HN user
To make both addition and multiplication O(n), you can store numbers as their residues modulo a bunch of different primes and appeal to the Chinese Remainder Theorem. However, then size comparison becomes difficult.
I don't see it as a brag. I think they're saying that the specialness of the notebook starts becoming an obligation and a burden, and then the notebook loses its original purpose, because "messy" notes and "neat" notes are for different things.
I think you're completely missing the point. The "messy" notebook isn't supposed to have any aesthetic value or qualities, it's just a tool for the user to record stuff in the moment. It also has nothing to do having a messy phase in life. It literally is just there for you to write stuff down whenever you need or want to.
There's nothing wrong with having a tidy notebook, but many of us also need messy notebooks.
Or simply:
"While I may use AI for work, my website and all the content on it is entirely written by hand."
I don't think the original syntax is incorrect exactly, but too many commas in a sentence can make it harder to parse, which is why style guides often warn about it and advise thinking of certain commas as "optional."
If you hire someone to create something for you (video, images, audio, text, etc.), and you then claim you made it yourself without crediting them, I think almost everyone would agree that it's plagiarism and deeply unethical. It doesn't matter if you also had some creative input, since the other party was still an author of the work. If the "someone" was actually a generative AI model, I don't think that changes anything. You still relied on a third party to have creative input, and passing it off as your own work is tantamount to plagiarism. So in summary, yes, IMO AI usage must be disclosed in creative works.
But the thing is, in this analogy, we are the chef, surgeon, or builder. We're the ones other people look for when they can't do the thing by themselves (in this case, writing software).
Neither my analogy or yours is exact, but it's really worth thinking about.
The problem with this analogy is an LLM isn't very much like a "tool" at all.
- In cases of practical relevance, you pay a recurring fee to keep using it - not very tool-like.
- Rather than doing a predictable action in response to user inputs, you give it imprecise instructions and it does something unpredictable but vaguely correct in response, which then must be thoroughly inspected.
- In cases of practical relevance, its actual operation (not just design) is entirely handled by a third party, not by the user.
These things describe a subcontractor, not a tool. We don't insist that a chef at a restaurant use this tool or that tool, but if the restaurant was actually just outsourcing all its cooking to some other company...yeah, that would absolutely factor into my decision to go there or not.
I believe that writing something yourself helps you learn it better, but at the same time, if you did all the thinking and now just prompting for a fancy auto-complete, we could argue that the hardest part (the design) was already done, and you skip the writing for the sake of writing. On the other hand, I am afraid that if I will stop writing code in environments where I can still do it, I will lose the ability to think about code and understand code.
Merely completing the "design" is by far not "doing all the thinking," and this is really the core of the problem. When people code with LLMs, the LLMs are making nontrivial decisions and thus are replacing part of the programmer's intelligence. That's why calling LLMs "fancy autocomplete" is so misleading, because autocompletion isn't supposed to make decisions, just to facilitate typing out the code you already have in your head.
So yeah, I agree with the last sentence about losing the ability to understand code, and that's a sufficient reason to avoid AI assistance whenever possible. Since I prioritize education and learning above almost everything else, it's not a close call. Where the line gets blurry for me is when people say "I would never have learned the tech stack needed to make this tool myself, but I vibe-coded it and now it's mine." It's really difficult for me to argue with that, to tell someone simply to live without something that's potentially improving their day-to-day life. To be clear, there are many good reasons not to do that thing, but it's also not my place to judge people for doing it, since I don't live my own life perfectly either.
The C++20 version is still clearly inferior to the Python and Lua examples because you still have to manually increment the counter in the loop body. IMO the sibling comment by HarHarVeryFunny has a much better C++ equivalent for this idiom, even if it's slightly more verbose.
The goal is to provide a public manifest and build log with every release. Using an open-source toolkit, a user should be able to independently compile the source code and generate a hash that matches the binary on their physical media bit-for-bit.
But the vast majority of games are never published as source code?
As far as I know, EFF has always championed privacy.
In general old good stuff is easier to find than new good stuff, since over time the bad stuff becomes more irrelevant, but I feel there's also some truth to the over-optimization as you put it.
However, while I mostly agree with the sentiment, in my opinion there is some new good stuff (books, music, movies, etc.) still being created, even if it's harder to find in the sea of mediocrity.
I think Cider9986's comment [1] on the OP covers it pretty well.
A small camera can easily be covered up. You can't cover something that's embedded into the screen itself.
I don't know how a "complete" guide can completely fail to mention NVIDIA. It doesn't seem straightforward to support older NVIDIA cards (on any OS, to be fair, not just on Linux). That's currently one of the issues with my 2013 Dell laptop that has a Quadro K1100M.
The question is slightly vague (since I could be going there not to wash my car), but I'm pretty sure in the intended interpretation, the actual distance is irrelevant. :)
Every time I've requested changes to a pull request because the reviewee didn't know the difference between .gitignore and .config/git/ignore, the reviewee appreciated learning about the feature. The person you're replying to also clearly said their reviewees are pleasantly surprised, so it hardly seems like a waste of time. Also consider that it takes almost no effort on our part to point out this feature, no effort for them to learn it because we tell them directly, and it happens at most once per new contributor or hire.
I like to use environment modules [1] (or lmod [2]) for that purpose. You can make each manually built software package available or not on a per-shell-session basis, just by running
module load myapp
module unload myapp
[1] https://modules.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ [2]: https://lmod.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
Daigo is in fact playing as Ken in that famous clip, not Ryu.
(2025).
The obvious thing cities could try is to put more pressure on building operators to fill their spaces, but the building operators are already under a ton of pressure — they’re losing a bunch of money! So, cities could do something like put a vacant storefront tax and… make them lose even more money? If that “worked,” the mechanism would be to force a lot of commercial property to default, which could put a lot of new space on the market at lower prices, which should lower the commercial rent. But it would also hurt the banks a lot, which has a history of leading to bad consequences and subsequent bailouts.
I agree that this is the obvious remedy. I don't know if it's exactly the right answer, but it's the natural place to start the conversation, and I think it's at least in the ballpark of the right solution. It's the city (and bigger) government's job to create policies that incentivize the right behaviors for the benefit of the community. There clearly has been an oversight here, if extremely valuable commercial properties are literally just sitting unused for no good reason. In my opinion we'd all be better off if the market did correct itself, at least getting us all on the same page about what these properties are actually worth, rather than the current situation.
The city stepping in also helps put the fuckup back in the right place, in the hands of the property owners and lenders who seem to have made these bad bets, rather than externalized to the residents and business owners of the city, who haven't done anything wrong. The article suggests that this leads to "bad consequences" and even bank bailouts, but I'm pretty unconvinced that the problem is widespread enough that the federal government would literally need to start bailing out banks. From what I've seen, it's really bad in a few specific metro areas and not so much in others.
I normally only find such articles on Hacker News. If it just sort of smells like AI slop but I can't quite pinpoint the source of the smell, I stop reading and move on. If it's very clearly written by AI (as many are), I flag the article and move on.
Without any kind of training in psychology, I'm pretty sure occasionally and unintentionally consuming AI slop isn't going to damage brains. However, I definitely believe that forming a dependence on AI could harm cognitive ability, though probably not permanently.
I've been attending a small monthly one that's usually pretty good. I don't want to say too much about it because I don't think they'd appreciate the attention, but I'll say that it's broadly oriented toward the free software movement.
I've never been a big meetup guy, so I probably don't have much useful insight into the "current state" of tech meetups, except that when I go look for them, the vast majority don't align with my interests. I'm guessing you may feel similarly, from the tone of your question. However, I'll point out that if you can't find the meetup you want, you can always try to start it yourself!
Mine uses Jekyll with a heavily customized Just-the-Docs theme. The other notable technology used on it is KaTeX, which I use to pre-render all the math formulas to HTML when generating the site.
So...big caveat that this is still under review, so what we're talking about is a moving target, but based on what I can see, it seems considerably more nuanced than that. They basically ban LLM-authored code, with a careful carve-out to run an experiment to try to get only high-quality LLM PRs:
It's fine to use LLMs to answer questions, analyze, distill, refine, check, suggest, review. But not to create.
We carve out a space for "experimentation" to inform future revisions to this policy.
Importantly, the LLM contributions must be solicited, i.e., the people responsible for reviewing the final implementation have to opt in explicitly beforehand.
Just an idea, but you could simply remove the names from the clues, and if you feel it's not a fair puzzle at the end, add slightly more guidance where needed (e.g., for the Lempel-Ziv one, say that the answer is two names), but honestly I don't think you would need to add that. The best crosswords IMO are pretty vague, and you can't usually just answer clues one by one to fill them in. Yours is of course a little different because not every letter belongs to two clues, but I still think there would be enough context left at the end.
The clue for "Cooley-Tukey" is
Fast Fourier Transform algorithm popularized by J. W. Cooley and John Tukey during the Cold War; later used in Soviet Union nuclear-test detection
In crosswords or trivia in general, you don't include the answer inside the clue. I saw many examples of this in the puzzle.
I have yet to hear of any actual mathematicians who spend effort on this stuff. It's a bit like arguing that the word "circle" would be better spelled "surkle": it's probably true, but it's a very surface-level thing that stops mattering after ten minutes of familiarity. I'm quite sure that the distinction between pi and 2*pi has not been hindering any progress in mathematics.
The article also makes the absolutely ridiculous suggestion that our use of pi instead of 2*pi could put us at some meaningful disadvantage in the eyes of hypothetical intelligence elsewhere in the universe. First of all, if we live in a universe where these superficial details are so crucial, obviously we would first need to abandon the base-ten numeral system, which is completely arbitrary, in favor of probably base two, or at least something else that can be justified mathematically. And the biggest irony here is that in base two, the distinction between pi and 2*pi is completely trivial, it's just a shift left or right by one place.
How is that different from a discussion forum?
Also, I think it's pretty normal to listen to podcasts when you're actively engaged in another activity like driving or cooking, and that's probably a big reason behind their popularity. You can't do that with a text-based chat, unless there's someone to read the text to you...in which case I think everyone would choose to hear it in the speakers' original voices.
That definitely could be the case. I was also a bit surprised by what the article said, so I was simply trying to interpret it, but I'm not extremely well versed in ML so I could be missing some details. My main point was that contrary to what the article said, they do in fact have a probability distribution on their hands.