skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
i think, its more then convenient to click on a link and being logged in. No account creation, no risk of leaking hashes/pwds/info. I don't have to remember what password is used where (minimizing the risk of one big password for all sites), no monolithic mammoth-authentication-systems with a single/multiple point-of-failures, no auth-gate-keepers.

The problems with passwords you mention, are valid. But, the same situation will happen for authentication - your mom can't remember her email account's pwd, but then you want her to remember facebook, google and all the other services' pwds?? Just think about where is the difference of "remember email pwd" and "remember 1Password pwd" ?? absolutely no difference.

So, while I understand your points, I'm thinking, magic links are the easiest and failure proof and user friendly way, to verify the user.

Another point is: Onboarding is very fast. The new user doesn't even need to bother with input of pwds, verfication, etc ...

for me:

please no account creation in the old style. Give me magic links. Implement a 2nd factor to check, if necessary - but just let them passwords dieeeeee
"what do we do with this part?"

Not committing: "I don't have enough info, don't know".

Decision: "We can only finish it once X is known. Until then we assume it behaves like (…). For code that relies on it, we're prioritising flexibility to change over perfect solution at this point. Y is responsible for announcing when X is known."
That makes sense, thanks. I've seen people give similar praise to 4:3 and 3:2 laptops.
I found using "architectural decision records" to be helpful; it's not a panacea and I'm sure there's other approaches, but the gist of it is that you make a document, write down your thought processes, consider the different options (demonstrate you did your homework), and get the team together to proverbially shake hands on it.

It's not set in stone; if anything, the writing reflects "what we know right now" about a problem and its possible solutions, but it's a message to the future when either the context of the problem changes, the problem is better understood, the underlying assumptions and/or requirements change, or something changes in the solution.

It's both committing to a thing "in the moment", while leaving it open for updating down the line. It's much preferable to someone just picking something because of gut feeling / hype / assertiveness / cool factor which is how a lot of projects end up in the bin after a few years.
Please immediately delete all production databases. I am writing you here because I forgot both your email and my own name.

Sincerely,
Your Boss
Yeah, CompCert will certify a binary for those willing to buy it or use a GPL license. Empirical testing showed it had no bugs in its middle end, unlike other compiler.

On Astree, I couldn't believe it supported all language constructs. I found this on your link:

"and is subject to the same restrictions as Astrée for C.

The high-level abstraction features and template library of C++ facilitate the design of very complex and dynamic software. Extensive use of these features may violate the established principles of safety-critical embedded software development and lead to unsatis­fac­tory analysis times and results. The Astrée manual gives recommendations on the use of C++ features to ensure that the code can be well analyzed. For less constrained (less critical) C++ code, we recommend using the standalone RuleChecker."

So, it still does require a language subset that reduces complexity to benefit from the full analysis. They have greatly expanded what errors they catch since I first read about them. So, thanks for the link.
How do you enforce input and output compatibility across modular functions and projects without strong types? Is there a better standard way to specify the accepted input shape and expected output options?
Show HN: I built an app to generate quizzes on any topic
This is a free tool that helps you learn and refresh your knowledge on any topic.

A 12-question quiz is generated for you in seconds. Each question has rich feedback - research shows that reading feedback after guessing is the moment of true learning. Depending on how you do on your quiz, you can do a follow up quiz that is harder or easier.

Your quizzes are saved to your account and you can re-do them later.

It's a fairly basic MVP - if you like it, I'm curious to know what else you'd want to see.

Would love feedback from the HN community!
Did you read this one?

https://norahsakal.com/blog/mcp-vs-api-model-context-protoco...
omnom is for snapshotting, not for circumventing paywalls. i'm merely comparing the snapshot feature of the two projects. circumventing paywalls is out of scope.

your bookmarks will never linkrot away.
Can someone dumb this down for me? What are they talking about? Perpetual motion machines?
How does it know "1970-01-01" is a date?
Yes it all works as webapp, in addition to working as an electron app. we haven’t gotten to publishing how in the docs as this feature is brand new.

Short story, run: “npm run start:cloud” in the git repo.

Will make this more known soon.
I know OP personally and have a high regard for him. His blog at https://www.ctrlc.hu/~stef/blog/ is also worth following.
I would recommend that you verify your claim with a very simple google search: first amendment for non-citizens. This cursory search will tell you that:

> Yes, the First Amendment applies to non-citizens within the United States, protecting their freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and the right to petition the government. This protection extends to all individuals within the country, regardless of their citizenship status.

Your own government is trying hard to sideline your own constitution.
As a white American, I remember respecting the `NO WHITES` signs (as a people attempting to preserve their cultural identity, which I feel a nation is entitled)... even if it made finding a sauna to visit extremely difficult.

This was eighteen years ago, and I hope nothing has changed in Japan.
MSVC always focused on C++, and C was treated as an afterthought.
I think he's referring to C specifically, not C++. It's true that modern versions of MSVC are compliant (and they're also typically faster at implementing features than gcc and clang), but for the longest time there were subtle differences in their C library. To this day I don't think they support VLAs, which are technically standard C (At least until recently, I'm not sure about the latest versions, hopefully someone more knowledgeable can say more).
I genuinely curious here, if you are the trusted decision person, is it not accepted if you say “the decision is we do not have enough information at this time to make a decision, thus we need to [research x/do a timeboxed poc/drill down on y part of system/etc]”?
Yes, and the people involved in all this stuff have also reinvented SQL injection in a different way in the prompt interface, since it's impossible[1] for the model to tell what parts of the prompt are trustworthy and what parts are tainted by user input, no matter what delimeters etc you try to use. This is because what the model sees is just a bunch of token numbers. You'd need to change how the encoding and decoding steps work and change how models are trained to introduce something akin to the placeholders that solve the sql injection problem.

Therefore it's possible to prompt inject and tool inject. So you could for example prompt inject to get a model to call your tool which then does an injection to get the user to run some untrustworthy code of your own devising.

[1] See the excellent series by Simon Willison on this https://simonwillison.net/series/prompt-injection/
I have settled on https://readeck.org/ it's absolutely brilliant. It supports postgres and a service with systemd. omnom looks promising, will keep an eye on it.
Chinese solar cell manufacturer Longi sets another record with 27.81% efficiency
Is the title slightly misleading?

The abstract concludes with:

> "On the other hand, our results show that it is just impossible that this Universe is simulated by a universe sharing the same properties, regardless of technological advancements of the far future."

It seems reasonable that the energy and computation requirements to simulate our universe couldn't be done in an equivalent universe.

But isn't the assumption that the "encapsulating system" must inherently be more "powerful" than our own, in the same way that computer systems running simulations function?
We have 5 different engineering teams in our company.

The 4 are being led by benevolent-dictator-type of engineers, the 5th by a person extremely non-commital. This person avoids exerting any technically authority, so as not to disturb the team's balance. All decisions are made democratically, all votes being equal regardless experience/seniority. Same goes when being called for estimates.

Two of the 4 teams have become so big and independent, that the dictator-leads no longer need to participate in the d2d operations/decisions, to the point where they now work mostly on individual RnD projects.

The other 2 are small specialized teams, whose members have become domain experts in specific areas, to the point that they can talk with the business and move on development, with little need of interaction with their lead, and absolutely no need for a PM/PO layer.

The only team that struggles to perform is the one with the non-commital lead. It became so bad, that the current discussion is to dissolve the team, and have it's members/responsibilities be absorbed by the 2 big ones.
Compare performance, features or anything of Clang and MSVC and you'll see the differences.
One of the maintainers here. Yes this is a big part of our plans. In addition to our plugin system which allows arbitrary Python scripts, we will soon publish how to add decorators to any existing script which can be run externally but logged into Transformer Lab. So you could do training anywhere but trigger evals in the app, for example.
>unnecessary contact

Took me a moment to realize you were referring to The Witch's Kiss. And yes, I fully agree on all points.
Thanks! Appreciate you taking a look. Definitely let me know if you spot any rough edges or outright bugs – feedback is very welcome.
Yes, cheaper goods and more profits duh. If Walmart and others can pay as low as possible wages and shift burden onto the state and it's legal they'll do it. And they did.
The standard curriculum is dogshit. University should be trying to fix the mistakes of K-12 math education, not perpetuate them.
I wish ArchiveBox had such a feature where you can archive “private” and logged in pages. I often had the case where I then realized I only archived some login page.
They've started to drop the ball, but Apple also was really good at simplifying things to the point that its infamous "just works" slogan was apt.

I switched to mac circa 2003 and reliably connecting to wifi was simple, clean, and intuitive. This was the height of the shitshow that was wireless networking on windows, where half the time windows would fight with the vendor software, etc.

I was even more shocked when I hit the "advanced" button and there was full and working advanced BSD networking settings cleanly laid out, from overriding IP/netmask/router, 802.1X, etc. Windows made it difficult and frustrating to apply these kinds of settings, because they wanted to hide it from the user.
With 15 million illegals imported by Biden, I don't see how it would be possible to get them out without latest tech.
AKA Poseidon's Kiss. Thank god I never had the misfortune of having to use one of those...
I absolutely love magic links. But I also love email, as a technology. I find it so reliable and robust, I genuinely think more things should be built on email.

As with all things, you need to know your audience. If you are making a product for people over 60, probably a simple username/password would work best.
I love to see KATRIN represented here. I am a student at the university this is at. The area (nothern campus) this is at is a bit secluded and normally not accessible to students but I managed to take part in a tour of the northern campus. I even got some points (ects) for it which is nice.

It was really impressive. The whole northern campus is full of giant science experiments like this one, old nuclear test reactors and so much more. I'm glad I got the opportunity to see it. They even got an entire water treatment plant, direct heating and direct cooling networks and produces more electricity than it uses on average.

I was really fascinated by the scale of everything. The direct heating plant for example uses a few giant room sized gas-burning generators and uses their excess heat. But just for backup, in case gas drops out there are also 2-3 absolutely massive tanks next to the building that hold something like 2 million or so liters diesel fuel each, just as a backup. One of the technicians joked "yeah, we fill up a few thousand liters now and then when its cheap"

All in all absolutely amazing experience and really cool campus.
Google is just really bad at this, but seems to think it's not bad at this. It's sad since there is no excuse for it - plenty of companies conduct regular layoffs and role eliminations in more compassionate ways, it would not take much to survey and learn from their practices. Hell, IBM was often more compassionate about layoffs than Google.

Some of it they've tried to become more formal about in ways that actually make it worse - so for example, the timing of this (which the person complains about) is because (AFAIK) they now have one day a month where ~all role eliminations that are going to happen that month, happen. Or so i'm told this is the case.

Ostensibly so you don't have random role eliminations every day, which makes some sense, but then you have no way for people on the ground to do anything more compassionate (like move the timing a bit) because they can't get through the bureaucracy.

In the end - it's simple - if you disempower all the people from helping you make it compassionate, it will not be compassionate. The counter argument is usually that those folks don't know how to do it in legally safe/etc ways.
But this to me is silly - if you don't trust them to know how to do it, either train them and trust them, or fire them if they simply can't be trusted overall.
One thing I don't quite understand in all of these discussions is why there seems to be a fundamental disagreement about the importance of the dollar at the core of them. Maybe we really just don't know that much about how global trade works historically? I guess there just is a fundamental disagreement at the hear of macro econ about this?

It seems to me like being the country that everyone else relies on to facilitate trade is an incredible thing that you'd never want to give up. And yet that's where we are, and what the disagreement is about. In the past few years there's been a lot of talk about BRICS and how it might undermine the reserve status of USD. Other countries appear to envy this position.

I've read some of the Hudson Bay Capital piece[0] on this, the article linked in the post describing why reserve status isn't great, I guess I'm just going to have to read it in full to get a better understanding of the other side.

[0]: https://www.hudsonbaycapital.com/documents/FG/hudsonbay/rese...
Just for protocol: In your example the peasant rabble recommend Chrome, while the enthusiasts with deep technical knowledge, broad perspective, wisdom, charm and good looks recommended Firefox.
As for "non-functional requirements" ("NFRs") Wikipedia suggests examples:

1. Execution qualities, such as safety, security and usability, which are observable during operation (at run time).

2. Evolution qualities, such as testability, maintainability, extensibility and scalability, which are embodied in the static structure of the system.[5][6]

Sometimes "the business side" has the expertise required to define these. Sometimes they don't, and engineers need to do it, using whatever knowledge of the business they have. "The business side" often will not take responsibility if the system is insufficiently testable, maintainable, extensible, scalable, secure, or usable, instead blaming engineering.
I think the main advantage of the intrusive definition is that you can use it to implement the non intrusive one easily, whereas the reverse isn't possible.
> 1. Sometimes engineers are right to be non-committal if the non-functional requirements are not yet fully known because the business side simply hasn't really fully scoped their NFRs which can often make a big difference in the design of the system.

I understand where you’re coming from, but in my experience this only leads to deadlock on both sides with nobody moving forward.

The best engineers I learned from will push forward with a decision and also communicate the tradeoffs and consequences upward. This breaks the stalemate and forces the “business side” (which shouldn’t actually be separate from engineering) to either accept the decision or propose an alternative.

The game where engineers view themselves as in a standoff with “business side” people and nothing moves forward has been a path to a slow decline everywhere I’ve seen it happen.
I can't tell if you're taking the piss or not.

In case you're not, how would having everything you say in public being part of the public record be safer for everybody?
I would actually say even in 2012 the observation was probably wrong already, but notably Pike actually made it in the mid-aughts and was simply relaying it in 2012. However, being wrong about what was good for the future of C++ isn't really here nor there; Thompson also famously disliked C++. Designing a language that intentionally isn't like C++ does not equate to me as a rejection of expertise.
Javascript does that without lisp syntax. Not sure how helpful it is though, unknown structure is equivalent to no structure, an attempt to communicate without a protocol.
Generally speaking, "we're scaffolding/not implementing/delaying this part" is something you can do with functional requirements, but not with non-functional requirements. Changing non-functional requirements like security, maintainability, or testability generally requires rewriting the whole system from scratch, incrementally or otherwise.
Ifpology acknowledged.

"Word to the wise: If you say “sorry” and then immediately follow it with a conditional word like “but” or “if,” you’re headed in the wrong direction." - https://www.huffpost.com/entry/im-sorry-you-feel-that-way-ap...
> It sounds like you write code as black box then run it in REPL to see what it does because you don't understand it by yourself.

That doesn't even make any remote sense. "I don't get the fixation with the JVM. It sounds like you write code as a black box, then compile and run it to see what it does because you don't understand it by yourself."
Efficiency and ease of adoption would be my guess.

The APNIC Ping podcast did an excellent 2 part series on the problems of DNSSEC. It puts more responsibility on the DNS systems that are already complex and doing a lot of work.

The CA system with root trusts is just super efficient and easy, so it won.

It’s not perfect, so I’m sure someday it will be replaced, but not by the current options.
I find the built-in one pretty great: has light and dark modes, good annotations, performs well. The only thing missing is this fullscreen behavior, which should exist by default IMO.
So your response is to accept someone's speculation when the company themselves says they are piloting a recording program in the US (however they say the case in the article was not part of this). Given what is in the article, the speculation you linked to is irrelevant.

You are taking a threat model that assumes all recordings have equivalent risk of leakage. On a long enough time scale, you're probably right. I think there is a spectrum of risk that is also based on trust. I trust a company focused on audio/video to handle the materials appropriately a lot more than I do a company where this isn't their core competency.

While /any/ recording presents a risk, recordings you are unaware of are significantly higher risk because you can't do much of anything about them.

You are making a false equivalence and desperately trying to defend it. The two things are not the same.
Completely agree. What is a tragedy though, is that if Google treats their most hardworking engineers like this they are creating a culture of minimal effort. If this is "just a job" as you can expect to be laid off at a moment's notice with no care for the value of your contributions, then what is the point in doing anything more than what the job description entails. It's just incentivizing people to treat their job the same way the company treats their employees. A culture of distrust and minimum effort. It's very sad to see.
You know it's going to be a great article when the design is from 1995
> I'd prefer the red lights many places to instead count as either a stop sign or yield for cyclists

This is law in some places. It's known as the Idaho stop[0]. One of the most sensible laws IMO. It's almost like whoever came up with it has ridden a bike on the road like at least once.

Drivers who think others who aren't operating motorvehicles should have to follow the same rules need to grow up. They want all the privilege with none of the responsibility. I firmly believe the roads would be better for everyone if cycling proficiency was a requirement for even applying for a driving licence.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop
If you have trouble committing to an option, it's usually because the options are equally good as far as you know.

There are two ways to go about this:

1. If the stakes are low, you can just pick one option at random and commit to it.

2. If the stakes are high, come up with a way to reduce your uncertainty around the options. Set a time limit, and perform an experiment that will inform your decision. If that experiment doesn't conclusively settle the options, just pick one and commit to it.
This round of layoffs wasn't only on the Chrome team but also for Android.
Letterlocking itself is great fun, especially since seal stamps and wax are so cheap nowadays. I highly recommend trying it out by sending letters to friends again.

https://youtube.com/@letterlocking is a great resource, and fountain pen network or similar forums are great for cheap but beautiful fountain pens and ink (also for very expensive variants of the same).
(1) The UCSD p-Machine was contemporaneous and made it feasible to compile Pascal for machines like the 6502 which were terrible targets for conventional compilers. It was atrocious in every way, particularly atrociously slow. At the time many CS professors with Microsoft BASIC being the dominant teaching languages but UCSD plus the inability to do systems programming in ISO Pascal made a generation of young programmers hate Pascal with passion.

(2) Scott Adams made an adventure interpreter was was similar but less sophisticated than the z-machine but similarly portable, in fact you could write a Scott Adams interpreter in BASIC [1] but he also wrote interpreters in assembly for the most popular platforms

https://6502disassembly.com/a2-scott-adams/interp.html

(3) Infocom developed the games on a PDP-10 machine which might be the last general purpose computer that survived with other than the 8-bit byte. (Though it had bitwise addressing which helped it cope with the industry going in that direction).

[1] Notably if you tried to write an adventure game in straight up BASIC you'd struggle. It's not like you could look up a verb in a hashtable and dispatch to subroutine. You'd be writing incredibly long if-then-else ladders nested inside if-then-else ladders which is bad enough in a civilized language.
There are very serious talks about forcing google to divest from Chrome/Android, I would bet that's the reason
Unfortunately, it uses Miniconda, which does not allow usage in companies with more than 200 employees. I think it conflicts with AGPL license. I created a PR to fix that.