wk_end

The problem is that the counterfactual isn't obvious. The company spends more time - and money - than they needed to fixing those issues, but how do they know? And how do they know that it would've amounted to less if they'd done those fixes sooner? Figuring that out, and figuring it out accurately, is often extremely difficult. A serious attempt might cost more than the fixes.

...and often the amount more isn't catastrophically more, so they don't even think about it. The company might be bleeding from paper cuts, it might be terribly unhealthy because of it, but still not unhealthy enough to kill it.

The link to Perfect6502 is interesting. It says that it supposedly gets speeds of 1/30th of 1MHz - i.e. ~30KHz - on high-end 2025 CPUs. Which is very slow of course, but still ~1000x faster than what people are reporting in this thread.

Of course it's in JS rather than C, but V8 is really good, well within an order of magnitude - not three - of native, at least with well-written code. I profiled the original Visual6502 and at a glance it sure does look like it's losing a ton of performance to rendering (so good call there).

I have to wonder what the limit is. Even Perfect6502 looks like it's all single-threaded and CPU-driven, which really isn't making the most of modern machines. But I don't know if this is a task that could be efficiently split across cores or dispatched to the GPU (and I can't even begin to know whether SIMD might be useful); of course hardware itself is fundamentally parallel, but the synchronization might kill you?

Are you saying that you expect the Trump regime, which has been otherwise clearly and resolutely pro-Israel, to be implementing BDS policies and refusing to buy anything from Israeli companies? To try to appease 20%-40% of Americans mostly on the opposite side of the aisle of them? The Trump regime?

(OK - this is a state-level thing. The article is vague on details, it mentions Texas and "27 states". But the Texas government at least is blood red Republican and strongly aligned with the Trump Feds, as are about half the states, so depending on which 27 states we're talking hardly a surprise. And you were the one who said "the US State" in the first place.)

The argument is: if you don’t have hygienic macros, a Lisp-2 is going to be less brittle than a Lisp-1.

The classic example is, imagine you have a function with a local variable called “list”, common enough. Now imagine you invoke a macro inside that function which generates a call to the built-in “list” function - also common enough. In a Lisp-1 without hygiene that breaks - your local definition shadowed the built-in; in a Lisp-2 or hygienic Lisp-1 you’re in the clear.

The Constantines are amazing!

Do you know anyone in the arts? Musicians? I see more AI hatred on average in those sorts of communities than in tech, where there's a pretty even split.

In the interest of playing Devil's Advocate, even if they're unlikely to abandon an existing project over this, accounting for potential sabotage and the cost/delays of redoing work might change the calculus of future projects?

...you think 1000 years from now people will wonder whether or not Stephen King existed?

Lots of excellent suggestions here. F. Scott Fitzgerald's missing so far - that's not necessarily who I'd choose but he belongs in the conversation. I don't think he's an especially interesting pick - Gatsby is cited as the Great American Novel as often as Moby Dick or Huck Finn - but he's a superlative writer who (like every high schooler in the country knows) explicitly and directly engaged with the meaning of America.

Socrates, I'd say.

Steven Spielberg is probably the Homer of American cinema.

As a professional - assuming you mean “which can I put on my resume to get a job working in that language” - probably (not necessarily!) none, or maybe Clojure.

As a hobbyist, probably all of them. It’s worth at least trying to go through SICP in Scheme (use Racket with the SICP language), it’s worth learning CL (use SBCL) to fully appreciate everything the Lisp world has to offer without compromises, it’s worth learning Clojure because it’s, frankly, a little bit cleaner and more elegant than CL in many respects.

It's maybe a bit of a startup-world, HN-blinkered assessment...but that's where we're talking, isn't it?

Even before JS became the language for everything, there was a good chunk of time - maybe between 2005 and 2015? - when Python and Ruby were dominant in this environment, and this dismissive attitude towards static typechecking was similarly dominant.

Of course in the enterprise space everyone was using Java, and in the systems space or game dev space everyone was using C++. But those worlds get a lot less airtime here.

Plus everyone on HN is a good little pg disciple, and Lisp is dynamically typed. If the One True Language doesn't need static typechecking (though SBCL offers some very helpful heuristics) surely it's not worth it. Right? Right?

> I think any English language post about philosophy majors should be assumed to be about analytics.

I don't think this is true at all. To start with, there's roughly 2000 years between the earliest known philosophers and the analytic-continental split. Plenty of philosophy majors can and do get really into the ancients or medieval philosophers or whatever and complete their degrees without doing much more than a cursory read of the major thinkers post-Kant. And anecdotally, my own undergraduate degree was in philosophy, from one of the more prestigious schools in Anglo-Canada, and we had plenty of opportunities to dive into the continental stuff.

Once you get to the graduate level and academia folks focused on Derrida or whatever are going to gravitate towards the universities that prioritize the schools of thought they're interested in, and those have always been on the continent for the continentals naturally. But for run-of-the-mill philosophy majors in the Anglosphere, IMO you should just assume they have a reasonably broad and just-deep-enough knowledge of the entire history of philosophy and make no particular assumptions about their interests.

I wish there were some photos of it in the article so we could get a better understanding of what it is.

I've been to lots of bookstores with sections or displays for famously banned books. I'm pretty sure my local Indigo (basically a Canadian Barnes & Noble) has one. If that's all this is then it doesn't sound especially newsworthy outside of the celebrity involvement and maybe the renown of this particular shop.

OTOH the article describes it as a "permanent" installation, which does sound a little different from what I'm picturing.

> Standard ML of New Jersey (smlnj) is another interesting one although it tends to be more of a research vehicle than polyml or mlton.

This is interesting! My impression was that SML/NJ was the de facto "standard" Standard ML implementation (maybe analogous to SBCL in the Lisp world), and (FWIW) Gemini agrees, describing it as "the oldest and most widely used". So I'm surprised to see someone stick it in the rear behind Poly/ML and MLton.

I don't really know what to make of that, except that I guess there's a surprisingly vibrant SML ecosystem and don't listen to any one person (myself included) about it: try them all and see which SML implementation is right for you :)

Well, you're suggesting a reason to choose Elm is stability - a lack of breaking changes. But Elm is actually notorious for its wildly unpopular, dramatic, community-fracturing breaking changes. Backwards compatibility is not a concern for them.

It's a little tricky though, because the comment you were replying to was talking about the lack of updates. And in that sense, Elm is now very stable - no breaking changes (or any changes at all!) in seven years and counting.

(Although, for all the complaints about the React ecosystem: you can still write class-style React components, even though they were effectively deprecated when hooks were introduced just over seven years ago.)

OTOH, we have this blog post suggesting development on Elm is kicking up again. Which means more breaking changes might be incoming.

That’s what makes it good satire.

Are you replying to the right comment? Or maybe just haven't had your morning coffee yet? ;)

The point I'm making is that a non-coffee drinker won't have "withdrawal symptoms", so OP's suggestion that the beneficial effects they observed were just "cessation of withdrawal symptoms" doesn't make any sense. As in literally nonsense: "a non-coffee drinker's withdrawal symptoms" is nonsensical in the same way the idea of a square circle is.

The sentence immediately before the one you quoted notes that there was a group of non-coffee drinkers in the study, and the sentence immediately after states that both groups experienced the positive effects.

At least in part that's because they've stopped legislating. The executive now basically just does whatever it wants.

Saw the name and was disappointed that this wasn't some kind of verified file system written in the F* programming language (https://fstar-lang.org).

I don't think I'd ever trust or use this, but still, good job OP :)

We shouldn't talk about "objective best" without pinning down what that means. I can only really imagine it in a sort of Aristotelian sense - a city could be the best city because it most fully embodies the notion of what it means to be city (as opposed to a more rural or suburban area): a usually cosmopolitan agglomeration of people where the density/economies of scale/competition create an environment that allows art, culture, entertainment, public services, etc. to flourish. In that particular sense I think NYC is the clear best city in the country, no competition, with maybe Chicago being a somewhat distant runner-up. In that mode of thinking it's arguably the best city in the world, actually.

Now, that said: when I lived in the US I (mostly) preferred living in Seattle over NYC for the weather, natural beauty, and more laid-back vibe...subjectively Seattle was better for me, but I still don't have an issue with saying NYC is "objectively" a better city than Seattle.

I actually don't know how much of that's especially true where doctors are involved. We as a society strictly regulate who can call themselves a doctor and the credentials that are required to do so, and then in doing so entrust them as a class to be reliable arbiters of what constitutes what's medically necessary, how public medical funds should be spent (which, even if that's something activists agitate for, is still a separate issue), and so on. We also entrust them to help monitor how parents are treating their children.

Anyway, to double back once, it actually doesn't really "assume it's a medically necessary procedure"; we can soften it to something like a "medically desired procedure" and the point in fact still stands that Shazeer's wording - which really should be the point here, not re-enacting the tired trans healthcare debate - is deliberately incendiary and manipulative. Broadly, no one is advocating for parents to be sterilizing their children as an end to itself, so it shouldn't be characterized as such.

What's medically necessary is for a person and their own doctors to decide on, not for you or some AI engineer or anyone else to disagree about.

The "sterilizing children" is how anti-trans activists talk about giving trans children gender-affirming care. Framing it this way makes it sound monstrous rather than an unfortunate side-effect of a medically necessary procedure, in the same way that characterizing a surgeon who performs hysterectomies for women with ovarian cancer as "a doctor who goes around sterilizing women" would be painting them in an unfair light.

And of course he's not directly accusing his coworkers of "sterilizing children", but he's 1) using language that compares politically sensitive health services that many of his coworkers or their families may have used and/or may feel defensive about to atrocities and 2) accusing his coworkers of supporting atrocities. That feels quite disruptive and inappropriate in the work environment IMO.

IMO people just use the term to mean “pro-Israel” rather than in any reference to the original meaning ("supporter of the idea of a Jewish state"). Which could mean any combination of “pro-American financial support for Israel”, “moral support for Israel in their various military actions”, “opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state”, “a belief that Israel should continue to exist as a Jewish state”, and so on. It's more about the broad political alignment than the specific meaning of the word.

> This is interesting because the USA claims to pursue a maximum capitalistic society

No it doesn't. This is silly.

Drug prices in the US are high for non-generic drugs because patent law gives the patent holder an artificial government-granted monopoly, which is blatantly not "pure" or "maximum capitalistic".

Generic drugs - where the free market does apply - in the US are as cheap or cheaper than in other countries. See [0]:

  U.S. prices for brand-name originator drugs were 422 percent of prices in
  comparison countries, while U.S. unbranded generics, which we found account for 90
  percent of U.S. prescription volume, were on average cheaper at 67 percent of
  prices in comparison countries, where on average only 41 percent of prescription
  volume is for unbranded generics.

[0] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11147645/

I thought "I'm sure it's not intentional" would make it clear that I'm not assuming bad faith - actually the opposite, I'm assuming good faith.

I'm also not exactly on expert on this myself, take it with a grain of salt, but my understanding is that we don't really know what Alzheimer's is. To our knowledge there isn't a clear physical cause we can point to - a virus or bacteria or tumor or something. We have the symptoms, and we have the observation that Alzheimer's patients have amyloid plaques in their brain - among other differences!

Since mice don't ever get Alzheimer's naturally, and we don't actually know what Alzheimer's is, we don't know what it would even mean to give mice Alzheimer's. But for research we've genetically engineered mice that end up with lots of those plaques, and their behaviour does suggest an impairment similar to Alzheimer's, so that's what we've been working with. And in those models, various treatments that involve clearing the plaques does seem to help resolve that impairment - but they don't help humans with Alzheimer's, even if they do clear the plaques there too.

If I'm reading your question correctly, we can't stimulate amyloid plaque growth in humans for experimentation because that'd almost certainly be considered completely unethical. And also our methods for inducing the amyloid plaques involve mice that are genetically modified from birth rather than something we introduce in vivo, which would somehow be even more unethical than experimenting on live humans. It's possible we could make those genetic modifications in vivo now with recent developments in gene therapy, but...why?