skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>a dead giveaway that someone is a soulless narcissist

You're engaging in the exact same behavior, are you not? NPC and soulless are the same fundamental concept, that there is a certain threshold of humanity people can fall below to be considered lesser. They're soulless, they're NPCs, they're untermenschen... whatever the word for it, there are "dead giveaways" that a person can lack that hidden quality that separates man from animal. I'm sure it wasn't your intent, but from a certain reading, it seems like what you're saying isn't really all that far off from "calls people NPCs = is the real NPC".

I often see people decry specific terminology associated with dehumanizing beliefs without refuting the actual premise behind them.
It's one of the few highly paid fields where you can do it for fun. You cannot really practice medicine or law in your free time on whatever you want. You can only really do charity work in your free time. Not medical or legal research or anything like what OSS / personal projects are for us.

For other types of engineering, I think there is a bit of a thread of doing it for fun. The Homebrew Robotics Club comes to mind. The easier it is to actually create something in your field, the more there will be a thread of doing it because you love it.
You are lost and thought DOGE was a good idea? The entire org is ketamine-fueled techbro Elon wannabes; not the best life-valuing gurus.

Maybe take a Buddhist retreat for a year and see if doing quiet charity work feels better than trying to consolidate electrons.

Or just be lost while building affordable housing? Try focusing on others rather than you.
You can post job posts in the monthly hiring threads https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=whoishiring but otherwise they're offtopic as standalone submissions.
Background on k/simple: https://github.com/kparc/ksimple

Background on k: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_(programming_language)

The OCaml code looks terribly write only, super hard to follow. Comments would help a lot.
> ...to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting
No one makes posts like they did in 2011. Fb has to do this or the site looks dead.
> This makes life easier for competitors,

I think this is greatly overstated. Generally it's just sheer volume of capital and dedication to building a business that dictates market advantage, not any given persons' knowledge or know-how (though that's obviously worth paying for if you have the capital). I'd argue the primary reason why proprietary ownership of software exists isn't to make life harder for competitors but rather to make it harder for folks to figure out what they're actually paying for and bypassing the fees to actually fix (let alone improve) the software.
That wasn't the question you asked.

You asked "If not [for training data], then why the default opt-in?" and I gave three alternative reasons.
can't disagree (a tradeoff).
Ah yes. I forgot I actually use this feature in some of my projects. GitHub isn't always able to update this automatically but you can programmatically report dependencies.
Dartitis: The condition where you try to throw a dart – but can't
They're not equally distributing glyphosate in an average mist across every hectare of land each year.

> “In 2021, Coillte treated [circa] 2,300 hectares with glyphosate for vegetation control, which equates to 0.006% of our estate [0]

That works out to a lot more than 300 milligrams; closer to 430,000. I've seen the desolation with my own eyes. The ecosystem doesn't recover from that.

Coillte also use glyphosate and a raft of other chemicals in their nurseries and along the roadsides, as do local councils, with little if any oversight.

0 - https://www.thejournal.ie/in-the-weeds-roads-forests-5864314...
> This is stretching the definition of "tool." I would go far in agreeing that types are fundamental to the vocabulary of software design. But calling them a basic tool feels off.

Sometimes I wonder if this type of article is just a rehash of object-oriented programming articles from the 90s where the keyword "class" is search-replace'd by "type".
The real solution to this issue is municipal broadband.

If there is a municipal option for high speed internet, people who don't want deal with companies' monitoring and throttling shenanigans have a viable option from a community-focused provider. This provides price and service competition for the Tel-Co cartels who collude to fix prices and pull all kinds of other nonsense (like taking billions of dollars in federal funds and then deliver next to nothing... then lobby their way out of accountability).

T
This is a truly bizarre and random attack. I don't think OP claimed the book as "proof" of radical socialist fervor in the first place - it's the widely known history, and are we attempting to contradict that?
A simplistic take on a complicated subject. Some things, many things, warrant a rewrite. There are several reasons why: 1) the system is not used in the way in which it was designed 2) you've learned a great deal more about the problem 3) duct-tape instead of welds in the initial approach 4) technology obsolescence 5) overly-clever code 6) undocumented code, etc.

Now, I think the 'no rewrite' argument has validity at certain levels. Systems will morph (because life/problems change) but the underlying functions may not need to. Composability and interfaces are wonderful tools to address that problem.
Friends and relations afar.
One other, less important reason: if you want to have a drop shadow, then your background had better not already be truly black.
Music making? Probably. If I'm a landscaper, I'm not sure I need to have a garden at home. Finance? Other than managing my personal finances, I'm not sure I'd have any reason to be an active bond trader in my spare time even if that's what I did all day.

Hopefully you like your day job well enough but lots of very competent people shut it off when they go home.
Yes, but this eliminates syntax errors, and since it works well for folks who have difficulties w/ keyboards/are using styluses is something a bit different from the traditional view of programming as textual instructions.

It would be interesting if it were more graphical/symbolic, and unlike Scratch (or its derivative Blockly) there aren't any visual cues as regards enforced syntax/structure.

Interesting that they have a link for "Rich Comments (Adding Images)": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yd72YrXxF0

Is it possible to install for Windows w/o using Steam?!?

For those who are curious there is a list of GUI elements which are supported:

https://doublesvsoop.sourceforge.net/pwct2/visualcomponents....
The simple interpretation is “be tolerant, but not to a fault”. Same idea as the Constitution not being a suicide pact, or being allowed to break kosher rules to save a life.
Cloudflare Talks Up Multi-Path TCP but Dings Linux's Less Than Ideal Support
I can't! I don't have enough 'cred'!! lol
I don’t disagree in general, but I remember the world before careerists and we were also listening to and collaborating with customers, and delivering results.

Maybe significantly more tham today.

I remember talking constantly with end-users 20 years ago, something I’ve seen countless PMs dreading, postponing and treating like an absolute chore. I’ve experimented, A/B tested and rolled back code in enterprise, something that is a bureaucratic nightmare even in agile startups.

If they have rights to a paycheck, then we should also have rights to not have the joy sucked out of it.
What has been your experience with using ChatGPT for OpenSCAD? I tried it (o1) recently for a project and it was pretty bad. I was trying to model a 2 color candy cane and the code it would give me was ridden with errors (e.g.: using radians for angles while OpenSCAD uses degrees) and the shape it produced looked nothing like what I had hoped.

I used it in another project to solve some trigonometry problems for me and it did great, but for OpenSCAD, damn it was awful.
>But software development also often seems to have a strong thread that if you don't also do this for fun, you're not really A material--in a way that really doesn't apply to other engineering disciplines.

Software scales differently, that's why software companies that benefit from that scaling pay so much for top talent.

I can't think of an area where being hyperfocused on your discipline isn't viewed as a a given to get to the top. It's just that most engineering positions that I know of don't care if you're the best to do X, and are more "can you do X". Equivalent to enterprise 9-5.
I think both parties know entitlements need to be changed. No current way to manage.
Or you can reach out to people you are interested in, and ask what is new with them.
> Completely understanding the types in your program forces you to think carefully about the domain.

Isn't it the other way around? Types derived from analysing the problem domain? That's the basic premise of a bunch of software design techniques.
Garbage as they mostly have too many features. You can do product with 30% of features and charge half their price.

Maybe you will end up getting like 25% of their customers but if you play it well that is going to be worth still a lot.
This is right up my alley :-) I'll message you
If there is evidence my guess is that it’s likely due to the previous generation’s attitude towards work. My guess is that the previous generation (like my parents and their parents before them) lived to work, it was their whole identity, thus when they retired they had no idea what to do with themselves (like the Loom founder) and depression was common.

There has been a shift over the last decade or two likely in millennials who just work to live. They look forward to not working and living a life full of hobbies and social activities.
How about this distinction.

There are some things where the "lean startup" applies. For instance if you made an Ebay or AirBNB or Reddit or Substack kind of a site you could get a rough prototype running quickly. The software is maybe 20% of the effort, but 80% of the effort is in business development (recruiting people to kickstart the market)

Some products on the other hand take years of development and may or may not work. Golden Rice, Falcon 9, the LLVM-based C compiler are all examples.

I worked on a system which was uncomfortably in between these models. On one hand were developing LLM-like systems before LLMs as we know them were available so we could have spent a few years on development. However we could sell projects to customers which caused us to zig and zag a lot to meet their needs. That was a good thing because we learned a lot about what was possible (it contributes to the research) but we wasted a lot of time with spoiled work in progress, etc.

In our case I think the investors believed in our vision but were skeptical about our ability to execute (rightly so: I couldn't even get the data scientists to use a standard version of Python even though that was what I got hired for) and would bring in consultants that were often counterproductive (zigging and zagging to meet customer needs meets customer needs but spending weeks writing up OKRs is busywork.)

I believed in the story more than anyone but the C-levels because I had been working on a similar thing on my own account. I'd tell people when it was tough that if our product was sufficiently realized it would be worth it for one of our customers to buy us. I thought it would be a Big 5 accounting firm or an airplane manufacturer but it turned out to be a major consumer brand.

That's honorable and probably paid the VCs back what they put in, but had we had the funding to develop technology for a few years and enough contact with applications to know what direction to go in, switched to transformer models the moment BERT came out, and if we were more disciplined about our streaming engine so it always gave the right answers (wrote down what the algebra was for it rather than argue about whether we should call it an algebra) we could have changed the world.
The number of people complaining about the quality. They're locked in but once the pressure builds enough and a perceived viable alternative exists, it will be over. The decline will take years but it will happen.
I somewhat dislike the SISP saying because it describes an attitude, not an actual product. Many successful companies have started from a "solution" (more accurately a technology) like Google and Akamai, and it is perfectly legitimate behavior to try to find problems with a solution. The situation described by SISP is when a founder does not respond to a real, serious customer problem and instead has a problem conjured on his head which he "solves". A better saying would be "Person Not In Search of a Problem".

On a broader level, pure solutionism tends to only really work when you have some novel research, then need to find a use for it. And these inevitably comes from academia because you need someone to subsidize the risk. Then you plug it into some real problem. Many people who start with the goal of being a founder naturally try to start with problems. OpenAI was very of the first, VR was the second (it tried to respond to the soft data, mostly an idea, that people really wanted VR but ultimately this was false).
Whiz Kids 2.0 ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiz_Kids_(Department_of_Defen...

That didn't work out too well but I guess I just see the cons in hindsight, not the pros.
No. If I cared, I wouldn't have posted the information in the first place... or I would have erected a paywall.
E2B | Distributed Systems/Systems/AI/Product Engineers | Full-time | San Francisco (in-person) | $150k - $400k + equity (0.1% - 1%) | https://e2b.dev

Hi, I'm Vasek. CEO of E2B (https://e2b.dev). We're building an open-source infrastructure for AI code interpreting in our Sandboxes.

We have customers like Perplexity, have revenue, growing, and raised over $11M.W e're hiring engineers all over the board to work on our infrastructure, SDKs, AI projects, and user dashboard.

We're a team of 9, the core team is immigrants from Europe that moved to San Francisco. We work from our office in SF. Two technical co-founders that have known each other for 15 years.

If this sounds interesting to you, shoot me an email at vasek at e2b.dev.

We also offer a $10k referral bonus for the distributed systems engineer if we hire the person.
*clarification-- it's written in rust, never tried compiling rust for android before
For my own computers, I prefer to build myself, as I save a ton, and usually end up with a machine I'm happier with.

But as someone who's helped with many IT purchasing decisions, having a supported configuration and a company to call (instead of me being front line IT support, PC support, hardware support, etc.) is a huge benefit.

And right now there aren't a ton of Linux-first hardware vendors, so System76 charges a premium. It's worth it to some, but not to many.

Note that the system starts at $3299 — $2,000 of the price of the as-configured workstation was the 512 GB of ECC RAM. Those sticks cost $160/ea on Amazon.

There's a markup, but it's not $7000 for a computer that costs $3500 DIY. The DIY cost would be somewhere around $4000-4500 and would have a 2.6 GHz CPU and Dual 10 GbE instead of 25 GbE.

I'd like to see Ampere get all their CPU models out to retail availability though. Right now if you bought the base model for $3299, you could buy a M128-30 CPU for $2299, but only through NewEgg's "Request a Quote" system, which is a potshot.
I wonder if this can generalize to mandelbulb?
Because you've just learned that THESE are the real people that are HN readers, and THIS is what is important to them. (sadly, IMO)
It didn't go all that well the first time.
Cross-compiling software which relies on a big bunch of runtime libraries is a major pain in a big project. Have you ever had success with it?
Once again a headline that asks a question that the accompanying article doesn't answer. Interesting question though
Even if no attribution etc is your personal policy that’s not everyone else’s.

That's up to the courts. As usual, we will all lose if the copyright maximalists win.
I like building stuff. During the day, I get paid to do it for my employer. In my off time, sometimes it takes the form of a personal project. Sometimes it takes the form of a house or garden project. And sometimes I’m still thinking about something that I’m enjoying at work, so it takes the form of a little more work on a work project. If I’m enjoying it and I’m not doing it to the exclusion of family time, then whatever, I’m happy.
There's extremely small (like 2⁻²⁰, the chance of winning $50 000 with a $2 Powerball ticket [1]), and then there's cryptographically negligible (like 2⁻¹²⁰, the false negative chance of our primality test). The chance of something cryptographically negligible happening is about the same as the chance of the attacker guessing your key on the first try, or of a cosmic ray flipping a CPU flag inverting the result of "if !signature.verified { return err }".

[1]: https://www.powerball.com/powerball-prize-chart
> If I'm a landscaper, I'm not sure I need to have a garden at home.

There are more professions around gardening than specifically landscaping :) And yes, they have communities and hard-core fans who read books, engage with community members and spend basically 24/7 thinking about plants and what not.

Same with finance. You've never met any finance-bros who just can't stop talking about finance every time you look their way?

> Hopefully you like your day job well enough but lots of very competent people shut it off when they go home.

Absolutely, I wasn't trying to say if you don't do that, you suck at your day-job. I'm just trying to get across that this pushback you see sometimes in the software industry about people just doing it as a job instead of a passion are "worse" somehow, happens in every industry I know of. It's in no way exclusive to software developers.
> I wonder why these articles reinvent the wheel with functional programming hand-waving when DDD has been screaming this for years.

These are two different levels of abstraction. If you're still enraptured by the fundamental mechanisms of computation (i.e. functional programming) you're not going to see the value in trying to figure out the best way to build via composing mechanisms of computation, whether it's functional, imperative, procedural, logic-based, lisp-based, object-oriented, message-passing, whatever. There's a reason why there aren't many DDD frameworks out there—it doesn't really benefit from tying to specific technologies/languages/ecosystems in the same way that the culture of "build shit as fast as possible" attitude dovetails well with the goals of Rails.

I don't see why this is surprising; people re-discover old lessons daily, and petty details will always be conflated with broader themes and patterns—it's just how the human brain works. The discussion is what keeps us thinking about those old lessons. This is just a person's blog, not a journal trying to represent an industry.
Labor disputes in the US led to the first use of arial bombardment by government aircraft. The Tulsa Massacre had some bombardment but it was strictly amateur/enthusiast, not government.
Some emigrated or fled; some (if they had leadership aspirations) were killed or imprisoned; and many may be keeping their heads low so as to avoid drawing attention from the current regime. Unfortunately.
Having/raising kids has been the most rewarding and challenging experience of my life. I cannot imagine how meaningless life would be to have all the money in the world and no kids.
https://www.neeto.com/pricing-philosophy

Rather impressive, I must say.
Ask HN: How to thrive as a self-taught developer?
Hello HN,

I'm looking for advice, opinions, or stories of similar experiences regarding where I am at personally both from a career, and personal development, perspective. In brief, I am a "self-taught" developer working a comfortable job that is not stimulating who is plauged by decision paralysis on what are valuable next pursuits.

I entered the software development world three years ago after being offered an opportunity to "Learn on the job" from a colleague. This ended up being a fantastic opportunity for me as it both increased by quality of life through increased compensation, but more notably, I felt massively inspired by all I did not know, and massively accomplished when pushing a feature to production. During this time I went on a learning rampage which resulted in both further career success (promotion) and a desire to write personal programs for hobby. I was hooked.

It's worth noting that the career success is possible not because I was some sleeper pro developer, but rather because the team I was moved onto had some code/product quality issues already, and hard work was eagerly rewarded, so I stood out. In fact, I'd still consider myself a pretty sub-par developer, at least by HN standards (more on this fallacy in a moment).

While it was great to learn on the job, I also learned how much I was _missing_. I do not have a computer science degree, and suddenly, the inadequacy perception crept in. I don't have a public portfolio of fantastic problems I've solved or products I've built. I don't have a score of one trillion on leetcode. I hadn't yet sold my first SaaS startup to Peter Thiel who then shook my hand firmly. I believed I must take immediate action to remedy these shortcomings.

This is where we land currently. A JVM developer who day in and day out at $BIG_COMPANY makes minor changes to SpringBoot REST APIs and does not currently have a plan for self improvement as it could be called. I know a single programming language with a below-expert-about-mid-high level of competency. I'm constantly thinking about various directions I could move in, including learning a new programming language, honing my current language skills to expert, improving my academic side (i.e. taking online courses on math, comp sci, reading SICP), working on some personal project, and more. The underlying issue that arises from choosing one of these pursuits is a tree of desicions to be made which ultimately results in paralysis.

I'd appreaciate any and all input/commentary. Likely best to focus on what I can do outside of work as it's not currently feasible for me to change jobs.
It is usually discussed in the context of this other novel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Is_to_Blame%3F
> So the three powers system is broken?

Obviously it's broken, because it's not doing what I wish it would.
Day 19 fails the actual test input. I guess nobody checked his work.
That example I gave of the emergence of consciousness being a result of a growing brain was just an example and not necessarily what I believe, but it was on based this article from 2016:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.00821

Which really just breaks down consciousness potentially being a byproduct of having a drastically higher number of neurological connections than lesser developed animal brains.

So combining the two, the growing brain, caused by an increase in size of the visual cortex to detect snake patterns, increased the number of neurological connections and as a result the brain gradually became consciously aware. That’s just one theory that I used.

And I 100% agree it’s okay to say that we don’t know, we don’t. And I don’t! But that won’t stop me from thinking about it like, a lot.

Edit: spelling
Committee size is efficiency: the central bank versus the legislature
many factories in USSR were built by British and US companies, opposition as hell... Biggest enemy of USSR was winter. And summer. And Marxs and Engels ideas.
You can say the same thing about any book ever written, "it's only about what the author was thinking about" - yeah, that's how writing generally works lol.