wavemode

You wrote this whole comment just to demonstrate that Warren Buffett is indeed following the law, like the parent commenter stated.

The person you're talking to literally spoke to lawyers and followed their advice. If you know better, maybe you should work in government law.

Some (most?) Boost libraries are header-only. Including Boost.Asio nowadays.

Dumping $60 billion worth of shares would tank the stock price, causing it to not convert into anywhere near $60 billion.

SpaceX paid that $60 billion entirely in stock. In other words, they traded 2% of their own inflated stock value, for 100% of Cursor's inflated stock value. This is actually a great deal for SpaceX.

If they had paid $60 billion dollars in cash for Cursor, it would have been a ripoff.

You're blown away at how old he is, or how young he is?

My understanding of that ruling is that, the intent of the constitutional clause is not only to prevent ticket prices from being raised unfairly, but also to prevent ticket prices from being so low that they no longer cover the cost of running the network, which would shift that cost to the general taxpayer.

Still frustrating (if the taxpayers want it, might as well let them have it), but not purely a semantic technicality.

> But when you use the term at least with some people it activates the "Those bastards are coming for my job" light in their brain

I think even this view is missing the point.

My opinion is that most people are overcomplicating this whole issue. When people react negatively to the term "AI", it's simply because the vast majority of features branded "AI" in the vast majority of products, are pure garbage. Searching for some deeper cultural or psychological reason is a waste of time - let's just stop pushing garbage AI products, then maybe someday people's perception of the term will change.

Until then, just leave that word out of the marketing material. Nobody really cares how the product is implemented, just focus on what it does.

That's a circular concern. The only reason there would be a 2-hour wait, would be because the company didn't hire as many customer support agents, precisely because they want people to use the automated systems instead.

An emulator is a computer program that executes the machine code of some system. For example, if your computer is x86, you can't natively run ARM machine code. But an emulator can.

QEMU is an emulator that can run entire operating systems, because it emulates hardware devices like hard drives and displays. Unicorn doesn't emulate any of those things, it only emulates the CPU. It's probably mostly useful for compiler development and security research / reverse engineering.

"America has lost" seems to be a matter of plain fact rather than opinion. What singular goal of this Iran invasion was achieved? It seems the US has gained literally nothing in this war, meanwhile causing trillions in global economic damage.

It vaguely sounds as though there is some sort of nuclear deal in the works ... but the US already had a nuclear deal with Iran, that Trump tore up. So I guess you could squint and say that the US won something back that was previously foolishly discarded.

To be fair, the title is "I wrote a C++ ray tracer from scratch without AI", not "This C++ ray tracer, right now, contains no AI-written code"

It sounds to me like there is some point in this project's history when both of the following were true:

1) It was a C++ raytracer

2) It was entirely human-written

So technically there is no lie here.

> Apple made a cool phone that it sells for a high but fair price, but it also takes 30% of everything you buy with that phone

Apple was already a multibillion dollar company almost 30 years before the iPhone was invented...

(though I'm sure you will have no trouble inventing some other reason that that wealth, too, was created through exploitation)

Hm. You're probably right.

Wow. Have you written about this work anywhere?

Its behavior is dictated by the language.

The context of this thread is that someone stated that the C++ standard library sucks, and someone replied to them saying that it's just some implementations that suck, but that's separate from the language. The point I'm trying to make, in response, is that it is about the language. It's not just "some" implementations - there is no implementation of the C++ standard library that doesn't have these inefficiencies, because the language's own standard requires them.

(This is tangential but - this is why I often say that C++ is not actually the most complex language in the world, it's just over-specified. If you took almost any popular programming language and wrote a document dictating the behavior of every single feature and library to the same level of detail, you would end up with a document similar in length or even longer than the C++ standard.)

You can't really separate the two, firstly because some parts of the standard library interact directly with the language's syntax (e.g. <initializer_list>), and secondly because the language standard dictates things about the behavior of the standard library that limit implementation options.

For example, the standard says that adding elements to an <unordered_map> is not allowed to invalidate references to keys or elements within the map. That makes it impossible for any standards-compliant C++ implementation to use a high-performance implementation in which keys and elements are stored contiguously in a flat array.

Security vulnerabilities are less about programming ability and more about rigor.

> At this point the corrupted free pointer is called, and control of the instruction pointer is ours.

Very serious, though in practice it doesn't sound like this bug achieves arbitrary RCE on its own (especially in the presence of ASLR). You would need there to be some writable and executable page of memory lying around.

You're not wasting your time; LLMs have written plenty of compilers. Compilers are easy for LLMs to work on, because their level of verifiability is very high. That is, an LLM can easily determine whether what a compiler is doing is correct or incorrect.

Automated verifiability goes down once a software project incorporates things like:

- Concurrency

- Networking / distributed systems

- Visuals / animations

- Domain knowledge (e.g. banking, finance)

Anyone who still even views this as a conservative/liberal issue, is someone who is in the pocket of the fossil fuel lobby. Solar is simply a very cheap and realiable way to generate electricity. Much cheaper than gas and coal nowadays. Pure economic incentive is going to continue to drive its adoption.

Gotta love HN. A commenter does literally nothing other than recommend a book and the top reply is "don't recommend books to him - he's written books, don't you know that?"

A lot of crow hunting stories feel cruel to read about, though I wonder why that is.

There is something about intelligence that seems to carry a degree of... moral responsibility, somehow? Though in reality it's just an animal eating another animal, as ever.

Part of the joke is that, in this implementation, the metadata is guaranteed to be larger than the file:

> Now, we all know that it can take a while to find a long sequence of digits in π, so for practical reasons, we should break the files up into smaller chunks that can be more readily found.

> In this implementation, to maximise performance, we consider each individual byte of the file separately, and look it up in π.

There is an assymetry cause by the fact that way more foreigners speak English fluently, than Americans/Canadians/British who speak foreign languages fluently.

So, they're naturally able to influence the West way more than the West can influence them.

I don't think the commentary being made here is that startup websites should not be flashy. Just that, maybe they don't all need to look exactly the same as each other.

I guess it could be? I interpreted what the parent commenter wrote like "the variables aren't actually correlated" (which definitely does happen sometimes)

Whereas my point is moreso when, the variables really are correlated but it's purely due to random chance. Not bullshit, per se, just bad luck (or possibly, p-hacking).

(Though the solution to both is the same - you shouldn't trust a study until it's been independently replicated on new data.)

The 5th option is random chance.

That often results from p-hacking. In a world of infinite variables, if you look hard enough you are guaranteed to eventually find two completely unrelated variables that correlate with each other over a statistically significant period of time.

yes that's the author, but he didn't submit this to HackerNews

This reads more like a love letter than life advice.

As a love letter it's very sweet - you clearly have found something special.

As life advice - I mean, not everyone's ideal relationship is gonna look like this, and that's okay too.