skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The core of the system is simple - you list the third parties you send data to, you make accepting and rejecting equally easy.

Consider basically any popup on a popular website which: takes over most of the screen, makes "accept" the highlighted action button, requires going through "customise" to reject, sometimes requires unchecking categories manually, puts "save and exit" and "accept all" that so the same thing next to each other, either hide or not provide "reject all", etc.

There is no conspiracy here. You can either not use third parties, or if you do, your approval system doesn't have to be obnoxious at all, but almost every page makes it a shitty experience to 1. Make you accept out of frustration. 2. Make your angry that this is asked in the first place.
The interesting thing about MCP as a tool use protocol is the traction that it has garnered in terms of clients and servers supporting it.
You can use smudge and clean filters to expand this into something on disk and then remove it again before the hash computation runs.

However, I don't think you would want to use the SHA, since that's somewhat meaningless to read. You would probably want to expand ID to `git describe SHA` so it's more like `v1.0.1-4-ga691733dc`, so you can see something more similar to a version number.
That's true, they didn't have enough evidence to prove intent. Although having a low level staffer who had no business providing government IT services destroy the phones was unheard of, violated the law on how government records should have been handled, and highly suspicious there are also possible "valid" reasons for it, like protecting the information in those devices from being able to be recovered by anyone who dug the devices out of the trash, and the destruction of emails after 60 days could have just been to save space rather than specifically to hide evidence.

They also decided not to go after charges for the nobody staffer who did the deed, and controversially Hillary didn't face any consequences with the FBI saying: "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."
I am not saying mature companies are "YOLO-ing" this randomly, but that many assumptions are made about how the input metrics trickle back to revenue/profits, and those can change. The attribution exists, but how it is done is far from an objective thing. E.g. how do you translate CTR into revenue ? How do you value an additional user ?

This can also be seen with cost saving. There are numerous examples on HN when people wonder why reducing the cost of something by X millions was not recognized (e.g. https://x.com/danluu/status/802971209176477696). Based on my own experience, most likely explanation is that's because there was no item related to this in the financial planning to be recognized.
> Insurance companies would be spending on cheaper preventions for all kinds of things instead of expensive cures if they operated like you describe.

The existing law has a massive defect that prevents any of that sort of thing from happening right now.

We capped insurance company profits as a percentage of claims, so the only way they can make more money is by paying out more and bigger claims. We basically banned them from having any incentive to lower costs because now lower costs mean lower profits instead of higher ones.

But that's a flaw in the existing system, not a flaw in the general concept.

> They'd be ripping a new one in the meat industry to forestall antibiotic resistance, for example.

There are already various state and federal laws restricting the use of antibiotics in livestock. But in general what leverage does an insurance company have over the meat industry?
There’s no denying that the idiomatic solution is sometimes far from obvious, but idiomatic react wants useEffect to only about synchronizing react with external systems. Everyone reaches for it to synchronize between components and do all sorts of other non-idiomatic things though, and that’s where the pain comes in.
How do you deal with the diamond dependency problem? Do you allow two different versions of a package to be exist simultaneously?
IANAL, but I wouldn't be surprised if this was found to be legitimate fair use.
Reminds me of the fisherman call where you could sign up to have a professional fisherman give you a wake up call.
https://soranews24.com/2017/05/12/japanese-fishermen-start-m...
Apple Customers Rush to Buy iPhones Amid Fears Tariffs Could Cause Price Hikes
The most direct way of solving the immediate problem is to make transitions idempotent. Why must it be an error to complete an already complete TODO? Completing an already complete TODO should be a no-op. That simplifies things greatly.

Of course many actions logically cannot be made idempotent, but for the subset that can, do it as much as possible.
Thanks for sharing what you could. I wasn't really thinking about video; the storage requirements to work with raw video are indeed big.
At big tech I am going to have to agree. At best it has allowed me to skip the phone screen. Beyond that, it's zero advantage. Even with a really high up employee.
Follow up questions will vary, but the bulk of most interviews is the same for every candidate, and candidates are then judged based on a rubric that is the same for every candidate (though often tailored to the specific role).

The consistency lets interviewers compare across candidates, and avoids the cognitive pitfall of defining a rubric after-the-fact that lets us hire the candidate who appealed to our lizard brains.

Even at startups, questions are also usually tested on several existing employees before it is used on the first external candidate, for calibration. Companies put a lot of time and money trying to hire for actual competence.
Yes. I've just tested that. Lockdown mode doesn't disable NFC polling.
> Frankly, for most magic tricks the method isn't very interesting, although there are some notable exceptions where the method is fascinating, sometimes to the extent it can be far more interesting than the effect it creates.

> However, in general, most magic theorists and inventors agree that the method, for example, "palm a second coin in the other hand", isn't usually especially interesting.

Fair enough. It sounds like I simply fundamentally disagree, because I think nearly any explanation of method is very interesting. For close-up maginc, the only exceptions for me would be if the explanation is "the video you were watching contains visual effects" or "the entire in-person audience was in on it."

Palming is awesome. Misdirection is awesome. I fully expect these sorts of things to be used in most magic tricks, but I still want to know precisely how. The fact that I'm aware of most close-up magic techniques but am still often fooled by magic tricks should make it pretty clear that the methods are interesting!
The "I can dig it" happens if you do DIG on any object other than I think the dirt. Just DIG alone is what tests digging in a room (except it only works in the starting room to find anything).

Do you have any good pictures of the tape? There's a Youtube video of someone playing it on hardware so you can see the tape inside of the machine, but no clear pictures of the real tape.

(Also, hello, I wrote the post! There's a part 2 where I finish the game, and I'll be doing the other Interact adventure game, Mysterious Mansion, in about a week.)
Beyond Quacking: Deep Integration of Language Models and RAG into DuckDB
Please note, that if someone is asking for payment in exchange for employment or help with recruitment, it is very often a scam. Be very careful of such schemes.

https://consumer.gov/scams-identity-theft/job-scams-explaine...

> Never pay to get a job. Honest employers won’t ask you to pay to get a job. And they won’t send you a check and tell you to send some of the money back. That’s a scam. The check will end up being fake.
The absolute nightmares people create in order to attain this ideal...
Code Blocks – Syntax Highlighting for Google Docs
Put that coffee down. Coffee's for closers only.
Some weird caste-based thinking straight from the subcontinent you've got there
Need a Nancy card so badly...
Fascinating to see there are still video games out there with no prior noted solutions or playthroughs.

I would have probably got frustrated and started decompiling it to find all the verbs and nouns :/
Idk about lua, but uv single file python scripts (search the phrase) may be highly relevant for you. Or pure python, if you don't need to pull in any dependencies.
> Make those threads access external resources simultaneously, or memory mapped to external writers, and there is no support from Rust type system.

I don’t think that’s true.

External thread-unsafe resources like that are similar in a way to external C libraries: they’re sort of unsafe by default. It’s possible to misuse them to violate rust’s safe memory guarantees. But it’s usually also possible to create safe struct / API wrappers around them which prevent misuse from safe code. If you model an external, thread-unsafe resource as a struct that isn’t Send / Sync then you’re forced to use the appropriate threading primitives to interact with the resource from multiple threads. When you use it like that, the type system can be a great help. I think the same trick can often be done for memory mapped resources - but it might come down to the specifics.

If you disagree, I’d love to see an example.
Given that a computer should be able to simulate at least some applicable aspects and processes of reality billions of times faster than the speed at which our own universe runs at: Yes, I think it is entirely reasonable to have these agents follow at least some kind of from-scratch evolutionary history. It might also be valuable: As it could further research in understanding what the word "applicable" there even means; what parts of our evolutionary history are important toward inductively reasoning your way toward a diamond in Minecraft? What parts aren't? How can that generalize?

If you code a reward function for each step necessary to get a diamond, you are teaching the AI how to do it. There is no other way to look at it. Its extremely unethical to claim, as Nature does, that it did this without "being taught", and it is in my eyes academic malpractice to claim, as their paper does, that it did this "without human data or curricula"; though mitigated by the reality that they admit this in the paper. If this is the case; I am still digesting the paper, as it is quite technical.

This isn't an LLM, I'm aware of this, but I am at the point where if I could bet on the following statement being true, I'd go in at five figures: Every major AI benchmark, advancement, or similar accomplishment in the past two years can almost entirely be explained by polluted training data. These systems are not nearly as autonomously intelligent as anyone making money on them says they are.
> But, if your problem is simple enough that you can represent it with a handful of states with two or three transitions each, then you have a very trivial problem, so trivial that the state-machine diagram likely added nothing at all to your understanding of it.

And yet, it's extremely common to see apps with clearly broken states and state transitions for what should be relatively "trivial" state machines. Think play/pause buttons, buttons with loading states, form fields with error states, etc.
An ALS outbreak in the alps
> For prospective job candidates, my advice is still that "the truth will set you free"

Is that really good advice?

If you have the wisdom of knowing when to embellish and when to blur, then you're more likely to get a job and more likely to fit in.

I'm a spectrum, and generally I'm over-truthful and I notice my habit regularly affects me negatively.
Me too, would be good for sure. For the record, I don't have anything against leveling deficits if that's the goal.
The best defense we have against the Trusting Trust attack is full source bootstrapping, now done by two distros: Guix and Stagex.
He clearly wanted something on the menu but he did not see the kitchen.
Isn't that the point?

The levy causes less people to buy the service, this reduces the service's revenue. This causes the service to be more likely to accommodate some kind of regulatory ragine.

Isn't that the point of the levy?

I'm not that simpathetic to people crying about not being able to use this type of service anyway. I've never used one, and won't in the future. I've even mostly stopped using goggle's youtube as teh intrusive ads have increased.

People's addiction to these dis-servies is really the root of the problem.

They'll almost certainly be happier without them...
I'm glad I learned React during the time when React.createClass was the only way. It was simple and intuitive. At that time the docs included a very lengthy discussion of what should be put inside the class and what should be passed via props. It was very helpful when it comes to teaching newcomers to architect their app. It also carried over the years of intuition by the typical dev working with OOP. Much better than the current trend of using hooks for everything.
US auto tariffs apply to all computers and hard disks
As an "old skool" demo coder, I'm impressed! I'm thinking with the vector display and the fall-off you could probably do some really fun stuff.

Would be interesting to get some modern demo coders onto it to see what was possible.
Ah yes. It was pretty cool that when Peepcode was acquired, Pluralsight asked me what I wanted to do with my royalties there and was fine with me waiving them and just open-sourcing the content.

It also is a testament to the backwards compatibility of Git that even after 17 years, most of the contents of that book are still relevant.
What variability? Lua can be easily sandboxed to not take any inputs: Running it would express the same manifest. And most Lua configurations would still read declaratively unless they needed extra the complexity.

I just think it's a shame that the manifest file for Lua projects would be in a language other than Lua itself. I'm more sympathetic to other trade-offs, though, such as being able to edit the file mechanically.
> The GUID can certainly be a hash.

It can’t be, because a GUID is supposed to be a globally unique. The point is, it needs to instead be the hash of the content.

This can’t be an afterthought.
> many of us kind of hate it and only stay because of the money, and would work anywhere else if the other jobs paid well enough.

I think you just described most people who aren't SE's. The only difference is that they can't land better paying jobs.
I've doubled down and completely rewrote the whole thing today :-)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43573755
The leads, are weak.
Yes, as I said, its perfectly possible to make a good game with a small team. But to prop up a few games like you have is just survivor bias. There are thousands of failed games at that scale. When I say it takes a good game and massive marketing budgets to launch an IP, I mean to do so with mediocre or better odds of success. The rare gems you've mentioned are just that. Rare.
1. Idaho National Laboratory

2. Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant

3. Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant

4. Argonne National Laboratory

5. Brookhaven National Laboratory

6. Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

7. National Energy Technology Laboratory

8. National Renewable Energy Laboratory

9. Oak Ridge National Laboratory

10. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

11. Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

12. Los Alamos National Laboratory

13. Sandia National Laboratories

14. Savannah River Site

15. Pantex Plant

16. Kansas City National Security Campus
The problem, which I've run into with terraform code like this, is when you need to change something in those 20 lines, and forget about one of the places you pasted, then spend hours trying to figure out why one system is behaving differently than the others (especially if the person debugging is different than the person who made the change).
Good pull. I was wondering if that was a true statement or not. I am curious if Linus knew about that or made it up independently, or if both came from somewhere else. I really don't know.
Almost certainly not. If you wanted to do this a better move would have been to target China with 100% tariffs then load up on Chinese stocks before lifting them.

You wouldn't need to start a trade war with the entire world, including allies, to do what you're suggesting. Just targeting a few companies or a single economy would work just as well without destroying your own country's economy and your political legacy.
Well firstly, the term 'social media' is so broad and fluid that I don't blame people for having differing ideas about it.

That said, my definition of social media is based on what is has become in recent history: 'internet-based surveillance-driven attention market'. It is a platform that divvies up users by demographics (determined by multiple forms of surveillance) and sells access to their eyes/brains. Because payment is tied to those eyes, there is an implied incentive to maximize 'engagement' (the number of times those eyes look at something).

That is not at all how I'd describe Hackernews, a link aggregation site (like Reddit), or a web forum (where people can talk to each other), despite social media platforms having all of those sort of abilities.
I feel so bad for any employees who have to listen to Christmas music at their job.
>The next stage of our interview process, had this candidate moved forward, is to implement a take-home project that we have specifically designed for prospective candidates to complete. Had we moved this candidate forward, I have no doubt that they would have been able to use AI to pass the take home project with flying colors.

I have no doubt as well, but I couldn't help but noticing, "Don't bother with take home tests," wasn't on the list of remedies.
I've had some fun ones, when interviewing folks - back in the days when people where hiring.

* had someone make a giant cheat sheet with interview questions and taped it to the wall behind their computer. Part way through, the tape gave out and covered him.

* had someone attempt to lip sync the answers. The guy talking and the guy on screen were not the same guy. There was a bit of pretend 'oh just lag' for a while.

* Person we interviewed was not the same one who showed up for work. Great answers, great experience on the interview. Asked about some things we had talked about for quite a while - and he could not recall anything. Came to realize not the same person.

* the glorious mechanical keyboard furiously googling for an answer.

* the sample project they were asked to create as starting point for the interview, they had never run before. They sat and read through what was likely AI generated docs to run the app. Took them a while to realize they needed something other than Java 8 installed to run the sample.
The candidate wasn't supposed to know the questions in advance.

> The second part sounds like areal curveball

That was the point. The candidate wasn't supposed to know the questions in advance. Once the candidate can practice / memorize, there's no way to evaluate the candidate.
"This is the famous UI = f(state) mental model of React". Famously incorrect generalization. Why? For example, the useRef hook enables components to hold their own state. React components are not guaranteed to be pure functions. Of course, it can depend on how one writes their code, but it's not a guaranteed that UI = f(state) in React in general.
Model Context Protocol (MCP): Landscape, Security Threats
The primary audience here isn't average people, or even engineers at the company. The primary audience is investors - the idea is to trick idiots into dumping their money into this overvalued company rather than the infinite other ones that also claim to solve groundbreaking problems with AI.

In the past, it was hiring (or at least the appearance of hiring). But that's an expensive signal and not sustainable for long in a post-ZIRP period. On the other hand, bullshitting about AI (and before that, blockchain) is much cheaper in comparison, and seems to do just as good without actually needing to hire anyone or even pretend to.

Whether AI is actually used, or helps the bottom-line, is irrelevant (it's not possible to conclusively say whether a piece of code was authored by AI or not, so the subsequent narrative will be tweaked as necessary to fit the market conditions at the time).
> they're like Forbes now

Forbes used to be good, but that was when Malcomb Forbes, Sr. was alive. He died in 1990.
Based on the video, it looks like Vimeo's co-founder lives in the Mission district of SF. In my experience living hear for nearly a decade, the traffic norms around here are terrifying. I lived in the area years ago and the number of times cars would blow through stop signs in broad daylight around pedestrians stunned me.

I'd love to see more flow-control measures like speedbumps, etc. Walking around the area should be enjoyable - lots of trees & shops. The potential for erratic drivers causes me to avoid the place.

Other parts of the city are much safer (at least outside the main high-speed corridors). The Mission is full of stop signs and what you'd expect to be slow-speed traffic - reality is far different.
Based on your answers, I'm guessing you haven't been involved in this process. (Not saying it as a bad thing, but just as a rationale for clarifying with further discussion).

An FMEA (and other safety-critical/quality products) go through an approval process. So if "ditch into the ocean" is not on the FMEA, it means they should have other mitigations/controls that bought the risk down to an acceptable level. They can't/shouldn't just push forward with a risk that exceeds their acceptable tolerance. If implemented correctly, the FMEA is complete insomuch as it ensured each hazard was brought to an acceptable risk level. And certainly, a safety officer isn't going to say the system doesn't need further controls because they put "ditch into the ocean" in the manuals. If that's the rationale, it begs the question "Why wasn't the risk mitigated in the FMEA and hazard analysis?" Usually it's because they're trying to move fast due to cost/schedule pressure, not because they managed the risk. There are edge cases, but even something like a double bird strike can be considered an acceptable risk because the probability is so low. Not impossible, but low enough. That’s what “ditch in the ocean” operations are for.

I agree that software system can improve safety but we shouldn't assume so without the relevant rigor that includes formal risk mitigation. Software tends to elicit interfacing faults; the implication being as the number of interfaces increases the potential number of fault modes can increase geometrically. This means it is much harder to test/mitigate software faults, especially when implementing a black-box AI model. My hunch is that many of those trying to implement AI in safety-critical applications are not rigorously mitigating risk like more mature domains. Because, you know, move fast and break things.
The jargon makes this project really difficult to understand at a glance. I've gathered that this is an environment for the programmatic inspection of existing systems. It is developed by a company that works heavily with legacy code, and they found that writing code to inspect a system was a faster way to answer questions about it than reading the source. That seems like a really cool approach.

I still do not understand what "moldable development" means. To me this implies a different paradigm for building applications, which does not seem to be what's offered. I don't understand what a "micro tool" is, is it a unit of code? Am I missing something here?