skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yup. mmc-utils is the way to go. Note that this change is irreversible once you send the command to finalize the settings.

The single biggest thing you can do to improve the reliability of your embedded system is to use eMMC’s built-in hardware partitioning.

- Each hardware partition is a separate block device. A firmware update cannot corrupt the device by overwriting a partition table.

- There are two small boot partitions, and they can be made permanently read-only after programming, thus preventing corruption of your bootloader. You can also use the other one read-write for your uboot environment.

- You can easily have two OS partitions for A/B firmware updates. In addition to mounting them readonly, temporary write protection can be enabled on a per-partition basis and disabled when needed for fw updates.

- If you can’t afford the capacity hit from pSLC, I believe it can be enabled on a per-partition basis. (Don’t quote me on this, it could be wrong).

All these settings can be configured with either mmc-utils or u-boot. In volumes, programming houses can take care of this for you. (You’ll have to list all the registers out very specifically in an Excel spreadsheet)

The downside is that calculating all the correct register values is not a simple process, and you’ll have to spend a bit of time reading the eMMC spec.
What definition of contact details makes them not private?

Contact details (your phone number, email or address) are definitively private information, you should be the one that decides who gets them and who doesn't.
AI - Wall Street’s Modern Gold Rush. Here’s How Investors Are Placing Their Bets
The bro-ligarchs have a vision for the new Trump term
Are you playing arcade or realistic battles? There's a huge difference between the two. And there are also simulator battles.
Yeah, maybe not Trump or Musk, but there's a lot of them.al

Also, you only need one bullet to go through, and Trump doesn't strike me like the guy who does everything Secret Service tells him to do.
Having the word “Elon” seems to bring out the worst in us. I still believe we can have civil discussions about topics that might be considered taboo.
> You have now excluded amazing engineers who suck at talking about themselves in interviews. They may be great collaborators and communicators, but freeze up selling themselves in an interview.

This was the norm until perhaps for about the last 10-15 years of Software Engineering.
Human intelligence is bootstrapped by biological evolution and the society, neither of which is fast or efficient. Truly individual part of the intelligence is tiny, it's vastly overrated and relies on these two. Similarly, LLMs perform in-context learning, which is much more efficient because it relies on the pre-baked knowledge. Yes, the generalization ability is still incomparable to humans, but it's entirely possible that much better ability is achievable by slowly bootstrapping it.
No, these are paid by consumers at import time. It's not just a pass-through cost; consumers pay CBP. (I've imported many purchases, both below and above de minimis thresholds. Even the negotiation of which HTS schedule applies to specific items is between CBP and the individual -- the selling company isn't involved at all.)
i like this. it seems like a good and honest use of time.
Ask HN: Is software engineering just patching APIs and wrangling Kubernetes?
Does anyone else feel disillusioned with the modern software engineering job? It often feels like it's just stitching together APIs, wrestling with React state, and managing Kubernetes clusters rather than building something truly exciting. Is this just the nature of the job now, or are there paths that still feel fulfilling? How do you cope with it?
As far as I can tell, I think you are interchanging the ability to recognize creativity with the ability to be creative. Humans seem to have the ability to make creative works or ideas that are not entirely derivative from a given data set or fit the criteria of some pre-existing pattern.

That is why I mentioned Kuhn and paradigm shifts. The architecture of LLMs do not seem capable of making lateral moves or sublations that are by definition not derivative or reducible to its prior circumstance, yet humans do, even though the exact way we do so is pretty mysterious and wrapped up in the difficulties in understanding consciousness.

To claim LLMs can or will equal human creativity seems to imply we can clearly define not only what creativity is, but also consciousness and also how to make a machine that can somehow do both. Humans can be creative prima facie, but to think we can also make a computer do the same thing probably means you have an inadequate definition of creativity.
All of those figures are per us citizen per year.
It seems clear the US turned a page in its history.
Caffeine is also the name of a macOS utility to stop the screen going to sleep. Be great if whichever came second could consider a name change.
See perhaps "The broligarchs have a vision for the new Trump term":

> All of these men see themselves as the heroes or protagonists in their own sci-fi saga. And a key part of being a “technological superman” — or ubermensch, as the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche would say — is that you’re above the law. Common-sense morality doesn’t apply to you because you’re a superior being on a superior mission. Thiel, it should be noted, is a big Nietzsche fan, though his is an extremely selective reading of the philosopher’s work.

> The ubermensch ideology helps explain the broligarchs’ disturbing gender politics. “The ‘bro’ part of broligarch is not incidental to this — it’s built on this idea that not only are these guys superior, they are superior because they’re guys,” Harrington said.

[…]

> The so-called network state is “a fancy name for tech authoritarianism,” journalist Gil Duran, who has spent the past year reporting on these building projects, told me. “The idea is to build power over the long term by controlling money, politics, technology, and land.”

* https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/395646/trump-inauguration...

Also maybe "Why big tech turned right":

* https://www.vox.com/politics/397525/trump-big-tech-musk-bezo...
Funny, there is a story on the front page right now demonstrating how harmful ads can be.

https://timsh.org/tracking-myself-down-through-in-app-ads/
Guess this is a few weeks old, and I missed the news.

What a shame - this was the only place in recent memory where I could talk directly with "level 2+" tech support for my ISP.
This is a new and interesting idea to me. Have you or your serial killer obsessed friend written up any of this?
You know, this makes me wonder if a viable remote interview technique, at least until real-time deepfaking gets better, would be to have people close their eyes while talking to them. For somebody who knows their stuff it'll have zero impact; for someone relying entirely on GPT, it will completely derail them.
The same way that we know interpolation of a linear regression is not the same as the deeply complex navigation of reality we do as living things.
I hate my surface and I hate the stupid gigantic expensive charger where the stuffed all the IO ports
National secrets shouldn’t have been kept in a bathroom in Mar-a-Lago and, yet, here we are.
Is there anywhere I could watch a livestream of this kind of channel? I would like to get a feeling for just how bad it is. I live in a country where betting and advertising of betting is legal. I don't like it, but it doesn't seem to be nearly as bad here and what you're describing.
Sorry, I now see my question was poorly worded. I was ranting about OS vendors not updating emoji fonts on supported versions -- you have to upgrade to the latest major version to get new emojis. I ran into this issue twice when using an older, and supported, version of both macOS and Android.
Yeah, they seem to be referring to the Goose agent/CLI that are local. Not models themselves.
If someone see's the spanish flag on a language learning site, they're going to know it's spanish. No one looks at that and think, "hmm, no, I don't want to learn basque."

It may be technically correct, but it's pretty obvious to people what it means. It's extremely common.
I was citing the opposite scenario - if the US can claim the investment is void Norway too has the option to unilaterally withdraw its investments from the US, anticipating such shenanigans. Both are extreme cases. As for international finance systems vs restrictions on technology - you are mixing up different forms of sanctions.
Say people from countries with multiple languages.

E.g., Switzerland has four official languages, none of which are English.

Also, UX/UI designers have rightfully been banging the "don't use country flags to indicate languages" drum for literally decades, now. We dealt with this issue in the 90s.
We could all go back to being homesteaders and walking to market to trade. It would reduce motor vehicle deaths.

However, as a society we have decided that the risk is worth it for the benefits.
> don't know what the proper word is for describing those examples in the narrowest way possible, but I use the term politicization of science.

I think I prefer the term "public health policy," which, because it is policy, is also obviously political, multifaceted, and open to debate.
A lot of loopholes are like that. They are clearly legal things that you can do added there for a reason a certain expectation of it to not be abused for different people purposes. They are of course used for different purposes once the landscape changes to allow so.

My favorite legal loophole was in the Ukrainian citizenship law: to naturalize, one has to renounce their previous citizenship(s), but sometimes it's not practically possible to do. When the law was passed, one of legitimate reasons to not follow through with renouncing previous citizenships was "it costs more than X percent of a minimal monthly salary". At some point 30 years later it turns out that, despite X being changed a few times, most the countries that people have to renouncing citizenships of, are falling under this "too expensive" loophole, since minimal monthly salary is a bit of an arbitrary number that a lot of laws refer to and it made sense to have it suppressed. So after kicking the can down the road a few times, the loophole was removed.
There is nothing fraudulent about using LLMs. If people can use them on the job, it's okay to use them on the interview. They're the calculators of tomorrow if not of today.

Interviewing just needs to adapt such as by assessing one's open source projects and contributions. Not much more is needed. And if the candidate completely misrepresents their open source profile, this can be handled by an initial contract-to-hire period.
> The constitution matters and democracy matters.

This is pretty ironic in defense of Trump's actions here. He's initiating multiple constitutional crises.
The Blind post is about the staff panicking. Even if Zuckerberg is not panicking, you can surely see why staff/execs (supposedly being paid up to $6m/yr+) might panic over the possibility Zuckerberg might conclude 'oh, we don't need to be in the foundation model business, DeepSeek has it handled'...

As it happens, Zuckerberg appears to have concluded that FB needs to still be in the foundation model business: https://www.facebook.com/4/posts/10116307989894321/ Possibly because LLMs are far from 'done', and it's unclear if DS does have it handled indefinitely.
Give me one example of a website that supports, let's say, three of the 20+ Indian languages, Catalan, Galician, Basque, Swiss French, Swiss German, Swiss Italian, and Romansh.

You will have a hard time, even on Wikipedia.

For most people, flags absolutely are the best shorthand for the language of the same name.
There are more interpretations of "OO" than there are people, but the overall direction is that OO isn't a panacea for code maintainability, and some frameworks ahem Spring create a mental model at times so distant from OOP, that I might as well have written everything in Python. I gain nothing from having classes when one half are records and the other half are singletons.
> a portfolio of original work

I'm too busy doing actual paid work for companies for that.
I agree with your statement except that their entire business model revolves around exploiting a de minimus rule such that it isn’t beneficial to the USA. Their should be a limitation against a shipper exceeding a certain threshhold value of shipments into the USA before they need to start paying tarriffs.

I think you could adjust the rule so that it covered this situation, but didn’t cover shippers who specifically created fast shipping to avoid tarriffs and keep the processing outside the country.

That being said, I benefited from this when I ordered my Prusa 3d printer and I believe it was purposely priced exactly under the threshhold so that I would avoid the tarriff.
In your experience, what's the better option for an iconographic representation?
That'd be amusing. When you first install Windows, you get...

"Is the island to the east of mainland China (also known as Taiwan, or Chinese Taipei) part of the People's Republic of China?"

"What is the legal status of Gibraltar?"

"Who ought to have won the Cod Wars?"

And on, and on...

Alternatively, have your pick of

"Western (standard)"

"Western (tankie)"

"Chinese (the big one)"

"Chinese (the small, disputed one)"

"American (pro-Iceland)"

"American (pro-UK, for the purpose of the Cod Wars)"

"British (Still Irritated Over Suez)"

"British ('What's Suez?')"

Your idea is quite sensible, of course, but you could make it quite absurd if you liked. Perhaps I'll put something like this together one evening. I'm sure there are more silly disagreements to include than the ones I know of as a brit.
Are these laws so inflexible they can’t differentiate between a traveler and a shipping container?
yes, we know, there are historical territorial disputes all over the world. But can somebody here make a case that this is not actually/solely to appease China (over Taiwan presumably)?
> As I posted elsewhere on this subject: these people are rationalizing, not rational.

That is sometimes true, but as I said in another comment, I think this is on the weaker end of criticisms because it doesn't really apply to the best of that community's members and the best of its claims, and in either case isn't really a consequence of their explicit values.

> Logic, like software and for the same reason, is “garbage in, garbage out.” If even one of the inputs (premises, priors) is mistaken the entire conclusion can be wildly wrong. Errors cascade, just like software.

True, but an odd analogy: we use software to make very important predictions all the time. For every Therac-25 out there, there's a model helping detect cancer in MRI imagery.

And, of course, other methods are also prone to error.

> That's why every step needs to be checked with experiment or observation before a next step is taken.

Depends on the setting. Some hypotheses are not things you can test in the lab. Some others are consequences you really don't want to confirm. Setting aside AI risk for a second, consider the scientists watching the Trinity Test: they had calculated that it wouldn't ignite the atmosphere and incinerate the entire globe in a firestorm, but...well, they didn't really know until they set the thing off, did they? They had to take a bet based on what they could predict with what they knew.

I really don't agree with the implicit take that "um actually you can never be certain so trying to reason about things is stupid". Excessive chains of reasoning accumulate error, and that error can be severe in cases of numerical instability (e.g. values very close to 0, multiplications, that kind of thing). But shorter chains conducted rigorously are a very important tool to understand the world.
same thing here. Interview is basically a representative thing of what we do, but also depends on the level of seniority. I ask people just to share the screen with me and use whatever you want / fell comfortable with. Google, ChatGPT, call your mom, I don't care as long as you walk me through how you're approaching the thing at hand. We've all googled tar xvcxfgzxfzcsadc, what's that permission for .pem is it 400, etc.. no shame in anything and we all use all of the things through day. Let's simulate a small task at hand and see where we end up at. Similarly, there is a bias where people leaning more on LLMs doing worse than those just googling or, gasp, opening documentation.
I agree with you, but that wasn't my point. The post I replied to simply said the answer is more data. Without any more context about what kind of answer it is or how it should be used, it seemed important to me to remind whoever passes by that data alone does not make truth and its always worth keeping in mind that what we "know" today may be considered false tomorrow.

What you're talking about is more a question of scape, impact, and how accurate a prediction really needs to be. Of course we don't need to measure every atom to predict the weather - weather predictions are wrong all the time and rarely is that more than an inconvenience.
No, for English you should obviously use the flag of the largest country that uses it as an official language: India.
It’s interesting that phrases like ‘oligarch’ are applied so casually, especially in a discriminatory way, using terms like ‘bro’. Vox has long been a progressive site, but they apparently ignore their own social justice worldview when it comes to attacking their opponents. I also don’t understand why ‘oligarch’ is not applied to the other side, when Harris had a much broader base of corporate support and raised more funding overall.

The article is otherwise unsubstantial and makes a lot of vague claims without good arguments. I think the ‘vision’ the Trump team and their advisors have is a lot less sinister than these hyperbolic articles make it out to be. It’s really just about restoring freedom of speech, reducing the power given to certain institutions (for example, “fact checkers”), reducing the national debt, creating an environment for technological superiority (which is critical for the US and free world to stay ahead of authoritarian adversaries), and things like that.

The other philosophical things that some people have mentioned at times (for example the compatibility of democracy and freedom) is less about how they’ll govern and more like thinking out loud, which they’re allowed to do. That doesn’t mean they’re committed to those possible ideas, let alone going to act on them.
You're right, but the author's approach still works by accident, because ClearType is disabled when drawing text to canvas. I am not sure why that's the case, but I would guess it's because the subpixel colors can only be computed correctly when the background color is known (and static), and with a canvas, the background can be drawn later or animated. ClearType is only enabled for normal text on the page, and many CSS properties incidentally disable it presumably for similar reasons (e.g. 'will-change: opacity;').
That doesn't really answer my question. Like, I have a website, and I have many references; I also use LLM embeddings for nearest-neighbors recommendations of references to each other.

What might this... do... for me? Don't dump a bunch of JS which is how I would 'do' whatever it does. What does it do? Like, can I dump the URL 'https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4543385/' into it and get out nice usable clean text of the abstract, say? What about a complicated PDF like https://gwern.net/doc/psychiatry/anxiety/2025-he.pdf (these are the last two references I added)? What do I get? Do I have to install the whole darn thing just to see what it does?
Its only being reinforced due to this kind of dumb presentation.
Science is not political and has never been.

Unfortunately, however, scientists today all too often allow themselves to be used by the powerful for their (unscientific) purposes, or they allow themselves to be tempted by improper advantages, or they are political activists themselves. However, science cannot be held responsible for this.

Funding or publishing scientific research is not science; it enables or hinders science. Consensus-making is not a method of science; scientists make theories, experiments and observations; whether a theory has been proven is decided on the basis of observations from experiments; opinions are irrelevant.

It is to be hoped that the students at the University of Toronto really do learn scientific work, and the article is not representative of the quality of education there.
How does this compare to Cline or Cursor's Composer agent?
I don't think anybody claims that it is not a flawed idea. From what I understand from this thread, people who use flags to represent languages fully acknowledge that it is a flawed idea - the problem is that they lack an alternative solution in some contexts (for example, those that require high information density).
Did you tell them that you “want to see how people can actually work and problem solve given all the tools at their disposal, just like on the job”? Just curious.
This is a good point. It's rather ludicrous to see the people who have been acting as thought police for years with a list of banned words and mandatory terms suddenly now caring about free speech just because someone else is making the list. I'd like to think they've learned their lesson, but I think they just want to be in control of the words again.
wikipedia, google translate
It’s the reality of doing business all around the world.

Either you chose sides, create different releases of software for some countries (deployment nightmare), or just remove such „sensitive“ features.
UK tech job pay is very bimodal and unfortunately both modes suck in different ways...

In the major mode, it feels like 90% are gambling, crypto or traditional finance. The remaining 10% are US tech companies getting a bit more for their money over here. Not sure how much longer that last subcategory will last. Most of these jobs will leave you wanting a good scrub in a scalding shower. Even the US ones.

The minor mode are where you'll find roles at UK-based tech companies, non-tech companies requiring programmers, web developers, etc. etc. The scope is vast and the pay is meh... and maybe my sample size is far too small and time-biased here, but I find the people at these places are so much more down to Earth, operate in a wider spectrum of fields and life experiences, and are just way more interesting and varied day-to-day than endless tech hype drudgery.

You wouldn't have guessed, but for the last 7 years, I have not been in a job at a minor mode company... and maybe the greener grass is glistening rather brightly right now!

We have a pretty abysmal tech landscape really given our involvement in computing history. It has all been sold off and gradually moved offshore. Europe has a reasonably heathly and open tech industry, albiet at a smaller scale than US, but of course us British are not allowed to play with them any more!
I feel obliged to point out that while flags do not represent languages perfectly, there is no good, user-facing symbolic alternative for languages.

No, people don't know the ISO codes for their languages.

No, you can't use the full name, since some languages have very long names.

No, a single 'languages' icon isn't enough, you often need to symbolically represent individual languages.

For the most common languages, flags are fine.

Edit: I'm amused by the amount of replies that assume the only context that ever requires symbolic language representation is websites. Awesome, how do I add one of your JavaScript language drop-downs to a physical product label? Or an airline steward's name tag?
Not using icon, but using names