skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I basically live in my notes all day. I have two main categories:

1. General knowledge: Anything I want to be able to look up again, for me mainly how to do certain tasks in software, which is things like keyboard bindings, steps to achieve a result (e.g., something like "remove the background from a photo"), and flags for a command line program. I also add more abstract things, like computer science, and music theory concepts, but I find these concepts are usually easier to recall from memory once you know them (I've read before that memory works like a web, so if you're attaching new concepts to existing concepts, they'll be easier to remember), so I don't have many notes like that.

2. Projects: Tasks related to a project, and things I've learned along the way. For example, if I'm diagnosing a bug, maybe I found an important code snippet, so I'll cut and paste it to the project file. Also useful commands, e.g., if there's a single test I'm working on, I'll save the command to run just that test in isolation.

The general principle here is I usually find it easy to remember if I've ever done something before, but hard to remember exactly how to do it. (Research indicates that if something doesn't fit into the web, then if you don't do it enough, you won't remember it, so the notes compensate for that.)

I find this helps me stay in flow because just looking something up quickly from my notes is much less disruptive than searching to find it again (or trying to think to reconstruct it). If you don't mind searching again later for something you know you once figured out, you probably don't need notes, but if that drives you crazy, like it does for me, than notes are helpful. For me, it feels like I'm constantly expanding the number of things I can do easily without having to depend on my memory, which I know from experience is fallible for these tasks.

It's similar for context switching between projects, when switching tasks, being able to look at your note for a project, and being able to see both exactly where you left off, and documentation of everything you've learned so far, makes it easier to move forward again.
Writing down the simple stuff can be nice if you want to:

* Stop doing stuff in that field for months and have previously processed notes to reload in your head when you come back.

* Give feedback to maintainers on what worked/what didn't when you entered their ecosystem.

* Communicate to newbies how you overcome X problem when learning Y. Not everyone may have your particular insight. You could roll it into a blog post or other communications.

* Provide stepping stones for you to relate other frameworks and languages back to what you've already seen and know, to solve challenges in different domains.

I find that most more specific ideas for using the data come at random periods throughout my life. The questions are usually non-obvious when just staring at the data. I write them down as little notes themselves and come back to them when I have interest/motivation.
In addition to the other responses, I'd add that I don't believe the "free market" adequately incentivizes insurance companies to "deliver better quality". If it did, I don't know that we would've seen a collective, "Oh, yeah, we get it," response to the recent shooting.

My faith in things is so entirely shot that if I saw a company like the one you suggested, my immediate, heels-dug-in assumption would be, "That's cute, and in five years they'll be just like the rest of them".
For all those SaaS products today, you see legions of consultants, system integration projects, a cottage industry for customizations...

The skills aren't irrelevant.
>>How can a unicellular critter compete with all the varied descendant species of a multicellular one?

The prevalence of unicellular life on Earth should tell you that this is a malformed question.
Yes: Schwarszchild time dilation, while a solution to a one-massive body model, is a decent approximation if you think of M/r as an integration of the effects of all matter around you: \sqrt{1-\frac{2GM}_{rc^2}}

Of course you can just use the Einstein field equations, but that's more work, though not an approximation. You'll need a good model of the mass distribution in the universe in order to actually get good answers.
> I wonder if the leap between a fish and a mouse is less than the distance between a mouse and a human?

No, mice are mammals just like humans. Fish were around long before mammals even existed.
FlightAware currently has it at 796mph (mach is 767mph).
>A lot of people consider Elon to be highly compassionate (in the balanced sense of taking into consideration second-order effects)

I suppose if you're into redefining the common meaning of the word, anyone could be considered highly compassionate.
Until we understand consciousness, I think it perfectly reasonable to study the possibility of life after death.

If you think about it, consciousness doesn't exist in the material dimensions we understand. It's impossible to have an SI unit for happiness, for example.

So something within us is not material. Could it exist beyond the body? I think it's a question worth studying.
To me it sounds like they understood that, but they're asking how dark matter (and its gravity) might interact with this model.
Not quite, it is (at least in the US) a limited privilege to control the copying and reproduction.

If you make a movie poster, and it goes out into the market, and then someone picks it up from a garage sale, copyright still applies, they can't just make tons of duplicates.

But you can't use copyright to force them to display it right side up instead of upside down, to not write on it, to not burn it, and to not make it into a bizarre pseudosexual shrine in their basement.
Reposted correctly in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42585332
Those cursor keys are evil and the design should go to hell.

P.S. The “designer” could be the knob who insisted the actual designer make them that way.
I like to look at open PRs as well as closed issues. Sometimes closed issues reveal a lot about the attitude and expertise of the maintainers.
I think one can simply use the Euler-Lagrange method which is able to account for the constraint forces acting on the ball. Haven't worked that out for this particular problem but it should be relatively easy. Davies argument is a bit overcomplicated I think, the main challenge here is correctly accounting for the geometric constraints in the movement of the particle. I find the argument about the higher-order derivatives a bit weird as well, the system can be fully described using its potential and kinetic energy which are scalar (possibly time-dependent) fields and implicitly contain all forces, given some initial conditions (position and momentum) we can solve the equation of motion of the system with that.
I missed responding to your assertion that the Oj::Parser was not thread safe. An individual Oj::Parser instance is not thread safe just like other Ruby object such as a Hash but multiple Oj::Parser instances can be created in as many threads as desired. The reason each individual Oj::Parser is not thread safe is that it stores the parser state.
Exactly. I stopped starring repos a long time ago and now just bookmark them instead.
I’m just a layman and all, but how in god’s name could it be cheaper to launch it into space than to create a large manufacturing process on the ground?
Thank you, you just said what I was trying to say in 2% of the words.
They’re proposing choosing the output values randomly according to the distribution obtained by choosing input values uniformly at random for the original algorithm.
It seems that I had iTerm2 configured to display bold text as bright text (instead of bold). And I use bold, coloured text in my prompt, so that threw me.

I configured

bold-is-bright = true

and suddenly everything looks fine. I'll see how I get on with it.

https://ghostty.org/docs/config/reference#bold-is-bright
Real name for LinkedIn, GitHub, and my website. Everything else is a nonsense name, often varying. Varying mostly because it's fun to have a goofy name on a platform (like mine here on HN).

Years and years ago, I used my real name on Reddit. I've since deleted that account, but I'd absolutely never use my real name on something like Reddit.
Location: Seattle WA
Remote: Yes!
Willing to relocate: No
Technologies: Release Management, C#, Python, Java, C, Git, JavaScript, Node.js, React, Express.js, Bicep
Résumé/CV: https://www.linkedin.com/in/hankai-jing/
Email: hankaijing at gmail.com

Hi! I'm Hankai, a software engineer with 1.8 years experience on backend development and release management. I'm a fast learner and a team player. Let's chat!
I see no way in which timescapes deals with DM, and the authors don't seem to think so either.
I dunno, but telling it "APES TOGETHER STRONG" appears to yield some results: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOJSWrSF51o
Damn, that's crazy. I'm poor and know exactly what to do.
Digital Onboarding | Senior Full-stack Engineer, UI/UX Designer | REMOTE (US based) | Full time

Digital Onboarding is a marketing automation platform that helps banks and credit unions modernize their onboarding process and develop mutually beneficial, profitable relationships with their customers and members.

Stack: Elixir + Phoenix, React, Postgres

https://digitalonboarding.applytojob.com/apply/sOpDyeNpjP/UI...

The senior full stack role isn't posted yet, but you can email me directly at jonathan at digitalonboarding.com please include HN in your subject
Frequencies you don't hear - can't hurt you, or rather they cannot damage your hearing. Sure, submerging your head into an ultrasonic cleaning bath will irritate your skin, but the energy won't vibrate away your hearing abilities, if it had the potential to do that you'd hear it as a loud unpleasant sound.
Under a monophyletic definition, mammals are fish.
> So I did and haven’t had any sales from it yet
You can do gain-of-function research, but only in space.
Unironically, true.
Just want to note that this simple “mimicry” of mistakes seen in the training text can be mitigated to some degree by reinforcement learning (e.g. RLHF), such that the LLM is tuned toward giving responses that are “good” (helpful, honest, harmless, etc…) according to some reward function.
Who said anything about crime? Not me.

Bye.
If you exited properly: whatever you want.

If you exited poorly: go back out and try again.
I'll get right on that. Wait right here.
TLDR: in real world things are messy and highly correlated.

It is chicken and egg problem. Higher volume makes things cheaper^1 because of manufacturing scale and diluting R&D expenses. Higher volume also means more working capital and higher ROI on R&D. That R&D can make things cheaper (or same price but better features) which drives volume. Industries can start from either end of this. For example there a lot of battery chemistry and solar cell advancements are because high volume drove R&D investment. Current boom in battery manufacturing largely comes from one U.S. company and China making EVs a priority and driving volume. That volume is driving R&D which is increasing capability and driving down unit cost and factory scale up which is driving down unit cost. On the other end of the spectrum are VC backed companies burning cash to make up volume in hopes that R&D will catch up and make them profitable.

Note 1: there is a huge assumption here about input availability and pricing model. For example plastics currently enjoy being dirt cheap party because they are a byproduct of oil production. On the other hand Helium supply is limited and it's price reflects that.
I think it's clear that interstellar travel, while not trivial, should be possible for a civilization just a bit more advanced than our own. The energy or material resources required for interstellar colonization are very small compared to the resources available. It doesn't even require relativistic speeds, although reaching (say) 0.01 c doesn't require outrageous engineering, just a large spacecraft and lots of hydrogen bombs.

Now, perhaps it's universally true that civilizations don't advance much beyond where we currently are, or don't persist for sufficiently long for interstellar colonization to be successful. These would also be very depressing outcomes if they are imposed on us by the GF.
Health insurance is not designed to heal people. It is designed to pay as little as possible to keep them paying their premium.
> Put another way, automated tests don’t go far enough. We need yet another higher layer of abstraction. Computers are better at deciding what tests to run and when, and are also better at interpreting the results.

Sounds like you might be interested in https://antithesis.com/ (no affiliation).
I took about a year and a half off because I could afford it and I did so much and had such a good time I could do it forever. Freedom is wasted on this guy.
When bugs too easily derange or mung the programs of machines;

When programs too "intelligent" start taking over the machines:

Is this the end of AutoProg?

— The HACTRN
I assume the emphasis there is on training, whereas it's totally possible to infringe by running the model in certain ways later.
It really really depends on what your goals are and what type of design domain you are working in, eg jewelry, architecture (and what within architecture), fabrication, experimental sculpture, etc.

At the end of the day though… play. Lots of play! Playing within Grasshopper and just making crazy things is a great way to build intuition.

at the same time, it of course is very helpful to have directional play, ie problem solving, frequently in the form of trying to recreate - or parametrize/generalize/abstract - a specific pre-existing design.

It also helps a lot if you are pretty familiar with modeling in rhino (ie working with construction planes, curves, etc) since a lot of grasshopper worker is just a matter of formally capturing a sequence of operations that you might perform in Rhino into a codified DAG. Unfortunately some of the naming of rhino operations does not align with their corresponding grasshopper components (and the corresponding components might not perfectly align their api with the corresponding rhino commands) but developing that geometric intuition is essential.

There’s also some stuff that is ultimately more efficient to program within python / CSharp / Visual Basic within grasshopper so always keep that in mind… but it can become another layer of complexity (or simplification…) to learn at the same time.
> What are the fundamental limits on how deeply a fractal can be accurately zoomed?

This question is causing all sorts of confusion.

There is no fundamental limit on how much detail a fractal contains, but if you want to render it, there's always going to be a practical limit on how far it can accurately be zoomed.

Our current computers kinda struggle with hexadecuple precision floats (512-bit).
At sea level. Not sure what it is, at 30K feet.
> If callback parsing is not supported that's fine.

Yes, as mentioned in part 1 of the series, my goal for ruby/json, given it is part of Ruby's stdlib, is to be good enough so that the vast majority of users don't need to look elsewhere, but it isn't to support every possible use case or to make a specific gem obsolete. For the minority of users that need things like event parsing, they can reach to Oj.

> but that doesn't mean everyone will share them.

Of course. When I was a fairly junior developer, I heard someone say: "Performance should take a backseat to correctness", and that still resonate with me. That's why I wouldn't consider such truncation as a default.

> i'm sure there will be variations depending on the OS and the hardware. I tested on MacOS M1.

I suspect so too. I'd like to get my hands on a x86_64/Linux machine to make sure performance is comparable there, but I haven't come to it yet. All my comparisons for now have been on M3/macOS.

> It looks like a lot of time and effort went into the analysis.

It was roughly two weeks full time, minus some bug fixes and such. I think in the end I'll have spent more time writing the blog series than on the actual project, but that probably says more about my writing skill :p

Anyway, thanks for the pointers, I'll have a look to see if there's some more performance that need to be squeezed.
So not about Factorio: Space Age? nm.
The second param on the FB url seems to control the sidebar. Better without the &sk=...
You appear to have omitted adding a license to your repo
I don't see the trees around here being planted in any systematic way. The forests look abandoned, with mostly commercially worthless trees growing.
A few years ago there were actually two companies trying to manufacture "zblan optical fiber" (which has better light transmission than normal optical fiber) in orbit: Made In Space, and FOMS. Both of their websites are tombstones now, afaik. The former was also attempting 3d printing in space, and was bought by Redwire.

Fascinating tech, but seemed to go nowhere.

There are now several 'manufacturing in space platform' companies, like Varda. It's not enough to just be a platform. There needs to be an actual killer app.
This is already implemented in it- I just did it in pen and paper and directly wrote the shader from my results instead of writing a language first.

https://www.hgreer.com/JavascriptMandelbrot/#an_ugly_hack_th...
typing in 'rm' in any script I write scares the bejeebus out of me. I tend to write 'echo rm' so I get a chance to review while testing to catch this specific type of issue.
No. Mach's airspeed, FlightAware is showing ground speed. Someone's got a great tailwind.
Alice did this 20 years ago? Smalltalk did this 50 years ago?

What's new and cool about this one? I'm jaded and cynical. I want to be proven wrong.
I think Norton completely ignores virtual work and D’Alembert’s theorem
It is a protein that exists in mammals. Presumably they produced the murine version to put in the mouse. Science journalism screwed up the paper's language, calling it a zebrafish protein, when it is a protein that is conserved for all vertebrates. But the function of the protein, and its role in heart regeneration, was identified in zebrafish.

> Directly after LAD ligation during MI surgery, hearts were injected twice with 15 μl of AAV9(CMV:GFP) or AAV9(CMV:HA-Hmga1) (1 × 1012 virus particles per mouse) in opposing regions bordering the area at risk of ischemic injury.

The paper doesn't say whether the viral vector (AAV9) used the murine or zebrafish Hmga1 sequence, but it is more likely that they used the murine.
2 months between commits seems fine for a hobby project. I wouldn't call it dead for a couple of years.
I'm actually in the camp that they are basically not very useful yet, and don't actually use them myself for real tasks. However, I am certain from direct experimentation that they exhibit real understanding, creativity, and modeling of underlying systems that extrapolates to correctly modeling outcomes in totally novel situations, and don't just parrot snippets of text from the training set.

What people want and expect them to be is an Oracle that correctly answers their vaguely specified questions, which is simply not what they are, or are good at. What they can do is fascinating and revolutionary, but possibly not very useful yet, at least until we think of a way to use it, or make it even more intelligent. In fact, thinking is what they are good at, and simply repeating facts from a training set is something they cannot do reliably- because the model must inherently be too compressed to store a lot of facts correctly.
Let me save you some time: it's not. Hardcore WoW is strictly a streamer mode.

Hardcore WoW is really an exercise not in skill but in not getting bored/complacent and taking unnecessary risks. Plus you have the constant threat of dying to network conditions or just the game crashing, both of which happenn. You may also have to deal with griefers. They've clamped down on a lot of this now (eg probably all mobs are leashed at this point) but it can still happen.

If anything, it's a test of knowledge of the game, like knowing how things path, know the safe areas (in the outside world and in dungeons) to reset things when things go badly, etc. Learning these in hardcore would be a painful lesson.

The only people playing this have been playing the game for literally decades and they know all this.

OnlyFangs can be entertaining content. Watch as you please but hardcore is just not for you, most likely.
I'd push back slightly on the idea that top players use minimal addons. During every RWF push, almost every top team has a dedicated resource solely for the purpose of making custom WeakAuras for different parts of each boss fight. During the last cycle, I think I saw Max call for no less than two or three dozen breaks just so folks could make sure their WAs were in sync and on the right version.

Granted I'm cherry-picking RWF where people are severely under-geared at first, but I think it does offer a relevant microcosmic example of the state of addons in retail WoW. They're more or less required for the competitive side of most "hard" content these days, even for the most coordinated of groups.

(EDIT: I wanted to add that in no way do I consider this "playing the game for you". It still took the aforementioned teams like 2 weeks to clear Nerub-ar Palace, and the largest chunk of that time wasn't even on the last boss, it was on Kyveza)
Perplexity got ads
At each iteration the LLM has the older code in its context window, isn't it kind of obvious that it is going to iteratively improve it?
Pearson VUE | Application Architect | REMOTE (US based) | Full time

Pearson VUE provides exam and test-taker services to clients who want to assess the skills of their candidates. Example: a doctor who needs to take a test that is created by a medical board.

Stack: C#, Angular, Azure

https://pearson.jobs/virtual-usa/technical-architect/D3D4CF0...
Causes for increasing work in progress in software projects. Collected by almost a hundred senior software engineers.
I don't think that it's fair to compare the rendering to what is currently in use in the scientific community, for two main reasons:

The first is that different types of rendering have different uses; typically in scientific visualization this is broken down into essentially "viz for self, viz for peers, viz for others" and oftentimes the most well-used rendering engines are targeted squarely at the first and second categories. The visual language in those categories is qualitatively different than that used for more "outward facing" renderings.

The second reason is that I disagree with your assertion about the quality of the visualization techniques in use within science. There are some truly spectacular visualization engines for cosmology and galaxy formation -- just to pick two examples off the top of my head, the work done by Ralf Kaehler or that by Dylan Nelson. (There are many really good examples, however, and I feel guilty not mentioning more.)

As I said in another, rather terse and unelaborated comment, though, this is really, really impressive work. I think it's important that in praising it, however, we don't discount the work that's been done elsewhere. This need not be zero-sum.
RSA is faster than elliptic curves for signature verification and encryption. It is one of the oldest methods (half a century) which suggests that it could be a good choice when you need the lowest possible chance of some discovered weakness. It can be used for both signing and encryption (but not with the same key pair).
:D all of these super cool and highly professional uses of SPICE kernels and here I am using the same thing to point an arrow to where the planets are as a room decoration :D https://www.youtube.com/shorts/32BGeJav2OQ

(On the video the mechanism is not using SPICE, just pointing at manually selected alt-az)
I only code at night, used to grind in the weekends too but ad I get older I find other things to do then give my salaried job free work. I think 8 am to 2pm is a total waste as I remain u focused until the evening for some reason.