0xpgm

Majority of HNers are obviously left-leaning, and left-leaning political views always get much more support than right-leaning political views.

HN not abstract entity, it is full of living organisms with biases and majority view carries the day.

I wish there was less focus on AI replacing humans and more focus on AI helping humans do better i.e. Intelligence Augmentation. IA drove a lot of the rapid progress in the earlier days of computing that made computers usable by non-experts.

I suspect a lot of the thinking of replacing humans is driven a lot by the nerd scifi facination with the Singularity, but if a lot of the hype fails to materialize after billions of dollars have been poured into AI there could be an over-correction by the market that would take away funding from even useful AI research.

I hope we'll hear less of AI replacing X, and more of AI enhancing X, where X is radiologists, programmers, artists etc.

Reminds me of Learn x the hard way series by Zedshaw

I'm a Brave Search enjoyer for similar reasons. It's easy to switch between normal search and LLM-powered search when you prefer one over the other.

I've read that in some families, especially from Asian cultures, you're started off with math tuition as soon as you can read.

And some people are just lucky to have the right environment. I happened to have had access to some more advanced books from older relatives as a kid and I noticed that it gave me an edge over my peers in some areas.

I'm responding to makerofthings' comment that data is about as safe as it can be, because there are so many controls and checks in place. If there were many controls and checks in place, would data loss of such a high profile customer occur?

How do we explain the deletion of the $135 billion Australian pension fund data that happened to UniSuper?

Due to "an inadvertent misconfiguration of the GCVE service by Google operators due to leaving a parameter blank"?

https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/infrastructure/detail...

What are some other examples of startups that 'failed' because their model was not VC friendly i.e. were unable to sustain hypergrowth, but were profitable at a small-scale?

I was curious about this and did some casual googling. It spawns an interpreter per thread. However, it seems this is not advantageous performance wise. From docs [1]

The "interpreter-based threads" provided by Perl are not the fast, lightweight system for multitasking that one might expect or hope for. Threads are implemented in a way that makes them easy to misuse. Few people know how to use them correctly or will be able to provide help.

[1]: https://perldoc.perl.org/threads

One of the reasons I decided to self-host emails for my domain names. There's no reason it should be hard to host your own email in 2024 even if you're just mildly technical.

An Ansible playbook that sets up Debian to host email, all the dependencies from the default Debian repositories.

https://github.com/programmer-ke/replatform/

I wonder what the original plan9 designers ken thompson, robe pike etc think of the 9front people.

Maybe find them amusing - or happy to see their creation being pushed forward

I wonder if there's a way to prevent the growth at all costs that is demanded by the financial markets.

Maybe become profitable and pay off the VCs then don't go public?

Then you can resist the pressure for growth quarter by quarter, and remain the 'right size' that your internal culture demands.

Did Valve corporation do something like that?

An environment that makes it very easy to tinker will produce more potential creators resulting in more things to use

I'm currently playing with Pharo Smalltalk and everything is very accessible. I wonder why Smalltalk Environments did not catch on as operating systems, let alone just as languages, where everything can be tinkered with and modified on the fly.

Apple sounds like the kind of company that would successfully build a smalltalk device, yet they go the opposite way of locking down their devices hard.

Embrace, extend, extinguish. Though it could work both ways here

> popularity of Python has as much, if not a lot more, to do with the available libraries and frameworks as the language itself

> What seems to have bootstrapped the success of Python for ML and scientific use was early adoption by people in these communities who were not hard core programmers

What if these people (non-hard-core programmers) were attracted to the language itself because it is almost pseudo-like? So it becomes a gift that keeps on giving. Attract domain experts and you get more batteries attached for your project.

> hard core programmers

What if these people are 'hard-core' in their specific domain, but not 'hard-core' in whatever hardware architecture carries the day due to historical mishaps and marketing trends of the day?

Maybe the better term for go would be server-systems programming.

> Anyway, I was always confused that Graham called this "bottom-up programming," because he explicitly goes top-down. He discovers a need at a higher level ("As you're writing a program you may think 'I wish Lisp had such-and-such an operator'") and then he drops down to the lower level to provide it ("So you go and write it"). To me this is opposite of the approach that says you start at the bottom and implement a Platonic ideal of the domain, without first explicitly considering the needs of the program.

This sums up why I've never really understood this essay. I agreed with the technique but was mystified by why it was called bottom up programming when you first had to approach the problem top down to discover what you needed to implement.

Your comment sounds very weird to people outside America/Europe

> tweaking that it takes to bring features that should work out of the box (sane dired, LSP, (ma)git, tabs, etc).

For LSP (language server protocol), eglot worked out of the box quite well once installed. It ships by default in emacs in the latest versions.

With the interconnected nature of modern life, that BS probably touches an important part of your life

Nice story! Curious, was the manager a technical person e.g. a former engineer?

The article says a police officer stopped arresting people and started handing out tickets to a drug rehab helpline once the measure went into effect. He stopped a few months later because it felt like a waste of time, as so few were following through.

It doesn't seem to me that there are any who actually sought help but were held back by lack of available funding.

The sense I get from the article is that very few addicts are in a state of mind to voluntarily seek help.

> This is completely false

> The contrary is almost certainly true

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

Most of these are optional, one can stay with a very simple stack similar the LAMP stack i.e. a web server, a database and a backend language on Linux for small to mid-sized apps. And pick something simple for CI/CD.

Of course if you are into enterprise or 'web scale', things can get a bit more complicated, but it's how complicated you make it to be.

Thank you! This is great, sounds like what I'm looking for.

Is there a way to do lightweight incremental proof checking in a typical say Python or Javascript codebase?

Maybe specifying some conditions/assertions in comments and have it verified using some static analysis tool? Though I recognize it could be quite a challenge in dynamically typed languages.

That is true, but it eventually catches up with them. On the whole, large organizations with this kind of internal environment stagnate and are unable to innovate any longer. They then resort to buying startups to acquire products or talent.

I'd say an example of not showing concern for others is, for instance, using state power to bail out banks after the executives gambled with their customers savings and cashed out. Bad corporations are given a lifeline until the next set of customers is screwed.

I'd say that's quite an uncharitable interpretation. Free market doesn't mean breaking laws and violating social contracts.