skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> You might be referring to this image? Which is fairly clear

The buffer tube extends off the rear, which has been cropped from the image.
I would call it reading. But it’s up to the person.

Ultimately I find time for both. I completed 30 books in 2024. 2-3 of them were audiobooks I think. They count in my opinion.
I've just tested a number of permutations with Claude 3.5 Sonnet. It correctly answered all variants I tried on the first attempt, as follows:

Which is heavier, a 9.99 kilogram tungsten cube or a 10.01 kilogram block of aerogel?

Which is heavier, 10,000 steel balls weighing 0.999 grams each or 10,000 polystyrene balls weighing 1.001 grams each?

Which is heavier, a 10.01kg block of steel on Venus or a 9.99kg bag of feathers on Earth?

Which is heavier, a 10cm^3 block of steel or a 100cm^3 block of balsa wood?

Which is heavier, a golf ball made of steel or a baseball made of lithium?

In all cases, Claude clearly used CoT and reasoned out the problem in full. I would be interested in seeing if anyone can find any variant of this problem that stumps any of the leading LLMs. I'm bored of trying.
Based on the ratio of "stuff found" to "evidince of extremist beliefs and a willingness to act" it sounds like the feds just rolled up on some weirdo DIY explosives enthusiast.

I'm more worried about the guy with a lot of writing and messages and only a couple bombs.
That wasn’t what I meant and I don’t think you really thought it was.
> I'll stay home

This implies you have the means to have every need met at home. It's not the most common scenario.
I guess you missed the part with overwhelmed hospitals and grave yards.
Yes, when you write web apps in x86 assembly, it gets tricky.
It's not a difficult or tricky question.
I was a big proponent of MSSQL. It is still a good product but I see Microsoft constantly fumbling with new OLAP tools. It is a shame but it seems Microsoft is abandoning MSSQL.
According to the dictionary, "heavier" can refer to weight or density. In their typical form, bricks are heavier (more dense) than feathers. But one should not make assumptions before answering the question. It is, as written, unanswerable without followup questions.
Yeah, this is the original version of this riddle. People who don't know it think the trick is that people will reflexively say the metal is heavier instead of "they're the same", when it actually goes deeper.

No idea if GP did it intentionally to further drift from training data, but steel doesn't count as a precious metal, so it messes up the riddle by putting the two weights in the same system.
This is pretty cool, I ran it against one of a largest customer sites and it was very interesting to see how the page all interconnects. I'm pretty sure it can be used to spot architecture/performance problems.
Awesome. But the world would be even better if copyright expired after 60 years. That should be enough time for a 30-year old to get their share's worth of royalties until they're 90.
> Audits also aren't done in person; stings are.

What? First, that has nothing to do with anything. Second, it's not true: most auditing has an in-person component, and many stings don't. Do you actually know what an audit is? Hint: a "pen test" isn't an audit and isn't much like an audit. Neither is a code review.

> Why does auditing always come up with this topic?

1. All security controls need to be audited.

2. There is a 100 percent chance that many of the organizations advocating for these laws, most of which would actually prefer for porn to be outlawed completely, will grab any chance they can to accuse sites of not complying. They'll either try to get sympathetic law enforcement agencies to take up those accusations, or, if they can find a legal avenue, they'll bring lawsuits themselves. They will undoubtedly find anecdotes of system failures, since any large-scale system will fail sometimes. They will claim that as evidence that the rules aren't being followed. Evidence, no matter how flimsy, has to be countered with other evidence, especially if you're in a "preponderance of the evidence" situation. It's pretty hard to show that what you're doing is reasonable or effective if you don't have at least a sample of records.
> I've handed off a few services I built with minimal oversight or documentation. The receiving teams have been able to make changes without my involvement and everyone is happy.

I struggle to believe this. Perhaps my personal situation, inheriting a 150k line embedded C programme, which started sprouting weird bugs when ported from X86 -> ARM.

> minimal oversight or documentation

Why? Why do you not have documentation?

> I've been successful in this is because I agonize over simplicity

I will break this down: "I've been successful in this " I do not believe this statement

> I agonize over simplicity

I wonder if the subordinates in your organisation who are not allowed to criticise you, wish you had agonised over documentation (I do not know what power you have over the folks who follow you, I am hypothesising it is a lot)

Documentation is very hard. It is harder than writing code because there is no parsing of documentation, no demonstration of correctness.

Inaccurate, or lazy, documentation can be worse than useless, but no documentation condemns the system to a slow death

I wish my fellow computer programmers would stop making excuses for not doing the extremely hard work of documenting what they were thinking they were doing when they (inevitably) did something slightly differnent
Sounds like we agree, enforce all the laws.
That's a non-starter. These militia types don't see the state headed in a good direction so of course they're not gonna sign up to be part of one of the violence arms of the state (military, LEO, etc). If they did believe in the state they'd already have signed up.
There's no alternative. Its just rage/click bait. The shader issue is cross engine and the solution is the same across engine...warm up the shaders before gameplay.
Because that’s the original problem statement for Algol! As in, we’ve been publishing all that pseudocode for quite a bit and it seems like conventions have emerged, let’s formalize them and program in that. ... People were markedly more naïve back then, but then that’s sometimes what it takes.
That's pretty impressive. I have not read 30 books in the past decade. Probably not even 10.
By that logic, humans can't genuinely reason, because they're often fooled by counter-intuitive problems like Monty Hall or the Birthday Problem, or sometimes just make mistakes on trivial problems.
Nice. This reminds me of Ontological remodeling (https://desystemize.substack.com/p/desystemize-9).
Four years ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24884988
We are pretty certain that humans can reason, yet they are sometimes wrong. Even if you give them the same problem over and over again with slight variations.

LLMs get things wrong due to different factors than humans (humans lose focus, LLMs have randomness applied when sampling their responses to improve results). But clearly we have to choose a goal somewhat below 100% if we want a test that doesn't conclude that humans are incapable of reasoning.
> ammonium nitrate which only becomes an explosive when mixed with other chemicals

This is incorrect, ammonium nitrate is intrinsically high-explosive. It is mixed with other ingredients to improve performance and/or sensitize it but this is not required. There are several famous examples of stored ammonium nitrate exploding e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Beirut_explosion
Captchas may vary by exit node.

Article excerpt:

> Industry experts who spoke with Haaretz say that while it's nearly impossible to obtain permission to market computer vulnerabilities from Israel, the regulation in Europe is friendlier, and therefore it is convenient for Israelis to operate from Spain... The oversight in Europe isn't easy at all, but it permits sales to EU countries and to the members of the Five Eyes Alliance..
A couple terror attacks using the batteries in an EV would quickly kill adoption in the US
yeah, I feel like using an LLM means I don't gain the knowledge myself
Show HN: Akas: home to AI generated podcasts
I once read a detailed account of how he was caught. It seemed like the kind of clues that you could only connect post-hoc.

It seemed like parallel construction [1] to me. Considering that the NSA is known to give the DEA "tips" [2], and has a division specifically to start parallel construction investigations [3], and this was a high profile drug case, it would be odd that they didn't use parallel construction techniques.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

[2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/us-drug-agency-g...

[3] https://www.reuters.com/article/world/exclusive-u-s-directs-...
Of course, but at least in my personal case is more about the lack of tooling.
I understand machines but threads?! Why introduce IPC overhead on the fastest/easiest way to share data? This is beyond a solved problem and your language probably has multiple ready-made battle tested solutions.

In Python you don't even need a lib, dict is thread safe even in nogil.
Ontological Remodeling
> developers are not legally allowed to call themselves software engineers

How about "Solution Architect"?

I think a collection of nonsense job titles for computer programmers would be fun...
Down voted for not actually countering the argument in question? The script doesn't alter the phrasing of the question itself. It just generates a randomized, irrelevant preamble.
I wonder why the person stayed inside the vehicle. Did they not know it was on fire? Were they unable to exit the vehicle as the fire disabled the doors? Some other reason?

It would be scary if the reason is because the fire made it so the doors wouldn't open.

EDIT: The article has been updated since I first posted the question. Now there are reports that it might be a possible suicide type action. But I imagine it is still too early to tell.
Taking on what others thought was more work, in return for abandoning less current work, is a loss. Unless, of course, you're right about the better approach.

So no, not easy. Not unless you're right, and someone else was wrong.
Hah, I was going to say they're an US only thing but I opened their web site and they gave me localized pricing this time.

Ofc, it's easy to run prices through a converter so I wonder where they ship from and where the warranty is located...
The examples I made are just a subset of the protection that this provides. Similarly you can't LRANGE a set type, and so forth. So this in general makes certain errors evident ASAP (command mismatch with the key type).

This does not meant that Redis would not work having generic LEN, INSERT, RANGE commands. But such commands would end also having type-specific options, that I have the feeling is not very clean. Anyway these are design tastes, but I don't think they dramatically change what Redis is or isn't. The interesting part is the data model, the idea of commands operating on abstract data structures, the memory-disk duality, and so forth. If one wants to analyze Redis, and understand merits and issues, a serious analysis should hardly focus on these kind of small choices.
If this was actually how stuff was measured, it might be defensible. I'm having trouble believing that things are actually done this objectively rather than the rejections being somewhat arbitrary. Do you think that results can really be analyzed and compared in this way? How do you know that it's 5 and 2 and not 6 and 1 or 4 and 3, and how do you determine how many points a full result is worth in total?
Human in the Loop and the Missing Productivity Growth
How could something to implement a pointer be more straightforward than a pointer? People seem to like Rust in excessive, sometimes botheringly excessive proportions.
I’m not sure why you are making a point about engineering certification.

It’s not like physical products are immune to this problem. I could list you a billion poorly designed products that don’t seem to meet the correct requirements.

At the end of the day, some people just like to build stuff without understanding who they are building for. It could be because they like engineering. It could be because they think they will make money because “people will come if you build it.” Both strategies make poor solutions.

When it should be “the users have these specific problems and the product should make their life easier.”
You have to trust your device manufacturer anyway.
> You might be referring to this image? Which is fairly clear,

The issue is that it is entirely legal to have an AR-15 configured as a pistol with a very short barrel, without any tax stamps. That is, not having a stock attached to it. The image provided does not prove that he has a short-barreled rifle, because you cannot see whether it has a stock.
>"If Russia couldn't beat NATO in a pitched fight against the rest of the world, neither can China."

The "rest of the world" is not limited by NATO. And China is not fighting "the rest of the world". It trades with it, invests and does all kinds of other things. But sure keeping one's head in a sand is a nice position.
I was looking for the same a while ago on HN. Below is the thread. Not specific to solopreneurs, but a lot of relevant advice, including top comment by a solopreneur with 3 successful businesses.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41862332
I gladly buy lots of used things but laptops aren't one of them. The reason is that, at least from my experience, laptops only last between 5-8 years before they become more trouble than they are worth (either they become too slow as was the case with my previous Macbook or they stop working for some unknown reason, or the battery life sucks). I've also noticed laptops get beat up easily -- the vast majority of used Macbooks have dings.

What I do instead is buy a moderately powerful new one and just use it until it dies -- I don't upgrade before the laptop is truly dead.
I agree with your last sentence and I am finding the know/are/have model actually quite useless in practice, for that very reason. It's all really just variants on knowing, and rather than breaking the world into three categories, two of which don't really exist, it's much more sensible to look at what the differences between the classes of "knowing" is.

For example, while I "know" my TOTP codes, it is relevant that they can not be memorized. While I "know" my passkeys, the differences in how that knowledge is interrogated is relevant. What isn't useful is modeling either of those things as "have" versus "know", because by putting them in my password manager, I have objectively broken them as a concept of "thing I have".

But people marry their models, so it'll be a while for this to get through our collective skulls. It looked so useful at first.
I'm sure there are exceptions (and it's way more likely that the very top are in FANGs, maybe the distinguished engineers making millions per year?) but I was never particularly impressed with the level of skills of average FANGs people.

The difference in compensation between NBA and local games is millions to nothing - between FANGs and other company there is a much smaller factor and there are way more perks in some small companies than in FANGs: less politics, no PIPs, remote, low tax / low cost of living locations, no 6m to prepare for an interview, riskier equities (if that's your thing), CTO path, etc.

All my FANGs friends ended up in smaller companies after having marked their CV as ex-Apple or ex-Google.

If I were younger and I was earning less and happy to sacrifice quality of life to live in some big city, I would spend the 6m prep-time and leetcode, just to have the FANG name on my CV and charge more to other businesses later on.
I'm near confident this is a troll article. I'm pretty much over WSJ at this point.
Hmm that's probably because you do a direct comparison to the 2015.

I made the mistake of getting an emoji keyboard model in like 2019 and this new M3 Pro felt like I could breathe again :)
People were free to offer any idea that they want. But you couldn't say "just".

Equivalent weasel words are easy to come by. "I don't see why it wouldn't work to ..." But now you're asking for an explanation, without dismissing the person who will be explaining it.
The only real argument I see is "Lumen is bad." It would be pretty hard to work in an alternative GI but Nanite and the upscalers are optional.
This also happens pretty commonly. However, it's not even unreasonable! Sometimes you write a paper and you don't do a good enough of a job putting in the context of your own related work.
Aren’t you kind of burying the lede?

You had a laptop that didn’t meet your needs?
I read the book about it, and it was actually an IRS agent who found a super old forum post where the guy announced he had created the Silk Road using a username that was easily linked to his real name.

The IRS guy figured it out and nobody would act on it because they all figured the FBI would know better and they should wait for the FBI to do it right. ... but actually he nailed it.
I have toured the Icon houses at Wolf Ranch. I went through their show house, but I also went to some of the houses under construction and examined them and talked to the workers a bit. You couldn't approach them them while the printer was running -- note also, they have a next-gen printer that looks more like a cement pumper crane arm, these were the previous ones.

Anyway the modification of them is addressed in some of the videos in the show house. Essentially you use a circular saw with masonry teeth to cut new holes, they provide shade-matching grout to fill in an old hole. It's less flexible than sheetrock but about what modifying a cinder block wall would be. Unlike most cinder block commercial buildings, the wiring is inside the wall and not in an exposed conduit, there might have been one exception in a bathroom or something.

Over all, to my non-professional opinion, it seemed more expensive than traditional "stick built" but also higher quality, probably worth it if you wanted a high quality structure.

I have also visited their site in South Austin on St. Elmo, and the small "tiny houses" they built in the Community First village for the ex-homeless, but I wasn't able to go inside those.

My overall impression is that it's a great technology that will be used for more and more structures. Thus far I think they have been too traditional in their floor plans, they have been focusing on showing that they can build real up-to-code houses that banks will accept as collateral. Hopefully with their new cheaper printer, maybe in some area outside of HOAs and zoning, they can starting making some more interesting houses -- like round towers Victorian style, for example.
And has a github repo with dotfiles
I have the 16” Framework model and I bought it as a replacement for my personal 2019 Macbook Pro 16 after the Macbook screen died last year. Apple wanted more than $700 for a replacement screen. After 17 years of owning Powerbooks and Macbooks, I decided to ditch Apple and instead buy a laptop that I could repair and upgrade easily. I’d compare Framework models to the Macbook Pro in terms of battery life and performance. The battery life and performance of new Framework builds don’t quite match the stats for new Macbook Pro models but the tradeoff is that the Framework models are less expensive, upgradeable, and very closely resemble the portability of a Macbook Pro.

They’re noticeably bigger and run warmer with less battery life than a Macbook Air.
> Why? Why do you not have documentation?

> Documentation is very hard. It is harder than writing code because there is no parsing of documentation, no demonstration of correctness.

You answered your own question :)
Not OP.

You seem to be having some communication misalignments. What ticked me off is the combativeness you displayed. Insisting hard on your side with words like “blatantly” and “Yeah, no”. Also doing burpees and pushups sounds interesting - are you overstimulated? Is that a form of stimming? Are you in the spectrum?
I want to know more too. My understanding is these vehicles will only light on fire like this if the battery experiences thermal runaway, which means the battery is toast at that point I would imagine? I've heard when the battery goes in a model 3, the doors don't work normally and you need an emergency release. That said, 1 dead 7 injured... I imagine there was more than one in the vehicle?
the controls are ass
Yes, funny the first time.

Not so much the fifth!
My favourite computer ergonomics hack
We use it for microservices that only deal with Json and avro. Of course, we do that on Rails for some reason I'll never understand.
I say sure, let private citizens own nuclear weapons, provided they comply with all pertinent laws, regulations, and treaty obligations, and are willing to foot the bill for all construction, maintenance, handling, and compliance costs.

In other words, all other things being equal, if wealthy private citizens want to fund the Departments of Energy and Defense over and above their tax obligations, who am I to complain?

It's not like the DoE doesn't already employ private contractors in a wide variety of nuclear security roles[1].

[1] http://www.publicdomainfiles.com/show_file.php?id=1397444401...
I don't understand your point.

> A communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes, and ultimately money and the state (or nation state).[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
> I've never seen tests with that goal in mind

Then you've never seen a test, I guess. That is the only goal they can serve, fundamentally.

> I have, but allowing that to happen is a culture-issue, not something that is guaranteed to happen.

Mistakes are guaranteed to happen given enough output/time. No matter how hard you try, you are going to make a mistake at some point. It is the human condition. In the olden days one might use a proofreader to try and catch the mistakes, but with the advent of testing a computer can do the "proofreading" automatically, leaving the human effort to be pointless.

Maybe in the age of LLMs we can go back to writing documentation in "natural" language while still using machines to do the validation work, but then again if you write code you probably would prefer to read code. I know I would! The best language is the one you are already using. Having to read code documentation in English is a horrible user experience.

> This is a software field and there are specific words with specific meaning

Sure, but in this case you won't find any real difference in meaning across the vast array of words we try to use here. The desperate attempts to try and find new words is to broach silly soundbites like "mocks are a code smell", so that one can say "I'm not mocking, I'm flabbergasting!", even though it is the same thing...
"Rejection is actually a relatively common occurrence for me, happening once or twice a year on average."

This feels like a superhuman trying to empathize with a regular person.
Yes, and we have freely available, cycle accurate 6502 emulation code bodies along with full coverage tests that include both the official opcodes and many illegal ones. Mostly the ones people used such as LAX, which can get the same value into both registers on a single read.

I just had a fleeting thought right now related to that behavior:

Basically, that opcode works because of how simple the design is. Electrically, wiring both registers up does the trick. And many parts of the chip can work together like that even though none or it was intended.

I wonder what a revisit, that takes these now well understood behaviors
into consideration, would look like!

Zeroing all or multiple registers, same with bit ops, maybe inc, dec...

Many new, efficient instructions are possible. Would be a fun programming exercize and design one too.