skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Here's another issue, the interviewer is sometimes wrong. Or, there was a miscommunication. At least twice in my career I missed an offer because the interviewer didn't think I had experience in something, but turns out I had decades of it. But, I don't brag. Heard thru the grapevine, "oh they said you didn't have database experience," hears me using databases since the late 80s. WTF?

So I could imagine debating a point while being in the right.
thanks - just applied!
> I feel genuine concern for this group of people, a group which includes some of my own family members. I worry that they're going to be left behind.

Such people should simply invest the time that other people waste hyping AI to learn complicated important topics. As soon as the AI bubble bursts, this decision will (hopefully) pay off.
I use Facebook, a lot (again: all the politics in my town happens there), and almost nothing is fact-checked; I see one fact-check notice for every 1,000 bad posts I see. I feel like I'm on pretty solid ground saying that what they're doing today isn't working.

Meanwhile: Community Notes have become part of the discourse on Twitter; getting Noted is the new Ratio'd.

Accuracy has nothing to do with any of this. I don't think either Notes or Warnings actually solves "misinformation". I'm saying one is a good product design, and the other is not.
A lot of modern day UX designers would be aghast at the sheer quantity of data and speed at which a user can handle it IFF the UI is adequately designed.

PoS software really plateaued in the 90s. The most common flows were so simple an average user can hold a mental map of the program and always know exactly how to get where they need to be. Pros can fly through ten levels of menus in literally half a second to access some obscure report.

In modern UI we've totally given up and just give the user a search box on every screen. Instead of a clean indexed list of menu items you can hit a key to access, we have to fumble around with tooltips.
edit: there's a small blurry one that plausibly could be it at the very end of the video.

~you can see in the video that it's not showing that button on the screen though.~
First, I understand that the JPA (Jump Point Search) family only works efficiently in static environments.
This means it requires preprocessing to achieve high efficiency.

What I'm aiming for, however, is a real-time scenario where such preprocessing is not strictly necessary. I want to implement something akin to how many creatures with human-like vision navigate using only partial information, just as humans do in real-life situations.

Currently, trees are appearing and disappearing dynamically.
In the future, such situations are expected to occur more frequently, so I am aiming to create a lightweight solution that can handle these changes in real-time.

As you mentioned, for cases like rabbits, their location information is already preprocessed and divided by zones.
Since this is a small task, it doesn't impose a significant burden on the system.
This information is intended to be used when wolves are searching for rabbits.

Additionally, I have recently been considering processing even smaller zones than the current ones to handle the vision of wolves more effectively.
> if we knew about it, then we have to ask: ‘Where are the regulators? Where are the people who should’ve known better?

Profiting.
Facts exist. Your first sentence has 11 words. Easy to verify, right? Doesn't matter who's counting.

May I suggest that your confusion comes from a conflation between facts and generalizations. Hard facts exist in strictly defined contexts. Relax the context, and you need to eventually reach for generalizations that less precise and potentially ambiguous.

If somebidy asked me whether the cup in you hand would fall and and shatter when they release it from their grip, my answer would of course depend on a few things I pick up from the context: what gravitational attraction would the cup experience in your current location? What material is the cup made of (porcelain, metal...)? So if we're standing on earth and the cup was made of porcelain, I'd answer that it would fall and likely shatter. Doesn't mean that any cup would shatter. Metal cups doesn't. But that's a different fact. So there is no generalized fact that all cups shatter when they fall. Some do, some don't. We can play the same game with gravity. The cup wouldn't fall if we were floating on the ISS. So the same cup doesn't fall in all locations it might conceivably be.

Many people don't want to deal with the level of precision that hard facts require. They get sloppy and then start these endless discussions of "this isn't true because..." etc. and everyone gets gradually more confused because nothing seems to be entirely true or false. The fundamental counter here is to dig in and tease the generalizations apart until they become sets of constrained hard facts.
IQ tests aren't illegal. Several big companies overtly use them.
The only JavaScript offering from Oracle that I know of is GraalVM[0]. It's funny though - they use "JavaScript" and "ECMAScript" interchangeably in their docs. They call it "A high-performance embeddable JavaScript runtime for Java" but then tout it as "ECMAScript Compliant", basically acknowledging that JavaScript is defined by ECMAScript specs and the terms mean the same thing.

[0] https://www.graalvm.org/javascript/

(Not a lawyer, just a nerd observing terminology)
This sounds like a perfect fit, just applied!
That's so sadistic, that wasn't Satan?
Very cool. Would like to see ability to zoom in & out, and ability to rotate the map.
I mean, yes, it’s a reasonable thing for Sun to want, but I (also not a lawyer) don’t see how it’s within the USPTO’s purview to grant. Sun/Oracle can claim others’ use of “JavaScript” is confusing others with regard to what “Java” is—indeed as you say this seems to have been Netscape’s explicit intent with the name—but that means Sun/Oracle may have some control over the use of the term “JavaScript” through their very real dealings in Java, not their nonexistent ones in JavaScript. You don’t get to squat trademarks, you have to use them. (Unless you have enough money to outlast any challenger in a legal battle. I guess we’ll see how that goes.)
the button is giant and blue and impossible to miss and you can see from the video it isn't on the screen. the screen in the video is mostly brown with a sliver of blue on the side.
You probably missed it in another subthread, but that limit was a joke on their website, not an actual limit.
No, you’re not naive. If it’s done by one-two people that know what they’re doing, it should be done much faster.

If it’s a big new team that doesn’t know what they’re doing, working separately from existing codebase, with lots of meetings… I see no reason why it would finish at all.
Hyperview is a very interesting mobile-oriented hypermedia system created by Adam Stepinski.

He talks about is in the third part of our book, hypermedia systems:

https://hypermedia.systems/part/hyperview/

I have said before that I regard his work as much more innovative than htmx in that he developed an entire hypermedia client and format for his system.
The criticism of the target’s intelligence or competence isn’t the mean-spiritedness I’m referring to. I’m referring to the deliberate and inherent mean-spiritedness towards people with intellectual disabilities that the slur is explicitly invoking.
they tried that. in an emergency they just stopped. the problem was they were stopping in the middle traffic and in the middle of intersections, so it's now an pull over button. or just open the door.
The United States Government is replacing the open source, internally written medical records system, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VistA, with Epic. [edit] Or is it cerner?

I'm sure it's going to be way way way better.

[edits: cerner not epic?; added another way to emphasize how much better it'll be.]
What's wrong with everyone else calling it "ECMAScript?"
Have you looked at tiup?

https://tiup.io
> Blockchains are slow, expensive databases masquerading as a social revolution while functionally being a get-rich-quick scheme.

If you consider a blockchain to be (mostly) a "competitor" to a database, you use it wrong. Blockchains and in particular consensus algorithms for blockchains are a solution to a hard problem: reaching a consensus when not all participants can be trusted.

For any application that needs this problem solved, blockchain algorithms are to my best knowledge basically the only game in town. These applications are rare, but they do exist - for these blockchain and blockchain consensus algorithms are a godsend.

If you have another problem to solve, a blockchain will insanely likely not be the proper solution.
> Imagine letting a passenger in a car use the e-brake at any time.

Alright, I'm imagining. Seems extremely sensible, especially in an AI-operated vehicle.

Much of the world (the US being an outlier) puts passenger-facing emergency breaks in every carriage of passenger trains.
As far as I’ve researched, if there’s an assumption that there are no obstacles, the fastest way to select a straight path is Bresenham's Line Algorithm.
If I’m mistaken about this, please let me know!

In my project, since I don’t need to guarantee complete real-time processing, there isn’t an absolute necessity to find paths as quickly as possible.
However, since many entities need to find paths simultaneously, I’d like to keep the computations as minimal as possible.

It might be similar to what you mentioned about algorithms being fast enough on low-spec hardware.
In my case, I’m currently using an ultra-low-power Mini PC with an *N100 CPU* as a server.
This choice not only helps me study methods to optimize performance but also satisfies my curiosity about fully leveraging the advantages of *MSA (Microservice Architecture)*-based services.
So is that "critique"
Yeah, it feels like the system created all these jobs because it could afford to support all that deadweight, but most of those people were not creating value; they were not contributing to the company's success so much as merely mooching off of it.

Also, the centralization of media put this effect into hyperdrive. Successful, high exposure companies were drowning in money and so they could just throw 100 engineers at each tiny problem and it wouldn't materially affect their bottom line. They also didn't care much whether an employee was doing their job efficiently, so long as they met basic objectives... Which wasn't hard to do when you have so many people in the team and each person is responsible for a tiny piece.

Many people could be counter-productive in the long run, they were productive enough to meet their short-term OKRs and so they were left alone but their rushed work set the project up for long term pain... Often it's impossible to trace back issues to specific individuals... In software development, it's trivial to introduce massive technical debt while meeting or even blowing past short-term objectives. Someone who is literally killing the project might appear to be a top performer... They may be promoted before any problems become apparent... Kind of like a bad civil engineer who builds an amazing looking bridge and is celebrated for years until the bridge suddenly collapses because the foundations turned out to be poorly designed. By that point they've already been promoted several times, maybe already retired and they can claim that the collapse was caused by incorrect construction practices or bad maintenance work performed later. However, in software, it's much worse because you can't just point to a single incorrect formula or calculation. Failure is usually the result of many bad decisions.
Kind of ironic that this is on the cbc site. The CBC probably has the most people in any facility I can think of which everyone there is incompetent but stays for the pay and the fact they subscribe to the politics and the union of the place.
they do have that capability but they don't give level one customer support access to it.
This is still funny and true about the software profession at many levels, but specifically about electronic voting, I recently listened to this podcast about Venezuela's last election [0], which highlights how computer voting can be done so safely that people were able to (clandestinely!) use the system to double-check the election results.

--

1: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/848/transcript
Because they have never experienced anything better or been very slowly gotten used to it (5 second ad every 10th video, then every 9th and to whatever we have right now). That's pretty much it. That's also the reason why us, people who don't see that many ads, can't go through a single ad. Because we haven't gotten used to the other side.
Nancy Pelosi's husband's gay lover hammer attack?

Diver rescuers being pedophiles?
1200 tabs isn't that many
XDP with RDMA (RXE) [pdf]
Do you have any substantive criticism you could share?
I've been lucky enough to see glow-worms in the wild in NZ and they're lovely but as you say, faint, hard to capture the quality. Never seen fireflies
> Finally though, you hope not to raise too many times, so that $200 million needs to last years. Let's say they planned for a round 10 years

You had me until this. Nobody is raising money to last ten years. You would be growing and want to raise in future years at higher valuations that incorporate all the growth.
Boulette: Prevents you from accidentally shutting down remote hosts
Hacki is nice, but like most (all?) HN clients, it lacks a way to filter posts based on topic. Actually, now I wonder if there's even any client out there that offers topic-based categorisation and filtering, preferably LLM backed.
It doesn't seem true to me. Pretty much everything worthwhile on the web is gratis (nonprofits, academia, governments, hobbyists, etc.) or paid. The ad supported stuff is basically mainstream news, social media, youtube, and SEO spam sites. The overwhelming majority is less than worthless.
Hopefully, you have a monorepo or something with similar effects, and a lack of fiefdoms. In that case, if the current way is undocumented and/or inconsistent, you make it better before or while adding in your new approach. If there are 4 ways to do the same thing and you really want to do it a different way, then replace one of those ways with your new one in the process of adding it. For extra credit, get to the point where you understand why you can't replace the other 3. (Or if you can, do it! Preferably in followups, to avoid bundling too much risk at once.)

A lot of inconsistency is the result of unwillingness to fix other people's stuff. If your way is better, trust people to see it when applied to their own code. They probably have similar grievances, but it has never been a priority to fix. If you're willing to spend the time and energy, there's a good chance they'll be willing to accept the results even if it does cause some churn and require new learning.

(Source: I have worked on Firefox for a decade now, which fits the criteria in the article, and sweeping changes that affect the entire codebase are relatively common. People here are more likely to encourage such thinking than to shoot it down because it is new or different than the status quo. You just can't be an ass about it and ignore legitimate objections. It is still a giant legacy codebase with ancient warts, but I mostly see technical or logistical obstacles to cleaning things up, not political ones.)
OCuLink has been superseded by MCIO. I was speaking of the custom gen 5 cabled nvme backplane most servers have.
They actually cancelled the migration because the commercial EMR was getting people killed.
> I believe that most engineers want to write good code

But the opinion what makes code good differ a lot between software developers. This exactly leads to many of the inconsistencies in the code.
This feels like excessive concern for OSS. Mozilla gets touchy about trademarks generally not code
Well very interesting. I don't really read that as supporting my idea of a renamer limit: seems like the throughput would either be higher (assuming the CQO just goes "for free" in the same rename cycle) or lower and also depend heavy on the interleaving (assuming the SHLX uses a whole rename cycle by itself or something like that).

So maybe it's like you say: SHLX with the anomaly is only semi-pipelined: it takes 2 cycles before the next SHLX can dispatch. Perhaps it needs to use 1 cycle to handle the unfolding of the folded immediates, then the shift happens in the second cycle, and then the latency just has to be rounded up to 3 since all uops on those ports are 1 or 3, never 2 (which simplifies the scheduler, I believe).

That would also explain the original 1/cycle throughput for pure SHLX with anomaly: as 2 non-pipelined cycles on the port, 2 ports = the observed throughput.

So it's sort of like a 2 uop instruction but can't _actually_ be 2 uops because "rename" is too late to crack something into 2 uops (that's already happened), so it just does the doubling up internally?
Can the majority be trusted? 100% of the time? (50 + epsilon)% of blockchain participants can’t be wrong?
I'd basically like to see worker-owned corporations being tax-privileged (maybe a 5%, maybe a 15% discount tax rate) and some QoL legal features to make it obvious to people that they are signing up for a high-risk high-reward corporate structure. If I thought the idea had serious traction I'd look up what they do in Switzerland [0] and suggest people copy that. But I'd like to see new ideas experimented with that make it easier for workers or citizens to take on controlled levels of risk.

It is more a political project than an economic one; I interpret serial board members as a problem of power centralisation. The incentives shouldn't be to engage in that sort of centralisation, it can't possibly be a technically good idea. One idiot in the wrong place will cause too much damage and board members don't have time to keep track of multiple companies. It'd be good to do things that decentralise power.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coop_(Switzerland)
Every time I see magic links, I always think: "I thought we weren't supposed to click links in emails in the first place?".

When links in email come into mind, so does phishing.

I hate these magic links a lot.
It's both. And it's going to continue until games are 100% and AI fever dream.
Please read your own links!

RCMP

Minister responsible
Dominic LeBlanc, Minister of Public Safety

How a Canadian doesn’t know the structure of their federal government is beyond me.
I don't have the time for it, but if I were going to make a new web front-end framework, it would be focused on this sort of expert-level interface.

The key thing would be some sort of input-buffering system, where you can have lots of things bound to keys, and the framework will actually buffer things. Generally web browsers and modern UIs in general throw away input on reloads and such, on the generally-correct but very novice-biased theory that you didn't mean to be inputting into a screen you can't see yet. If you undo that and allow buffering keystrokes across loading actions you could start recovering some of that expert-level speed, where you can be using screens that aren't even loaded yet.

"Expert-focused" UIs don't have to be bound to the terminal. That was all an accidental thing.

Expert-focused UIs are nearly dead because all our UI frameworks actively block them. That is also not a fundamental fact of computing and can be undone.
I've known multiple with glucose monitors and all of them told me they saw no increase after drink a diet soda. I think the "aspartame causes sugar spikes" is an urban legend. I never get the sugar rush from them like I do if I drink a sugary soda.
My sister abused me (emotionally mostly, but occasionally hitting me or throwing water on me) for years growing up and lies about it to this day. People lie about this shit even when they have nothing to gain but attention.

This woman may very well be telling the truth, but she very well may be just trying to get a piece of the pie now that he's insanely rich. Don't just jump on board with the cancellation mob. Let the court do its job.
> But how do we distinguish facts from non facts?

What do you mean how? Science. The process of science.

There might be people who want to believe gravity on Earth accelerates objects at 1m/s^2, but we can trivially establish through countless experiments repeatable by anyone who wants to try that this is not true.

If you can't measure it or repeatably demonstrate it then it's probably not a fact. If it can, then it is a fact and no amount of emotionally wanting to believe something else can make it not a fact.
Only three interview misses in 15 years?
Because liberals in Austin Texas have far more experience in what it means for liberal and conservative opinions to coexist together in one place, vs California where liberal opinions are the default and everything else must be shunned.
I have three maxims that basically power all my decisions as an engineer:

1. The three C’s: Clarity always, Consistency with determination, Concision when prudent.
2. Keep the pain in the right place.
3. Fight entropy!

So in the context of the main example in this article, I would say you can try to improve clarity by e.g. wrapping the existing auth code in something that looks nicer in the context of your new endpoint but try very hard to stay consistent for all the great reasons the article gives.
While descriptive, I'd think a catchier name might be in order. As a plus, that can be used to draw people away from any Oracle branding.
>Being kind "because there are too many unkind people out there" sounds wrong. I have no idea how they measured the "too many unkind people out there"

This sounds wrong because you feel we need more assholes out there, or you feel we have the proper amount?
@johnfn
The approach I’m considering would be similar to how humans navigate: using only visible information to continuously infer and find the way in real-time.

It would essentially break down the flow of how humans navigate into small, incremental steps.
Look with their eyes, make a judgment, move, and repeat the process again and again...

Of course, trial and error could also occur.
This might actually make it feel more natural.
They haven't abandoned it but that title makes it sound like they have.
How do IP address changes actually work? I see how subflows could come and go, but doesn't the master MPTCP connection need fixed IP addresses?
> If there are no positive feedback loops, it would only warm up 1C maximum, no matter how much more CO2 we will emit.

GHG emissions are still increasing. If we assume that temperature increase is only linear in the amount of atmospheric GHGs, that means temperature will continue to increase, not remain flat.
I also hope it works as well as you’re thinking.
I’m not sure I buy the argument that tools necessarily need to be fixed.

> It feels like we created these tools when software became a thing. Then, we forgot them.

Sometimes the best tool is the hammer you already have. A lowly, simple, reliable hammer. I know software isn’t the only field where we like to chase the new shiny thing and call it “modern”. But, sometimes it really seems like that feeling is deeply embedded in programmer culture.

I’m not against building new tools, but they have to solve legitimate problems. And an old GUI from the 90s doesn’t seem like a legitimate problem for me. Have you ever seen how quickly a trained worker can move around on a TUI from the 80s?

Scaling? Data interoperability? Data models and new use cases? This is not an exhaustive list, but these all seem like good reasons to revamp tools. But, if the problem is attaching one piece of wood to another with a bit of metal… just use the hammer.
This also brings the fastest computers to their knees because it bypasses hardware acceleration.
Is there a learning curve for shutting off your brain and letting the tech giants tl;dr your thinking for you with their version?