skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I understand your very well researched post, but a common man such as I would have a different definition of fluency. I have interacted with a friend's child which grew up in a trilingual household and he is speaking my language at the exact level of fluency I would expect a bright 7 year old to have. I didn't try to discuss philosophy with him, because you know he's a child. Of the other two languages he speaks, I do speak one as a A2-B1 level (ILR level 2 I guess) and he sounded to me like a native using constructions that were above my level. So maybe my anecdata doesn't fit the exact scientific consensus, but I am very confident I am not wrong. I would call that fluency especially for the purposes of a HN discussion and not a scientific journal.

You might be thinking to apply measurements meant to verify a grown-ups fluency (with all that that implies: vocabulary, idioms, ability to detect nuance, etc.) for children, which is in my opinion a flawed methodology.
But in order to read from stdin and write to stdout, you must make I/O syscalls.
If you care about software freedom, you need to make all your software AGPL.

MIT is the "wait, no, not like that" license and GPL is a half-measure.

Non-commercial licenses are fine if you also provide a commercial option - who cares what the OSI thinks. (And you might want to look up who's a member of the OSI)
> It is as if every photon that went through the slit is somehow aware of all other photons that did so too

Why isn't it just that there's a probability density function that describes the aggregate outcomes of a large number of samples from a random process? Why is "memory" involved?
> "An IP lawyer told me even a basic patent review would cost thousands"

What is claimed that you infringed? From that you can start by searching yourself if you really infringed their patents. Look at the claims, not at the main introductory text. Good patents are novel, non-obvious and useful.

If you feel you have infringed their patents, then you can search for prior art to their patents. But for you to have some chance to convince a judge who has no knowledge of the domain, any prior art has to be pretty obvious.
I think MNT / mntre also have some Amiga expansion cards for graphics and sound. For me I'll keep my memories for fear of being disappointed. Maybe if the mini had included shadow of the beast, lemmings, bubble bobble, great ghiana sisters, I might have been more tempted. But then I would have wanted devpac and a true 680n0 chip + the fun chiplets to play with.
It's sort of a shame the industry is in the state it's in, because I personally know a couple of folks who have disabilities that make something like an Echo truly a godsend.

There are a lot of things that get much, much easier from an accessibility standpoint if someone can operate a device by voice, instead of having to maneuver next to a switch, panel, or button.

Getting next to the button can be much more difficult if it means getting into a wheelchair, fitting your prosthetic, or having to find help because it's positioned too high or in an area that's too narrow.

Additionally, you can say a single phrase and turn off all lights in your dwelling, regardless of room. Minor win for able-bodied folks who might take only a minute or two to walk the house, big win for someone less capable.

---

I'm technically capable enough to have removed Amazon/Google anyways with HomeAssistant in combination with WIS (https://github.com/toverainc/willow-inference-server) and Willow autocorrect (https://github.com/toverainc/willow-autocorrect).

Which gets me most of the things I cared about from an Echo without ever having anything leave my LAN. But it's a real PITA the setup.

There is basically zero middleground in this industry between "Amazon/Google have a permanent microphone that listens to everything you do" and "You have to manually flash ESP32s and configure servers".
Looks like an amazing alternative to Dropbox Paper
I'm kind of obsessed with keeping teams small
There are already quiet a few softwares that claim to be Notion alternatives or seem to be:

- AppFlowy: https://github.com/AppFlowy-IO/AppFlowy

- AFFiNE: https://github.com/toeverything/AFFiNE

- SiYuan: https://github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan

- Trillium Next: https://github.com/TriliumNext/Notes

- AnyType (only clients are source available): https://github.com/anyproto/anytype-ts
Certainty Transfer Effect
I've long been interested in this as well.

Daylight is the best disinfectant -- having goals, non-goals, budgets, and expenses as publicly auditable data is a good place to start.

Going deeper, I've had this notion of making a hybrid communication/documentation tool that embeds micro contracts that can be audited. Easily solved by ye olde HN simple weekend project ;-)
Y Combinator startups fastest growing, profitable in fund history because of AI
Observation is more important than model; if we take the model too seriously, we can be led astray. It's much like extending a metaphor too far.

We observe double-slit diffraction and model it with the wave-function. This doesn't preclude other models, and some of those models will be more intuitive than others. The model we use may only give us a slice of insight. We can model a roll of the dice with a function with 6 strong peaks and consider the state of the dice in superposition. The fact that the model is a continuous real function is an artifact of the model, a weakness not a strength. We are modeling a system who's concrete state is unknown between measurements (the dice is fundamentally "blurred"), and we keep expecting more from the model than it wants to give.

Programmers may have better models, actually. The world is a tree where the structure of a node births a certain number of discrete children at a certain probability, one to be determined "real" by some event (measurement), but it says little about "reality". The work of the scientist is to enumerate the children and their probabilities for ever more complex parent nodes. The foundations of quantum mechanics may be advanced by new experiments, but not, I think, by staring at the models hoping for inspiration.
Our new applicant for user interface guru has tripped on the first hurdle.
Because it's such an integral part of every day life for many people.
The famous American scout Frederick Russell Burnham once said that spending 10 days by yourself in the wild would teach you more about survival than he could teach you in 6 months of instruction.
So how do you do I/O on stdin/stdiout/stderr without syscalls?
Read Fewer Books (2020)
ChatGPT definitely noticed: o1, o3-mini, o3-mini-high.

Maybe 4o will get it wrong? I wouldn’t try it for math.
iRobot says there is "substantial doubt" about it as a "going concern"
OK I was thinking about the UK party system where party members vote.

In the US it is just the registered voters that need to be won over.
You can rename office hour to sales pitch
Two mul or not two mul: how I found a 20% improvement in ed25519 in Golang
One pizza team.

It's hard to beat the efficiency of small teams, and impossible to avoid the inefficiency of large teams.

And honestly when I was younger, that could have just been me as far as food goes.
Thank you! I’m hoping the short link feature makes it useful over time / maintainable which would otherwise be tricky for when code changes.
How statistically probable is it you’ll come across that correct guess?
I'm also not sure, but I'm thinking some variation of Quantum Field Theory.
Are you sure? It’s a collaborative note taking application which is designed to support large groups.

A similar project we collaborate on has Helm charts as an option. “Are you mad? You run an online archive with how many pods, come again?” You may say.

“When said archive can handle a continent’s load and scale almost indefinitely, you engineer things differently”, I’ll answer.

Also, nobody will probably make this comment, if the said application was built by a private company and was not open source.
His point from the beginning is this: the particle described by the wavefunction can't be said to move through both slits at once, because ψ(t, x, y) has a single value for a particular x and y at a particular time. The particle has non-0 probability for both x, y1, t and for x, y2, t, of course - but that just means the particle has non-0 probability to pass through either slit.

And as for saying that the wave moves through both slits, that also doesn't make sense, by the very definition of the wave function - it's a wave in probability space, not in space, so it just doesn't move through space.
The mid-Atlantic accent wasn't phony, it was actually quite a common accent at the time amongst a certain class of person. It was, at least, no more fake than the "BBC English" sort of accent - largely developed/taught in expensive fee-paying schools, but nevertheless not 'phony' as such, because it was the genuine accent of the people that spoke that way. They didn't speak differently at home.

Also, the general style of speaking in those movies wasn't any more artificial than the older style, it was just differently artificial. The older style was focused on portraying characters' motivations and feelings very clearly. The newer style is called realism, but still isn't actually how people speak, because the dialogue is still just dialogue (purely functional plot-progressing conversation), not realistic conversation. That's part of why Tarantino's movies were so revolutionary: much of the dialogue was much closer to how people actually speak, and that this was 40 years after 'realism' seems to have escaped the notice of many people. In reality, I think 'realism' has mostly been interpreted by actors as 'mumbling' to such an extent that I have to turn the volume up or put subtitles on to understand what the characters are even saying.

I'm not discounting at all that it was a revolutionary time, but the idea that the old style was basically fake and the new style was basically real is quite wrong. They're both quite fake. The new style is so ingrained that it has actually trained people into talking like that, though. The way Americans speak in real life sounds to me like they've been brought up watching movies - and I mean almost all of them. In older recordings they do not sound like this, they sound 'normal' enough (although still with strong accents).
Yeah City is the only strong one, I just think it would take a lot of work to turn these generic themes into actual franchises capable of holding a large game studio afloat. Hence why TT mostly sticks to third-party licenses.

Undercover might have been good, I haven't played, but I'm sure originally releasing on Wii U did it a disservice. Do you think there's some design formula or lesson in it for future original Lego games?
Fantastic design. Normally pages with funky scrolling behavior and boxes whizzing all over the place and all that are annoying but it really works here. Not to mention the adorable visuals.

That being said I think it misses what made the old physical interfaces so appealing and useful. It's not that there's something inherently superior about multimodality; it's that physical interfaces are permanent, with defined edges and definite shape. Unlike screens you know exactly what's where, building muscle memory every time you use it. There are no hidden menus or moving parts.

Multimodality - such as being able to see the position of a slider at a glance, or feel its position by touch - is useful because it reinforces the absolute existence of a control and its state across multiple senses. Interfaces using voice and gestures like suggested are the exact opposite of that, because each point of interaction becomes even more disconnected and vague.
Malicious code detection is a fools errand. The attacker would’ve known that was installed and obfuscated it to avoid detection. It’s trivial to do so because they know what the detection is.

There is no way this would’ve prevented anything.
Very cool. Did you use an AI tool to help write it? If so, which tool and which LLM model?
This is news to me.
Very interesting article. I don’t understand, however, how shorthanders used typewriters for short-writing. The figure on p.168 (above fig. 9) is not explanative.
How to Praise
I agree that this article isn't doing something for me.

It barely covers the important points of what _should_ be done, and spends a lot of time lampooning bad approaches to documentation.

I also found the metaphor of "the black triangle" obscured the main point of that part of the argument, which to me was "have some foolproof basic starter setup to get a user up and running quickly".
This is a specific case of trying to imitate the rules of Latin, incorrectly.

Another one that we misunderstand a lot is virus. It looks like the typical second declension thing ending in -us. It is actually a rare categorization of word, the 4th declension.

But it is a common occurrence in languages that when rules are complicated and confusing that they get generalized to simpler patterns from elsewhere in the language.

Romance languages have done that to Latin too! I gave an example of opera being the plural of opus. A lot of romance languages have reinterpreted neuter plurals as feminine singulars, because of that -a suffix.
> So software developers came up with a system that works well for them, but instead of giving it it's own name they reused the name from a manufacturing system. thus leading to endless confusion.

It's amusing to me, because without knowing any of this I've often felt & said that (especially scrum but kanban too) is depressing even just in the terminology used and seems designed to treat us like workers on a factory line. And lo, that is actually whence kanban at least came.
I think the biggest hurdle is that the shortcuts, ui, and workflows all feel different for the sake of being different. Why reinvent the wheel on it?

I also hate this idea that we aren't allowed to give feedback on open source software. I get it, it's an incredibly thankless thing to do, but feedback of "having to relearn all of this stuff is unpleasant" isn't a problematic thing
Do you have a reference to the differences? I can't find it on their website nor on GitHub.
This article is primarily about making documentation more effective for learning, not about replacing technical completeness. The best approach combines both perspectives rather than treating them as an either/or proposition.
Nice find. Its a bit strange that the PRs listed there, are not present at all in the coinbase repo. Seems like the attack was directed there, but I also did not hear anything from Coinbase on this.

eg. Target their NPM and PYPI tokens, so they can push compromised packages.
Farmers directing Border Collies to herd sheep use a whistling "language" that is able to accomplish - to an outsider - astonishing things.

Watch some some videos if you haven't seen it. It's baffling.

How much depends on the "language" vs training and breeding, I can't say.
>- When you ask someone a question, they vomit your question into co-pilot, paste the result, and presume that they have helped somehow.

We have been dealing with this at my job also. It's really concerning how this is becoming normalized and how often we've had to deal with it. Somehow there are people that have "Engineer" in their title that think this is acceptable workplace behavior and work product for a professional making $XXX,XXX/year.

We had a person join our team recently who doesn't know our stack at all (which is fine, we were happy to teach them). When another engineer reviewed their pull request and asked a question, they pasted the question into Copilot and responded to the pull request with the answer (which was wrong!), even going so far as to say "Copilot thinks it's this: ...". I almost lost it. Your job is to learn, understand, and apply that knowledge, not paste incorrect model responses back and forth between web forms!

It's baffling and enraging. Are people _trying_ to demonstrate to management and their teammates that they're actually worthless? Are our expectations as a profession really this low, that we don't expect people to understand the code that they push?
> If the US doesn’t want to welcome foreign tourists, I can spend my money elsewhere, no problem.

You should take the same stance on all US products (especially Europe’s Meta-addiction to WhatsApp). I say that as an American. Nearly 140m Americans don’t care how much the President insults you or picks fights with you or arrests and vanishes your innocent citizens into 3rd world detention centers with no due process as long as it has no apparent impact on their wallet.

Stop using Meta, Apple, Google, X and the rest. Tell your government to stop buying Lockheed and Halliburton (and US debt in general). Stop visiting Disneyland and NYC. Make the US the international pariah it apparently desperately wants to be.
For some reason I'm a lot less worried about that.
I got agitated looking through that due to the excess of flourishes. Fancy elements should punctuate focal points. If there's too many, the focus is lost.
I've always liked it. I think the only reason you would think it was their 'worst' is if you got all your opinions from a sort of musical 'hive mind' - someone that compulsively reads Rolling Stone or whatever. People need to do their OWN thinking.
It's curious that a lot of Venezuelans campaigned for Trump and this is the outcome at the end. I doubt anyone could have seen this coming, for sure.
‘Bloody Saturday’ at Voice of America and other U.S.-funded networks
Funny, as years pass by I slide more and more towards the opposite. For most aspects of readability people discuss, there are objectively correct choices, with some leeway for the specific circumstances.

Code that interleaves high and low level concerns, that has a lot of variables used all over the place, is deeply nested, etc. vs code that is modular, keeps the nesting shallow, splits up the functionality so that concerns are clearly separated and variables have the smallest scopes possible.

One of these styles is better than the other and it's not subjective in the least, so long as you're a human. We all have roughly the same limitations in terms of e.g. memory capacity so ways of programming that reduce the need to keep a lot of stuff in memory at a time will be objectively better.

> I've reached the point where anyone who claims some style is "more readable" without adding "to me" I just start to tune out. There's very little objective truth to be had here.

Adding qualifiers all over the place is just a defensive writing style, best fitting online forums like this one where people will nitpick everything apart. However, it's not reasonable to pay so much attention to someone's particular word choices.

Objective truth is very easy to find actually. The problem you're solving is objective and the desired outcome is too. It's just a matter of analysing the problem space to find the correct design. The feeling of subjectivity largely just comes from the high complexity of the problem space.

> If on a team and you're the outlier, suck it up and conform.

It's way more complicated than you make it sound. It's entirely possible the entire team is wrong.

A general strategy when joining a new team is to follow what the team does exactly and not attempt to make changes until you learn why the team does things the way they do (Chesterton's Fence). Once you understand, you can start suggesting improvements.
I don't understand the obsession with making it even thinner. Then again, I use a thick impact-resistant case.
AFAIK, we know pretty much nothing about human or neanderthal societies 50k-100k years ago.
The law is pretty clearly about a literal invasion or military incursion, not a metaphorical "invasion". If the Alien Enemies Act was designed for transnational crime, then it would not be an emergency law - it could be invoked at any time for a whole host of countries.
Fedora made the switch in F40. Arch has it as a todo.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ZlibNGTransition

https://archlinux.org/todo/zlib-ng-migration/
This isn’t just a problem specific to German academia, it extends across the entire European academic landscape.

I've always wondered why professors and supervisors, after experiencing these abuses themselves, continue to perpetuate them.

The only explanation I've come up with is that the system naturally weeds out those who resist or speak up by stalling their careers. As a result, it selects for individuals who don’t make trouble, those who passively obey and endure even the worst forms of dysfunction.

In the end, this leads to the normalization of abuse, with people rationalizing it as "if I went through it, others should too", a way to protect their own ego.

The only thing even worse is when the abuse turns passive-aggressive: denying opportunities without ever saying it outright, hostility disguised as kindness, ambiguous and demoralizing feedback, delaying responses, making people miss crucial deadlines, assigning pointless or overwhelming tasks. They excel at this too.

If I ever had children, I would never let them attend a European university.
https://archive.is/8toYy

It's a rather short article. I think the odd thing about Zuckerberg's actions and obsessions is that most of what Sarah Wynn-Williams has exposed was likely to be exposed in the normal course of operating in China, had Facebook succeeded in doing so.

If I had to guess, Zuckerberg is not used to having his private mistakes and misdeeds publicized, and feels very entitled to not have this happen. More strategically, if Zuckerberg is willing to have Meta bend over backwards for the Chinese government, what is he willing to do for his own government? It's not clear that it has any tangible consequences, but anyone observant would conclude that Zuckerberg has no principles that can't be subverted for even the hope of acquisition of wealth, influence and power.
A lot of people I know in SV are quitting as 60 hours is being normalized and they’re getting treated like they should be grateful. I know, I know, 60 hours is just what it takes to “focus” as that’s what the working world is like, or some other nonsense coming from the cult of overwork, which seems to be the tone being set.
So your argument is a slippery slope argument. The government can do a lot of things. But it doesn’t. This action against violent criminals seems like an obviously good use of the law. I’ll worry about your theoretical slippery slope if and when it becomes an issue.

Also, what do you mean by “political opponents”? Are non citizen Tren de Agua members voting or running for office? If not, how are they political opponents?
Yes and no.

Yes, flat design is too flat, and AI chat is too devoid of friction.

But mobile and tablets are better at certain things [1], and we shouldn't get rid of that either.

I saw somewhere (Bret Victor?) that tools have two parts: the part that fits the problem, and the part that fits the human. The example was a hammer; the head fit the problem (the nail), and the handle fit the human (the hand).

Notably, the two parts must fit their respective things, but they also have to work together.

That is what we should be doing: creating harmonious tools that fit the problem and the human. What that looks like will be different for every tool.

Our interfaces currently have two problems:

* Because they can have any appearance, appearance gets more attention than being a good tool. Example: flat design (good appearance) overriding skeuomorphic design (human fit).

* No one wants to redesign everything, so we all reuse the same base stuff (Electron, Qt, etc.) even if the result won't fit (one or both ends) or harmonize.

I would love to fix both of those problems, but because people are lazy, it essentially means creating a GUI framework that is flexible enough to fit almost any problem and any human (accessibility included) while making sure that flexibility does not destroy harmony.

While I am working on that, it is a tall order, and I am almost certain I will not succeed.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43350339