skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Exactly. Everyone used tapes and turbo loaders.

The screen of "Turbo 250 By Mr. Z" felt like magic. Not only could you load a game in one minute instead of ten, but you suddenly had extra commands available in the basic prompt.

https://csdb.dk/release/?id=20633
It works with uwsgi just fine though.
Please stop using that RSS icon on your "Subscribe" button if you don't intend to provide an RSS feed.
O-1 is like H-1B, but worse. It's also tied to a single employer, the application process requires more work, and transitioning to a green card is a bit harder. Which means an O-1 worker is even more dependent of their employer than an H-1B worker.
> DEI has much more in common with various affirmative action efforts in the 80s and 90s

Affirmative Action was from Executive Order 11246 (1965) -- concurrent with and part of the same movement as civil rights legislation -- applying to federal contracting; it largely spread to large organizations that weren't direct federal contractors through subcontracting relationships and through state governments adopting similar requirements in their contracting.
Perhaps I didn't explain that I'm not against having visas for people to work here (the individual that I'm talking about got in the position he did because he was educated here and already had some standing) but that putting them behind a lottery is something senseless and cruel that only a politician could think up.

As for Musk (as much as I admire Falcon 9 and Starship) I think he's self-centered and unprincipled and that, observing the success of Donald Trump, he thinks that these traits can win him admiration. He's for immigration when it's good for him, otherwise he's indifferent or against it if he thinks its good politics.
I think you underestimate how different the original game and port targets were, and overestimate how capable the machines the porters had access to as workstations were.

To take a famous extreme example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chase_H.Q.

Arcade video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dfz2qofmZx0
ZX Spectrum video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2aYrkofKHM

And that ZX Spectrum port is brought up all the time when people talk about great Spectrum games, while it is, at best, kind of themed the same way as the arcade original.

In the case of Bubble Bobble the hardware was: https://system16.com/hardware.php?id=646

That's 3 Z80s, not counting the sprite hardware.

The result was in practice a lot of this would be done by playing the arcade machines and then attempting to replicate the feel on the target (which is why so many ports miss easter eggs), and at that the C64 did remarkably well here.

The Atari 2600 Pacman is the canonical example of this going wrong.
Wouldn't prisoners come back from the firefighting, regret having made the decision, and tell other prisoners that they were afraid for their lives and they shouldn't volunteer; that they wouldn't be volunteering again? Wouldn't this persuade people not to volunteer, and it wouldn't be seen as desirable?

Your argument is a fine hypothesis, but I think it falls apart in the data.
There's a lot of interesting discussions on r/science but like the rest of reddit it's such an echo chamber that you end up with bizarre one-sided arguments that discourage all opposing views.
I believe the comment is implying that having DEI programs at all was a song-and-dance put on by the C-suite; not that your spouse is insincere in their work.

Put differently: the C-suite set up these programs (and hired very sincere people to work in them) but never really actually cared about the outcomes.
Ok great! So where does the pre-language thought come from? Does that one spontaneously appear, or is it too assembled from even more subtle mind stuff by a conscious agent?

Once in possession of a pre-language thought, how does a conscious agent craft it into language? Does it open an internal dictionary and find the best fit? Are the dictionary entries appearing spontaneously or are they too conjured agentically somehow?

You can't keep going asserting a conscious, agentic process at every level. At some point you have to concede that what is available to a conscious agent is being offered by totally unconscious, "spontaneous" processes
> It's completely unusable

I will rail on FB just as hard as the next guy, but realistically, from a business perspective, if facebook's wild popularity and 3 billion active monthly users still says "unusable" to you... well, do you really think most people would agree with you? And more importantly to the company... whose opinion matters the most?
I think it's pretty obvious that SCOTUS and VP nominations aren't covered by EEOC and the like, and you're going to have a hard time ham-fisting "diversity hire" into those roles.

> > I've interviewed candidates for DEI specific roles.

This means one of two things. Either they're interviewing for roles on the DEI team, or "I had a role to fill and was told I had to hire a [black, hispanic, female, non-white] person."

The first one doesn't really have anything to do with the comment they're replying to. The second one is blatantly illegal but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And the next sentence and its tone supports that interpretation.

Is there a third interpretation I'm missing?
There is a way to help yourself.

Put the pair of images in front of your eyes.

Bring your finger between your face and the image.

Now look at your finger.

Move your finger back and forth.

While doing this, notice that at a particular distance, the images in background will perfectly overlap each other.

That's your moment.

Pull out your finger and look at that image.

---

Should take lot less tries to learn doing it without finger. I have taught cross eye to my siblings and cousins using this method. But if you always need finger to focus it's fine.
> I would say that DEI has sucked a huge amount of oxygen out of the room on accessibility

Which is a real shame because accessibility features and policies actually make things better and easier for everyone.
In a utopian world, probably.

Societies are complex, and humans are still very tribal. Any large influx of new population changes everything significantly, for good and for worse. And there will be resistance to change. Intermixing of cultures takes multiple generations, if at all and even then you will see silos.

We just need to look at how things are even now, even with the supposedly local population - caucasians, hispanics, african-americans and native americans. And they've all been together for centuries.
As mentioned the paper was accepted in NDSS. https://www.ndss-symposium.org/ndss2025/accepted-papers/
The conference occurs in Feb, and typically, the conference proceedings are published a little earlier than the conference itself.
You seem quite wrapped up in the idea of 'diversity hires'. I've never seen it work that way. Have you?

In my experience it has been about trying to encourage a more diverse pool to select from, and a more diverse pool of choosers, and that's it. After that, it's selecting the best person.

And, to be clear, even if 'diversity hires' did take place in the way you seem to imagine it, it wouldn't be racist to hire based on diversity as it's not done from a basis of racial superiority.

How about 'choose your descriptor here' based on an actual understanding of the words. Is it 'woke' now to ask people actually understand the words they're using.

Considering you don't understand what the word 'racist' means, do you understand what 'DEI policies' are?
For anyone who wants a more complex game proximate to this design, there's a small production called Reinforcements (https://reinforcementscg.myshopify.com/). Non-collectible, single box.

You play a hand of up to 5 cards each turn: Adding cards to (concealed) stacked ranks of defending troops, attacking an opponent's ranks, using a card's ability. The suits have different defensive properties when arranged in a rank, and combine in interesting ways; there are also "ultimate" powers players can grab from the center by forming their ranks with particular arrangements of suits, which act as turtle-busters.

Highly recommended, quite fun, probably plays best 1v1. Definitely a lot of small rules to absorb, so it's a more complex beast. But nowhere close to the complexity of Magic.
I am having some friends over next week for dinner and we'll probably play some games afterwards. There are a ton of other games listed on the site and I am sure there are some fun ones here!
The problem is there is no official path.

Contrast a new marriage. The government issues a conditional permanent residency and then two years later an application can be filed to remove the condition. It’s a similar story with the investor’s visa.

The H1B doesn’t lead to anything. It’s designed as if the alien is just going to leave after 3 or 6 years. Any kind of accommodations between it and the EB process are afterthoughts.
> when he claims to be correct about self driving in the Waymo case. The bar he set is so broad and ambiguous, that probably anything Waymo did, would not qualify as self driving to him

Honestly, back in 2012 or something I was convinced that we would have autonomous driving by now, and by autonomous driving I definitely didn't mean “one company is able to offer autonomous taxi rides is a very limited amount of places with remote operator supervision”, the marketing pitch has always been something along “the car you'll buy will be autonomously driving you to whatever destination you ask for, and you'll be just a passenger in you own car”, and we definitely aren't there at all when all we have is Waymo.
[2025-01-10-Fri 19:31 UTC] <JD Kaim> Final update. The university has determined that I have satisfactorily complied with their request to take down the site, and I’ve said publicly that I do not plan to pursue anything like HuskySwap, so the hold has been removed without a meeting and I am back on track to graduate next quarter. I have thanked them for closing the matter.

> I am so grateful for all the moral support I’ve received from the community. My friends have been there for me, and I never expected people who didn’t even know me to reach out with so much encouragement. It’s been an overwhelming experience and I’m going to grow from it.

> I’m sorry if you reached out to me and I haven’t followed up yet. I’ve been dealing with this while trying to ramp on week 1 of a 17-credit workload that includes 3 400-level CS classes. I’m thinking of asking for some content writing credits for the time invested in all of this, but probably not until things have cooled off . I hope to be completely caught up by the end of the weekend.

-- https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jdkaim_github-jdkaimhuskyswap...
I wanted to briefly reinforce this point with the fact that SQL has multiple equality operators - there is both `=` and `IS NOT DISTINCT FROM`. The later operator will treat null values as equal in alignment with the `DISTINCT` and `DISTINCT ON` operators.

It is extremely easy using partial uniques and the proper operators to treat nulls as non-distinct values and the approach we have allows some very important functionality that aligns with standard statistical data treatment which was influential to how SQL logic was originally designed.
This has been the case for ages. Sysadmins use "implement" to mean "install software on servers and keep it running", coders use "implement" to mean "code stuff that matches a spec/interface". It's just two worlds accidentally using the same term for a different thing. No meanings are changing. Two MS certified sysadmins in 1999 could talk about how they were "Implementing Exchange across the whole company".
That’s true. Back when they were inventing security, the requirement for high-security systems (A1 under TCSEC) required formal verification. Those who did it said its cost ranged from not too burdensome to very high. What’s the reason?

While many requirements existed, the design assurance required specifying what problem was being solved, how it’s being solved, and the safety/security properties. Then, proving that the security properties were embodied in the artifacts in all states. That problem is difficult enough that most people who succeeded were also geniuses good at programming and math. Geniuses are in short supply.

The lessons learned papers also pointed out a recurring problem. Each requirement, security policy, algorithm, etc needed a mathematical specification. Then, proof techniques were necessary that could handle each. Instead of developing software features, you are now both developing software and doing R&D on applied mathematics.

Steve Lipner’s The Ethics of Perfection pointed out it took several quarters to make a major change on a product. The markets value development velocity over quality, even demand side. So, that’s already a no go for most businesses. Likewise, the motivations of OSS developers work against high assurance practices as well.

If you want formal verification, then you are forced to make certain decisions. For one, you need to build simple systems that are easy to verify, from design to language. Then, you use the easiest, most-automated tools for the job. Most drop full verification to do automated, partial checking: TLA+, Alloy, SPARK Ada, Meta’s Infer, etc.. If doing full verification, it’s better to make or build on reusable components like we see done with CompCert and seL4. GEMSOS and VAX VMM advocated that back in the day, too.

So, most software development isn’t fit for use of formal verification. I think we can default on a combo of contracts (specs), automated testing, static analysis, and safe languages. If distributed, stronger consistency when possible. Then, use CI to run the verification on each commit. Some tools can generate patches, too.
A top recommendation along these lines is The Worst Journey in the World by Apsley Cherry-Garard; a member of the Scott expedition to the south pole, which goes into detail of his winter journey (which the title refers to). One of the best historical adventure books I've read
feist is what comes up when i search around, too. the ISBNs might be poisoned if anna broke terms of service to get the ISBNs
Why American corporations like automakers can lobby to impose tariffs and extract more money from American consumers, but there are no protections for labor?

If Tesla/GM are so good in this beautiful global market, they dont need no tariffs on Chinese EVs.

Zero tariffs in all imports since it is beautiful global market and competition is good and all tariffs are paid by American consumers
> books about how hard things got done.

American Steel, about how a small steel fabricator took over the US steel industry.

Think, the story of the Watsons and IBM, about how IBM went from a maker of time clocks to the biggest name in computing.

The Art of the Comeback, by Trump. This is the Trump book few read. Copies are around US$200 now. Written when Trump was down, it's more honest than his other book.

Some things that were famously hard to develop:

- Xerography. First demo in 1939, started to work around 1959, became a simple technology in the 1980s.

- Television. First attempts in the 19th century, sort of worked by the 1930s, worked decently by the 1950s, worked well as digital HDTV in the late 1980s, and achieved really good and really cheap only in the last few years.

- Steel. Goes back to ancient times. Not produced in quantity until the 1880s. Took about 10,000 tries to get the metallurgy for the Bessemer process right. Turns out you need analytical chemistry to make consistently good steel. Otherwise yield is poor. Many batches come out bad.

- Magnetic resonance imaging. The guy who invented it was almost fired for wasting time.

- Home grocery delivery. Check out why Webvan failed but Amazon succeeded. Some of the same people.
I really enjoyed the extra 58 minutes from her talk though, she didnt just read from the slides the added a lot of extra context.
The problem is the end-state is complex and nuanced.

The qualitative objective for most companies should be something like: "Recruiting and hiring people with no bias against race, gender, religion, age, disability, etc... Treating those same people with no bias once hired, including pay, promotion, opportunities, and respect. Leveraging the diversity of perspective and skills of everyone in the company to maximize success of the company."

How do you measure that? If you're a SW company and you have 2% Black engineers is that good or expected? If its not good, how should you improve it?

I think these are legitimately important questions, but also exceptionally hard questions. I think the big problem though is that for the majority of the population there is little incentive to actually solve the problem. But I think money will eventually be what does it. Market inefficiencies will eventually lead people to want to solve this, but it can take a LONG time for these inefficiencies to manifest, since there are so many other factors at play. For example, look at college football. Alabama did not integrate black players until the 70s and they were fine until they played an integrated USC team -- and it took that long despite football being probably one of the places where inefficienes are squashed out pretty quickly.
> Make a token commit day 1 or 2 to show you can and will deliver, even if just docs. Ensure you can go end-to-end on a real code PR week 1, even if a trivial one. Identify which area of code is most important for you to learn, vs not learn, and focus there.

Even if you are not on the management track, as a “senior” developer, your first goal is to understand the business, the organization, etc.

I would not be committing code until I had a good understanding of the “why”.

For a senior developer thinking about the leveling guidelines I’ve seen first hand and the ones that are publicly available, coding is not the highest value you should bring to the company.

If I were to priorities your bullet points it would be the second, third and then the first.
This is incredible! Works unbelievably well. Thanks for sharing!
That's true, but they make up a disproportionate number of the "visible homeless" that people encounter in camps, taking drugs on the street, etc. A lot of homeless people are at a low point in their lives, but use the systems offered to them and dig themselves back out. That's why they aren't CHRONICALLY homeless.

They don't represent the same kind of societal problem that poor students, broke divorcees, and people moving through rough patches do. They also don't represent a single population that needs help they aren't provided with already, unlike the chronically homeless.
It looks interesting, but I always struggle to explain (and conversely when on the other side, to understand) the rules of card games to new players. Has anyone had success in bringing a game more complicated than Cards Against Humanity to their friend group? What did you find helpful?
This is very much a shameless plug but I wrote a book, Rebooting a Nation, on how the country of Estonia was able to modernize post re-independence in the early '90s and become a leader in e-government (99% of government services accessible online) and a tech hub (Skype, Transferwise, Bolt, etc.). I tried to draw out practical lessons for policymakers in other countries, especially in the U.S. as I wrote it after having worked for the Estonian government and advised some members of Congress in DC on tech policy. It's available for pre-order now and comes out in a few months, link below.

https://www.rebootinganation.com/
I agree. Additionally, there were always increasing tech workers, they just all got jobs when the market was hot. Now when there are less jobs, companies want the best candidates, and specifically in tech, a lot of times (not in the case of abusers like TCS) H1B holders are more qualified on paper due to usually having advanced degrees. School rank and ability matters more to employers these days, and that's tough for domestic grads who might not meet the bar
You're behind the times- blind auditions have been disfavored by DEI-practitioners for years, on the grounds that they're not as effective as quotas.
Wow, that example is even more blatant, and just goes to show how all this free speech talk is bullshit. Exactly as you put it, "what's it to anyone else"? And if anything, I'd be all for adding more themes: You want everything in MAGA red? Cool, knock yourself out.

I hope lots of people at Meta are in full-on quiet quitting mode.
> Because you advocated that very point. You: "some data is better not to share too"

SOME data. SOME. You've concluded, incorrectly, that I was pretending that sharing data is not useful all the time, which is not at all what I've said.

> You can make this general claim about all papers based on your individual experience?

What? Do you even understand basic logic? I'm saying that I've observed SOME paper where sharing the code did not help. I'm not saying sharing the code never help (I've said that already). I'm just saying that people usually don't understand the real cause of the problem, and invent that sharing the code will help, while in fact doing other things (for example being more precise in the explanation) will solve the problem without having to pay for the unblinding that sharing the code generate.

Sure, one reason I say that is because of my experience, even if my observations are not at all limited to one field as I've exchanged on the subject with many scientists. But another reason is that when I discuss the subject, the people who overestimate the gain of sharing the code really have difficulties to understand the disadvantages in sharing the code.

Yourself, you seems to not understand what we need for a good replication. Replication is supposed to independently demonstrate, so we build up the confidence in the conclusions. Rerunning with the same data or the same code is not enough, because it does not prove that the conclusions will remain valid if we try with other data or other implementation. When you understand that, only then you understand that sharing the code has a price to pay.

By the way, it will also explain why CERN is doing something that, according to you, has absolutely no reason to exist except for cheating. Of course, if it was the case, intellectually honest scientists would all ask CERN to cancel these policies. They don't, because there are real reasons why scientists may prefer in some case to forbid sharing code and data (not just "I don't do it myself because I'm lazy", but "I don't do it because it's a specific rule, they explicitly say it's a bad thing to do it").

And, sure, maybe it is not everywhere. But it does not matter. It's a counter-example that demonstrates that your hypothesis does not work. If your hypothesis was true, what CERN does would not be possible, it would be obviously a bad move and would be attacked.

> I've given you some example authors, if you have an issue with their methods, delineate the problems explicitly rather than sharing weak anecdotes.

These studies do not conclude that sharing the code is a good solution. None of these studies are in contradiction with what I say.

Of course, from someone who think that saying "some data is better not to share too" and conclude that it means "data is better to never be shared", or that did not understood the point of Tao, I'm sure you are convinced they say that. They just don't.
From another independent language developer, good luck to you.

I know this may not feel constructive but I'm going to say it anyway: the name of the language is a huge turnoff for me. I try to avoid janky things and use the word as a pejorative. It isn't that different to me than naming the language crap.
Almost. The time zone here is Europe, while the posts are in the US. Posting usually happens in the morning (NY time) and get views around the same time they are posted. Succesful videos continue to accumulate views for a long time, but bad videos don't.