MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by sunrunner | 2025-05-29 19:18:47+00:00
Earlier this week ChatGPT found (self-conscious as I am of the personification of this phrasing) a place where I'd accidentally overloaded a member function by unintentionally giving it the name of something from a parent class, preventing the parent class function from ever being run and causing <bug>.

After walking through a short debugging session where it tried the four things I'd already thought of and eventually suggested (assertively but correctly) where the problem was, I had a resolution to my problem.

There are a lot of questions I have around how this kind of mistake could simply just be avoided at a language level (parent function accessibility modifiers, enforcing an override specifier, not supporting this kind of mistake-prone structure in the first place, and so on...). But it did get me unstuck, so in this instance it was a decent, if probabilistic, rubber duck.
by tremon | 2025-05-29 19:18:48+00:00
...which is why the market is supposed to have competition. Company strangles themselves with bureaucracy -> next company is ready to take over. But when a monopoly strangles itself with bureaucracy, there is no next company to take over and you get rent-seeking behaviour and unmotivated employees that just phone it in because they have nowhere else to go. End result: the public foots the bill for less quality at higher prices.
by staunton | 2025-05-29 19:18:58+00:00
It was about the phrase "the standard model", which doesn't specify what "extensions" are implied. You seem to think it means "no extensions" to a somewhat arbitrarily chosen step of the evolution, which has 19 free parameters. I don't think that's how most people use the phrase. As far as I can tell, we are in complete agreement on all other points...

I still think my original comment, which seems to have given you offense for some reason, was completely appropriate. "The standard model" means "state of the art particle physics without highly speculative stuff", at least until we have a paradigm shift.
by Jarwain | 2025-05-29 19:19:00+00:00
I'm not super sure about it being in the filename, if only because my understanding is that some of the lakes use it for partitioning and other metadata (metameta-data?).

Imo range is probably the most useful statistic in a folder/file name anyways for partitioning purposes. My vote would be for `^` as the range separator to minimize risk of collision and confusion. i.e. `timestamp=2025-03-27T00:00:00-0800^2025-03-30-0700` or `hour=0^12`,`hour=12^24`. `^` is valid across all systems, and I'd be very surprised if it was commonly used as a property/column name. Only collision I can think of is that its start-of-line in regex
Ask HN: Career Plateau: Looking for Advice on How to Break Through
by vaderyondu | 2025-05-29 19:19:27+00:00
Hi HackerRank Community,

Seeking advice on a potential career pivot and job change.

My Profile: I have a Master's in System Security. My experience spans: Automation: Java, Selenium. DevOps: CI/CD (Jenkins, Azure Pipelines, GitHub Actions), scripting (Groovy, Shell), and some IaC (Terraform, Crossplane).

Key Achievement: I recently developed and successfully monetized a small SaaS application using LLMs ("vibe coding").Currently in a Compliance role at a large enterprise.

My Core Strength & Passion: I'm a fast learner, a strong problem-solver, and adept at connecting tools to deliver solutions. My real passion, however, lies in onboarding users to new solutions and helping them achieve maximum value based on their needs. I thrive on seeing others succeed with technology.

The Challenge & My Question: While proficient across my DevOps skillset, I'm not a deep expert in specific cloud platforms (e.g., in-depth AWS/GCP/Azure setup), which many specialist roles around my domain seem to require. I'm looking for guidance on how to leverage my "get-it-done" DevOps background and my passion for user enablement for my next role. What career paths or specific job titles should I explore that combine these aspects? I'm thinking of roles like Solutions Architect, Technical Account Manager, Developer Advocate, or Customer Success Engineer, but I'm open to other suggestions.

Specifically, I'd appreciate insights on: Role Fit: Which roles best align my DevOps skills with my interest in user onboarding and value realization? Positioning: How can I best frame my diverse experience (including the monetized SaaS app) for these types of roles?

Skill Development: What key skills (technical or soft) would be most beneficial to develop for such a pivot? Any advice on leveraging my current compliance background in this transition?

Thanks for any insights you can share!
by tantalor | 2025-05-29 19:19:32+00:00
From the conclusion, they seem pretty confident that this is not "business as usual":

> Whenever this pricing strategy began, this is a massive change in how airlines set prices – and one that will likely catch many travelers off guard.

> Unlike shopping at retail stores or Costco, bulk discounts are unusual for airlines – at least not just for booking just two passengers instead of one. And these higher fares for one passenger are the opposite of what we typically see, where travelers booking for two passengers or more wind up getting charged more per person than a single passenger.
by Spooky23 | 2025-05-29 19:20:09+00:00
Sure, they’ve made incremental improvements and have a better Level 2 system, it was promised (and sold as) Level 4 in 2006, and the company claims to be “approaching 4”, and now claims to be shipping robot taxis in production in a few months.

Meanwhile, Google actually delivered the robot taxi in SFO, and it’s amazing.

The sensor strategy really says it all. Why skimp on a minor part of the BOM, which enables a use case with 50-100x value?

The whole Tesla schtick is such a bizarre Lucy and the Football scenario, over and over again.
by tobinfekkes | 2025-05-29 19:20:34+00:00
No. Whenever the word "diet" is used with regards to not eating "this" or only eating "that", something has already gone wrong. A "diet" is a voluntary restriction (well, usually after some involuntary event). But you only need to restrict foods with your brain by choice if you first disobey your body's needs.

You should not drink Coke because it has WAY too much sugar and WAY too little of anything beneficial. If you tried to consume the amount of sugar in Coke by eating apples, you would be too full long before you get to Coke-level sugar intake. That's because of all the other stuff in an apple; it's not concentrated sugar.

Your body is a wonderful thing. Respect it and listen to it, it will keep you healthy. That's literally its job, and it only knows how to repair and heal you. It will keep the things it needs, and discard the rest. You can't "over-consume" if you eat real foods. Your body won't let you; you'll get full and stop. You can only over-eat engineered foods, which over-saturate sugar|fat|carbs|salt|etc, which then necessitates a "diet".
by emushack | 2025-05-29 19:21:38+00:00
True, but water, especially fresh water, is used in so many applications. I don't have hard numbers on this because I'm not THAT big of a nerd, but intuitively, I would think that if we can find alternatives to water, that would free up some fresh water resources, for I don't know, growing food? This is actually a major issue in my area - A data center is being built right now, and competing with municipalities for fresh water. Maybe they don't have to?
by n8cpdx | 2025-05-29 19:21:53+00:00
Traveling solo is already brutal because hotels and Airbnbs are priced on the assumption of two travelers.

Traveling solo essentially costs double automatically because of lodging, and it kind of sucks there’s a double whammy with airfare where, unlike lodging, the penalty doesn’t actually make any sense.

I guess as a family be grateful that all hotel rooms come with a 50% (or more) discount per traveler?
by Veserv | 2025-05-29 19:22:25+00:00
It is, in fact, illegal for a human to drive in California with vision comparable to the Tesla HW3 cameras.

California minimum vision requirement to operate a vehicle is 20/40 vision [1] which corresponds to a arc resolution of 30 pixels per degree of field of view [2].

HW3 cameras have a horizontal resolution of 1280 pixels [3]. There are three front-facing cameras with field of view (120, 50, 35 degrees) and different focal lengths with optimal distance (60, 150, 250 meters) placed next to each other preventing usage of binocular vision meaning their front-facing cameras are “one-eye” driving.

The cameras have a arc-resolution of ~11 pixels per degree up to 60m, ~25 pixels per degree up to 150m, and ~36 pixels per degree up to 250m. That corresponds to ~20/120 below 60m, ~20/50 at 150m, and ~20/30 at 250m.

In comparison, you are considered legally blind if operating with 20/200 vision which their below 60m camera just barely surpasses. Up to 150m, their cameras fail to meet minimum vision requirements to operate a vehicle in California.

Even on HW4, the 120 degree camera for below 60m, which is the majority of complex high-acuity maneuvers, only has a horizontal resolution of 2896 pixels which is only ~24 pixels per degree corresponding to ~20/50 vision which is below the minimum vision requirements in California.

[1] https://eyewiki.org/Driving_Restrictions_per_State

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_acuity

[3] https://www.blogordie.com/2023/09/hw4-tesla-new-self-driving...
by overfeed | 2025-05-29 19:22:43+00:00
> Some of it I can even regurgitate almost exactly

If you (or any human) violate copyright law, legal redress can be sought. The amount of damage you can do is limited because there's only one of you vs the marginal cost of duplicating AI instances.

There are many other differences between humans and AI in terms of capabilities and motivations to f the legal persons making decisions.
by nyarlathotep_ | 2025-05-29 19:23:03+00:00
> I'm an autodidact. I've found leaked copies of university degree plans, pirated and read textbooks on all kinds of subjects, talk to experts for fun when I can etc.

The last decade+ has been a goldmine for this, especially in computing-related topics. Between textbooks, school course sites, MOOCs etc, there's lifetimes of stuff out there.
by seadan83 | 2025-05-29 19:23:54+00:00
> It's like chess. Humans are better for now, they won't be forever

This is not an obviously true statement. There needs to be proof that there are no limiting factors that are computationally impossible to overcome. It's like watching a growing child, grow from 3 feet to 4 feet, and then saying "soon, this child will be the tallest person alive."
by kenjackson | 2025-05-29 19:24:14+00:00
Airline pricing in general is pretty opaque. Not hospital pricing opaque, but still pretty opaque. It's one of the few things we regularly purchase where the price changes almost daily (both up and down). For example, bus and train tickets are pretty much the same price each day for the same route. For airlines, I'll often check the price on some future night to see if it is cheaper or not.
by leptons | 2025-05-29 19:25:15+00:00
I like Feynman's take that "I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose which is the way it really is as far as I can tell"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1RqTP5Unr4

The true believers in Christianity have to know, their world view is hinged on knowing that there is a god, that the world was created in 7 days, and that the earth is only 6,000 years old, among many other questionable religious beliefs. They're wrong about all of it (IMHO as someone who grew up Catholic), but at least in their own minds, they know. And that's good enough for them, they don't have to ask any more questions because a book written by kings told them so.
by sgarland | 2025-05-29 19:25:27+00:00
It works to a certain point, yes, but I daresay that the overwhelming majority of OLTP needs are in the <= TB range, not PB. OLAP is its own beast, though I'll also say that most modern tech companies' schema is hot garbage, full of denormalized tables for no good reason, JSON everywhere, etc. and thus the entire thing could be much, much smaller if RDMBS was used as it was intended: relationally.
by lerno | 2025-05-29 19:25:35+00:00
"case X, Y" works for 3-4 values, but for something longer problems accumulate:

case SOME_BAD_THING, SOME_OTHER_CONDITION, HERE_IS_NUMBER_THREE: foo(); int y = baz();

Placing them on the next row is fairly hard to read

case SOME_BAD_THING, SOME_OTHER_CONDITION, HERE_IS_NUMBER_THREE, AND_NUMBER_FOUR, AND_NUMBER_FIVE, AND_THE_LAST_ONE: foo(); int y = baz();

In C I regularly end up with lists that have 10+ fallthroughs like this, because I prefer complete switches over default for enums at least.

case SOME_BAD_THING: case SOME_OTHER_CONDITION: case HERE_IS_NUMBER_THREE: case AND_NUMBER_FOUR: case AND_NUMBER_FIVE: case AND_THE_LAST_ONE: foo(); int y = baz();

I understand the desire to use "case X, Y:" instead, and I did consider it at length, but I found the lack of readability made it impossible. One trade off would have been:

case SOME_BAD_THING, case SOME_OTHER_CONDITION, case HERE_IS_NUMBER_THREE, case AND_NUMBER_FOUR, case AND_NUMBER_FIVE, case AND_THE_LAST_ONE: foo(); int y = baz();

But it felt clearer to stick to C syntax, despite the inconsistency.
by darth_avocado | 2025-05-29 19:26:17+00:00
We as a society already penalize people without families:

1. Higher taxes and fewer deductions 2. Higher workplace performance expectations 3. Higher costs in every aspect of life 4. Fewer options eat out, expensive solo tickets at events etc.

This is just one more example in a long list of examples of how being by yourself is penalized in the society.
by geverett | 2025-05-29 19:26:38+00:00
Tbh this makes perfect sense. As someone who worked in airline revenue management for 11 years, it always seemed a little odd that the sales tactics people use everywhere else - group discounts, BOGO, etc - weren't being used by airlines (yes, group bookings could often get discounts, but usually for much larger groups).

What's remarkable here is that airlines waited this long to do it. Sad news for me as a usually solo traveler who prizes flexibility, but I understand airlines wanting to prioritize groups and more locked-in fares.
by badc0ffee | 2025-05-29 19:26:47+00:00
Doritos are just fried corn tortillas with salt, and depending on the variety, some flavourings like dehydrated cheese and bell pepper. It's not a perfect food, but it's food. In fact, combine that with some refried beans and you might be able to live off it for a long time.

> Take away all the science experiments and eat what your great grandma did “mostly greens, not too much”

I don't know about your great grandma, but mine was mostly eating bread and potatoes, not mostly greens. Certainly generations before her were as well.
by hn_acker | 2025-05-29 19:26:56+00:00
> I’m not sure I could call those fair after years of attacks on people’s voting rights.

Tangent: A new attack on voting rights just succeeded in the Eighth Circuit. An individual citizen or non-governmental group can no longer sue a state government for racial discrimination under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

> Until a few years ago, everyone agreed that private citizens and groups could bring Section 2 lawsuits.

...

> The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of voters in Section 2 cases numerous times, including just two years ago in Allen v. Milligan.

...

> However, some opponents of the Voting Rights Act have promoted a fringe notion that because Section 2 doesn’t say the words “private right of action” — the legal term for the ability of impacted individuals or groups to sue — such lawsuits cannot be filed. This is part of a pattern of attacking the procedures underlying Voting Rights Act litigation to make it virtually impossible to enforce the law’s important protections in court.

...

> The Department of Justice can still bring Section 2 cases, but that alone is not enough to prevent voting discrimination. Individuals and groups have brought nearly 93 percent of Section 2 cases over the last 40 years. Justice Department attorneys have explained that the department relies on citizen-led lawsuits because it doesn’t have the resources to handle all these cases on its own even if it wanted to.

> That desire is not present in the current administration’s Justice Department, which shed 70 percent of the Civil Rights Division staff and has already been ordered to dismiss almost all of its Section 2 cases.

[1] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/appe...
by hollerith | 2025-05-29 19:27:19+00:00
I think he knows that. There was a period from the early 1950s (when people first started writing chess-playing software) to 1997 when humans were better at chess than computers were, and I think he is saying that we are still in the analogous period for the skill of programming.

But he should've know that people would jump at the opportunity to contradict him and should've written his comment so as not to admit such an easily-contradictable interpretation.
by lerno | 2025-05-29 19:27:33+00:00
You have both in C3:

switch (x) { case 0: ... case 1 + 1: ... }

This will behave in the normal way. But you can also have:

switch { case foo() > 0: ... case bar() + baz() == s: ... }

In which case it lowers to the corresponding if-else.
by AstroBen | 2025-05-29 19:27:36+00:00
Better than LLMs.. for now. I'm endlessly critical of the AI hype but the truth here is that no-one has any idea what's going to happen 3-10 years from now. It's a very quickly changing space with a lot of really smart people working on it. We've seen the potential

Maybe LLMs completely trivialize all coding. The potential for this is there

Maybe progress slows to a snails pace, the VC money runs out and companies massively raise prices making it not worth it to use

No one knows. Just sit back and enjoy the ride. Maybe save some money just in case
by WillAdams | 2025-05-29 19:28:01+00:00
I suppose I should blog about this at: https://designinto3d.com/

but I've written a fair number of posts on it at:

https://forum.makerforums.info/search?q=gcodepreview

and it has come up a few times at:

https://community.carbide3d.com/search?q=gcodepreview

and on the OpenSCAD mailing list --- that latter might need to be extended back in time to encompass: https://github.com/openscad/openscad/issues/2017

EDIT: also see my post history here, and this post might be what you are asking after?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44108440

Reasons for the technologies:

- OpenSCAD affords 3D modeling

- Python was added to it which finally got me the ability to write out files _and_ mutable variables (programming this w/o them was an interesting intellectual challenge and resulted in a quite stilted programming style)

- G-code is the _lingua franca_ of CNCs, so modeling that seemed a natural fit

- DXFs are imported by many CAD and CAM applications, so supporting them was a no-brainer

- LuaLaTeX is the current (La)TeX implementation, and I've been using/learning TeX since first checking out a copy of _TeX and METAFONT_ from the local college library

Maybe the most important context is what my first project on my Shapeoko 3 entailed: https://community.carbide3d.com/t/locking-register-calipers-... --- drawing in Macromedia Freehand, making a one character font in Fontforge, doing V-carving using F-Engrave, then the balance of the CAM using MakerCAM (a Flash file formerly known as PartKam).

The over-arching name of the project is "Design Into 3D", so also see: https://willadams.gitbook.io/design-into-3d/programming and you may find the (very early) Tugboat article: https://tug.org/TUGboat/tb40-2/tb125adams-3d.pdf of interest.

Glad to answer any other questions you might have! I'm hoping to have a project ready for a "Show HN" before 4 July.
by giancarlostoro | 2025-05-29 19:29:01+00:00
I think its more than just because of the available libraries. I think that industry has just predominantly preferred Python. Python is a really rich modern language, it might be quirky, but so is every single language you can name. Nothing is quite as quirky as JavaScript though, maybe VB6 but that's mostly dead, though slightly lingering.

Mind you I've programmed in all the mentioned languages. ;)
by polarix | 2025-05-29 19:29:22+00:00
Sure, those headlines are misleading.

But all of those other headlines are wrong and misleading as well, in their own way.

The "court"(s) cannot "block" Trump from doing anything. They don't control the military. All they can do is "say" something about the "legality" of the actions of the commander in chief of the military. The first two headlines that (according to the link) "beg to mislead" are closer to accuracy on this dimension -- the courts said something.
by Boogie_Man | 2025-05-29 19:29:40+00:00
A good faith attempt to provide insight into good faith questions you shouldn't have been punished for asking:

"If we really believe all these people will burn in hell then why aren't we all becoming missionaries?"

Every Christian should seek to "become a missionary" in the sense that they should be a positive example and "practice what they preach" while being ready to share honestly about the Christian faith if appropriate/if asked. This is a standard we should hold ourselves to with the help of God.

Early Christians did employ this level of urgency for evangelization, and (according to tradition) the original 12 themselves went as far as Spain and India (without the aid of modern transportation methods, of course). Christian churches spread as far as China, but later suffered persecution and much of the rest of the known world had to wait until the colonial era before Christian missionaries arrived in significant numbers again. Outside of specific uncontacted tribes (and I think a guy just got killed trying to evangelize one of them), I do not know if there are currently populations to which the gospel has not been preached. Translation of Christian writing and good works are the correct method of evangelization at this point, and this work should be supported materially and with prayer.

As for the question of "the fate of the unlearned", there have been a variety of answers (or, more accurately, methods of approaching this question) which have included "they're screwed", "God judges them according to their heart", "God sends them the gospel via miraculous means", "Those who live according to the Logos are Christians but not aware of it", to the more modern "they may receive salvation through Christ through their faith in God as they know him" (other religions). It is important to note that from the perspective of Christian cosmology, (falling in Eden), God would be wholly justified in smiting us down into hell, and has no obligation to have done any of the things he has for us.

"Then when I learned about "age of accountability" [0] I had 2 questions"

You were right to consider the difficulties with this position as it (as expressed in your footnote) is not a historic Christian belief, but a retroactive justification for groups who deny infant baptism.

If we adjust the question to "why don't we kill all infants after they're baptized if they will just go to heaven", the answer is because it is expressly forbidden by God in his prohibition on murder. On a similar note, suicide is expressly forbidden because it is a rejection of the role on earth you have been called to play, whereas giving up your life for the sake of another, or for the sake of the Gospel, is an ideal because it is in the service of others, which is the fundamental role Christians are ordered to fill.

I hope this helps. May God bless you and reveal his truth in your life.