MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by landl0rd | 2025-05-20 00:09:12+00:00
I used to agree with this for WSL1. Syscall translation gave solid performance, decent FS integration, and interop within WSL with windows executables. I really liked it.

WSL2 has been such a pain. You're basically managing a VM with VMWare Tools somewhat more integrated. I gave up on WSL2 after a few months and went back to booting my arch installation most of the time. Now I'm on a mac for the first time in a long time because windows has gotten so bad.

This is doubly sad because the NT kernel is so well designed to host multiple OSes due to the OS/2 stuff decades ago. All wasted.
by exiguus | 2025-05-20 00:09:49+00:00
If CI/CD tools were code editors, then Jenkins/JFrog would be like Vi/Vim—powerful and traditional. GitLab CI would resemble Helix or Zed, offering a modern and efficient approach. Meanwhile, GitHub Actions would be akin to VSCode, but with a touch of Dreamweaver CC, blending user-friendly features with comprehensive capabilities.
by YZF | 2025-05-20 00:10:04+00:00
I would say the citizens of Europe have greatly benefited from the partnership with the US. I'm not an American by the way.

So after the US (and others) fought for Europe in WW-II. Defended Europe during the cold war (and till today). Took most of the load ($, weapons etc.) in supporting Ukraine against Russia. Now you're going to tell it to f off? And that is somehow in the interest of the citizens?

How many American companies have offices in Europe? How many American products are in your life? Hacker News is based where?

I would agree the partnership needs to evolve as does everything. But in a world that's looking more and more like China-"The West"-India(?) Europe's place is still in the west. That's likely the best thing for the world and for Europeans. And for Americans. Hopefully also including better partnership with the rest of the world as well.

Presidents come and go. Don't get too stuck on Trump.
by joshstrange | 2025-05-20 00:10:07+00:00
It's an interesting idea for sure but I have not had great luck letting Claude Code loose, unattended. Not being able to see the streaming output is only a small part of the problem. If anything I want the model to check in more often with me in most cases. On new code bases LLMs seem like magic, editing existing, large codebases? I've had less luck, not none, just a whole lot less. Lastly, 30% upcharge on tokens to use this seems steep but I have no clue if actually is or not.
by Manuel_D | 2025-05-20 00:10:16+00:00
> DEI is not redistribution. It's eliminating bias that favors the powerful groups, mostly white guys, that have benefitted - many unwittingly - from that bias for all of US history. If you want your job on merit, if you want a fair chance rather than a handout, you should favor DEI.

This runs directly contrary to my experience with DEI. I demoed setups for anonymized zoom interviews, and blinded resume review. HR didn't want any of it. Instead, we made exec's bonuses contingent on keeping the percentage of male employees in their org below a cap - exceed the cap, lose your bonus. The cap was lower than men's representation in the field.

If DEI was about promoting merit, it would be focused on making interviews more objective, and anonymizing as much of the hiring process as we can. In practice, it's the opposite: directly tying incentives to the demographics of the candidates and penalizing those who don't adhere to the desired ethnic and gender ratio.
by CGamesPlay | 2025-05-20 00:10:31+00:00
One decision that seems dubious to me is the zod/v4-mini import. I suspect that this will actually increase bundle sizes across the ecosystem. The docs specifically say "zod/v4 is still recommended for the majority of use cases", so application developers will use it. Library authors will think to themselves, "but I want to enable my library to be used by those with uncommonly strict bundle size requirements", and so will use that. The net result is that both zod/v4 and zod/v4-mini will be included in the application bundle.

I guess this could be mostly avoided if zod/v4 actually a wrapper around zod/v4-mini. Is that the case?
by AStonesThrow | 2025-05-20 00:10:38+00:00
I don't know what "mods" are but perhaps you mean "modifiers" as in "editors".

One main aspect in play here is that we're dealing with over 300 sets of Wikipedia editors in different projects. Each Wikipedia language-based project is siloed, with its own complement of editors, admins, policies and guidelines. Sure, you can edit more than one Wikipedia from a single account, but there is typically a true community that coalesces in each one, and they set the culture and the rules of behavior.

I have found that many are less deletionist and less vigilant and more welcoming of new content in general. The majority of these articles may be under the radar for them. They may not detect anything wrong with the articles. They may not care. They may have too few editors patrolling in general, to clean up minor issues like this.

Another thing about the small communities that have formed, they often understandably do not always enjoy when an editor comes cross-wiki to combat some perceived abuse or vandalism. It is not what some user did on another wiki that matters to them, if a local user is not being disruptive, per se, then they should not be subject to any disciplinary action.

So if anyone were to pursue this seemingly minor issue of single-article spam, they'd need to pursue it more than 300 times in 300 different ways, subject to 300 separate policies and guidelines interpreted by that many communities of editors and admins. That's sort of a radioactive task for anyone there.
by AStonesThrow | 2025-05-20 00:10:43+00:00
23andMe doesn't fall under HIPAA at all. HIPAA is scoped to only cover specific entities. Once someone sells/gives your PHI to a non-HIPAA entity, then it's no longer private at all. There are usually disclaimers and warnings about this from providers when you release such things.

This is because HIPAA isn't designed to protect your privacy or your data but it's designed to protect the providers and insurance carriers. It's covering their legal asses and maximizing difficulty for everyone else to access information about what they've done to you. It's about protecting their investment.

If HIPAA were designed to protect your privacy, then HIPAA would apply to your data or you personally, rather than the narrow scope of regulated entities.
by mmooss | 2025-05-20 00:10:46+00:00
> Which you can also do through reading and even YouTube nowadays.

You cannot. Very few people - geniuses - could learn on their own what a typical person learns with a teacher, and even the geniuses are far better off with a teacher working at their level.

> 1) Not for everybody

That's such a general statement that it's meaningless, not falsifiable. It's for most people.

> only the rich can pay 50K-400K

Yes, I strongly agree that's an enormous problem.

> We need more middle class jobs that don't require a 4-year college degree

That's what the people who want to cut opportunity and education say. But middle-class / poor people have dreams and want to fulfill their potential too, and are also an enormous pool of talent.

The solution is to make college affordable. Multiple presidential candidates have offered ways to do it. There's no reason we can't.
by more_corn | 2025-05-20 00:10:56+00:00
Any headline containing a question can be answered in the negative.

My colleague sent me an awesome suggestion by copilot. It introduced a classic SQL injection vulnerability. I copy pasted it into Claude and said “any problems with this?” Yep! Critical sql injection vulnerability!

So even when they know they can’t be trusted (granted this is two different models). But the secret is that they often do know best practices and they simply don’t follow them. I personally have experienced half a dozen pretty severe problems with ai code.

They’re like lying, idiot-savant teenagers. They will 100% forget to propagate variable names (and claim to have checked for that when challenged), fail to follow best security practices, lie, claim to have done things when they have not, fail to think carefully.

And they can write 2,000 lines of reasonably good code an hour in any language you like. And they’re not bad as pair programmers.

Oh and they can review your code reasonably well.

Maybe with some good code security cursor rules they can get better, but I’ll believe it when I see it.

So no, don’t trust them.
by vicentesteve | 2025-05-20 00:11:01+00:00
Thank you very much for spending the time reading it — I really appreciate such a thoughtful and thorough comment.

You're right on a couple of things. For instance, I probably overstated the time for parsing in a way that makes it sound like it's part of the actual hardness, when really it was just something I wanted to make explicit to be precise. And the point about randomness in the LTC part is valid — the verifier itself is fully deterministic and uses a fixed check index r, but the LTC construction it relies on is based on randomness. I see now that this wasn’t clearly separated in how I wrote it.

About the certificate: I get why it might look redundant at first. The key idea is that the verifier doesn’t go looking for a parity check that fails — it just verifies the one that’s provided. So r isn’t there because the verifier couldn’t find a violation, but because it doesn’t try to; it just checks whether the one it's told about actually fails. That said, I completely agree it could be better explained.

The diagonalization part definitely needs more clarity too. You're right: just looping over inputs only works if you can guarantee that failure will eventually happen — and that’s supposed to come from the circuit-counting bound. I’ll go back and make that implication and its formal reasoning much more explicit.

As for the machines halting — that’s handled by padding every D_i so it always halts within a fixed polynomial time (as mentioned in Lemma 4.1), but again, I agree that’s not emphasized enough and should be stated more clearly.

Overall, your feedback is incredibly helpful — not just in pointing out specific issues, but also in showing me how things might come across to someone reading this fresh. I'm already working on revising the affected sections, and I’d honestly be glad to hear any further thoughts you (or others) might have. Thanks again!
by layoric | 2025-05-20 00:11:56+00:00
Obsession is a bit much, but one of the few genuinely "for the public good" institutions remaining. Others we have seen get hollowed out or replaced. A lot of hard work has and does go into providing the services that the BoM does. We are a big country with a small population, and they have been around for over 100 years which is a long time considering our federation was around the same time.

I, and many other Australian's, like public institutions without a profit motive. Gutting these institutions usually ends up with worse privately operated ones.
by jacob019 | 2025-05-20 00:12:08+00:00
It's actually a decent patern for agents. I wrote a pricing system with an anylyst agent, a decision agent, and a review agent. They work together to make decisions that comply with policy. It's funny to watch them chatter sometimes, they really play their role, if the decision agent asks the anylyst for policy guidance it refuses and explains that it's role is to analyze. Though they do often catch mistakes that way and the role playing gets good results.
by Affric | 2025-05-20 00:13:34+00:00
“On Linux it’s quite trivial…” giving big

“ or a Linux user, you can already build such a system yourself quite trivially by getting an FTP account, mounting it locally with curlftpfs, and then using SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem. From Windows or Mac, this FTP account could be accessed through built-in software.”[1] vibes.

Convenience features in software are huge and even if a system is well designed a system that abstracts it all away and does it for you is easier, and most new users want that, so it often wins. Worse is better etc

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224
by userbinator | 2025-05-20 00:13:50+00:00
IMHO ABNF is just as annoying to read, especially its insistence on '/' instead of '|' for alternation (when | has universally become the "OR" symbol in other languages) and "%x" for hex prefixes. My preference for syntax descriptions is [ ] for "optional", ",,," or "+" for "1 or more", "*" for "0 or more", and "{min,max}" or "{n}" for repetition ranges, which closely mirrors regex syntax; I'm not sure if this has been standardised or even has a name, but I've seen it far more often than ABNF/EBNF.
by Falkon1313 | 2025-05-20 00:14:28+00:00
Yeah, makes me wonder where the author was during those decades.

Guess he never heard of the Rust Belt (or maybe thinks it's something holding up Iron Man's pants after a rainstorm?)

Coincidentally, that's also the period right after the Green Revolution and the time of the popularization of standardized intermodal shipping containers and also the filling out the U.S. interstate highway system. And when most passenger trains were shut down and the freight trains given free reign on the rails. Those logistical changes made a huge difference.

And it was also a time when communications and tech were making it much easier for businesses to coordinate cross-country and internationally.

Offshoring and outsourcing got really big during the early 1970s - mid 1990s. First with manufacturing and such and later with call centers and professional white-collar work.

By the late 90s, when the author says the stagnation ended, most of the things that could be offshored already had been. Then it was time to move on to things like JIT logistics, lean manufacturing, and automation.

Coincidentally the mid-late 90s were also the time when the internet was opened up to average people, and the PC market boomed, and just shortly before high long-distance charges were dropped. That is, when normal people began to get the ability to communicate and coordinate and automate some things as easily as big business had been for a couple decades.

There's also something to be said about the huge tax cuts for the wealthy during those stagnation decades. The shift in executive compensation becoming much more in stock, and the shift from paying dividends to doing stock buybacks. And it was also the era of corporate raiders. So many corporate raids and LBOs.

Meanwhile the government began shifting away from antitrust actions and started encouraging deregulation and consolidation instead. All of those changes largely were major shifts during that timeframe.

So yeah, globalization and neoliberal financialization were major impacts which, although they had not stopped, had somewhat stabilized by the 2000s.

They certainly didn't all start with NAFTA. That's just a loony idea.

For a couple of cultural notes, a full decade before NAFTA, Wal-Mart had a huge "Made In America" ad campaign in the 80s, and my grandparents insisted on shopping there because of that.

Back to the Future had a joke where Marty and Doc were arguing about a circuit that failed:

Doc: No wonder this circuit failed. It says "Made in Japan". Marty: What do you mean, Doc? All the best stuff is made in Japan. Doc: Unbelievable.

You didn't have to be reading the business section of the newspaper, or even be an adult, to see it at the time.
by jiggawatts | 2025-05-20 00:14:38+00:00
> I love the BoM.

You have no reason to. They're not a well-run, efficient organisation, even by government department standards.

> over http:// urls because of the overhang of farm equipment which can't handle TLS https: connections.

This is the public narrative, and is a brazen lie.

THERE IS NO SUCH FARMING EQUIPMENT!

Certainly not in 2025.

Their site DOES HAVE a certificate, and supports HTTPS, right now.

They just refuse to let you use it, redirecting a successful HTTPS connection back to HTTP.

If there was farming equipment (Which models? Vendors? Affecting how many farmers?) out there they would be broken right now because port 443 is open and listening. If they can connect to port 443, then they don't need to be redirected back to port 80 because they worked. If they can only connect to port 80, then the presence of port 443 makes no difference.

I keep pointing this out, and "true blue aussies that looooove the BoM" keep arguing about this. The BoM spends hundreds of millions on IT, tens of millions on consultancies like Accenture, but they can't manage a $50 certificate and a bog standard HTTP/HTTPS endpoint.

My iPhone, right now, can't connect to most BoM web pages because of this stupid, stupid issue! There is no mystical broken farming equipment, but there definitely are inconvenienced users like me!

After putting up this rant for years and years in various forums, a former BoM employee finally fessed up -- they were the one that tried switching HTTP to HTTPS years ago and "broke" their internal systems. Not non-existent farming equipment, it was BoM's own internal services that fell over.

Why?

Because they hadn't updated any of it in decades, and the software was so old that it couldn't handle "modern" cipher suites and TLS versions. Modern being "newer than SSL 3.0"... in 2015.

That's not the sign of a competently run organisation worthy of admiration.
by Manuel_D | 2025-05-20 00:15:39+00:00
> But DEI practices happened not because of anecdotes, but data on systemic bias

Often said. Rarely backed up by such data. Efforts to measure bias in tech has consistently shown preferences favoring women:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1418878112, the chart with the important data: https://www.pnas.org/cms/10.1073/pnas.1418878112/asset/fc20a...

Study on sending resumes to SV tech companies: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3672484, HN discussion on the paperhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25069644

Yet all the DEI programs I've seen firsthand have privileged women over men.
by pgaddict | 2025-05-20 00:15:47+00:00
I've been involved in a couple of those cases, where a large company ran into an issue, and chose to solve it by migrating to something else. And while the issues certainly exist (and are being addressed), the technical reasons often turned out to be a rather tiny part of the story. And in the end it was really about internal politics and incentives.

In several such cases, the company was repeatedly warned about how they implemented some functionalities, and that it will cause severe issues with bloat/vacuuming, etc. Along with suggestions how to modify the application to not hit those issues. Their 10x engineers chose to completely ignore that advice, because in their minds they constructed an "ideal database" and concluded that anything that behaves differently is "wrong" and it's not their application that should change. Add a dose of politics where a new CTO wants to rebuild everything from scratch, engineers with NIH syndrome, etc. It's about incentives - if you migrate to a new system, you can write flashy blog posts how the new system is great and saved everything.

You can always argue the original system would be worse, because everyone saw it had issues - you just leave out the details about choosing not to address the issues. The engineering team is unlikely to argue against that, because that'd be against their interests too.

I'm absolutely not claiming the problems do not exist. They certainly do. Nor am I claiming Postgres is the ideal database for every possible workload. It certainly is not. But the worst examples that I've seen were due to deliberate choices, driven by politics. But that's not described anywhere. In public everyone pretends it's just about the tech.
by slg | 2025-05-20 00:16:29+00:00
In a world in which people are willing to wildly speculate on stuff like NFTs and crypto, no one was willing to speculate on purchasing this data. That doesn't mean this data will never have value (which I stipulated in my original comment), but it is a clear indication that no one with the money to afford this data genuinely thinks it is worth the billions it would be if some of the fearmongers' claims were perceived as likely outcomes.
by leetrout | 2025-05-20 00:16:55+00:00
I will say I've had a lot of success with AI and boiler plate HCL.

I try to avoid modules out of the gate until I know the shape of a system and the lifecycles of things and I've been pleasantly surprised with how well the AI agents get AWS things correct out of the gate with HCL.

This should super charge this workflow since it should be able to pull out the provider docs / code for the specific version in use from the lockfile.
by marenkay | 2025-05-20 00:17:00+00:00
Have you ever use any of those in a realistic scenario? Any existing CI/CD solution is broken like hell and if you try to do more advanced stuff like reusing templates or actions, all hell breaks lose. Don't get me started on clones via SSH, doing commits from pipelines, etc.

CI/CD is one of the topics that is barely solved or usable ...
by cadamsdotcom | 2025-05-20 00:18:40+00:00
> almost certainly ends in humanity’s extinction.

The Culture novels talk about super intelligent AIs that perform some functions of government, dealing with immense complexity so humans don’t have to. Doesn’t prevent humans from continuing to exist and being quite content in the knowledge they’re not the most superior beings in the universe.

Why do you believe human extinction follows from superintelligence?
by xp84 | 2025-05-20 00:19:04+00:00
I feel like your comment sums up many life lessons. It's also the reason I stopped believing in extreme leftism as I matured. I think as young idealists we think "Surely if we just gave the government a lot more tax money, they'd solve the problems we all say we care about" and "Surely if you just give freely to whomever says they're in need, they won't cheat the system!"

Later I started to see the patterns where government spends most of the money lining the pockets of the well-connected, and then on the micro level how many people take advantage of any method of unjust enrichment, given the chance, and you start to desire much more accountability from all parties. And yes, things like, say, exhaustive income verification to qualify for benefits definitely hurts those who are playing by the rules the whole time. It's the cost of having trashy individuals in society who exploit everyone relentlessly.
by analog31 | 2025-05-20 00:22:00+00:00
Any idea of an instantaneous, sweeping change, is utopian. But more gradual actions are possible. For instance the government could decide to let the dollar serve as a medium of exchange while discouraging its use as a long term store of value. They could do this by triggering a mild inflation, such as 2% per year, that would encourage people to move their wealth out of dollars and into things like land, goods, factories, etc.

The dollar wouldn't become worthless, but it would become worth 2% less per year.
by vicentesteve | 2025-05-20 00:22:55+00:00
Thanks for pointing that out. I’m not sure what happened with the DOI — I’m already in contact with ResearchGate to get that fixed. But the PDF is still available and can be viewed or downloaded directly from the ResearchGate page, just below the summary.

As for arXiv: I haven't submitted it yet because I need an endorsement and I'm not advanced enough to get one. Because I'm new and haven't written much, I haven't been able to get one yet. I hope I will down the road — I'd really like to submit it there when it's done.