MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by mintplant | 2025-04-12 02:58:31+00:00
I agree with B but disagree with A. Allowing dropping tiles outside of the word boundaries lets you arrange your "workspace" for thinking, like placing multiple candidate letters next to the spot where they might appear in the word. It could be useful to have tiles that are dropped within the word boundaries highlighted in some way to distinguish them, though.

My UX feedback: it isn't clear that the icon on the top-right opens up some instructions. Perhaps replace with the more standard question-mark in a circle?
by antasvara | 2025-04-12 02:58:56+00:00
I guess the problem I see is that I can think of a lot of careers (teachers, basically all of healthcare, certain kinds of engineers, etc.) where "below market pay" is translating to shortages and the need to push under or unqualified workers into roles they're not suited for.

This leads me to believe that the problem isn't necessarily finding some highly skilled people to accept below-market rates for mission-drive jobs. It's finding enough skilled people willing to accept the tradeoff.

Public schools haven't solved that problem. Healthcare hasn't seemed to solve that problem either. They're cautionary tales in that if you can't find enough people to accept the tradeoff, the remaining job openings are filled with significantly worse candidates because you pay below market rate.
Show HN: I made an affordable Google Optimize alternative
by Jeannen | 2025-04-12 02:59:52+00:00
Google Optimize shut down 2 years ago and since then I struggled to find a good alternative (either overpriced or too complex to use)

So I created my own tiny AB testing tool to replace it! It supports both server-side and no-code.

Would love to hear your thoughts on what features I could add!
by mtndew4brkfst | 2025-04-12 03:00:20+00:00
Real as you or me, though I disagree with almost everything else the quoted poster expressed other than that forks are happening and the dividing lines include cultural norms rather than strictly technical disagreements.

https://discourse.nixos.org/t/breaking-doge-to-recommend-nix...

Same author quoted the original text on their Reddit thread and was mostly uncriticized there:

https://old.reddit.com/r/NixOS/comments/1joshae/breaking_dog...

I personally found it incredibly distasteful and also fairly representative of the quality of conversation you often get from some of the Nix community. I'm not offensive, you're just thin skinned, can't you take a joke, etc. is extremely common. You'll have to judge for yourself whether it's bigoted or dog whistle or neither.

I'm a former casual community member with modest open source work in that ecosystem (projects and handful of nixpkgs PRs) before I left permanently last spring. I no longer endorse its use for any purpose and I seek to replace every piece of it that I was using.

I still hear about the ways they continue to royally fuck up their governance and make negligible progress on detoxifying the culture. It took them until last fucking week to ban Anduril from making hiring posts on the same official forum.
by bglazer | 2025-04-12 03:01:55+00:00
Assuming you’re asking in good faith, I’ll try to answer.

I have two core principles that motivate my beliefs about government policy regarding trans people. First, I don’t fucking care which bathroom you use. It’s none of my goddamn business. It’s especially not the government’s business and the threat of state violence over this is insane.

Second, human sexuality is not binary. That’s just an observable fact. Intersex people exist. There are undoubtedly people all over the spectrum in between.

Finally and most importantly we should respect people’s dignity and right to self-determination. If you want to present as a woman or man, that is your right to decide and not mine
by npunt | 2025-04-12 03:03:04+00:00
Great read, thanks for the info. These things really are complex and worth withholding judgment until we really have a grasp of the specifics. This may have changed my mind about it.

One thing I wonder about with various regs is whether the optics are ever fully factored into the analysis. This seems to be a blind spot in a lot of regulatory behavior that affects consumers, GDPR being another obvious example. To consumers, these laws are examples of regulatory cluelessness, being so broadly applied as to be meaningless, and ultimately undermining the moral authority of the act of regulation. Who doesn't look at a Prop 65 warning and ultimately conclude 'well I guess everything causes cancer'?

Based on your description, Prop 65 did some nice jiu jitsu to navigate real-world constraints and create incentives to get some positive change in, and I imagine the author is proud of having figured out that kind of complex move. But man did it whiff on the optics.
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-04-12 03:03:11+00:00
> Is it possible that it could be both? That while artists maybe do feel under attack in terms of competition, that there is a genuine ethical dilemma at hand?

The rights artists have over their work are economic rights. The most important fair use factor is how the use affects the market for the original work. If Disney is lobbying for copyright term extensions and you want to make art showing Mickey Mouse in a cage with the CEO of Disney as the jailer, that's allowed even though you're not allowed to open a movie theater and show Fantasia without paying for it, and even though (even because!) Disney would not approve of you using Mickey to oppose their lobbying position. And once the copyright expires you can do as you like.

So the ethical argument against AI training is that the AI is going to compete with them and make it harder for them to make a living. But substantially the same thing happens if the AI is trained on some other artist's work instead. Whose work it was has minimal impact on the economic consequences for artists in general. And being one of the artists who got a pittance for the training data is little consolation either.

The real ethical question is whether it's okay to put artists out of business by providing AI-generated images at negligible cost. If the answer is no, it doesn't really matter which artists were in the training data. If the answer is yes, it doesn't really matter which artists were in the training data.
by Syzygies | 2025-04-12 03:04:48+00:00
"I bought those expensive knives. Why doesn't my cooking taste better?"

"I picked up an extraordinary violin once. It sounded awful!"

There's an art here. Managerial genius is recognizing everyone's strengths and weaknesses, and maximizing impact. Coding with AI is no different.

Of course I have to understand the code well enough to have written it. Usually much of the time is spent proposing improvements.

I'm a few months in, learning to code with AI for my math research. After a career as a professor, I'm not sure I could explain to anyone what I'm starting to get right, but I'm working several times more efficiently than I ever could by hand.

Some people will get the hang of this faster than others, and it's bull to think this can be taught.
by extheat | 2025-04-12 03:07:11+00:00
The reconnect thing is actually quite helpful for mobile use cases. Say the user switches the tab, closes their browser or loses network and then they return. Since SSE is stateless from the client's perspective, the client can just reconnect and continue receiving messages. Whereas with WS there's handshakes to worry about--and also other annoyances like what to do with pending requests before connection was lose.
by stuartriffle | 2025-04-12 03:07:17+00:00
I asked about it on Math StackExchange twice, both posts were deleted within minutes as off-topic.

I formalized the proofs and came back, but I'm apparently banned for a week because I had two posts deleted.

I am fully aware that what I present is impossible, but here we are. It should be easy to contradict the argument, it's very simple. I can write it on a napkin. I'm pulling my hair out here [what's left of it].
by throw310822 | 2025-04-12 03:08:23+00:00
Yeah. And yet the ability to remember and recall your activity is a fantastic feature for almost all users. The times of operating a dumb machine that has no episodic memory and no context awareness are over. Of course this poses a new gigantic set of problems, but they will need to be eventually solved.

A question that comes to mind is this: can we give machines intelligence and memory, without extending to them at least the rights of their owners or operators? For example, if my computer starts recognising me and storing episodic memory of past interactions, these memories should be considered as private as those of a person.
by AtlasBarfed | 2025-04-12 03:09:39+00:00
I wrote a really long blog post about this once without the clock metaphor.

This is far superior in illustrating the slippery slope.

Aside from that slide too an inevitable dinner with Turing completeness, there's often the problem of sourcing information from multiple files overlaying it backtracking where it's sourced from.

Docker files are an example of this, as is the complete list of config values in spring framework (it's like 30 different sources).

In addition config starts getting into secured secrets, service invocations, database lookups, operating system commands, and who else knows what.

So not only is it really a touring complete problem, it veers into hellscape that is system integration.
by koakuma-chan | 2025-04-12 03:09:55+00:00
> Wouldn't a byte range request for the whole file fall under the "single, long lived http connection"?

Yes, it would (though a better description would be "a single, long lived http request" because this doesn't have anything to do with connections), and wewewedxfgdf also replied Yes.

> Sure it could be terminated early and another request made for seeking, but regardless the video can start before the whole file is downloaded, assuming it's encoded correctly?

Yes.
by cosmic_cheese | 2025-04-12 03:09:59+00:00
I haven’t tried so I can’t say for sure but my hunch is that you’d have better luck running old CS versions on modern Macs with WINE, which can run 32-bit x86 Windows binaries on ARM just fine (via Rosetta).

Performance is obviously going to take a hit though. Depending on the machines in question one would probably get better results from a current gen x86 box running that same Windows version of CS1/CS2/CS3 running through WINE (or of course Windows 11, but then you’re stuck with Windows 11).
by roblh | 2025-04-12 03:15:00+00:00
Just to further hammer point 2 and how it’s a problem in the real world, Express, probably the go to server library for close to a decade, has only within the last couple months sorted out not completely swallowing any error that happens in async middleware by default. And only because some new people came in to finally fix it! It’s absolutely insane how long that took and how easy it was to get stung by that issue.
by neonsunset | 2025-04-12 03:15:05+00:00
> Async by contrast puts everything into one giant processing queue

How can you make performance claims while getting the details completely wrong?

Neither .NET's nor Rust's Tokio async implementations work this way. They use all available cores (unless overridden) and implement work-stealing threadpool. .NET in addition uses hill-climbing and cooperative blocking detection mechanism to quickly adapt to workloads and ensure optimal throughput. All that while spending 0.1x CPU on computation when compared to BEAM, and having much lower memory footprint. You cannot compare Erlang/Elixir with top of the line compiled languages.
by noisy_boy | 2025-04-12 03:15:23+00:00
I think it allows very clever stuff, which I don't think is done routinely, but that's what gets talked about. I try to write clean functional style code in other languages which in my book means separation of things that have side effects and things that don't. I don't think I'll have difficulty writing standard stuff in Lisp with that approach.

Just because it allows intricate wizardry doesn't mean it is inherently hard to get/use. I think the bigger issue would be ecosystem and shortage of talent pool.
by zdragnar | 2025-04-12 03:16:28+00:00
> Sorry, we can't beat physics.

In a way, you can with optimistic updates. That requires having a full front end stack, though, and probably making the app local-first if you really wanted to hammer that nail.

There's always the cost of the round trip to verify, which means planning a solid roll-back user experience, but it can be done.
by loki-ai | 2025-04-12 03:17:43+00:00
I'd expect non tech people clueless about how AI works to miss the gap between humans and machines, but it's baffling how many here fall for it too. Every discussion about AI and copyright spirals into these brain dead examples of false equivalence.

It's like saying a lone fisherman and a 50m industrial trawler both catch fish, so they should be bound by the same rules and regulations. It's absurdly reductive and pathetic not to notice this error
by jalapenos | 2025-04-12 03:18:24+00:00
I think that's fair that's your position, as that's how you feel towards those people and them going into the same bathroom as you despite being opposite sex.

But why is it right that that position then be extended to be binding on third parties, like families with little girls who don't want growth men in their private spaces where they're getting changed, or to their daughters who want fair competition in their chosen sports?
by subsection1h | 2025-04-12 03:18:50+00:00
> nixpkgs packages pretty much everything I need.

Yeah, because they allow anyone to contribute with little oversight. As Lance Vick wrote[1], "Nixpkgs is the NPM of Linux." And Solène Rapenne wrote[2], "It is quite easy to get nixpkgs commit access, a supply chain attack would be easy to achieve in my opinion: there are so many commits done that it is impossible for a trustable group to review everything, and there are too many contributors to be sure they are all trustable."

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34105784

[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20240429013622/https://dataswamp...
by paulsutter | 2025-04-12 03:19:16+00:00
At first you think, great, im going to buy a fancy watch and I'll wear a platinum Patek that only a banker will recognize. That's how assholes recognize each other, its all in the watch.

But in the end everyone ends up wearing an Apple watch. Nobody knows how to use an Apple watch. Amazing hardware with the worst software ever developed. But it says that you dont care and at least the watch will tell you the temperature outside.
by inkyoto | 2025-04-12 03:20:19+00:00
> Where analytics and ML does come into play is deciding which things out of their enormous catalogue they push to individual users at any one time […]

Except they don't. Only Netflix has a vague reminiscence of ML/analytics-driven recommendations. The rest of streaming platforms offer anything but personalisation, which is particularly bewildering considering the financial and engineering resources available to the streaming behemoths. I do not have subscriptions for each streaming platform out there, but out of the several ones I do, Disney+ and especially Prime are the worst offenders that throw random trash either into the home screen or into the «personalisation» section, e.g. «because you have watched The Expanse, we thought you would like an NBA season / rugby World Cup» and stuff like that. You would think that obsessively clicking the «Like» button after watching something you actually liked would influence the personalisation, except it does not. Disney+, again, fills up the home screen with garbage I would never fathom could even exist.

The thing is that with the currently available technology, building a capable (it does not have to be perfect) recommendation is not that hard. At work, we almost daily design and build solutions that employ semantic similarity search / something, and with the current crop of multimodal LLM's that can generate vector embeddings with ease, it is relatively easy to build out a recommendation engine or algorithm tailored for the needs of a specific streaming platform.

Granted, specific optimisations are required and there will be unique new challenges in there; however, crafting such a solution is well within the realm of possibility. And the amount of money required is not even that high considering that many building blocks are available as mature, managed services, or creating a bespoke and tailored in-house solution does not require starting off from the clean slate by leveraging the prior art. That was not the case, say, back in 2018, but in 2025 it is a reality. For a bizarre reason that is beyond my comprehension, almost no streaming platforms do that.

> […] that process is highly reactive, individualized, dynamic […]

That is the aspiration and the high ideal; however, something else is going on, and it is not entirely inconceivable that the marketing department is complicit in the foul play.
by stego-tech | 2025-04-12 03:20:20+00:00
Man, this was fun to see in real time. A site whose earliest adopters were Twitter refugees who hated the crypto/AI/NFT boosters, created actual art, and ultimately left Twitter because of rampant fascism and bigotry, effectively cyberbullied the company and its Head of Social Media so badly the latter left the site entirely.

You have to be pretty bad at your job to misread the room so terribly. Just taking a casual look at Clearsky’s block rankings would show how many lists are specifically blocking and targeting brands, griftos, fascists, and bigots of various stripes, and likely dissuade you from approaching the community without some form of battle plan.

Treating BlueSky like a “new Twitter” is a dangerous mistake to make, something Adobe learned the hard way. To make matters worse, they also poisoned the community well to the point there’s a fresh witch hunt out for brands and companies to add to block lists, thus harming everyone else’s “engagement”.
by p_ing | 2025-04-12 03:21:24+00:00
IOCP, which originated in NT 3.1, is not a circular buffer like io_uring, but both are completion-oriented.

Microsoft introduced I/O Rings, more or less a 1:1 copy of io_uring, in Windows 21H1.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/ioringap...

https://windows-internals.com/i-o-rings-when-one-i-o-operati...

https://windows-internals.com/ioring-vs-io_uring-a-compariso...

Windows 8/2012 R2 did introduce Registered I/O for WinSock which is very similar to I/O Rings and io_uring.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/windows/...
by boomboomsubban | 2025-04-12 03:21:50+00:00
Their 260th anniversary watch never had the price officially revealed, and they supposedly only sold one, but that is estimated to have gone for over $10 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_57260

That one was a pocket watch, but I doubt their wristwatch would be that much cheaper. Maybe I'm wrong.

edit the 250th anniversary watch was a wristwatch and went for a million at the time.
by flipgimble | 2025-04-12 03:21:53+00:00
What he means is that Germans are less susceptible to the SV bullshit artists that are hyping up their bubble unicorns for VC money, inflating companies with workers just to sell them at peak of the hype before cutting all those “positions” and then en-shittifying the product.

Technology coasted for a few decades gaining public’s trust as an unquestionable improvement over the past. That reputation is wearing out faster than I’d like to admit.

I hear from friends and family that SV big tech are increasingly equated with surveilence, credit card leaks, and destructive games of billionaires detached from reality. I had a long potluck talk with a stranger that was convinced ChatGPT is analogous to another crypto scam. It blew my mind and opened my eyes that could be a popular opinion.
by fsckboy | 2025-04-12 03:21:57+00:00
>By that metric Native Americans are basically animals.. which is problematic.

just as it's not problematic to discover that bonobos talk to each other like Shakespeare, it would not be problematic to discover that humans are animals. keep your fingers off the scales (and, to mix a metaphor) let the scales fall from your eyes: it's science, follow the evidence to the truth. Don't be guided by what you want to hear, in either direction.
by cosmic_cheese | 2025-04-12 03:22:04+00:00
I don’t use either lately because I’ve found that to be better for mental health overall, but to me it seemed that Bluesky was generally better about staying “on track” when it comes to showing relevant things, once trained. Xitter really, really likes to veer off course and so much as stopping scrolling for a second while an undesired post is on screen is enough for it to start showing more of the same type.

Bsky doesn’t have blue check replies which is a major point in its favor too. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a worthwhile blue check reply, it’s like if one purposefully dredged up the worst YouTube video comments they could find and pinned them at the top.
by RandomBacon | 2025-04-12 03:22:37+00:00
The company they use to manage the Skype Numbers also stole one of my phone numbers a few months ago (porting shenanigans). It was a decent number combination, but ultimately not that valuable and not in use. It's not worth me persuing, but one of these days I'll get around to filing a police report. I guess I should probably file it sooner rather than later.

Microsoft's "Executive Customer Relations" was a joke. The FCC wasn't very helpful either. I guess I can still get the FTC involved.
by bitmasher9 | 2025-04-12 03:23:51+00:00
> economics

* Margin. A relatively low prestige Swiss brand (Tag) has stated they charge 3x bill of materials for their watches. The more exclusive the brand, the higher this number goes.

* Volume might be higher than you think. Popular Swiss models sell in the tens of thousands of units a year. Not bad if you’re charging four or five figures per unit.

* Consolidation. There’s a handful of actual parent companies for watch making that are responsible for most sells. Swatch, Citizen, Rolex. They share resources between each other.

* Common suppliers. Some movements are used in multiple brands, even across multiple parent companies. Sometimes a company will buy a movement, modify the movement, and completely rebrand it. This allows better economics of volume for the most complicated aspects of watches.

* Marketing works. There’s no practical reason to buy a $10k (or $40k) Rolex compared to a $25 Casio. There’s a reason James Bond wears expensive watches and that reason is product placement. Some watch conglomerates are publicly traded, so you can look at how much they spend on marketing.

* The fact that you haven’t heard of the brand is part of the point. If you’re wearing >$100k on your wrist you probably don’t want everyone to know. Even at this price point, it’s a highly liquid asset in some cities.
by kcplate | 2025-04-12 03:23:53+00:00
For what it’s worth, I wasn’t, am not, and will never be a Trump supporter, but there is simply no doubt in my mind that that many individuals could act independently of each other and somehow get magically lucky enough that all their actions meshed so well together from government agencies to politicians to media to district attorneys. Even timing as to how everything landed sequentially on media friendly days…no doubt it was coordinated in some way.
by ycombinatrix | 2025-04-12 03:24:30+00:00
>these are legitimately the only people in the world who can do what they do at the level they do it

Lol, is this a joke? Any good dev can do software development.

Most people aren't willing to work for peanuts, don't want to stop using drugs for a clearance, or are ideologically opposed to building weapons used to kill children or propagate genocide.

Sounds like Raytheon employees are all good on those fronts, rather than being good at their jobs. After all, if they were so effective, why wouldn't they work somewhere without all those caveats?