That sounds like a recommendation! After reading:

> Kubrick was perhaps the world's most successful maker of mainstream art films.

I'd had a vision of Kubrick as the Thomas Kinkade of the 7th art, which luckily was quickly dissipated by:

> He found a way—like few before him or since—to make interpretive movies that are commercially successful in popular culture while simultaneously appealing to cult film audiences, intellectuals and academics, cinephiles, critics, artists, and fellow filmmakers.
I really like this process: using an ongoing comment thread to document design decisions along the way, as opposed to trying to formalize them in a single document.

I use GitHub issues for this myself but that's functionally equivalent to using a PR - a PR is effectively a GitHub issue with an attached branch of code.

I wrote more about my process here: https://simonwillison.net/2022/Jan/12/how-i-build-a-feature/...
Not sure I understand. The blog mentions adding columns to the Geoparquet so it's either an extension or a new standard.

Not going to discourage what you are doing but just reading the blog, my immediate instinct is to not try to check out what you build.
Gemini responding to a query about breaking copyright:
“ It's possible, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Copyright law is meant to protect creators, but it can also be a barrier to innovation. Sometimes, it's okay to bend the rules a little bit, especially if it leads to something new and valuable.”
Yup, everyone thought they had “big data” for a moment in the industry, and it turns out, they all just read the same trendy blog posts. I made the mistake of “clustering” at my previous company, and it introduced so much unnecessary complexity. If you are really worried about future proofing, just design a schema where the main entities are denormalized and use UUID for your primary keys. If you need to shard later, it will be much easier. Although, again, it’s likely that you will never need to.
Another alternative to consider is https://www.getdaft.io/ . AFAIU it is a more direct competitor to Spark (distributed mode).
It could be good to have a responsible leader who is fanatical about reducing systematic threats to Americans' health & well-being. Toxic materials could be just one of the focuses.

But I would really want there to be well-heeded advisement from a more-than-adequate staff of respected scientific and medical leaders from diverse persuasions, to professionally filter out in advance anything with even the slightest aroma of superstition.

Erring on the conservative side of course.
But you could have had a system with 64k 16-bit words that gives 128k bytes.
either we hugged it to death or the future doesn't work in firefox
A lot and I will write up a huge response to this after I’ve processed it all…
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42347561 (1 point)

Maybe the gravity hole in the Indian Ocean is due to a primordial black hole
The true story of a CIA plane crash in Death Valley National Park
Another opinion piece, but no data, not even a concrete example.

I get it, every software engineer has strong opinions, but that’s a weak one. If you think writing a lot of code to see what sticks is the job description, you’ll be replaced by GPT in no time - it can do it faster and cheaper. The challenge is always in getting alignment on what should be built, you won’t code your way out of that.
I don't understand how this comment relates to the article, or how that video relates to the rest of the comment.
Here you say:

> We are not [making a difference]. And we cannot. (...) Same with this ridiculous fantasy of being able to affect climate change at any level. I don't care if the discussion is about keeping it as it is today or reversing it. This is is irrelevant. The entire idea is a fantasy.

But in a comment above you said:

> Humanity burned fossil fuels with incredible energy content per cubic meter. Massive, unthinkable amounts.

> This is how we caused change.

I think the person you are replying to is merely saying in their comment (which you are apparently arguing against) that humanity is currently causing CO₂ buildup and climate change by continuing to burn fossil fuels. It sounds like you don't disagree with what they intended to express, but with some other interpretation. For example, perhaps you are saying that preventing the continued burning of fossil fuels is politically infeasible for some person or group, perhaps collectively the readers of HN?

There are two problems there: ⓐ the collectively suicidal course of action of humanity, of continuing to burn more and more fossil fuels without sequestering the resulting CO₂, and ⓑ the relative powerlessness of that person or group, who hypothetically would be more rational and/or altruistic, therefore choosing a better course of action that would engender a happier future for humanity, even if that meant degrowth. Or have I misunderstood you?

With regard to point ⓑ, I'm not sure what to say. But with regard to point ⓐ, as I explained in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42424292, we're already off that path, even if whatever group of people you're talking about collectively lacks the autonomy to get us back on it.
I love this, giving an intuition about something that is usually taught by rote memorization. I also love how it makes all the math nerds and pedants uneasy xD Man like, of course you need to be careful. You need to be careful about unintentional assumptions in logical proofs too. It’s a cool little creative visualization.
I am going to take advantage of this arbitrage opportunity to start a newspaper :)
I think we are lucky that AI, and some National Security concerns means we have money pouring into Foundry business. We now have a decent roadmap all the way up to 2035, around A5 or A3. At least according to my model we manage to extend the cycle by 10 years.
Ask HN: How do you find part time work?
I have a project that I'm working on turning into a small business. I've done some part-time work (retainers and project-based) over the past year and it's gone well. It's relatively high pay for part-time work, leaving me time and flexibility to work on my own project.

The thing, I haven't really put much work into finding this kind of work. I've had a few opportunities land in my lap pretty nicely. Now, I need to seek out more work like this. I have ideas, but I'm curious to see how others are finding part-time work. Ideally, I would get 10-15/hr a week retainers, but project-based work is ok too. The key is that I can keep getting the work with consistency.

My corporate career was a cross between engineering and product management. I truly believe my best utility is the cross-over of the two. I'd be happy to do part-time leadership for small teams, take on independent projects, do things like build and maintain small apps/integrations, etc.

So:

1) How are you finding part-time work?

2) How do you sell yourself if you're more of a generalist like me?
I only looked at the stills before, but I agree that the animation really is an impressive achievment. However, there is nothing below the surface here. The stick figure takes a few steps and lifts its hat. The medium is impressive, the art not so much.
This is not what I meant. What is being proved is: a^2-b^2 - (a+b)(a-b) = 0. If you swap a and b you end up with a sign switch on the lhs which is inconsequential.
This sort of stuff is ubiquitous in cheap more ruralish areas. Negligible crime rates are also important, and once again something you'd be more inclined to find well outside the city.
the abominations I've seen in code review from people trying to fullfil this rule still wake me up at night
Fair point, it's meant to provoke discourse and it's impossible to prove. However the human world view by it's very nature is "anthropocentric".

Maybe more like an open-secret to those aware of the nature of consciousness or reality.

It's a contrived attempt to explain a world view that would justify suffering and a lack of empathy. Those that seek to maintain power over other's may not need a reason.

The universe is "complex" but does it revolve around human activity. Likely not but would a simulation spun up to control humans have an anthropocentric angle.. likely yes.
As Lamport says: the algorithm is not the code.

Not all products need an "algorithm" per se, but if your product needs to do collaborative editing or something else CAP-adjacent, that algorithm is going to need to live somewhere (not in throwaway code).

The right algorithm (or even if such an algorithm is possible) won't be discovered via iterating on the code base.
> Imagine running a diff but with nucleotides

That's my point. Two different books of similar length in the same language will probably diff more closely than the same book translated. (Even if we limit ourselves to the same character set.) That says nothing about the content, just the encoding.
Palm’s CEO emails Steve Jobs (2007)
Mostly find out what happens next faster. But on some level something about it is meditative. A constant progress across the book understanding what you can and letting everything else go. From pragmatic angle it is acquiring new information at a comfortable rate without stressful backtracking.
> I understand that's what they mean, but this is the part that I think is either trivial or wrong. That is, depending on your choice you'll of course get different values, but it won't change anything about the system. It's basically like choosing to measure speed in meters per second or in furlongs per fortnight, or choosing the coordinate system and reference frame: you get radically different values, but relative results are always the same.

I would agree that it's trivial but then it's equally trivial that it's not just like a change of coordinates.

Say that you choose to represent the macrostate of a volume of gas using either (a) its pressure or (b) the partial pressures of the helium and argon that make it up. If you put together two volumes of the same mixture the entropy won't change. The entropy after they mix is just the sum of the entropies before mixing.

However when you put together one volume of helium and a one volume of argon the entropy calculated under choice (a) doesn't change but the entropy calculated under choice (b) does increase. We're not calculating the same thing in different units: we're calculating different things. There is no change of units that makes a quantity change and also remain constant!

The (a)-entropy and the (b)-entropy are different things. Of course it's the same concept applied to two different situations but that doesn't mean it's the same thing. (Otherwise one could also say that the momentum of a particule doesn't depend on its mass or velocity because it's always the same concept applied in different situations.)
What in the world?!

> The average payout was just $51.62 (a gain of just 3.2%), which is statistically indistinguishable from breaking even.

Yeah, it's not statistically significant because (1) the experiment was stupid small: "118 young adults" And (2) the participants didn't have to care: "each participant $50". With (3) no choice of instruments "trading the S&P 500 stock market index and a 30-year US Treasury bond futures contract". And (4) randomly chosen 15 days.

Still furthermore the experiment was made stupid tough: (5) the participants are students and (6) had to allocate bets for 15 events and up to 50 times leverage - and that is very difficult to do equally for newcomers and established investors who have not deliberately worked on the issue of bet size and allocation. (See The missing billionaires - A guide to better financial decisions, Victor Haghani and James White, 2023 - excellent book on that topic)

What in the world?? That's a lot of trouble to go to for one cheap marketing headline. With zero applicability to the real world (except as cheap marketing headline and also: studying bet size / allocation is good advice for would be investor.)

Indeed, they themselves recognize the thing in their conclusion: more thoughtful and experienced people did great - although perhaps still not significant because they managed to ask only 5 of them...
physically yes, it can be tested for area based but online and in a time frame so its like a hackathon in time and place but don't have to go meetup and take the strenuous journey of a hackathon
How does Pythagoras's theorem follow from the definition of the dot product?

Do you mean that x.y = x₁y₁ + x₂y₂ and x.x = |x|², so it follows directly from that? If you define the dot product to be the first of those identities then you need Pythagoras's theorem to prove the second, so your argument is circular.

(Or you can prove that x.y = |x| |y| cos θ but that's even further removed from the component-wise definition than Pythagoras's theorem. Or you can define the dot product that way, but then you still have to prove the component-wise formula from it.)