telotortium

He's a Googler, he's talking about Google.

The parent is talking about Rivian. Lucid sales are less than 10% of Rivian.

I guess it shows that not literally every electric car maker is suffering, but the applicability to the wider market is limited (Lucid delivered less than 1,000 units total, even after their increase).

Should add the project name, Headscale, to the title

Headscale has been on HN many times.

Chargebacks in particular are eaten by the merchant, not the credit card company, unless the merchant puts in the effort to show that the chargeback is incorrect or fraudulent.

I don’t think these tendentious language games are winning as much support for your position as you think. Do you object to calling people felons, instead of saying they are people convicted of a felony? I know the idea is that by not calling someone a felon, you imply that some negative characteristic doesn’t define a person. But it’s been extended from diseases and mental illnesses, where the logic does make some sense, to legal categories, where I don’t think people ever had an issue keeping the two things apart. Also, progressives are hypocrites in that they are more than willing to call people racists instead of saying they’re merely people expressing racist thoughts or engaging in racist behaviors.

Abstract:

> Recent math benchmarks for large language models (LLMs) such as MathArena indicate that state-of-the-art reasoning models achieve impressive performance on mathematical competitions like AIME, with the leading model, o3-mini, achieving scores comparable to top human competitors. However, these benchmarks evaluate models solely based on final numerical answers, neglecting rigorous reasoning and proof generation which are essential for real-world mathematical tasks. To address this, we introduce the first comprehensive evaluation of full-solution reasoning for challenging mathematical problems. Using expert human annotators, we evaluated several state-of-the-art reasoning models on the six problems from the 2025 USAMO within hours of their release. Our results reveal that all tested models struggled significantly, achieving less than 5% on average. Through detailed analysis of reasoning traces, we identify the most common failure modes and find several unwanted artifacts arising from the optimization strategies employed during model training. Overall, our results suggest that current LLMs are inadequate for rigorous mathematical reasoning tasks, highlighting the need for substantial improvements in reasoning and proof generation capabilities.

Strongly implies that extraordinary performance of current models on math exams is partly due to test set contamination (intentional or unintentional).

So it would appear that French law has broadly the same power of prosecutorial discretion as US law.

You could certainly say they were driving, practicing medicine, or operating machinery illegally, or indeed working illegally if they don't provide valid documents.

I think that Edo was centralized to a similar degree as medieval England - not that it necessarily had a central bureaucracy that we'd associate with a modern state (although I believe in actuality that the samurai-staffed bureaucracy in Edo was on a similar level to contemporary states in Europe, if not as sophisticated as China), but that it was never under any serious doubt that one government had legitimacy to rule over the entire country. There were no daimyo, as far as I know, that ruled territories that the Edo government struggled to control, after the foundation of the Tokugawa Shogunate. By contrast, France had powerful independent duchies until at least the 1500s.

> The US is on their second republic because the articles of confederation failed, and is looking down the barrel of a second dissolution as we speak.

The US constitutional system has arguably been reconstituted at least 3 times (in order of plausibility): US Civil War and Reconstruction amendments, FDR and New Deal, LBJ and Civil Rights Act of 1964. The latter two were not even primarily accomplished via formal Constitutional amendment, just a reinterpretation of what the Constitution allowed and compelled. What makes Trump different than those? Just the fact that, unlike the first three, it's more right-wing than progressive?

I’m not saying that whatever is happening now is necessarily good, but will it lead to the collapse of the US Constitution?

Schumer had no leverage. If the budget had not passed, Musk and DOGE would have used that as a excuse to purge even more government employees.

Clearly the $44B price was too high for what it was really worth as a platform - Musk tried to get out of the deal, or at least decrease the price, but was forced to buy it at his initial offer by the courts. But I don't think there's any basis to say it's rapidly failing, at least from an engagement perspective - if BlueSky or Threads were going to kill X, they would have done so by now, or at least be well on their way. Besides, the real value of X is to seize control of a powerful propaganda platform from progressives, and in that he succeeded, maybe even beyond his wildest dreams.

According to existing Supreme Court precedent[1], nationalization of companies requires approval by Congress, not just the President, so that would make it more difficult.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown_Sheet_%26_Tube_Co._...

That's why Canada would be the 51st state. Only 2 senators for all of Canada, so not much increase in Democratic representation. Representatives would of course lean Democratic, but if Trump engineers a collapse in Canada's economy, some voters may be willing to vote Republican if they're promised a bailout, given the fait accompli of annexation. Plus, if the NDP sticks around, that's fewer Democratic representatives. Sure NDP would probably vote with Democrats in most situations, but it might be easier to peel their representatives away for crucial votes.

Greenland could probably be induced to vote Republican fairly easily, and so send 2 Republican senators to Congress.

I've just spitballing, of course - in the current situation the GOP is not in the position to throw away any advantage in the House.

Adding the Git hash is reproducible, assuming you build from a clean tree (which the build script can check). Embedding the current date and time is the canonical cause of non-reproducibility, but that can be worked around in most cases by embedding the commit and/or author date of the commit instead.

No love for Python's shlex.quote[1] or their equivalents in other languages to quote arguments for shell? In his case, which is interpolating a variable inside a shell double-quoted string, I would probably use environment variables, or else use shell `printf` with `shlex.quote`. But generally I interpolate directly into the command line using `shlex.quote`, when I can't avoid executing using the shell.

I was happy to learn about Python's template string proposal (i.e., t-strings) from https://peps.python.org/pep-0750/, although it probably won't become common for a while.

[1] https://docs.python.org/3/library/shlex.html#shlex.quote

Yep, in a negotiation, it usually helps to establish a status quo favorable to you if possible.

Do you know of any methods not tied to a particular RPC framework that attempts to solve this problem? I imagine that you could try to implement something of the sort using OpenTelemetry Tracing at least, although the need to (presumably) reconstruct the distributed stack trace from a separate store is a deficiency of this approach for sure.

Exactly. More specifically, Internet servers in data centers connected themselves to the IP network, not the phone network (not surprisingly), so they almost always had an uplink significantly faster than 56 Kb/s. And the analog local loop had encodings that could transmit at 56 Kb/s. But these encodings were not compatible with the analog-digital conversion used in phone network backbone.

While today you'd probably expect that the IP network could connect to every phone branch office where the local loops were connected to the phone network, that wasn't necessarily the case - Internet data would usually have to travel some of its way over the phone network backbone, with the problematic digital encodings. V.90 and related standards allowed the phone network to accept the digital data directly from ISPs and send it in digital form to the branch office, without attempting a digital to analog to digital conversion to inject it as digital voice into the phone network. That's why the upload speed couldn't be improved via this method - it would still need to undergo analog-digital conversion to travel across the phone network to the ISP where it could enter the IP network. (V.92, a later standard, improved upload speed to 48 Kb/s via fancier signal processing trickery that could survive the digital voice conversion.)

They are currently attempting to essentially be annexed by the small community of Suisun City in exchange for being allowed to develop the land according to their vision.

FAANG generally will only do background checks at the offer stage, not during interviews. They use various third-party employment verification firms who will generally ask your previous employer for your title and dates of employment. I presume if you were a new graduate they would confirm that you have graduated.

Perhaps you can learn such a function, but it may be hard to learn a suitable embedding space directly, so it makes sense to lean on the more general capabilities of an LLM model (perhaps fine-tuned and distilled for more efficiency).

> Shares in Alphabet were down around 7% in after-hours trading following the earnings report, paring much of this year’s gains of about 8%.

https://www.wsj.com/tech/alphabet-googl-q4-earnings-report-2...

Absolutely no legal weight.

However, when you change a promise publicly, you signal a change in direction. It is much more honest than leaving it in place but violating it behind the scenes. If the public really cares, they can pass a law via their democratic representatives (or Google can swear a public oath before God I suppose).

> The President also doesn't get to enforce traffic laws by random summary executions

- Congress has not passed laws against traffic violations (well, except in D.C., federal land, etc.).

- Even when they have, they have not designated the punishment to be execution.

- Even if the violators are federal employees, the executive doesn't have the power to summarily punish their violations by anything worse than firing the employee, even under the unitary executive theory. The executive can't levy any criminal punishment on their own. (They have since FDR been able to levy civil penalties in certain cases, but rulings like SEC v. Jarkesy are limiting that power.)

So your hypothetical makes no sense, even under the broadest interpretation of the "unitary executive" theory. What Trump, Musk, and DOGE want to do is to make it as easy to fire and discipline the federal workforce as it is for a company executive to do the same to a company. We'll see how far it goes I suppose. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a federal civil service reform bill introduced soon to at least allow the executive to put any civil service employee on indefinite paid leave - that would allow Congress to set conditions on federal employment that don't prevent the executive branch from implementing its agenda.

> Do dems actually support abortion rights? Kamala didn't really campaign on that. How about gun control? Kamala was all too happy to talk about how she's a proud gun owner.

On the contrary, abortion was one of the main issues the Democrats campaigned on. I live in California, and while I didn’t get presidential campaign ads for obvious reasons, down ballot Democrats campaigned hard on a pro-choice message, despite the fact that California is about the last place where pro-choice is under threat. (Gun control a little less, but I still saw it sometimes.)

The issue is that Democrats successfully passed a lot of pro-choice ballot measures in 2022 after Dobbs. In 2024 they couldn’t use this issue much, since the states with heavy abortion restrictions after 2022 are much less sympathetic to the pro-choice cause, particularly because Democrat party messaging has moved a long way from “safe, legal, and rare”. Also, Trump distanced himself from the pro-life cause during the 2024 election, even removing the strongest pro-life language from the Republican party platform.

Without the pro-choice vote that delivered the midterms, and combined with the general incompetence of the Kamala campaign, Democrats really had little to offer, especially since they’re associated with unpopular policies like DEI, open borders, trans advocacy, inflation, etc.

> They have overwhelming support for every major issue

Obviously not, or they wouldn’t have lost.

From a purely power-based standpoint, Obama probably should have pushed more in 2008. But that’s the only time he could have done it - even passing ACA got the Democrats severely punished in the 2010 Congressional elections.

Maybe a little, but FLOPs and memory bandwidth don't lie.