skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm sorry. Your argument sounds like it's reasonable but I can't accept it and it is full of strawmen. Very few people confuse 'good people that have crossed the line ... in defense of loved ones or strangers' with killers and murderers. Obviously killing is wrong but most people make moral allowances for such cases where it seems necessary or even for cases where it is mistaken or a so called 'crime of passion'. These are apples and oranges and not the same thing. As for standing on an easy moral high ground, uh yes, I'm reasonably certain that I will never reach the level of ordering a hit on an associate to protect my drug business so I will stand on that moral high ground, as will probably a very large majority of people. I have certainly entertained the thought of strangling quite a few people - past co-workers, strangers to death, and some of them I could even make a reasonable case at least in my mind, that they would've deserved it, but it has never crossed beyond a thought - and that is the case with most people in society, thankfully or we would live in a world of murderous chaos.
As for the FBI possibly cooking up most of it or manipulating it to look worse than it is, maybe. But from the transcripts of DPR's emails and online conversations regarding the allegations, it doesn't look very good for DPR either. In fact I think those transcripts was what soured the general public on DPR when many people like myself at first thought (and still think) the punishment seemed really excessive for what he was charged and tried for. That said I do think he has served reasonable time and the pardon at this time is not a bad thing.
Infrastructure Laundering: Blending in with the Cloud
The fundamental assumption with scouting, however, is that there is a “group”. In a post trust society, there is no “group”. There is zero trust. There exists no one who trusts the scout, nor anyone who trusts his/her report.

To have a “group”, you need some trust somewhere. “How to function, and what happens when there is no trust anywhere?”, is the question most of us are pondering.
I can tell you how I do it, but again I am not an impact study person. It helps to understand a bit of the background of how we fit orbits in general:

1) someone with a telescope sees something moving (typically these days these are bigger surveys)

2) These observations are submitted to the Minor Plant Center (MPC), the clearinghouse of all asteroid/comet observations.

3) Several groups pull observations from the MPC to fit orbits, including JPL Horizons (MPC also fits orbits)

4) You now have a pile of observations which you have to figure out which observation links to other observations, which is a complex math problem on its own. Solve that.

5) JPL Horizons for example then fits the orbits to the observations, and since the observations may be 100 years of data of wildly varying quality, from hand written notes in the 1920s through to modern data, this is very difficult. They publish a covariance matrix with the associated fit (IE: basically a gaussian error fit for the parameters).

6) I grab that covariance matrix and sample from it using some pretty vanilla statistics to build orbits.

7) Propagate and see what happens.

Here is an example of an observation from 1950:
https://caltech-ipac.github.io/kete/tutorials/palomar.html
The image was developed on a glass plate, this one was never even sent in to the MPC, the guy taking the observation just wrote down "Asteroid" on the cover slip for the image. It was not formally discovered until the 1980s. We now know its orbit very well, so this particular observation is not that interesting other than as a curiosity.

Here is an example of an orbit fit by JPL Horizons:
https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/tools/sbdb_lookup.html#/?sstr=c%2F2...

Note the "condition code" on the right, which is a score of how good their orbit fit matches the data, 0 means we know the orbit with high precision. This one is an 8, meaning we have a fit, but its not that great. Most likely because we only have 31 days of observations.
I agree, but I believe Postgres is just following the SQL standard here?

What's even crazier is that writing plain TIMESTAMP gets you TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE, as is also mandated by the standard (the Postgres docs call this one out specifically). And that behaviour can be summarized as: not only don't store the timezone, but also ignore the timezone you get given.

For example, I'm on GMT/UTC right now, and I see this:

select '2025-01-30T12:00:00-0800'::timestamp with time zone; -- 2025-01-30 20:00:00+00
select '2025-01-30T12:00:00-0800'::timestamp; -- 2025-01-30 12:00:00
The world outside and the pictures in our heads
People probably sleep in very similar conditions in all climates.
Why publish at all? Why not just write privately?
AI for Troubleshooting: OpenAI vs. DeepSeek
Structured output is solved, it is structuring data that's not, because that is an unbounded problem. There is no limit to how messy your data may be, and no limit to the accuracy and efficiency you may require.

I have used such models to structure human-generated data into sth a script can then read and process, getting important aspects in this data (eg what time the human reported doing X thing, how long, with whom etc) into like a csv file with columns eg timestamps and whatever variables I am interested in.
Are you, scarface_74, a US teen? If you are, are you a typical US teen?

Because if you aren't, you are probably missing something relevant about being a US teen, if you're thinking they should just do what you do.
Weed is better than alcohol. But I think you shouldn’t get too rosy with weed. There are a ton of negative things that come with it, including the potential to disassociate with society and long term memory loss.

I’d recommend visiting r/leaves regularly.
I do sometimes get confused when reading it, since the markers for main post, replies, etc are not super intuitive to me. Feels like a stereotype of a multiple personality disorder before you figure it out.

Is there a guide for the markup somewhere?
This is such a straw man. Yes, I agree you need a computer with Internet access, but otherwise:

1. At least where I leave, local libraries provide a ton of support for people who need help using a computer: free access to computers, the Internet, popular applications, and instruction on how to use them.

2. You still haven't given any evidence on why you need a smartphone.

2. Yes, society changes, and as part of those changes you need access to new tools. When I was a kid in the 80s in the US, you needed to have a car and you needed to have a phone.

At this point, PCs have been commonplace for nearly 40 years. I'm not saying that change is easy, but this idea that people are helpless and there aren't avenues to get access to the tools they need is BS in my opinion.
If people wrote the most optimal code the first time, we wouldn't need optimizing compilers, and all the undefined behavior that optimization passes necessarily bring along. The whole point of the example is to be poorly written in a way that the compiler "obviously" should be able to fix, but can't.

A less obvious example would be...

- A struct, A, which has an init_from_file method that deserializes data from a Read: R

- Another struct, B, which has its own init_from_file, and a variable number of A as one of its fields. B::init_from_file needs to deserialize by calling A::init_from_file in a tight loop.

This example is the same as the first, except now we've disguised the inefficiency with separation of concerns. A compiler can inline A::init_from_file into B::init_from_file to yield the same code as in the example.
Slowness and bloat, plus the sheer dependency footprint.
Incidentally, the body that wrote this text, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, is the oldest and arguably most powerful department in the Roman Curia. (Joseph Ratzinger was its head prior to becoming pope.) To the laity it might be better known by its older name, the Inquisition. The purpose of the body is, in its own words, to "spread sound Catholic doctrine and defend those points of Christian tradition which seem in danger because of new and unacceptable doctrines."
> Are there other modes of money creation? Yes, and all tie back to the government itself.

Yes, but surely you can see that the different mechanisms by which the government creates money (and the subsequent destinations for the new money) will each have their own resulting effects.

By driving the focus on to only one of them ("deficit spending") while tacitly giving the other(s) a pass, you're actually advocating for a specific course of ongoing government intervention (aka "policy") - especially while the unquestioned overall policy is such that diminishing one will automatically increase another.
Ventoy – 718 Shades of Open Source
Yeah, I agree. It makes sense and I'm glad that Drop is in no way guaranteed. I am excited for allocator-api to eventually stabilize, too!
For that specific use case, sure! But Temporal isn't for Macha's 3 use cases. Not all future datetimes are only concerned with civil time. Some are concerned with the precise instant in time. So how do you choose which one? There is no one universal right answer, so IMO, the right default is to reject.

But if you know your use cases and know you always want to adhere to civil time even if it means a change in the precise instant, then Temporal supports that too:

>> zdt = Temporal.ZonedDateTime.from("2025-06-20T17:00+08[US/Eastern]")
Uncaught RangeError: Offset +08:00 is invalid for 2025-06-20T17:00:00 in US/Eastern
InterpretISODateTimeOffset ecmascript.mjs:1467
ToTemporalZonedDateTime ecmascript.mjs:1531
from zoneddatetime.mjs:478
<anonymous> debugger eval code:1
>> zdt = Temporal.ZonedDateTime.from("2025-06-20T17:00+08[US/Eastern]", {offset: 'ignore'})
>> zdt.toString()
"2025-06-20T17:00:00-04:00[US/Eastern]"

> So in cases 1 and 2, having a non-UTC date is not required

If the only operation you need is formatting, then I agree, you can apply the time zone to the instant right before it's displayed. But there are many other operations (such as arithmetic or computing durations between datetimes) you might want to do that do required a time zone. You might still be able to get away with only storing a UTC date, but it really depends on what you're doing.
These notes are really great!
wasn't the situation then that the air traffic controllers walked off on strike, so new replacements had to be made to keep planes flying, which was realized by firings? (i was pretty young then, but that's what i remember reading)
Parent is exactly right. There's already a scramble to pin the blame and some in the GOP are looking for DEI: https://bsky.app/profile/andylevy.net/post/3lgxsd35fhs2i
Pretty sure the best hunter gets the most kids on average.
In that case it would be similarly be helpful if you focused your initial response on a key point of contention rather effusively and ineffectively allude to several. I will keep my reply as focused as possible.

You initially claimed that it was purely technological superiority that allowed Europeans to conquer America. This is not an understanding reflected in the literature. If it were the case, then why was it only much after the colonization of America, which began in the 16th century, that Asia and Africa were able to be colonized, in the middle of the 19th century? The difference between the technologies in the 16th century was not a huge jump, though its obviously true there was a discrepancy. Native Americans acquired horses after contact and incorporated them into their culture and by the 1700s some of the tribes in the great plains had fully transformed into a nomadic horse based life-style. Firearms are a similar story. One can imagine the difficulty 16th century europeans would have faced if they were to colonize an entire continent, without it being conveniently depopulated beforehand by plague.

You appear to recount that my claim was that American (US) slavery was a unique factor in the exceptional rise of Europe in the early modern period. This was a claim made by no-one. You'll recall that slavery in america refers to an entire continent - as I repeatedly pointed out - not an isolated group of states. My claim is that the depopulation and subsequent colonization of the entirety of the continent was a significant factor, along with the shift in political and economic structure that accompanied it.

Up to the 16th century you will find a wealth of european accounts of contacts with kingdoms in the Congo to East Asia, whereby they are described as equals in sophistication and size - most famously with Marco Polo's accounts though there exist many others. The change in perception of relative technological prowess in historical accounts occur much later, but certainly by the 1700s with the advent of the industrial revolution in the early modern period. This is well documented.

Why did the industrial revolution occur? It is a very large and open topic, though I lean towards the explanation that it was due in part to both the change in social structure during the reformation, as well as the colonization of america (the continent) and the development of economic networks with the extraction of resources (mercantilism, chartered trading companies etc.). This system was aided by and intensified by the trans-atlantic slave trade.

I'm sorry about the lack of "falsifiable content", or the lack of brevity. Unfortunately we are discussing history through the most sweeping lens possible, not science.

>unloading all of of our own biases

Again, what are you vaguely trying to allude to. Just say it.
They must have realized they were becoming irrelevant... I know I forgot about them and have been using other models locally. Openness is a huge win, even if I am using Mistral's hosting service I want to know I can always host it myself too, to protect my business against rug pulls and the like.

No one's going to pay for an inferior closed model...
> The reformed federal workforce will be built around four pillars:

[…]

> 4. Enhanced standards of conduct: The federal workforce should be comprised of employees who are reliable, loyal, trustworthy, and who strive for excellence in their daily work. Employees will be subject to enhanced standards of suitability and conduct as we move forward. Employees who engage in unlawful behavior or other misconduct will be prioritized for appropriate investigation and discipline, including termination.

[…]

> Upon review of the below deferred resignation letter, if you wish to resign: 1) Select “Reply” to this email. You must reply from your government account. A reply from an account other than your .gov or .mil account will not be accepted. 2) Type the word “Resign” into the body of this reply email. Hit “Send”.

* https://www.opm.gov/fork
It definitely seemed to get very sides-like-sports-teams in the mid 90s just after this (when Newt was speaker) and just gotten progressively worse over time.
Seems like a common story and I’m glad she came into that realization without wasting a decade or more.
Oumi-AI/oumi: Everything you need to build foundation models, end-to-end
C++-style stack traces, with stack walking and ELF section analysis, are expensive. Python's stack traces, which also involve reading source files from disk, are expensive as well.

But go's do not have to be. A compiler can expand "foo()?" to something like:

err := foo(); if err != nil { return err.WithStringContext("foo() in MyFile.go:25"); }

The only complexity there is appending a constant pointer to "err", and this only happens in error case that uses "?". Depending on implementation it could be a single word write, if compiler can prove there are no other users of "err".

(And if your code is carefully written to be allocation-free and appending a pointer kills that? In this case, you don't have to use "?", put "return err" directly.)
In the "stop the world approach", I imagined our algorithm to be a bit more manual: for example, we would turn the switch on manually, wait, and then turn it back on.

You make a good point though, that with enough effort it could also be a few seconds. I updated the essay to reflect this:

https://github.com/instantdb/instant/pull/774/files
Fun read. I am a bit curious on not mentioning OLAP, at all?

From my experience, the vast majority of complications in systems is people not realizing they are asking an OLAP question while wanting parts of OLTP semantics.

I'm also curious how much of this extra complication comes from having a central database that tries to be a source of truth for everything? As an easy example, inventory systems that try and have a cloud source of truth have obvious problems when on the ground inventory issues crop up. That is, a lot of the complication is between the distributed nature of the application and database, sure. But, another large source is the non-distributed abstraction that a central database can represent not centralized activity.
> There are some things in life that don't revolve around identity politics

Not anymore.
The only model that I've found to be useful in processing customer emails is o1-preview. The rest of the models work as well, but don't get all the minutia of the emails.

My scenario is pretty specific though and is all about determining intent (e.g. what does the customer want) and mapping it onto my internal structures.

The model is very slow, but definitely worth it.
Zeapon's New Micro4 Slider Promises Versatility for Visual Storytellers
But the weights can be modified. Also the real key is that you can host it yourself, fine tune and make money from it without restriction. That's what it's really about. No one (well, few) cares about recreating it because if they could they'd simply have made one from scratch themselves.
Related:

Intel doesn't know how to be a foundry," Tim Cook reportedly told TSMC's CEO

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42868531
And 25% of their earnings were from bitcoin, not from Tesla doing Tesla things.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/tesla-600-million-bitcoin-gai...
Any buffer of pre-issued/post-dated certificates would defeat the purpose of the short lifetime. You are supposed to request each new certificate during the validity period of the previous one. Taking the extreme of 6-day certificates mentioned in the blog, you would basically be requesting a new certificate every day, giving you 5 days of warning time to address infrastructure issues, but giving Let's Encrypt or other CAs even less time to address their issues. If you visit the linked post [1] about them, it's acknowledged that it's probably not practical to deploy such short-lived certificates at scale yet. Personally, I think 15-30 days is more reasonable, as this allows a weekly cadence with more lead time for addressing issues, especially for smaller shops that might only have 1 person (half-)focused on infrastructure. Even with the maximum of 47 days in the upcoming CA/Browser Forum rules, you're going to need to set up automated reissuance attempts and alerts for when they fail (or use managed hosting that does this for you).

Importantly, this only applies to HTTPS certificates. Other uses of X.509 are unaffected; e.g., code signing, API authentication, and S/MIME can still use longer-lived certificates. There hasn't been nearly as much work on automated authentication for re-issuance in these areas comparable to ACME and DNS verification for HTTPS, so I doubt those policies will change for the foreseeable future.

[1]: https://www.feistyduck.com/newsletter/issue_120_short-lived_...
Related:

Facebook ban on discussing Linux?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42839502
Cerebras fastest host for DeepSeek R1 70B, 57x faster than Nvidia GPUs
> I mean, you're telling me that the infinite creator of the universe cares about the prayers, the suffering, the aspirations, and the sexual habits of a bunch of finite beings?

Yes.

> The hubris! It seems obvious to me

I would turn that around and claim hubris on your part. You seem to think that your mind and the mind of God are similar, and limitations you perceive are limitations for God.
Some of them do citation okay-ish (which isn't sufficient, but suggests some ability).

But I more or less agree with your skepticism. If you looked over my comments on HN, you'd probably think I was a die-hard AI skeptic, but I'm really not, I just think the vast majority of people's understanding of and expectations of AI are disconnected from reality. I think people are viewing AI (and products, tools, innovations built with/around AI) as they hope it will be in 5 years, and not as it is right now.
OPM's DNS Changes: A Fork in the Road: Is Fed Employee Privacy Compromised?
Seems to be working for me: https://www.ice.gov/spotlight/statistics
> there is no monopolistic moat to guarantee profits, and no revenue stream to milk. Rather, like deploying billions of dollars on data farms to improve search, there is no revenue at all. Nobody's paying a single dollar for AI enhanced search.

Not only is nobody going to pay for "AI-enhanced search", people are actively trying to avoid it. This also applies to several other areas where AI slop is basically damaging any business it touches.
I remember a huge improvement between the Mistral models that came out in January and February 2024 versus their later releases starting in July 2024, so it wouldn't surprise me if this was a good model for it's size.
Great video covering the API: https://youtu.be/oOK3UzLJ_Cs?si=1MJYtFBmcyJs4tLj
Because the compiler optimizes based on the assumption that consecutive reads yield the same value. Reading from uninitialized memory may violate that assumption and lead to undefined behavior.

(This isn't the theoretical ivory tower kind of UB. Operating systems regularly remap a page that hasn't yet been written to.)
I suspect this prediction will never happen.
The FAA is facing a major crisis without a leader becau Elon Musk pushed him out
My bank opens at 9am. My pharmacy opens at 8am. The corner cafe opens at 7:30 but is completely closed on Wednesdays. This "complexity," if you want to call it that, requires very little cognitive load, and certainly doesn't require any standardized features to be added to every operating system and programming language standard library.
My recommendation is Tillamook. Their strawberry is fantastic.
There are many valid and justifiable reasons to do crazy things. But it's still crazy. :-)

I don't think that completely absolves PostgreSQL though. It seems like they could add things to improve the situation and de-emphasize the use of TIMESTAMP and TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE. But I am not a database or PostgreSQL expert, and there are assuredly trade-offs with doing this.

But yes, absolutely, the fact that TIMESTAMP is not just a timestamp without a time zone, but is actually a civil time is also equal parts crazytown. Like, a timestamp is 100% an instant in time. It is physical time. A number of seconds since an epoch. But PostreSQL (or the SQL standard) interprets it as a civil time? It's ludicrous and has assuredly confused countless humans. Especially those among us who don't know enough to question that PostgreSQL (or the SQL standard) might have gotten it wrong in the first place.
The same way you become good at anything at any point in your life: decide you want to and then put in the deliberate/consistent practice to make it happen. Set aside 15-20 minutes per day, work through Khan Academy, Math Academy, or a precalculus textbook, and then (the hard part) keep doing that.
Show HN: Animating pixel art textures with UV mapping
An outdated but still effective visual aid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj1foXYcHl4

Source code:
https://github.com/stipple-effect/stipple-effect
I wonder if that's a consequence of the Deepseek distill release: fine-tuned Qwen and Llama were both released by Deepseek, but not Mistral, and that's was a missed PR opportunity for them for no good reason.
I don’t believe they were referencing anything about literal higher education. In this context, saying something is an “academic exercise” is just a way of saying it’s being done more for one’s own edification, rather than any purely practical purposes.