MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by soraminazuki | 2025-05-14 01:39:06+00:00
Individual citizens get screwed over without adequate regulation, as we've witnessed over and over again. Deregulation has brought you crappy internet access, broken healthcare, airplane crashes, and lack of meaningful consumer protection. And now you want what, an "intelligent" robot that comes up with a bunch of bullshit reasons to auto-reject your health insurance claims faster than a human can? How in the world can you call that "good"?
by jazzyjackson | 2025-05-14 01:39:52+00:00
Funny but couches can be pretty comfortable, and in the days of Airbnb being a monetized couchsurf, you'd at least wake up to fresh coffee

Safe place to stash your luggage is another matter, there's a dozen apps that cater to this need now too so if you are sleeping in the bus station at least you can put your baggage behind a locked door
by Chathamization | 2025-05-14 01:40:06+00:00
Right, most people are would hate eating a 100% pure cacao bar, but that doesn't mean they won't enjoy chocolate. There's so much variability in these things, and in the end, it mostly comes down to "try different stuff and see what you like." I almost always drink coffee without any cream or sugar (exception listed below), but I wouldn't say I enjoy coffee more than someone who drenches theirs in both. It's just different tastes.

Even the oft-maligned Nescafe is pleasant for me if I make it correctly. Not the original formula, but the 100% coffee one without the extra ingredients. I thought it tasted horrible when I first tried it, but if I drowned it in a lot of soy milk it actually made for a fairly pleasant drink.

In general, people are going to be happier if they stop trying to cultivate aristocratic aversions to common food, and instead start cultivating curiosity and an interest in finding ways to enjoy things they didn't expect themselves to enjoy.
by Calwestjobs | 2025-05-14 01:40:14+00:00
multiple times DNA got transferred between totally unknown people and wrong person got convicted... so more biometrics better.

obsolete cryptographic protocols are many times used as a fallback. some application gets response from malicious actor about not supporting such new crypto, so server falls back to older cipher.. lets say some 100s billion dollar companies use systems which behave like this still in 2025...
by ednite | 2025-05-14 01:40:23+00:00
I get where you're coming from—been there. My only two pieces of advice for situations like that are: Walk away. Sometimes a difficult customer just isn’t worth the fuss. Or, if you believe they’re the right person and a good fit for your project, try flipping the approach.

Instead of pushing your solution, offer to help with theirs. That might mean helping them improve their current system or even assisting with testing X. Strange as that may sound, it genuinely shows you care and want to help. You’d be surprised how much trust that can build—and how it can open doors to the opportunity you were hoping for. That said, don’t fake it. If you’re not being sincere, it won’t serve either interest. Just sharing what’s worked for me—hope it helps and wishing you the best.
by Kirby64 | 2025-05-14 01:41:30+00:00
> Less roasted beans have strong, distinct flavors which might be characterized as "green" or "floral" or "woodsy",

Anything that could be called “woodsy” or “grassy”, or possibly “green” depending on what you mean by that is a roast defect. Either under roasted, or not roasted properly. I roast coffee that is frequently on the very end of light roasts and it should never have those flavors.

Floral is a flavor note that some coffees have especially at the lighter end, but not all of them.
by lazyeye | 2025-05-14 01:41:32+00:00
Politicians attempting to improve their chances at elections is about as far from a conspiracy theory as you can get. (Why were the Dems gaslighting the public about how "difficult" it was to solve the border problem? For years we've heard ...."We need legislation! We need more money!"). Trump closed the border within weeks so clearly the Dems were lying through their teeth (nobody is shocked, the Dems have been lying about everything). And your "trend" argument is very weak, people were surprised at the demographic trends in the recent election even though it was a minor bump. So it's not really a good explanation for the last 4 years of wide-open borders.

We are in the very early stages of major change and disruption. III make my assessment after a year or two, not after a few months into the new presidency.
by zeroq | 2025-05-14 01:42:33+00:00
Not OP, but I somehow share his sentiment and I'd say that out of your list any would do.

Terrible things are happening right now, and people find their way out, for instance the war in Ukraine. But then again, they have visa cards, they can book travel and accomodation online and flee from the country. A lot of jews have fled from Europe during and before WW2 when things were not so much connected, but still, it was modern day, people had access to press, radio, telegrams and telephones.

But if you live in a rural village and everyone you knew died to a famine that sounds like something you might not want to carry any further.
by femto | 2025-05-14 01:43:11+00:00
It can depend on the application/niche.

I used to write signal processing software for land mobile radios. Those radios were used by emergency services. For the most part, our software was high quality in that it gave good quality audio and rarely had problems. If it did have a problem, it would recover quickly enough that the customer would not notice.

Our radios got a name for reliability: such as feedback from customers about skyscrapers in New York being on fire and the radios not skipping a beat during the emergency response. Word of mouth traveled in a relatively close knit community and the "quality" did win customers.

Oddly we didn't have explicit procedures to maintain that quality. The key in my mind was that we had enough time in the day to address the root cause of bugs, it was a small enough team that we knew what was going into the repository and its effect on the system, and we developed incrementally. A few years later, we got spread thinner onto more products and it didn't work so well.
by dbg31415 | 2025-05-14 01:44:13+00:00
Airbnb started strong, but it has become a minefield for travelers. Scam listings have exploded -- Airbnb admitted in 2023 that it removed nearly 60,000 fake ones, but that's only a fraction of what slips through. Investigations like one by VICE uncovered organized scams exploiting the platform for years, yet Airbnb has been slow to implement meaningful preventative measures. Meanwhile, pricing has grown increasingly deceptive: hosts tack on hefty cleaning and service fees, often doubling the advertised nightly rate. Although Airbnb recently added an option to show total prices up front, it's not the default, and hidden costs remain a major complaint.

Even more troubling are the widespread privacy violations. Thousands of guests have reported hidden cameras in their rentals -- some even found in bedrooms and bathrooms. Airbnb didn't ban indoor cameras until March 2024, after more than a decade of complaints and several high-profile criminal cases. Combined with fake photos, misleading descriptions, and little accountability for bad hosts, it's clear the trust that once defined the platform has eroded. Airbnb didn't just lose its shine -- it actively neglected the safety and transparency that made it appealing in the first place.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/nationwide-fake-host-scam-on...
by nunez | 2025-05-14 01:44:38+00:00
Trump has a thing for gold-encrusted jet interiors, like his gold-encrusted 757 that sits parked at LGA for some reason.

Completely unsurprising that he would spend massive taxpayer dollars (I'm presuming) on a bigger version covered in gold.

And that's before you consider the impossible amount of dollars that Boeing and their subs (read: prime contracts funded by taxpayer dollars) would need to spend to convert it into a VC example.
by why_at | 2025-05-14 01:44:46+00:00
>as a US resident it seems completely inappropriate to be telling people who emit far far less carbon that they need to stop eating beef, before people in the US have stopped far far worse activities

Why does it need to be one or the other? It's definitely true that the US has higher greenhouse gas emissions per person than most other places. Shouldn't we focus on reducing emissions anywhere we can?

I've spoken to lots of Americans who are under the false impression that food miles are the most important factor when it comes to sustainable food, this article makes the case that it's actually meat.

I think it's reasonable to say people should eat less meat (especially in the US) and we should also reduce emissions from transportation and energy.
by musicale | 2025-05-14 01:46:02+00:00
That instructables page is great because you can actually print out the cardboard components and build your own cardboard "computer" system!

The instructional manual probably makes a lot more sense with the actual system that it describes in hand.

As I see it, the genius of CARDIAC is this (emphasis mine):

> You will serve as CARDIAC's control unit by visually following its internal flow chart. While doing so, you will perform all of the operations described above.

Human-as-datapath is a fantastic idea for learning the basics of not just programming, but of microarchitecture. Once you start thinking, "hey, I could make a machine/circuit/etc. to do all of this stuff that I'm doing by hand" then you are on your way.
by ejj28 | 2025-05-14 01:46:30+00:00
I think it would end up exactly like the last time they tried that with the mobile-oriented Windows 8. Nothing has changed since then that would make an attempt any easier. Windows has far too much legacy cruft and everything's spread across a dozen different GUI toolkits and design languages. They still haven't even managed to completely eliminate Control Panel after 13 years of trying.
by zeroq | 2025-05-14 01:47:44+00:00
That's a really good example.

I only want to add that's not something that we have a hard time doing because it suddenly became hard, but because it came out of fashion.

We had a really good time thanks to cold war and flexing between both sides, but now it's a just a enormous investment with no return. It's really sad to see NASA running on a shoe string budget, and Ingenuity being nothing more than a glorified student project that happened at the right time in the right place.
by jaredklewis | 2025-05-14 01:48:03+00:00
I’ve heard this Twitter example bandied about tons of times, but I’m always confused. To be clear, I’m generally sympathetic to the view that there is tons of bloat at tech companies and big companies in general.

But I’m confused by Twitter being an example because:

1. Twitter went private so we don’t really know how well or poorly the business did after making the massive cuts

2. The little information we do have indicates that advertising revenue significantly declined after the acquisition

Since Twitter financials are private we can only speculate, but my best guess would be that Elon took a bloated, unprofitable business and turned into a lean, unprofitable business, which doesn’t seem all that impressive to me.

What about this story warrants it being dragged out into every conversation about businesses cutting bloat, I cannot understand. People seemed genuinely amazed that Twitter was able to keep the site online without ever acknowledging what an absurdly low bar this is. Like I can light money on fire and keep a site online too; it’s the making money part that is the tricky bit.
by josephg | 2025-05-14 01:48:31+00:00
Almost all of it.

Rust also has the “single mutable reference” rule. If you have a mutable reference to a variable, you can be sure nobody else has one at the same time. (And the value itself won’t be mutated).

Mechanically, every variable can be in one of 3 modes:

1. Directly editable (x = 5)

2. Have a single mutable reference (let y = &mut x)

3. Have an arbitrary number of immutable references (let y = &x; let z = &x).

The compiler can always tell which mode any particular variable is in, so it can prove you aren’t violating this constraint.

If you think in terms of C, the “single mutable reference” rule is rust’s way to make sure it can slap noalias on every variable in your program.

This is something that would be great to see in rust IDEs. Wherever my cursor is, it’d be nice to color code all variables in scope based on what mode they’re in at that point in time.
by gnabgib | 2025-05-14 01:50:55+00:00
If you follow through, that decompilation lead to this source code share.. and both projects are under the same repo (stewarded by the same user). (Although the decompilation [0] works, while the merged project[1] is still in progress).

[0]: https://github.com/isledecomp/isle

[1]: https://github.com/isledecomp/isle-portable
by alexchantavy | 2025-05-14 01:51:04+00:00
IMO knowledge graphs are a must have for security use-cases because of how well they handle many-to-many relationships. Who has access to read each storage bucket? Via which IAM policies? Who owns each bucket? What is the shortest possible role-assumption path available from internet-exposed compute instances to read this bucket? What is the effective blast radius from a vulnerability that allows remote code execution on an internet exposed compute instance?

Or, I have a docker container image that is built from multiple base images owned by different teams in my organization. Who is responsible for fixing security vulnerabilities introduced by each layer?

We really could model these as tables but getting into all those joins makes things so cumbersome. Plus visualizing these things in a graph map is very compelling for presentation and persuading stakeholders to make security decisions.
by tharkun__ | 2025-05-14 01:52:15+00:00
Personally I'm with you on "many people no longer able to figure stuff out". However, we may differ on the time frames we're willing to "take" from them.

Back in the day, you figured stuff out on your own, because you had no other resources. I remember breaking my computer's ability to boot into a working DOS prompt (too long ago to remember what exactly went wrong and how I fixed it). I had a few hours until I would have to tell my dad that I "broke the computer" I had just gotten. That was motivation to try a lot of things and figure it out. My dad never knew in the end coz I fixed it. I also had no internet or other people around to ask for help even if I had wanted to.

But today, if I see someone struggling for a day or two on something that in the end I'll be able to solve for them in less than 5 minutes once they do ask, then I do think that's too long given they have the whole wide internet, AI tooling as well as coworkers to help them out available to them. The worst for me is when they struggle with the same type of stuff over and over or when they are unable to pick up the strategies I used when solving it for/with them. I try to solve things with them as much as I can but with some people it's just too frustrating. Like you want to just throw lots of things at the wall quickly and see if they stick but they're too slow / don't even seem to understand the concept or don't have enough ideas of what to try and throw at the wall.
by btown | 2025-05-14 01:52:18+00:00
This is absolute gold!

> “Making processors faster is increasingly difficult,” John thought, “but maybe people won’t notice if I give them more processors.” This, of course, was a variant of the notorious Zubotov Gambit, named after the Soviet-era car manufacturer who abandoned its attempts to make its cars not explode, and instead offered customers two Zubotovs for the price of one, under the assumption that having two occasionally combustible items will distract you from the fact that both items are still occasionally combustible.

> Formerly the life of the party, John now resembled the scraggly, one-eyed wizard in a fantasy novel who constantly warns the protagonist about the variety of things that can lead to monocular bescragglement.

And in 2013 the below would have been correct, but we live in a very different world now:

> John’s massive parallelism strategy assumed that lay people use their computers to simulate hurricanes, decode monkey genomes, and otherwise multiply vast, unfathomably dimensioned matrices in a desperate attempt to unlock eigenvectors whose desolate grandeur could only be imagined by Edgar Allen Poe. Of course, lay people do not actually spend their time trying to invert massive hash values while rendering nine copies of the Avatar planet in 1080p.

He wasn't too far off about the monkeys, though...
by _heimdall | 2025-05-14 01:52:56+00:00
Unless we hit a natural limit on how much energy we can access, any limit set will be artificial.

I'd love for individuals to set their own limit, ideally one that pushes them a bit to step out of the endless chase for comfort and convenience that we're all stuck in. I definitely don't want a centrally planned and enforced limit though, that's never going to achieve the goals people would actually want.
by ziofill | 2025-05-14 01:53:07+00:00
In principle heat can be converted to work if there are two bodies at different temperature. In space heat can only be irradiated away since there’s no matter available for conduction, so I would think that eventually all of your machinery would thermalize with the environment and the boundary conditions. While there should be a temperature gradient between the side exposed to the sun and the one opposite to it, I’m not sure how much of this is actually harvestable.
by frollogaston | 2025-05-14 01:54:36+00:00
Thanks, but it's something else. When I say people shove their data into other teams' DBs, I really mean into other teams' schemas... and they don't even have direct SQL access to their data anymore, rather the teams set up some CRUD API which they have to painfully maintain.

We aren't using Postgres but a more specialized DBMS. Everyone basically does the first thing in your example, sharing one cluster. The real issue is it's a big corp with red tape around stuff, people don't want responsibilities like compliance, and people are rightfully scared of keeping things performant on a fancy DBMS. Our team isn't scared, we did it, but it wasn't easy either.
by zeroq | 2025-05-14 01:55:02+00:00
Not saying you're completely wrong, but counterintuitively these middle management guys are spending most of their time playing LARPs with their peers to secure their projects, and by extent, jobs of people involved.

When an unassuming orc get ambushed by a couple of ambitious elves his budget gets chopped, you get fired, and he has limited time to find an alternative to stay afloat. And he's swimming in a much smaller pond than you. So trust me, they may not seem to bring much to the table on a daily basis, but they definitely play in your team.

Of course when the tide comes they will be the first to jump the ship and switch the team leaving you behind, but that's a different story.
by tzs | 2025-05-14 01:55:56+00:00
> Or you can go geostationary over a powerful ground station, but then you'd need some really big batteries for all the time you aren't in the sun.

Geostationary satellites only go into Earth's shadow on around 20 days on each side of an equinox. That leave 280+ days each year where they are in sun all day. Maybe that's enough to be worth it?

Or if you do need to keep the things working even on those ~80 days a year when they do spend part of the day in shadow maybe they could be powered by energy beamed in from those not in shadow? You'd put a bunch in geostationary orbits spread out evenly so that each is close enough to its neighbors for power beaming.

I wonder if something crazy might work? Could you actually connect adjacent satellites by an actual physical power cable, which would also be in geostationary orbit?

I'd guess you'd actually need two conductors in your cable, carrying current in opposite direction to cancel out interactions with Earth's magnetic field so the system doesn't get pushed out of its orbit (which would probably be bad).

There would probably be gravitational interactions like with the Moon that might also make it hard to keep everything in place, but maybe by purposefully sending different currents in opposite directions on some of the links you could purposefully use interactions with the Earth's magnetic field to move the cable back where you wanted?

If the satellites are connected by cables then maybe they could actually be slightly higher than geostationary but moving faster than circular orbital speed at that altitude so there is a net outward force from that, which could be countered by tension in the power cables to force them into a circular path that is still geostationary.
by margalabargala | 2025-05-14 01:56:47+00:00
Tons of other fields operate this way.

Notably, in aviation, when things go wrong it is generally looked at in a non-blame way so that training cam be updated to prevent similar problems in the future.

It might not be what makes you happy, but ATC isn't in the business of making you happy. They're in the business of saving lives, which this method accomplishes better than what you're expecting.
by sherdil2022 | 2025-05-14 01:57:46+00:00
I would take this study with a pinch of salt, no pun intended. Ginger, turmeric, cinnamon and other such spices and herbs may interfere or not.

But these studies swing based upon who is sponsoring those studies.

At one time, there were studies that cigarettes are good for health, then wine is good for health, moderate amounts of alcohol is good for health, coffee is good for health, eggs are good for health - and then all of those are bad for health in later / other studies.
by _jayhack_ | 2025-05-14 01:57:49+00:00
Also worth checking out MultiLSPy, effectively a python wrapper around multiple LSPs: https://github.com/microsoft/multilspy

Used in multiple similar publications, including "Guiding Language Models of Code with Global Context using Monitors" (https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.10763), which uses static analysis beyond the type system to filter out e.g. invalid variable names, invalid control flow etc.
by aspenmayer | 2025-05-14 01:59:36+00:00
> Honestly was not aware of that guideline. Insinuating that I was someone trolling for this discussion is a stretch.

I’m not insinuating anything, quite the opposite. You have experience on the site, and so are aware of how often threads can devolve into and revolve around meta-discussions, and one of those common meta-discussions on HN is in response to generated comments and AI slop. I’m not saying you’re trolling by doing it intentionally, and in fact I’ve appealed to dang to add the provision to the guidelines proper myself in email and on HN. But surely we both agree that to continue to do so now that you know would be a flagrant violation of the guidelines?

> That said, I'd rather read GPT output than skim the meta-discussion that ruins so many HN threads.

I try to make the kinds of posts I want to read. Perhaps you might find this guiding precept helpful also, as I do. As generated comments are against the guidelines, your own words will suffice.