MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by mattmaroon | 2025-05-11 18:07:48+00:00
Disagree. They’re not doing everything carefully and thoughtfully, but some things they are. Just because you disagree with it doesn’t mean it isn’t careful and thoughtful. What’s going on with immigration for instance has been in the planning phases for years.

And while Trump may set tariffs based on his mood at any given moment, this case isn’t a whim. I think a lot of thought is being given to what to do about Google. We may or may not like the results, but that doesn’t mean it was slapdash.
by philosophty | 2025-05-11 18:08:20+00:00
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%5Bpre+-+Chris...

Clearly modern scholars disagree with you, and it's not a matter of pearl clutching.

It just doesn't make sense to, for example, define an ancient Roman library as "pagan" (or even "pre-Christian") as if that is its defining characteristic. Unless you happen to be a medieval Christian monk of course, and then it makes complete sense.
by skrebbel | 2025-05-11 18:08:26+00:00
I support the general idea here but just because something is in a browser doesn't mean it's a good formalism.

Notably, Web Components. They're fantastic for distributing components - after all, a Web Component will work in every framework (even React, the IE of frameworks, finally added support), or even in vanilla HTML. So you can build a component once and everybody can use it. It's fantastic.

But for internally composing a web application, Web Components are simply awful. They add nearly no helpful features that vanilla JS doesn't already have, and they add bucketloads of extra complexity. You got attributes and properties, and they're mostly the same but kinda not always and oh by the way, attributes can only be strings so good luck keeping that in sync. You got shadow DOM which is great for distribution but super restrictive if you want any sort of consistent global styling (and a total pain in devtools, especially once you go 10 levels deep). You can turn that off, of course, but you gotta know to do that. And plenty more quirks like this. It's just.. It makes lots of easy things 5x harder and 1 hard thing 1.5x easier. Totally not worth it!

If you really want to not use a big clunky framework, but at the same time you have a complex enough app that composition and encapsulation is important, you'd be much better off just making your own object hierarchy (ie without extending HTMLElement), skipping all that awkward web component luggage and solely doing what they do best (tie an object to an element).

Or, better yet, get over yourself and just use a framework that does this for you. Your future self will thank you (and your colleagues even more so).

ps. rant time: If only the web browser people had gotten off their high horse and not proposed the word "Web Components"! If they would've just been named "Custom Elements", which is what they are, then we wouldn't have had 5+ years of people mistaking them for a React competitor.
by iforgotpassword | 2025-05-11 18:08:28+00:00
Iirc mingw links its libc statically, that's probably why. Fwiw I still remember that an empty VB6 project with one form compiles to 20kb (16 if you select "optimize for size"). It still needs its VM, which is a dll that was considerably larger. I think about 1mb, but it's been a while.
by coolhand2120 | 2025-05-11 18:08:32+00:00
Very nice! I wish this was the world we lived in. I'm from the before times, when W3C stuff was all we had, and it was miserable because it was so immature, and we hired people who "knew jQuery, but not JS". But if I'm being honest post query selector frameworks don't have a strong cost benefit argument - testing frameworks notwithstanding, which are quite lovely.

I run sites that serve hundreds of millions per day and we pour a ton of resources into these projects. We're trapped in a framework (react) prison of our own creation. All failures are those of complexly. Highly coupled state machines with hacked, weaved, minified, compiled, transpiled, shmanzpiled etc. into unreadable goop in production. Yes I know source maps, but only when needed, and they are yet another layer of complexity that can break - and they do. How I long for the good old days before frameworks.

Perhaps nostalgia and the principle of KISS (and a few others) is clouding my judgement here, after all, frameworks are made for a reason. But it's difficult to imagine a new engineer having any more difficulty with vanilla than learning framework after framework.
by loki49152 | 2025-05-11 18:08:34+00:00
"You essentially outline why it should be broken up."

No, they didn't. They explained why breaking Google up would kill all of those "free" services.

"Google is a monopoly, they exert monopoly power and enjoy monopoly pricing."

No, they aren't. There are a multitude of other ad platforms available for anyone to use. Google has no power to stop them. "Most desirable service" does not constitute a monopoly in an open market. Monopolies can only be created by government dictate, like old AT&T or modern cable companies.
by tehjoker | 2025-05-11 18:08:59+00:00
I'm not sure this is exactly the problem. It sounds like turning the car into a platform with changeable parts has caused both organizational and technical problems.

To be fair, im still not sold that this is an advancement except maybe in simplifying the number of components. I'd prefer the car to work without "updates" and DLC. Why does my car need a firewall??
by mattmaroon | 2025-05-11 18:09:05+00:00
I mean sure but if there were 3 search engines instead of one would you disallow two of them? The spam problem is one thing but I dont think having a ten search engines rather than two is going to destroy websites.

The claim that search is a natural monopoly because of the impact on websites of having a few more search competitors scanning them seems silly. I don’t think it’s a natural monopoly at all.
by fundaThree | 2025-05-11 18:09:22+00:00
> It's not a commodity and it's not valuable.

Commodities only have the commodity-value (i.e. price); actual value (i.e. something's worth/weight/utility/what something means to you) is unrelated to commodification. Most valuable things in your life likely have no meaningful commodity value. Very much including the concept of friction.

If only commodities are "valuable", the word has lost all value.
by forgotpwagain | 2025-05-11 18:10:04+00:00
It is possible that they are licensing technology that was developed in academic science and are raising money to scale it up and get it ultra-standarized for commercial scale.

I agree that the modern Silicon Valley model of VC funding has been spoiled by SaaS startups, where the capital expense is smaller, the timeline to exit is shorter, and pivots are easier. It is not great for deeptech innovation because those require more capital, time, and are more technology-constrained than software. Ironically, modern VC was developed to support semiconductor startups (1970s-90s), but has drifted from that technology-heavy origin.
by codingdave | 2025-05-11 18:10:32+00:00
"Reduce, Re-use, Recycle" was a phrase coined in the 70s. We are 50 years deep into people saying, "Oh, one more little bit of waste won't hurt anything." Well, guess what - it did.

While the author's comparisons are accurate, the conclusion is not. We absolutely should be reducing what we already use, not being OK with burning even more.

Even the conclusion is backwards: "All the changes we can make in our personal consumption choices are nothing compared to what we can do if we contribute to making the energy grid green. "

The reality is if we had spent the last 50 years reducing our consumption, we would already be at 100% green energy. We are still burning fossil fuels not because we cannot produce green energy, but because we keep increasing consumption.
by thomastjeffery | 2025-05-11 18:10:40+00:00
The friction is incompatibility. That's what makes it difficult to interact with the system, and for the system to interact with itself.

Tim Berners-Lee's vision is great, but no one has really figured out how to make it feasible. To make matters worse, the interests of capital have taken over the system, and replaced most interpersonal interactions with an advertising market.

When a participant in the system is able to monopolize interaction in that system, they end up writing the rules that define compatibility for other participants of the system. The effect is not only that people on different platforms are isolated from the people on other platforms, it's also that they must interact with the system through the rules of their chosen platform. Rules don't just define the bounds of interaction: they define the interface, the logic, the goals, etc.

---

It's impossible to build a set of rules that captures the entire potential of digital interaction. Objectivity is impossible, because the moment we write down its meaning, we subject it to a specific isolated context.

I'm working on a way to change the perspective that the system has with itself, so that subjectivity can be a first-class feature, and compatibility can be accomplished after-the-fact. What I have so far is still an extremely abstract idea, but I do think it's possible.
by smogcutter | 2025-05-11 18:11:03+00:00
> These gamers presumably want reviews of what is / isn't worth their time.

Judging by online reactions, what gamers want is their own opinion reflected back at them. Anything else brings frothing rage and vitriol.

For some extremely-online types who have made “gamer” their identity, the purpose of gaming media is primarily to have that identity confirmed, not to gather information.
by jack_h | 2025-05-11 18:11:19+00:00
> c.f. shouting "fire" in a crowded cinema

In the US this example derives from Justice Holmes dicta in Schenck v. US:

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. ... The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree."

The background of this case is that Charles Schenck and others were distributing leaflets urging the resistance to the military draft during WW1. The Supreme Court upheld this conviction. This case was later overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio which set a new standard, imminent lawless action, as a limit on free speech.

So strictly speaking what you said is protected. You can absolutely have a play where a character shouts "fire" during the course of the script with a full theater watching. If someone knowingly shouted "fire" with the intent of causing a panic then that can venture into unprotected speech.

Hate speech, in the US, is not a thing that exists in the legal landscape. This has been tested in the courts numerous times, e.g. Snyder v. Phelps, Virginia v. Black, R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, etc. It's important to note that in the US hate crime laws are a thing and while speech is quite nearly unlimited, actions are not.

The issue I see with those advocating for hate speech laws is that their time horizon for its use is too short. All governments throughout history have gone through phases from formation to internal civil strife to revolutions and ultimately the death of the government itself. While hate speech laws can limit hateful rhetoric in the short term - from the perspective of supporters - the long term application of these laws can take on a completely different goal as societies evolve over time. I would rather suffer hateful rhetoric with some limits at the extremes - imminent lawless action - than entrust the government with such a power over long time spans.
by firesteelrain | 2025-05-11 18:11:44+00:00
The sympathetic nervous system activates, increasing heart rate and the body is trying to compensate for the compromised heart muscle. Then, there is the possible adrenaline surge because you are actually in pain. If the NSTEMI causes left ventricular dysfunction, the heart compensates with a faster rate to maintain blood flow.

I went through this with a relative just two weeks ago and learned this from the cardiologists
by _bin_ | 2025-05-11 18:11:46+00:00
Wrong. This is essentially the context in which we still live today though we’ve secularized substantially over the past centuries. But Rome was on the path to Christianity at this time and later converted, so this is a very common way to understand things. Generally a work is one of a few things: Christian, Jewish, maybe Muslim depending on whom you ask, as it’s also an Abrahamic faith, or Pagan.

To be honest this feels more like you have an axe to grind with Christianity or its dominance, similar to the people pushing for “BCE/CE” over BC/AD. I don’t know why, but don’t expect the rest of the world to carry that cross for you.
by NitpickLawyer | 2025-05-11 18:11:51+00:00
Is this in jest? Chatgpt in itself is a viable product (based on how many active paying users they have). And then there's code w/ the myriad of implementations. Unless you've been hiding under a rock since 2023, we went from "cute toy, look it even looks like python" to "well, this agent-built, zero intervention, scribbled notes prompt to full-stack application probably has some security bugs, so be careful" real quick.
by schmookeeg | 2025-05-11 18:12:42+00:00
I'll take a crack -- I think America's puritanical roots are STILL in play today, and mentioning the very idea that people have sex, even married people, instantly triggers pearl clutching.

I don't think it's rational either, but it is pervasive. If I described the lunch I had with my lover in a work setting, I'd expect to get tutted or an email from HR. It would probably be nonspecific and merely say that I am making others uncomfortable without mentioning the actual problem -- because to put it into words exposes the ridiculousness.

$0.02 :)
by preisschild | 2025-05-11 18:12:50+00:00
Its not about "new" vs "old" designs. Cooling towers have been a feature for decades, which those french nuclear power plants just didn't have before, because it wasn't necessary yet. Thanks to climate change it now is.

Also it isn't as bad as it sounds. They had to throttle some nuclear power plants slightly. This lead to a loss of less than 0.2% of the total 2022 nuclear generation in france.
by 827a | 2025-05-11 18:12:52+00:00
Similarly strange and incorrect grammatical constructions are found in the English translations for Game Science’s hit game Black Myth Wukong. My expectations for, for example, the construction manual for a bookshelf is pretty different than a game or AI model & service costing tens of millions of dollars in development (or more).

Heck, they could literally pay any native English speaker to take their English-ish translations and regionalize them; you don’t even need to know Chinese to fix those paragraphs. Why is this such a common problem with the English China exports? Is it cultural? Are they so disconnected from the west that they don’t realize?

A great counter-example is NetEase’s Marvel Rivals; their English translations are fantastic, and even their dev interviews with their Chinese development team is fantastically regionalized. They make a real effort to appeal to English audiences.
by calebkaiser | 2025-05-11 18:13:27+00:00
The number of software engineers using IDEs like Cursor is staggering.

Among knowledge workers in general, ChatGPT is used widely for basically any task that requires writing or researching.

This is obviously not going to be true for every single knowledge worker in every single role, and it seems that you don't find it particularly useful, but the volume of paying users is hard to dismiss out of hand.
by altprivacypls | 2025-05-11 18:14:04+00:00
As an atheist who still holds up some religion mostly because of fear, I genuinely fear very small outcomes and sometimes I genuinely feel like luck is on my side when statistically it shouldn't have been and then I praise the "lord"

I wasn't born into christianity but rather hinduism.

My critique of your statement is that I personally don't see any difference b/w suffering and non suffering in an infinite scale, our bodies will adjust to it.... suffering has its meaning because its finite.

You could very vaguely quantify suffering at a neurological level,I think.

But the meaning of the suffering is derived from its temporal nature. If suffering is permanent, my point is, is that there would be no difference b/w suffering or euphoria.

There are other critiques as well.

I just don't understand, I know why I follow religion, its mostly fear and some really lucky moments.

I don't wish to pray to god, I wish to pray to universe in some sense. Thanking the universe, I just have named it god because I find him more approachable..., more personal I guess, but I know its fiction.
by grues-dinner | 2025-05-11 18:14:06+00:00
> 1GB storage in 2004 to 15GB storage 21 years later

The original marketing was the the storage would grow forever, and you could believe it. Google was riding the an incredible high from smashing out what felt like constant Amazing New Things throughout the noughties. In fact, when they originally made the claim, back when Don't Be Evil was still the motto and they hadn't bought DoubleClick, I'm sure they believed it. By the time the final upgrade (or rather joining, of 5GB photos/Drive to 10GB mail) to 15GB came round in 2013, there was definitely a hint of the horns in the hairline.
Why is it so hard to find founders to bounce off ideas in city you are visiting?
by nickevante | 2025-05-11 18:14:49+00:00
I’m beyond frustrated, and I know I’m not alone. Every time I visit a new city—whether it’s for work, a conference, or just to explore—I try to connect with local founders to bounce ideas off, get feedback, or just nerd out about startups. But it’s like trying to crack a secret code. Unless you’re already in the “inside circle,” it feels impossible to get face time with anyone who’s actually building something cool.

Why is this so damn hard? I get that founders are busy—trust me, I am too. But it’s not just about time. It’s about access. In every city, there’s this invisible wall around the startup scene. If you’re not already part of the clique, good luck getting in. It’s like you need a VIP pass just to have a casual coffee chat. I’ve tried cold emails, LinkedIn messages, even showing up at random coworking spaces, but it’s always the same: crickets unless you’ve got a mutual connection or some magic key I clearly don’t have.

Why do you have to be in the inside circle and how to get in?
by wiradikusuma | 2025-05-11 18:15:37+00:00
I almost skipped reading the article, thinking it was just another bragging/survivorship bias story. It wasn't. Thanks for sharing.

I want to add another anecdote: I built an app for creating certificates[1]. It was originally a case study for a book I'm writing, so I didn't think much of "target users". But then I decided to make it a real/standalone product. I was struggling to find real users.

Then, just by sheer coincidence, a friend shared his struggle with existing ticket sales platforms. I thought, "Hey, with what I've built so far, it's just like adding another 10% of work" (It wasn't). So I "expanded" the app to become a white-label ticket sales platform[2]. People started using it, and they also use the certificate generation feature ("Your app can create certs for attending events? Sweet!").

I don't know how to distill this into advice, but you get the idea. It's like a South Park meme: Step #1: Listen to users, Step #2: ???, Step #3: Profit!

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43483919

[2] https://pentas.id/
by gjsman-1000 | 2025-05-11 18:16:47+00:00
I have seen more broken SPAs than MPAs, by far. Ironic, considering SPAs are supposed to improve conversion rates and user experience. Even from big companies with no excuse - Reddit is almost unusable on phones, X was straight up broken for a month straight with image loading on mobile.

If you’re writing an SPA, and it isn’t Twitter or a content consumption platform, and it isn’t necessary to be API-driven, seriously just stop. You’re not clever, you’re not improving the experience, you’re only appealing to the tastes of other programmers. If billion-dollar companies can’t get them working perfectly, you certainly won’t.
by jsnell | 2025-05-11 18:16:57+00:00
It'd be easier to address said "best math you've seen" if you could provide a link to that analysis... I hope it wasn't by Ed Zitron.

But it seems pretty obvious that the math must be based on some incorrect assumptions. The unit inference costs of high quality LLMs are much lower than the unit costs of serving high quality web search queries. The LLM costs have also been decreasing rapidly -- 1000x in two years seems like a fair estimate -- while search engine costs haven't. (If anything they've been going up.)

And web search is obviously a business that is very profitable with the ad model, despite those higher unit costs.

> OAI will need more than ChatGPT, pro and "free" to be anything close to web search for ad revenue.

I don't understand this part at all. Revenue is proportional to traffic and ad rates. Why would the ad rates be lower for chatbots? Or why would their traffic obviously be lower?

This is also moving the goalposts. Search ad revenue is what, a $250B/year market. OpenAI doesn't anywhere near that much revenue to be fabulously profitable. A tenth of it would already be more than enough.
by dmoy | 2025-05-11 18:17:00+00:00
At Meta and L5, probably over $400k or $450k for the average eng.

I think it's true both ways:

A lot of people assume it's like finance money, but it's not.

And on the flip side there's a lot of people coming from normal company or startup land, and assume that the $400k + average performing L5 is a myth, when that's pretty typical for big tech.

And I definitely agree with sibling here: $300k or $400k is good money, but in a place where the median house costs $1.5 million or something insane like the parts of the bay area that have a <45 minute commute, it doesn't go as far as you'd think. And it's incredibly risky, because now you're tied to always getting that level of comp for decades or you'll get evicted. (And while $400k + L5 Meta comp may be typical at Meta, it's not exactly trivial to maintain, or nearly as relaxing as a software gig you can do at other companies)
by Propelloni | 2025-05-11 18:17:07+00:00
I have driven several different, rather new, cars over the last two years. The most hassle-free experience was the second cheapest of the bunch, a 2024 Opel Corsa GS (a Stellantis brand). I actually was sad when I had to give it back.

Now I read that Stellantis is behind on the software game and I wonder if there is a relation. Seriously, I'm all for cost-effective cars but reading the article I do not get the feeling that so-called SDV are in the interest of me, the consumer.
by Capricorn2481 | 2025-05-11 18:17:14+00:00
> React is the new Java.

Overly hated on and conflated with frameworks, yes.

React requires very little from you. Even less if you don't want to use JSX. But because Facebook pushes puzzlingly heavy starter kits, everyone thinks React needs routers or NextJS. But what barebones React is, at the end of the day, is hardly what I'd call a framework, and is suitable for little JS "islands."
by super_ar | 2025-05-11 18:17:47+00:00
Good question! RMT does deduplication, but its dependency on background merges that you can't control can lead to incorrect results in queries until the merge is complete. We wanted something that cleans the duplicates in real time. GlassFlow moves deduplication upstream, before data hits ClickHouse. If you think of it from a pipeline perspective, we believe it is easier to understand, as it is a block before ClickHouse.