skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The CLT does not require iid (independent, identically distributed) variables. Just independent and having a variance, plus some rather weak condition on slightly higher orders. Otherwise the variables can be quite different from each other.
It just seems so obvious-I would have been surprised if it was only discovered in the last election.
I worked for a couple companies during my career whose main product was incredibly complex and difficult to understand. Making a minor change in one component could send ripples through the whole product.

One or two 'superstar' engineers who had been with the project for more than a decade were the only ones who understood the bulk of it. They had job security!

I often wondered if they intentionally created it to be that way out of self interest. It made things rough for all the 'normal' engineers who wanted to improve things but got pushback from them and management.
German? Germany didn't even exist until 1871.
I yelled at Claude until it built a Unity game
I wonder what would be wrong with changing the recursive function to take a depth and then bailing out if the depth is too big.
Most traditional car companies don't push updates. I once asked Toyota if I could get an update in the dealer for a problem and they said no, they only update what is absolutely necessary (e.g., recall items).

My 2011 Acura doesn't do OTA updates either, and that's the way I like it.
Pending AGI, I don’t think medical intervention at the cutting edge of innovation will ever be post scarcity. It makes more sense in relation to things that are well established enough that they are well understood and producible at scale.
It means that if you trace Y-chromosomes back 5000 years, you'll find that grand-grand-grand-...-fathers of 40% of people are concentrated in the area of the Yamnaya culture. Grand-grand-grand-...-mothers would be from multiple groups, yes.
This would be an interesting thing to study: How many different ways people learned about logarithms, and how they generally fared in math. I learned about logarithms by seeing my dad use his slide rule, and studying stock charts, which tended to be semi-logarithmic.
How does this differ from an investment then? Debts attached to people can be recovered through their assets, but if the only "asset" is a temporary government lease on some land there's nothing to recover if it falls through. Furthermore, this leads to so many conflicts of interest it's not even funny, whats to stop someone from taking out a huge loan and paying their own construction company to do the work at a premium?
You would lose the performance optimisations of a copy, but you can still express tests in this tree fashion with global state. You just need to recurs the tree from the top down and run the entire path up to each node. A simple example:

test_fork<A, B, C>(a: A, f: (A) -> B, gs: List<(B) -> C>) -> List<C> {
fs.map(g -> g(f(a)))
}

As you can see, the first step of the test is re-run from scratch every other branch of it.
Given that English is itself germanic to an extent, yes. But it's also clearly got a lot of latin influence.

All of northwestern europe, of course, had quite a bit of DNA mixing over the centuries, so to what extent some DNA is particularly "German" or "English" largely depends on the time period.
It was stated to make the core problem clear. You really shouldn’t hide that. Say the difficult thing and go from there.
> But I'd just call it "instantaneous" and something I experience frequently.

Then since you're OK with all smaller numbers being equally "instantaneous", then 1/10^4000 seconds is instantaneous too. Add up enough of those to make a second, and you can conceive of your previously inconceivable number! :)

Of course, that will seem silly. I'm just illustrating I don't think there are any grounds for claiming exponentially large numbers are inconceivable, but exponentially small numbers are somehow conceivable. They're just as far from 1, multiplicatively, no matter which direction you go in.
> I've had to try and head hunt network and FPGA engineers away from HFT firms and it was basically impossible. They already make big tech (or higher) salaries without the big tech bullshit - which none of them would ever pass.

Can confirm. There are downsides, and it can get incredibly stressed at times, but there are all sorts of big tech imposed hoops you don't have to jump through.
That removes any benefit of confiscating all land and leasing it out while still retaining all the society destroying consequences of this idea. Basically at this point it's just a proposal to confiscate all land and resell it, for fun I guess.
I guess the reality is, what we term "shameful, amoral, slimy and vapid LinkedIn spammers" are actually thousands of relatively like-minded people all saying some variation of "please let me get/keep a job or I won't be able to keep living" in just a creative/repetitive enough fashion that one or more recruiters/persons who know other people will keep them in orbit for the next source of income.

I have been on the other side of this (not doing it) and the effects are fairly straightforward: no more paychecks.

I guess if you're not a recruiter or your job prospects are taken care of, you can safely pretend the LinkedIn social feed doesn't exist - it isn't written for you. Its sole purpose is for people to get what they need to survive and carry on. So I've resolved to not blame others for having to post there so much. This is money - hence life - were talking about here, unfortunately or not.
So basically pollution free-for-all?
As someone who is capable of programming, writing HTML, etc., but not of graphic design or UI/UX design, I can tell you that 100% of the reason the little things I wrote used bootstrap is because I really did care about quality, and bootstrap was the quickest and easiest way for me to get something "pretty good" straight out of the gate without having to spend ten times as long tweaking my design to get something a tenth as usable.

The problem is that the people who are lazy about it are obvious about it, so lazy sites that use bootstrap are obviously using bootstrap, and lazy sites that use wordpress are obviously using wordpress, but it's just confirmation bias.

It's just the Girls Suck at Math problem[0] all over again.

[0] https://xkcd.com/385/
we are working on <impossible problem stumping humanity>. We have considered the following path to find a solution. Are we on the right track? Only answer Yes or No.

(1 week of GPUs whirring later)

AI: Your

(that will be $1 million, thank you)
Bottom is about to drop out thats why, ethics are out the window already and its gonna be worse as they claw to stay relevant.

Its a niche product that tried to go mainstream and the general public doesn't want it, just look at iPhone 16 sales and Windows 11, everyone is happier with the last version without AI.
RIPE NCC and ITU Sign a Joint Declaration to Promote IPv6
potential. what's your vision of a final product?
Would, at the very least, need a carve-out for your primary domicile + a lockout period.

It sounds rife for yucks. Imagine making a megarich person mad online and they buy your house out from under you. So you move to another one. They do it again, and again, putting you in the delightful position of playing chicken with their vindictiveness and your ability to pay your own property taxes.

Moving is colossally inconvenient, and extra horrible when you're forced to do it.

Can't imagine local supermarkets being able to endure the inevitable bidding war on their properties from walmarazon.
You can hide ANYTHING with financial engineering. Like off-books liabilities, systemic risk ... anything.
> It is interesting that it is not the Hollywood/Music/Entertainment copyright lobby (RIAA, MPAA etc.)

Is it interesting? They hate the people who produce their product and are desperate to replace them with machines. Note that their unions also hate AI, and it was a central reason for for the Writer's Guild SAG-AFTRA strike, since you're bringing up the NYT unions.

The NYT also stands to benefit not an iota from AI. It probably causes a burden because they have to make sure that their awful long-in-the-tooth editorial columnists aren't turning in LLM slop. It is entirely a negative for people who generate high quality content the hard way.
No amount of exposure so far has had any effect on corruption. That AI will somehow improve this is just magical thinking.
Rich people can price others out of industries, but in this scheme the ONLY seller is the government and sales are mandatory. In your scheme, Elon Musk can outbid you on your lease, there's nothing you can do about it, and you don't even get the proceeds from it.
The code doesn't have to be nested, it can be factored into methods. Additionally, these aren't technically continuations in the sense of the "continuation passing style" popular in web programming, so don't confer the same drawbacks. Tests are essentially organised as a pipeline of functions which gets run, it's just that the pipeline has forks in it where the data flows along both forks.
> "Engineers don’t own software, teams own software"

This is often the opposite of the truth. That is, teams are much more often formally-owning software, but "owning" in the sense of actually being responsible and feeling responsible for its functioning, well-being, and strive towards polish and realization of potential - more often than not, it's one or a few individuals. If it's a large software system, a lot of people have to put in their work as well, but still.

I am occasionally in a situation where I feel more "ownership" towards a software project I have no formal responsibility for than I believe the formal owners do, and find the, to be poor stewards of that software. Not that I have the time to take over for them, but I have the motivation, and it pains me to see them mistreat it and mar it with unworthy merges.

PS - I am not speaking as a supposed "10x engineer".
"One of the most essential practices for maintaining the long-term quality of computer code is to write automated tests that ensure the program continues to act as expected, even when other people (including your future self) muck with it."

That's such a great condensation of why automated tests are worthwhile.

"To write your own testing framework based on continuation trees, all you need is a stack of databases (or rather, a database that supports rolling back to an arbitrary revision)."

PostgreSQL and SQLite and MySQL all support SAVEPOINT these days, which is a way to have a transaction nested inside a transaction. I could imagine building a testing system on top of this which could support the tree pattern described by Evan here (as long as your tests don't themselves need to test transaction-related behavior).

Since ChatGPT Code Interpreter works with o3-mini now I had that knock up a very quick proof of concept using Python and SQLite SAVEPOINT, which appears to work: https://chatgpt.com/share/67d36883-4294-8006-b464-4d6f937d99...
This is not theoretical: my heat pump purchased in 2021 worked well for four straight days of below 0F. Kept our temp at 68 inside. We live in an old home from 1917 with poor insulation between the brick exterior walls and drywall.
I don't think they are claiming 40% of males today have y-haplogroups descended from the Yamnaya

r1b's population is only 190 million [1]

[1]https://www.razibkhan.com/p/the-haplogroup-is-dead-long-live...
Fools and money.
You do not appear to have the slightest idea what you're talking about. For example, the extended reals aren't a field.

But it's easy to extend the real numbers to a field that includes infinite and infinitesimal values. Limiting is then a projection from the hyperreals, which are a field, to the extended reals, which aren't. Instead of "lim", let's call this projection "f".

0·∞ is an indeterminate form because f(f⁻¹(0) · f⁻¹(∞)) is not well defined. f is a many-to-one function, and in this case the different possibilities that come up as we invert it interact differently. In contrast, 2·∞ is not an indeterminate form because, while f⁻¹(2) · f⁻¹(∞) might be any value that is greater than all real numbers, it must always be greater than all real numbers, and therefore f(f⁻¹(2) · f⁻¹(∞)) is always ∞.

> One of the rules in such a system is that when infinity is one of the multiplicands, it's also the product.

In the extended reals, this is a result, not a rule, and it doesn't always hold. Again, the extended reals aren't a field. But even ignoring the question we're actively discussing, you should have been able to think of e.g. -3 · ∞.

That's assuming that when you said "such a system", you meant the extended reals. If you meant a field that extends the reals to include infinite values, it's just meaningless noise - there is no value called "infinity" that would even let you evaluate the claim true or false. But in any multiplication of two values, any infinite value can only simultaneously be the product and one of the multiplicands if the other multiplicand is 1. When we say that 2·∞ = ∞, the ∞ on the left and the one on the right are both infinitely large, but they aren't the same value.
Apple Plans AirPods Feature That Can Live-Translate Conversations
I don't think all people who are racist have such a deep desire to hurt anyone else. It's a complex phenomenon, like religion or other cultural factions. Some people who are called racists are really reacting to specific perceived negative traits or cultural tropes. Sometimes (dare I say USUALLY), reacting to traits that are correlated with race (such as style of speaking, taste in music, etc.) is a definite way to end up called racist, even if you're not. I think the left (or a major segment of it) has consistently called for blurring the lines between matters of taste and legitimate criticism, and actual spite. Shirking urban gibberish and seeking out a relationship partner of your own race and cultural background isn't usually rooted in spite.

>Consider a popular bully that picks on a racial minority.

I've never seen a bully that picks on minorities as a whole. They pick on peculiar individuals with unpopular traits. The kind of people who normal people might find fault with, but not TOO much fault or else they would reject the bully as mean. There's all kinds of people though.

If you think only racial minorities can be victims of racism, you're very wrong. I would argue that minorities are often meaner to majority-aligned victims than the other way around. The penalties are somehow more lenient against such perpetrators too.

I think bullies are often unhappy people themselves, or else they have a social dysfunction that makes them apathetic toward how their behavior affects others. But what do I know.

>Aggression is just the trait that allows one to violate the norm against violence.

So, I would argue that thinking mean thoughts on occasion does not make a person a bully. You have to have the impetus to do something, whether that is making mean jokes or punching someone else in the nose. I would be surprised if non-bullies didn't think awful thoughts, perhaps far worse than what bullies think. The victim is just a passerby to a bully, and the bully often has many friends. The victim has less friends in general and spends a lot more time thinking about the bully than the other way around. You can see this if you ever run into one of your old bullies. They might not even remember what they did to you or how it affected you.
Can they? They clearly want you to think so, but my own personal results are pretty mixed on how accurate that is.
That's why they don't look at 1 person but at aggregates. If the world was made of twins and triplets and they lived identical lives (nutrition, stress levels, air quality, ...) besides the 1 factor you're interested in (fireplace yes/no), that would be great for learning from, but of course that's not the case, not even for that astronaut

I'd encourage you to open up one of these studies. The language in scientific papers is made to sound smart but it's still English (most of the time) and you'll see these sorts of things are established by looking at many people in many situations and then use maths to tease out how much each of the factors (living near a major road, for instance) contributes to the thing being investigated (such as longevity). Many of the factors, also depending on the number of people involved, will not turn out to be statistically significant, meaning that the error margins are too large to be sure. For smoking and woodfire particulates though, we're certain that it's unhealthy to within extremely low error margins. Whether that's precisely 18 minutes: probably not, but presumably that's our best guess, even if it has uncertainty associated with it. The paper is linked literally within the quote you gave, if you want to check how uncertain the value is: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235271022...

Skimming this one, they didn't establish the relation between particulate matter and lifespan themselves but they cite other studies that did this:

> correlating average PM2.5 levels during a shorter time interval and the average life expectancy during that same time period. In Taiwan, this method used data from 17 counties for the 2010 to 2017 period and resulted in a DLE factor of 0.798 years per 10 μg/m3-increase in exposure to PM2.5 [50]. Using data from 545 counties in the United States for between 2000 and 2007 [51] and data from 214 cities in China for between 2013 and 2017 [52], resulted in lower DLE factors: 0.14 and 0.18 years, respectively, per additional 10 μg/m3 of exposure to PM2.5.

If you doubt those methods, you should click through to sources 50, 51, and 52. This study just measured the amount of PM2.5 in three situations and then multiplied it with that value from the other studies (I didn't read far enough to see which one they ended up picking, that should be mentioned somewhere if you want to know/check it precisely), and that's how they get to this value

> There's just no real evidence this stat is true.

They don't just pull stats from thin air. If you think they made a mistake somewhere and arrived at the wrong number, I'm curious to hear where they went wrong, and the authors would probably be happy to be get an even better stat as well
I don't have these issues in C, you're projecting.

Not that I write bug free software by any means; no one does, though some like to pretend.
The right loves states rights, unless it conflicts with their personal preferences.
Hard to measure “peaceful” relative to now in contexts without the structures we have that let us trust each other more.

I.e. we don’t need to be constantly paranoid strangers we run into won’t resolve the same inability to trust dilemma they have with us, by being first to violence.

I.e. People could have been generally peace loving, not prone to violence in their familiar communities, but still situationally more provoked beyond those communities. Both more peaceful & more violent isn’t a contradiction.
The Three Laws were intentionally written as a cautionary tale about a torment nexus.

Like seemingly all torment nexii, the warning part of the tale is forgotten.
Impossible is not the right word for your question. It’s not impossible, but is it worth it? Is it feasible? Does it introduce too much room for inefficiency or fraud?
Would you be satisfied with stats on average age of retirement?
I think this interview with the uutils project lead https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qTyyMyU2hQ is fairly telling about the motivation behind the project. He mentions that he's not motivated by memory safety and that the GNU coreutils don't have security problems. The discussion gets interesting when the hosts start talking about software licensing. The GNU coreutils are of course GPL licensed, while uutils is MIT licensed. The lead says that he doesn't care about how the project is licensed, as long as it's OSI-approved, and that talking about software licenses is a waste of time. However, at one point (while the hosts are talking about reasons why a user might choose uutils instead of the GNU coreutils), one of the hosts refers to a discussion they'd had with the lead prior to the recorded interview about how car companies were using uutils for "compliance reasons", and asks if that's related to some sort of EU regulation about memory safety. The lead has to correct him, and says that the car companies weren't concerned about memory safety compliance, but GPL compliance. Combined with other statements he makes about purposely not looking at the original coreutils code to avoid any claims of the implementation being "tainted" by GPL code (seems like a lot of work for someone who doesn't care about software licensing), it seems like a major motivating factor behind the uutils project is to create a permissively licensed drop-in replacement to the GNU coreutils.
Pretty impressive! http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/indexmag.html?http://www...

None of the ones on their official site seem to be available though? They all link to out of stock Amazon pages.
According to NYT [1](I can't force myself to watch this), "Nowhere in the video did he refer to protecting the environment or public health, twin tenets that have guided the agency since its founding in 1970."

I am not sure what's the point of EPA at all, if it's goals now are create jobs etc.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/12/climate/epa-zeldin-rollba...
So your point is that youngsters are the only ones that understand “modern” software? Or economic crisis? Or both?

Stereotyping is fine as long as it’s understood to be fundamentally wrong and inefficient, and when applied to people cruel.
The Dawn of Showercoding
The point of termination is beyond stack overflow here, that's the problem. And unlike heap, stack does not tell you gently that it's running out.
yes, if it's because the US is isolationist. the "wealth" is made on the blood and backs of other people and that's fucked up.
Can you expand your post and explain why?
Having scanned through his book, it makes it seem overly complex.

At middle school, this was taught after having only done simply arithmetic and learning about fractions (rational numbers) in primary school, then decimal fractions in middle school.

The use of logs from the tables was simply a set of basic rules for how to apply them to a few scenarios. I can't recall if it covered trig with those tables, but I doubt it.

I learnt as a child between 10 (when I started middle school), and say around 12 at most. I've forgotten the use, but vaguely recall some way of representing negative numbers in the table (n-bar, with a bar above the digit).

I'm way over 30. I never used log tables after high school, and have forgotten the rules for usage, but recall it didn't take long to learn the first time. *

However for simple uses (multiplication and division) I'd expect I'd be able to pick it up again in at most a weeks worth of practice. It would be made a lot easier now by being able to compare and check calculations with a computer or pocket calculator.

I'd expect any adult able to program a computer to also be able to pick it up in a similar period, or at most a month.

Remember we used to teach this to kids, and expect them to be able to pick it up (if not be accurate in application) in under a weeks worth of lessons.

* Note I didn't even know how to do long multiplication when I learnt, as due to political interference with teaching curriculum, I'd not been taught at primary school.
You can think of this as having two base cases, your normal success case and an error case. You could use metaprogramming to do this semi-automatically, like a decorator that took a maximum depth and checked it before calling your inner function.
Tip: if a publicly traded firm hires in May, than expect layoffs at the end of the year. It is kind of a ritualistic sacrifice to investors.

The trick is being profitable to have around, and knowing when to leave on your own terms for something better. =3