skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don't know. For years and years, center acted on the assumption it is unwise to be anything but accommodating and nice. Center enabled raise of extremism by tacitly suporting them.

Trump won by being not nice. Democrats lost by being nice.
(author here) The best way to think about it is like Clang (OSH) + Swift or Rust (YSH) in the same project, as I explained in a table here:

https://www.oilshell.org/blog/2024/09/retrospective.html#oil...

You are right in the sense that Clang never replaced GCC on say Debian or Red Hat. As far as I remember, there are only a couple minor distros and one BSD that use Clang as the default.

So even though Clang is extremely compatible with all sorts of GCC quirks, inertia is still strong

And to probably 90% of people, Clang does the same thing as GCC. Probably 90% of people couldn't tell the difference between the two

But I think many people are glad Clang exists, e.g. it pushed GCC forward (at least in error messages, in modularity, and probably more)

And some people use ONLY Clang, not GCC

---

On YSH, most people do think there needs to be a "clean slate" successor language to shell, and that's what YSH is aiming for. Notably, it's informed by re-implementing almost all of bash from scratch, and shares the same runtime

The reasoning behind that is that I noticed that sort of like "make replacements", many alternative shells [1] are better in one dimension than their predecessor, but worse in other dimensions.

Our goal is to be better in all dimensions, so a superset is a good way to achieve that. We learned the hard way that these 30-, 40-, 50- year old tools have very diverse users and usages - i.e. most people might use 10% of the features, but across all users, that's 100% of the features

Nonetheless, OSH has been the most bash-compatible shell, by a mile, for a few years, and it's only getting more compatible. How fast it converges depends on contributions, and we're getting good PRs, but can always use more

YSH also has a bunch of users that are providing great feedback, and helping to make it stable

https://github.com/oils-for-unix/oils/wiki/Contributing

[1] https://github.com/oils-for-unix/oils/wiki/Alternative-Shell...
Same thing with DEI and Affirmative Action.

Everything has to be based on merit except for nepotism, legacy admission, donations for favours etc.
I don't really get if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me (or just discussing something else entirely), but to answer this bit:

> That's sort of the crux of the issue: what constitutes exposing a pointer?

Doesn't the answer ought to be that an exposure of a (source) pointer P1 to some (target) pointer P2 ought to be "any potential dependence of P2 on P1"?

If you can prove the two are independent, then you can assume P1 is not exposed to P2. That is the case when, for example, the address P1 is never used anywhere. It is also the case when P1 is converted to an integer, but then the integer is discarded immediately. It's up to you how deeply you want to analyze the dataflow -- and it's perfectly fine if you want to assume integers lack provenance -- but whatever you do needs to needs to be consistent with the above.

All of which is to say, I don't see how "what constitutes exposing a pointer" would be a hard question.
The Swift REPL sucks for this. I would suggest you compile to a binary and use your normal debugging tools.
ClaudeAI responded:
>>>
After working through all constraints:
Q1: Who drinks water?
The German drinks water.
Q2: Who owns the zebra?
The Scotsman owns the zebra.
<<<
You can load the coredump into GDB.
Your experience wrt this matter appears to be limited, at best

Here's one full hour of complete sentences from a talk at Google in 2010.

https://youtu.be/aJllQ9d3pYM?t=161

It's difficult to be a public prosecuter without also being literate.

> and I'd advice anyone to do the same.

Something you might work on.
> The article mentioned nothing about stack security

I'm talking about the commenter.

> The reddit history really tells it all. Constant downvotes, following people across subreddits

I'm literally not that person you linked.

> I didn't mention C# one time in my post except for what was quoted in the article

Meet me halfway here, it's the language often used with .NET

> The intense religiosity and dishonesty with which you/you all discuss this topic is legitimately insane

I don't use C#, which I said before. You've been, from an outsider's perspective, corrected a few times. But I am no expert. I was trying to hear your thoughts about some topics in depth and you made it about as weird as a person could, so kudos to you. This is what I mean by weirdly hostile.
Yeah, this does make the "read pointer from user input" case (which is actually sometimes useful) a bit weird however but it seems pretty obvious that ptr-to-int should probably be exposing at the very least
Tax ourselves on goods from neighboring countries*
They aren't random goons.

They are official government employees / advisors, peforming a task within their remit.

Clearly your framing is driven by ideological hatred, but there's nothing about this that isn't above board.
Parsing IR and lowering it is not the reason why compiling Swift is slow.
And what has enormously improved since ChatGPTs launch? Maybe you should ask it what it "thinks" about the hype surrounding it.
The issue isn't even in how votes are counted, it's in parliamentary versus presidential republics.

The latter inevitably slide towards autocracy. Too much power is concentrated in one person, who is almost impossible to legally remove before their term is up, and who will happily punish dissenters within the party.

In parliamentary republics, every PM is one internal party vote away from being deposed. You tend to see less of the tail wagging the dog in them.
> It's useful to allow it to make `if (ptr < end)` with exclusive `end` possible. The alternative of only allowing `if (ptr <= end)` with inclusive `end` is not as trivial if it needs to handle empty ranges (the exclusive version can just use `end = start` to denote an empty range).

As an aside: I find it fascinating that half-open ranges turn out to be - universally as far as I can tell - the right choice for ranges in software. As well as being able to store an empty range, they also allow you to calculate the length of the range by trivially subtracting end - start.
RepRappers originally put their early filament onto empty welding wire spools.

Now we are loading welding wire spools onto 3D printers.

Everything has come full circle.
> No. The compiler isn't the only component of the system that will determine what happens when you trigger UB, either. There is UB all the way down to hardware specifications.

I don't think you know what undefined behavior is. That's a concept relevant to language specifications alone. It does not trickle up or down what language specifications cover. It just means that the authors of the specification intentionally left the behavior expected from a specific scenario as undefined.

For those who write software targeting language specifications this means they are introducing a bug because they are presuming their software will show a behavior which is not required by the standard. For those targeting specific combinations of compiler and hardware, they need to do their homework to determine if the behavior is guaranteed.
Oh? Name one super power with a weak central government.
It may be that X is just trying to prompt a loyal consumer reaction and hurt their profits.
What's the benefit of learning to play faster than you need to? I understand wanting to play slower, but why faster?
President add unelected civilians to their cabinet every election.

Did anyone elect Anthony Blinken? Janet Yellen? Lloyd Austin?

None of these people were elected yet have substantial power delegated through the President.

And while these people were approved by Senate vote, plenty of people in the Biden circle weren’t - Chief of Staff, members of the National Security Council, etc.
The lasers are at the other end of the fiber optics feeding the print head.

It takes about a 1KW laser to cut stainless steel sheet. A 100W laser is about right for plastics and wood. I suspect each laser is about 1KW, but they are not all turned on at the same time.

That's an expensive system.
Amen. Just knee-jerk negativity with no specific objections.
Is there a grand figure of rationalist philosophy? Someone like a rationalist “Satre” or “Heidegger”?

I think a lot of the weirdness of rational communities comes from them not properly integrating the existing canon of western philosophy and rediscovering pitfalls.

Without the benefit of centuries of discussions it’s easy to come to strange conclusions.
Because this is a direct attack on their societal model? You enslave a gay guy as priest and social contract upholder, the others get smithered upholding social machinery in companies and the state. If you do the moses "let-my-people-go"-thing, everyone is out partying, but the overall structure of society falls apart. Its horrifying ,a evolutionary created, biological state building instinct. But reality wont budge.
Doesn't seem to work on mobile.
Progress is what happens thanks to AI skeptics busy defining model limitations. The limitations set attractive bars to pass.
That's by design and not new. The whole nationalist brainwash since early age thing. I always thought the primary benefit is to have enough soldiers to mess stuff up abroad. But of course it helps to ged rid of enemies within, including the existing government structure, rules, and paradoxically constitution.
So cool! I bought the same kit last year and recently bought a esp32 game controller with a tiny display: https://github.com/01studio-lab/pyController

When I have some time I'll try to combine them so I can control the car and see the camera feed on the display.
It all depends on definition of "weak central government" .. check back in a week and catch up on the regress being made by the wreckers.
>In the input to the final optimization, there is only one store between the place where q is allocated and the place where q is used. That one store is clearly identified as going into p, not into q.

> Therefore, it's quite reasonable to conclude that q has not been changed.

No, that is in fact unreasonable and does not follow at all.

You are completely ignoring any relationships the program might have established between the two at the point at which *(p+1) is written to. [1]

Namely, you are ignoring that the program has already established iq == ip at that point. Which means the program already established (uintptr_t)q == (uintptr_t)(p+1). Which means the program already established q == p + 1. (NOTE: I am not writing C code here. See [1].) Which means *q == *(p + 1). Thus in the last optimization you must assume *q may have been modified. Of course you (the compiler) are welcome to give up on analyzing that chain of logic at any point at which it seems too difficult, but if you break that chain of logic, you cannot make violating assumptions in a subsequent step.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42907292
> These would be fine interviewing questions if it's meant to start a conversation.

I don't agree. They sound like puerile parlour tricks and useless trivia questions, more in line in the interviewer acting defensively and trying too hard to pass themselves as smart or competent instead of actually assessing a candidate's skillset. Ask yourself how frequent those topics pop up in a PR, and how many would be addressed with a 5min review or Slack message.
In refining 4F214C:4F69E (Moonbeam) in 00h 03m 34s 153ms I have brought glory to the company.
Praise Kier.
4⃣2⃣4⃣8⃣9⃣
7⃣7⃣1⃣7⃣2⃣
0⃣8⃣8⃣4⃣8⃣
8⃣4⃣9⃣2⃣0⃣
4⃣4⃣3⃣4⃣8⃣
#mdrlumon #severance
lumon-industries.com
If not funding something counts as Unamerican then there is no escape from it, there are a huge number of thoughts and perspectives that the US government doesn't support financially.
Window function is your friend.

Row_number() over (partition by x order by) as rank

Then: where rank = 1.

Grouping is unordered, which is a clean definition.
According to TA, this also affects lots of other papers even if they are not central to the topic. The intention is to combat "woke" research, but it creates pure chaos and uncertainty across the whole field. There is no official policy, and every bureaucrat is trying to guess what is going to be permissible in the future and what not. To be on the safe side (i.e., to not get fired), the ban is interpreted broadly.
I read the article: it does not look like very good research: It's simple to find flaws in LLMs reasoning / compositional capabilities looking at problems that are at the limit of what they can do now, or just picking problems that are very far from their computational model, or submitting riddles. But there is no good analysis of the limitations, nor inspection of how/how much better recently LLMs got exactly at this kind of problems. Also the article is full of uninformative and obvious things to show how LLMs fail in stupid tasks such as multiplication between large numbers.

But the most absurd thing is that the paper looks at computational complexity in terms of direct function composition, and there is no reason an LLM should just use this kind of model when emitting many tokens. Note that even when CoT is not explicit, the LLM output that starts to shape the thinking process still makes it able to have technically unbound layers. With CoT this is even more obvious.

Basically there is no bridge between their restricted model and an LLM.
Most people don't actually want to learn how to fish. They just want a machine that turns water into whine.
gamedev.net was quite good, do not know if its still good
I don't have a link handy, but they were under surveillance for a full week before they were pulled for a "traffic stop."
China supresses information because they fear the anger of the oppressed.

This censorship is much more petty. "My child hates me, and it can't be my fault. Let's call some modern progress ideology, and stomp all over it".

This isn't about repression, it's a show of force. Both for intimidation, and to gather admiration. Because it is cool if you can be above the law. It takes strength to be above the law, so we should respect it.
Scary thing is, it seems to be working.
The "right" is basically trying to assert (without saying it out loud) that science is wrong. They're also basically either intentionally or unintentionally confusing gender and sex.

Science has shown that there is more than two combinations of X and Y chromosomes. So if you went by chromosomes alone, there's more than two sexes. And if you go by phenotypic categorization (secondary sex characteristics, like tits, balls, dick, vagina, voice, height, etc), there's a multitude of sexes and male and female are just categories. Again this is well-documented in scientific literature, it's biology 101.

But then "the right" also mix in references to gender as banned. Gender, as every half-educated person knows by now, is different than sex: gender is social expression, sex is biological expression. Gender is your clothes and hair and voice and name, sex is the junk in your pants.

But the "right" is basically saying: "Hey, science is wrong! And these weird leftists are wrong! Sex determination doesn't matter, gender determination doesn't matter. There's only two things in the world, ever, and we call them male and female. Science and society and logic and reason and everything else can get fucked."

It's political psychosis. Hate-filled zealots who are so hell-bent on imagining the world in a more simplistic way that they literally want to re-define reality to fit their wishes. It's the book Nineteen-Eighty-Four, being enacted in real life. This isn't a joke or hyperbole, this is literally what's happening. They're creating a government of insanity.

Since they can't literally stop people from having all kinds of combinations of chromosomes and primary/secondary sex characteristics, the next step will be what the Nazis did, which is to round up anyone who doesn't fit a "normal body" and incarcerate them or force them into medical procedures to "fix them". (we actually did this in the past, too, not just the Nazis)

But before we get there, the first step is to force the government to perpetuate the psychosis so they can say it's official, and then people will swallow it easier. They are betting that we won't do anything. And we won't.
This doesn't include Encoder-Decoder Transformer Fusion for machine translation, or Encoder-Only like text classification, named entity recognition or BERT.
I also have a dim view of Combine and Swift's shitty observation regime, but what does its concurrency have to do with it?
We know Russia invested a lot in this outcome. Hence, at some point, this government will be seen as treasonous. Didn't China as well, wouldn't they know it's a net win for them and their interests, despite the few hurdles ("tariffs") that were announced?
Definitely not “in almost all” cases are people physically shifting gold. Thousands of transactions in gold are done every day. The bulk of those will be Futures with no physical delivery. There are very few commod trades with physical delivery except for industrial uses so this is highly unusual.

Now when you’re talking about strategic trades by central banks, many of those will be for geopolitical reasons. eg Argentina might be worried that in the event of a sovereign default (which goodness knows Argentina have done plenty of times) bondholders may sieze assets, so might want to move the gold to a friendly jurisdiction where the legal system will make this harder for people. Remember that if you’re just moving depositary reciepts (the paperwork GP is talking about) you need someone who owns gold in your target location to swap with. So say you have gold in NYC and you want gold in London, it’s going to be very easy for you to find someone with gold physically in London to swap with or you can just sell your NYC gold and buy some LDN gold. But it’s going to be much much harder to buy gold somewhere where there isn’t a commod forward delivery location (eg Buenos Aires) so it’s much more likely you would have to move gold in that case.

When financial firms take physical delivery [1] it’s usually as an arbitrage because of what the forward curve looks like in that particular commodity, making it viable to do the so called “cash and carry” arb where you buy the physical, sell short the future, take physical delivery, hold it for a while and then deliver. It’s rare and a bit of a surprise tactic and when people do this the difference after carry costs is not usually very large in percentage terms so people do it in big size to make it worthwhile.

And yes it is a bunch of trucks carrying physical gold probably to a vault in the basement of JPM that even most folks at JPM don’t know exists. They won’t be shutting off roads as they don’t want to draw attention before the delivery is complete.

[1] And I used to be a strategist in fixed income, currencies and commodities so I do know people who planned these trades in the past.
I’ve used DeepSeek for verifying a couple gnarly boolean conditions in home assistant with z3 and it did a good job, though it didn’t one shot it.
Are we counting rappers. They're making lots of dough
There is a reason that doesn't make any sense: He did it in public, but then denies that's what it was.

If he was trying to be open about it then there would be no reason to deny it. If he wasn't trying to be open about it there would be no reason to purposely do it to begin with.
Show HN: Preview TailwindCSS colors in a mock UI
Hey HN, I recently shared Tailcolors here and got an incredibly positive response!

Based on that feedback, I've updated Tailcolors with new UI examples, gradients and complementary/analogous colors for each Tailwind color.

This makes it easy to preview a color & understand how it would appear in a real app/ui. Just visit a URL like tailcolors.com/rose, tailcolors.com/stone etc, or click on a color name from the homepage.

Let me know what you think!
-harrison

p.s: Tailcolors is also live right now on PH, any love would be epic: https://www.producthunt.com/posts/tailwind-color-palette-by-...
But the problem is solved. Depends what you care about.
We are losing this battle, every kid now talks about how they are “hype” rather than hyped for something, and talking about being “tan” rather than tanned is already commonplace in the USA
LLMs using CoT are also decoder-only, it's not a paradigm shift like people want to claim now to don't say they were wrong: it's still next token prediction, that is forced to explore more possibilities in the space it contains. And with R1-Zero we also know that LLMs can train themselves to do so.
That’s a perfectly good reason not to upgrade, but I think if you got a new machine there would be no reason to downgrade it to 10.

Most people who “can’t upgrade” just need to turn TPM 2.0 on in the BIOS.
Can be spun as a "freedom from". Might sound the same superficially, but it's not a capital-F "freedom to".
Yes; I watched the movie "Gaslight" recently, and the meaning that everyone uses has drifted pretty far from the movie's meaning. But it's probably hopeless to resist a meaning when it becomes trendy.
UK's Barclays Bank's online services hit by major technical outage
AGI would be extremely helpful in navigating clashes with aliens, but taking the time to make sure it's safe is very unlikely to make a difference to whether it's ready in time. Rationalists want AGI to be built, and they're generally very excited about it, e.g. many of them work at Anthropic. They just don't want a Move Fast and Break Things pace of development.
> there’s ways to minimize how much you need to trust nodes such as regularly publishing hashes to 3rd parties like HN.

But you could do the same thing with any hashes, right? There is no need for a blockchain in the middle.
Yes, but there again you are conflating three separate questions:

(1) Do we have choices?

(2) Are our choices "free"?

(3) Should we be held morally responsible for our choices?

How we answer (1) and (2) doesn't necessarily determine how we answer (3). And if (3) is your real point, maybe you should focus on that, rather than confusing things by conflating it with (1) and (2).
I found provenance easiest to think about after learning CHERI, since there the provenance isn't just an abstract concept that allows better optimisation; it's actually real data in the capability that affects whether it works at all, irrespective of optimisations. You literally can't cast an integer to a pointer, even in assembly.
Hey, we finally get fiber in the "richest" country. Telekom just wants to build it to our apartment, for free.

They just need a permission from our landlord, who said no way and blocked the fiber installation. We are stuck with Vodafone only...

I guess it is a better investment for them to smoke us out, renovate this place and rent it with three times more...
One more zoom LoD please: to the actual pages of the books!
No, humanity decided that infinity doesn't exist and anyone trying to tell you about it is selling you religion.
But you can't access Classification Web without a $$$ subscription plan!
(from $375 for Single User up to $1900 for 26+ Concurrent Users).

https://www.loc.gov/cds/

https://www.loc.gov/cds/classweb/

(Aaron Swartz would object. You can access US patent data for free, but not LoC Classification Web)