skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I see, for single operator, no customers products it works nicely. You may find you use it less and less and will actually require that Bluetooth knowledge eventually as you grow a product.

LLMs so far seem to be good at developing prototype apps. But most of my projects already have codegen and scaffolding tools so I guess I don’t get that use out of them.

I predict that once you release your embarrassing app, you will find all the corner cases and domain secrets come rearing out with little ability of the LLM to help you (especially with Bluetooth).
There can’t and shouldn’t be a clean separation between deciders and doers. The whole point of incident response is you don’t know exactly what needs to be done, so you do need a mix of people to help figure it out. And the people proposing actions should be the most expert people (typically doers). It happens in a war room because we are prioritizing speed of communication and coordination. If individuals aren’t given space to focus, or no one is taking the role of incident commander, those are indeed problems but the solution is not to classify people as doers or deciders and separate them.
I mean all of the complex operations research optimal solutions are not graspable by human brain. See a complex travelling salesman solution with delivery time windows and your head will spin, you will be wondering how come that solution is optimal. But then you try your rational heuristic and it sucks compared to the real optimal.
I’ve faced this challenge multiple times in my journey of building products and startups—having an early champion onboarded as a design partner while the team builds is critical to a startup’s success.
You misunderstood.
We are in Hell. Ugh.
Your understanding is completely wrong. There was no such request, and that concern was almost immediately addressed by spelling out very directly that no such expectation existed.

https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/2b9b75d1-eb8e-494a-b0...
at last, something possibly more buggy than vibe coding!
> additionality

Why do people keep adding "ality" to words? "Addition" works fine here:

"I've seen the work that big tech has published to justify the addition of their clean energy purchases and offsets"
I have never installed it.

I prefer to access things through a web browser.
The Chinese?

It sounds flippant but the US hasn't got some unassailable moat around chip production or their application.
The interesting thing about this project is that it shouldn’t even be possible if the chip behaved as an abstract logical circuit since then it would simply implement a finite automation. You must abuse the underlying physics to make the logic gates behave like something else.
The kernel doesn’t use or interact with x.py either. The Rust code uses build to drive rustc, just like the rest of the kernel.
Once again, one of my rules of thumb holds true: if someone is claiming that their security is "impossible to hack", they're either massively incompetent or they're trying to sell you some BS.
Why do you need to theme everything when it always result in a broken UI?

Please see this thread
https://github.com/bragefuglseth/fretboard/issues/30
Even more unpopular opinion: Require a neutral civics test be passed before allowing someone to vote.
One person remains fine, the other is dead. That's a net loss...
Protest music :)
What did I misconstrue? You put forth your opinion as fact, I asked you to back that opinion up with some facts but it seems you are unable to do that. Seems pretty straight forward to me, but accusing others of misconstruing your argument is quite the defection technique. Feel free to present your opinions, just frame them as such so others know they are just your feelings and not real.
Not really possible, I think. C is a language that's basically built on memory aliasing and pointer arithmetic: every variable is represented as a location in memory, but there is no guarantee that each memory location is only represented once (there can be many variables pointing to the same memory address). The Rust borrow checker needs pretty much the opposite guarantee: every declared variable has full control over its memory location, and if two pieces of code need to share memory there needs to be an explicit protocol for delegating access.

And it's not like pointers are a rare occurrence in C. This mechanism is used pretty much everywhere: accessing array values, parameter pass-by-reference, function output parameters, string manipulation. There's no concept of function purity either, so no way to guarantee in the function definition that a function cannot outstep its bounds. Sure, there are certain safe coding conventions and rules about what you can or cannot do in a C program, but fundamentally proving that a certain memory location is only accessed through a certain variable is only possible by just running the program exhaustively -- or by confining yourself to a subset of C.

But when you only allow a subset of C, it's no longer "C with a borrow checker", especially given the ubiquitous use of pointers for standard language features. It quickly becomes "we hobbled C because we need more guarantees". To take a quote from the D manual [0], to guarantee memory safety you need to disallow:

- Casts that break the type system.
- Modification of pointer values.
- Taking the address of a local variable or function parameter.

[0] https://dlang.org/spec/memory-safe-d.html
Chinese tech giant Alibaba has announced plans to invest more than £42 billion ($53 billion) in artificial intelligence and cloud computing over the next three years. The announcement comes just a week after co-founder Jack Ma was seen meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, a rare public appearance for the billionaire.
https://archive.ph/073Hr
Free Audio Plu­g­ins: Accu­sonus ERA 6 Bundle
Is there any prior art that defines covariant/contravariant tests in this way, or is Martin just borrowing language that sounds cool?
The long term trend is that "scenes" burn out and get replaced by new scenes. When it comes to NYC nightclubs, for instance, Studio 54, the Mudd Club and the CBGB were big once and then people moved on. This was the pattern in electronic communication, in the 1980s there was always a new BBS that was the coolest in town and you more or less expected and as the web came along technology was advancing and most sites weren't really profitable anyway so you expected some to go downhill and to move on to the next thing. Remember AOL, AIM, Yahoo, MySpace, etc?

In the Facebook era this changed for a number of reasons, not least that Facebook attracted a "normcore" audience of family, friends from school and other people who just weren't interested in being part of the latest scene.

Certainly since the X-odus started we've heard from many online celebrities that they don't feel they can move because they are afraid that they won't be able to rebuild their audience. I've been talking with a friend about this problem (and related problems) and personally I think Bluesky's got it. Bluesky is doing a lot visibility and behind the scenes such that left wing journalists with 95k followers on Twitter can rapidly jump to Bluesky and get 250k followers -- and higher quality followers because most of these people just joined and haven't had years to abandon their account. Each time somebody like Springsteen moves over other celebrities will see they can do the same.

See https://bsky.app/profile/officialbruce.bsky.social
My confusion came from this line:

> To all the people saying that this is nothing new

An EU state wants to boycott or regulate American business? I don’t know how that’s new.
While that’s certainly a key component, Texas is also home to the largest potential solar and wind capacity in the country. There’s also a ton of land to build on.
> using perverse strategies that no human would do

Of course we do use perverse strategies and glitches in adversarial multiplayer all the time.

Case in point chainsaw glitch, tumblebuffs, early hits and perfect blocks in Elden Ring
> Could C add a borrow checker

As I understand it, doing it while maintaining compatibility with old code is not possible. You'd have to add new required syntax for annotations and such.
Deepseek seems to prove there's no super secret sauce that makes these models irreproducible outside the US and that the companies here are suffering a bit from the glut of cash/credits leading them to burn tons of extra processing power that could have been optimized away.
Yup, was coming here to basically say the same thing. Amazing innovations happen when you let a computer just do arbitrary optimization/hill climbing.

Now, you can impose additional constraints to the problem if you want to keep it using transistors properly or to not use EM side effects, etc.

This headline is mostly engagement bait as it is first nothing new and second, it is actually fully controllable.
"...not as clumsy or random as AI, an elegant weapon from a more civilized age."
I really love that, would you mind sharing the insta?
For [flagged], obviously.
> But for that case you don't need json. A dockerfile-like text file with lines of the form

I don't think that would solve any of your listed problems with json. The key thing is that it's represented by:

struct JsonObject {
Dictionary<string, JsonObject> entries;
}

and that's the entire data structure. Your dockerfile example handles the absolute most basic of cases, e.g.

{
"foo": ["bar", "baz"]
}

would be

FOO ["bar", "baz"]

But when you nest objects .e.g.

{
"foo": {
"bar": "baz"
}
}

The dockerfile-style example is

FOO { BAR baz }

or

FOO
BAR baz # Now we're whitespace sensitive

Or maybe we're:

Foo # What do we put here?
Foo.bar baz

> Using json for such trivial stuff is like using a linear algebra library

I disagree. I think using xml for that is like using a linear algebra library, as you can have:

<Foo>Bar</Foo>
<Foo value="Bar"></Foo>
<Foo><Bar>Baz</Bar></Foo>
<Foo bar="Baz"></Foo>
<Foo><Bar value="Baz"></Bar></Foo>

and end up with the same thing. But with json, it's just:

{ "Foo": "Bar"}

and

{
"Foo": {
"Bar: "Baz"
}
}

E: Formatting
I guess we won’t know what support there is if there aren’t debates about this monetary commitment. I have only followed this in the media (presumably like most Canadians) over the years and there has been discussion but the first I’ve seen this price tag only for studies is since they committed.
It's not N^Y, it's N^2 as we are talking about the reverse of sqrt which is N^(1/2).

N^2 == N*N != N+N
YES

>>5% accuracy can be worth a lot.

Most surprising to me about these results is the BEST error rate was over 8% errors (91.7% accuracy) and the worse was 40%.

Their method of calculating errors seems quite good:

>> Accuracy is measured by comparing the JSON output from the OCR/Extraction to the ground truth JSON. We calculate the number of JSON differences divided by the total number fields in the ground truth JSON. We believe this calculation method lines up most closely with a real world expectation of accuracy.

>> Ex: if you are tasked with extracting 31 values from a document, and make 4 mistakes, that results in an 87% accuracy.

Especially where dealing with numbers and money, having 10% of them being wrong seems unusable, often worse than doing nothing.

Having humans check the results instead of doing the transcriptions would be better, but humans are notoriously bad at maintaining vigilance doing the same task over many documents.

What would be interesting is finding which two OCR/AI systems make the most different mistakes and running documents against both. Flagging only the disagreements for human verification would reduce the task substantially.
With the combination of very real geopolitical risk (which was a topic of considerable discussion at a tech conference I attended late last fall) and the current political climate, there's a significant mindset that the US should be pulling back a lot of things to its own borders where practical even if not optimal at the moment.
Similarly, in many Slavic languages the bat could be translated as “flying mouse”.
You are right that there are more ways to support. But demanding or asking that somebody else does something is not doing something. A majority of the population consider themselves to be great heroes for making symbolic gestures or for telling their friends over coffee or drinks that "somebody really should do something".

But reality is reality and they have done nothing. They will never do anything voluntarily either – for any cause.
It won’t happen. The supply chain is far too complex. Not to mention that the labor market in the US is not willing to do a lot of the work that you see in China and isn’t large enough even if there were enough willing people.

And then you have the rare earth minerals that aren’t available here.
I'm working on Alumnium (https://alumnium.ai). It's an open-source library to simplify web application testing with Selenium/Playwright.

I aim to create a stable and affordable tool that allows me to eliminate most of the support code I write for web tests (page objects, locators, etc.) and replace it with human-readable actions and assertions. These actions and assertions are then translated by an LLM into browser instructions. The tool, however, should still leverage all existing infrastructure (test runner, CI/CD, Selenium infrastructure).

So far, it's working well on simple websites (e.g., a calculator, TodoMVC), and I'm currently working on scaling it to large web applications.
They already removed that and one of xAI's developers clarified in a lot of posts that this change was published by someone without going through all of their process.

https://x.com/ibab/status/1893774017376485466

Whether to believe them is your choice, but at least they didn't deny it.
wait, when's your birthday?

https://www.waitwhensyourbirthday.com/

something I am working on to help people keep track of birthdays. many people I know use facebook only to keep track of birthdays, so this hopefully will be a replacement
Plotter Notebook System
Thank you! It's a silly idea but it does actually work for me
I’ve never been able to put it into words, but when we think about engineering in almost any discipline, a significant amount of effort goes into making things buildable by different groups of people. We modularize components or code so that different groups can specialize in isolated segments.

I always imagined if you could have some super mind build an entire complex system, it would find better solutions that got around limitations introduced by the need to make engineering accessible to humans.
Until things are actually built, I take press releases like these with a grain of salt. Similar to the stories about Mark Zuckerberg removing tampons from men's washrooms the week before the Presidential inauguration, I believe that a lot of these stories are intended for an audience of one.
At the risk of responding to obvious satire...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LLVM

Released approx 20 years before ASGSI (Artificial Super General Super Intelligence)
I wonder what prompted this reaction from them for this particular case. This has been happening for years in my country without a peep from them.
DeepSeek has been trained on US hardware.
“Before AI I would have to study how Bluetooth works now I don't have to.”

And

“It's very good at handling the BS part of coding…”

This is the part that I think is difficult in a team situation.

Learning and understanding is the important part, and certainly isn’t BS.

I understand that it really can make it seem like velocity has increased when you really are shipping things that more or less “work”, but it’s really a good practice to understand your code.

I’ve had to spend a significant amount of time fixing work that was admittedly generated using AI by other engineers, and I really fear engineers are beginning to trade deep understanding for the high of getting something that “works” with little effort.

It might “work” but you might be ignoring the work everyone around you is doing to clean up your brittle code that doesn’t scale and wasn’t thought through at inception.
Steamdb lacks an API for one, and the devs officially have a policy that they'll never make one, saying you should just scrape Steam directly instead of bugging them about it[0].

It means that steamdb, while extraordinarily useful for casual prodding at what's stored on Valve's servers, isn't very good if you want to run data analysis or something like that on the metadata of Steam games at scale.

Not sure if it's legal to charge for the raw scrape when OP doesn't seem to be affiliated with Valve, but that's not up to me to figure out.

[0]: https://steamdb.info/faq/
I plan on letting the user select what they have to touch, for launch it's just grass but customisation is on the way!
Mathematics, Form and Function
But as a response to the parent saying "LLMs will be great at ts/js slop but not for infra" it's quite reasonable to say: here's an example of someone applying it to backend optimizations today.

Fwiw, there are always many attempts at optimizing code (assembly etc). This is good! Great to try new techniques. However, you get what you constrain. So I've seen optimized code that drops checks that the compiler authors say are required in the standard. So, if you don't explicitly tell your optimizer "this is a case I care about, this is the desired output" it will ignore that case.

Did we find a faster implementation than the compiler creates? Well, I mean, sure, if you don't know why the compiler is doing what is doing
Brexit was especially wild. At least the US has the excuse that the law says we do it this way. To make such a drastic change based on a simple majority in a nonbinding referendum is really out there.
Seems highly unlikely. Note that Hellwig is the only major remaining independent Linux kernel developer. All the rest have salaries paid by the Linux Foundation, Red Hat, Google, et cetera. They are highly unlikely to take an action that threatens their salary.

And Hellwig works as a contractor, he's not a volunteer in the same way that Con Kolivas was. Hellwig isn't truly independent either.
A Parade of Planets Is Marching Through the Night Sky
Yeah exactly, thanks!
Some people are able to do frame perfect inputs semi consistently from what I understand. I don’t understand how, as my own performance is around hitting 100ms window once, every other time
HTML has a bunch of good stuff in it that'd replace the need for so much heavy and slow and non-native-feeling javascript if that'd just been improved. Lots of it's now rarely used because it sucks, but there's no good reason it has to suck. It's like whole sections of the spec just got abandoned around 2005, but the need is still there.
Just wait until you see how much C02 is being emitted sucking down energy from green sources that could have heated homes or supplied other essential services.
Reminds of disassembled executables, unintelligible to the untrained eye.

It's even more convoluted when also re-interpreted into C language.

Designs nobody would ever come up with, but equivalent and even with compiler tricks we'd not have known.
A collection of insights from Liang Wenfeng, whose company DeepSeek has been making waves with their AI innovations:

- On GPU investment: "Many assumed there was hidden business logic behind hoarding GPUs, but it was simply driven by curiosity about AI's capability boundaries."

- On innovation approach: "What we lack in innovation isn't capital, but confidence and knowledge of organizing high-density talent for effective innovation."

- On open source: "In the face of disruptive technology, closed-source moats are temporary."

These quotes offer a unique perspective on AI development from someone who's successfully challenging traditional approaches to both organizational structure and technical architecture in AI research.
Definitely on the high side, but I'm guessing they mean "chronic abusers" rather than just "user". The serious ketamine addicts I knew when I was younger took the drug every single day, and multiple times during the day. I think that figure seems right, since a single large line can be north of 200mg.

I know: it's insane that someone would do that much ever, let alone every day, but I assure you that it happens.
Review was surprisingly simple, no videos or anything needed. I submitted at 11PM by 11:30PM it was approved, I've never experienced that for a new app...
Increased levels of NO2, SO2 and PM2.5 are going to have a direct impact on the health of people living close to these facilities. The unlicensed gas turbines in Memphis are probably the worst offender.
> Singapore plays a vital role in Nvidia's global business, accounting for 22% of its revenue as of Q3 FY2025, up from 9% in Q3 FY2023 when the first significant restrictions on AI GPU sales to Chinese were introduced
I have a user issue: there is currently 3 feet of snow outside and no grass to be seen :P
It's a little different in software. If I'm writing a varint decoder and find that it works for the smallest and largest 65k inputs, it's exceedingly unlikely that I'll have written a bug that somehow affects only some middling number of loop iterations yet somehow handles those already tested transitions between loop iteration counts just fine.

For a system you completely don't understand, especially when the prior work on such systems suggests a propensity for extremely hairy bugs, spot-checking the edge cases doesn't suffice.

And, IMO, bugs are usually much worse the lower down in the stack they appear. A bug in the UI layer of some webapp has an impact and time to fix in proportion to that bug and only that bug. Issues in your database driver are insidious, resulting in an unstable system that's hard to understand and potentially resulting in countless hours fixing or working around that bug (if you ever find it). Bugs in the raw silicon that, e.g., only affect 1 pair of 32-bit inputs (in, say, addition) are even worse. They'll be hit in the real world eventually, and they're not going to be easy to handle, but it's simultaneously not usually practical to sweep a 64-bit input space (certainly not for every chip, if the bug is from analog mistakes in the chip's EM properties).
Do you have any resources showing what this type of coding works in the real world? I keep running into this same types issue when I use languages without types specified everywhere, where the cognitive load gets too much for non-trivial projects. I would be pretty unhappy writing python without type hints and tools that check these for correctness built into my workflow for example.
Can I touch snow instead? There is no grass in sight in Canada this time of the year