MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by jgraettinger1 | 2025-05-29 05:40:43+00:00
> There's so many moving parts here.

Yep. At the scope of a single table, append-only history is nice but you're often after a clone of your source table within Iceberg, materialized from insert/update/delete events with bounded latency.

There are also nuances like Postgres REPLICA IDENTITY and TOAST columns. Enabling REPLICA IDENTITY FULL amplifies you source DB WAL volume, but not having it means your CDC updates will clobber your unchanged TOAST values.

If you're moving multiple tables, ideally your multi-table source transactions map into corresponding Iceberg transactions.

Zooming out, there's the orchestration concern of propagating changes to table schema over time, or handling tables that come and go at the source DB, or adding new data sources, or handling sources without trivially mapped schema (legacy lakes / NoSQL / SaaS).

As an on-topic plug, my company tackles this problem. Postgres => Iceberg is a common use case.

[0] https://docs.estuary.dev/reference/Connectors/materializatio...
by paulddraper | 2025-05-29 05:43:29+00:00
They’re saying that chess and bcrypt and some others can be brute forced.

You are correct that Goldbach cannot be proven true via brute force. But again, a hypothetical general halting machine may require impractical time — 14 million billion years.

So the idea that “if this existed we crack all sorts of hard problems/optimize” is not necessarily true.
by user_7832 | 2025-05-29 05:45:24+00:00
A quick search shows lots of vintage/ex-military “surplus”/parts. Microscopes and optics abound. There are lots of collectors and nerds who’d be happy to buy a pump or an encoder or whatnot (Chris Boden from YouTube, maybe even Alex from Technology Conmections - would be delighted.)

Plus, who doesn’t want a life size 6’4” terracotta warrior for their house to silently take guard? You call it landfill, I say it’s whimsical and fun. Would a Halloween mask that brings a lot of fun also be something you’d consider landfill suited?
by WalterBright | 2025-05-29 05:47:08+00:00
You need bricks to make a house. Where are you going to get the bricks from? You need lumber to build a stick frame house. How are you going to saw the lumber? Where are you getting the steel for the saws? Where are you getting the nails from?

Those all come from economic powerhouses.

The steps from mud huts to modern buildings came from economic powerhouses.
by blooalien | 2025-05-29 05:49:33+00:00
I dunno, but I do know that Standard Supply has a lot of the items I generally need and / or seek out when I'm visiting such places, so that's all good for me. I still miss Ra-Elco, but as long as I can buy the right parts locally when I'm in a real hurry to grab some important little widget or gizmo, that's what matters most to me. Especially important since Radio Shack is no longer at all that kinda store (and hasn't been for many years now).
by trinsic2 | 2025-05-29 05:50:01+00:00
I don't know if this helps, and I am pretty out of touch with the work culture because I run my own business (boy am I glad I stuck with this in the 2000's because now its so crazy in the job market) but you know where working hard really matters? its with the people you come into contact with that value your hard work that counts. I don't necessarily work hard expecting a return (but I understand fiances are soo tight for people right now that it maters a lot), I work hard because I enjoy what do and I want people to have a good experience. I'm not sure if that is available for everyone in this day and age, but I would strongly encourage everyone that is finding this situation untenable to find something you love a start doing it. The people that values this work will come, it takes awhile to build it, but it does happen eventually.
by antonvs | 2025-05-29 05:51:33+00:00
Technically Typescript can't really be slow, since it's just a preprocessor for Javascript, and the speed of its programs will depend on which Javascript implementation you use.

Typescript's sweet spot is making existing Javascript codebases more manageable.

It can also be fine in I/O-heavy scenarios where Javascript's async model allows it to perform well despite not having the raw execution performance of lower-level languages.
by stouset | 2025-05-29 05:52:10+00:00
I have never understood why people want to use LLMs for programming outside of learning. I have written Perl, C, C#, Rust, and Ruby professionally and to this day I feel like they would slow me down.

I have used golang in the past and I was not am still not a fan. But I recently had to break it out for a new project. LLMs actually make golang not a totally miserable experience to write, to the point I’m honestly astonished that people have found it pleasant to work with before they were available. There is so much boilerplate and unnecessary toil. And the LLMs thankfully can do most of that work for you, because most of the time you’re hand-crafting artisanal reimplementations of things that would be a single function call in every other language. An LLM can recognize that pattern before you’ve even finished the first line of it.

I’m not sure that speaks well of the language.
by hboon | 2025-05-29 05:53:54+00:00
Coincidentally, I just posted this[1] earlier today where I made a simple change against a 210 LOC vs 1379 LOC file, comparing parameters: LOC, filename vs URL path for that webpage, playwright verification.

My question is how does the author get things done with $0.10 ? My simple example with the smaller file is $2 each.

[1] https://x.com/hboon/status/1927939888000946198
by echelon | 2025-05-29 05:54:12+00:00
I truthfully cannot think of a single model that satisfies your criteria.

And if we wait for the the internet to be wholly eaten by AI, if we accept perfect as the enemy of good, then we'll have nothing left to cling to.

> And the question is also pretty clear: did $company steal other peoples work?

Who the hell cares? By the time this is settled - and I'd argue you won't get a definitive agreement - the internet will be won by the hyperscalers.

Accept corporate gifts of AI, and keep pushing them forward. Commoditize. Let there be no moat.

There will be infinite synthetic data available to us in the future anyway. And none of this bickering will have even mattered.
by const_cast | 2025-05-29 05:55:04+00:00
A concerted effort to cover it up in China, maybe. But in the west it's not covered up, it's just acknowledged by what it is - a hypothesis. We don't actually know, and might not ever know, if Covid originated in a lab. Insisted it definitely did is, in fact, propaganda.

The US has no motive to cover it up, especially since the likes of Trump have been calling it the "China Virus" since day 1. We just don't know, and we especially didn't know at the start of Covid. Then, it was truly a conspiracy theory, so we shouldn't be surprised it was treated as such.

What trips people up about Covid is that we were, and still are, discovering things about it. It was a novel disease. People take changes in guidelines and popular opinion to mean the elites are lying to us or that there's some grand conspiracy. But no - they're changing their minds because they were wrong before, because their understanding of the virus and how to handle it were constantly evolving. We were throwing shit at the wall and finding out in real time if it worked. That's not how we treat Polio or Measles because we already know how those work.
by newscracker | 2025-05-29 05:55:28+00:00
If there’s something that’s to be sherlocked [1] in 2025, this would be it! There is a very high motive and incentive for Apple to make something like this part of the OS annd it’s probably working on something similar. Apple can also do it (though probably not as quickly) with minimal privacy concerns.

In some ways, this app reminds me of Windows Recall, which has been heavily panned by privacy and security critics. Do we want a third party app to be looking at everything we do? It would have to meet a high bar on privacy.

[1]: referring to the computing term at https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Sherlock#English
by Tadpole9181 | 2025-05-29 05:56:13+00:00
On "finger's crossed" - I think it's important to say that the majority of web traffic has switched over to PQC algorithms for key exchange that are not susceptible (thanks Cloudflare). We're not close to building a machine suitable for running Shor's in a practical sense, so even potential "store now, break later" attacks are now kinda pointless. Things like SSH keys are trivially revokable and often have enforced expirations, so they're not really a viable attack vector anyway.

The symmetric encryption used for the vast majority of actual encryption has always been safe. Grover's algorithm does not scale appropriately (exponential on key length) unlike Shor's and cannot be parallelized. Worst case, AES-128 becomes as week as AES-64. So we bump it to AES-256 and we're back at the same difficulty as before (impossible). There's a degree of confidence this will always hold true.
by oaiey | 2025-05-29 05:57:43+00:00
Which 10 extra key word? It is a statically typed (bring things like types, type parameters, ...), object oriented language (brings things like abstract, override, class, ...) and high performance (brings things like ref, in, out, ...).

And it is expressive instead of "mathematical" (like ML languages) which makes productively in code reviews a thing.

It is exactly where it should be.
by karlshea | 2025-05-29 05:59:01+00:00
When I moved from Milwaukee to Minneapolis I was happy to find Ax-Man existed, but to be fair I’ve only made it in a couple of times. I hope there are still 15 year olds that are amazed when they walk in like I was.

A core memory from back then is the big diver’s helmet way in the back at ASS, and wishing I could buy the weird radar screen/oscilloscope boxes that looked like they came right out of a tank. And how every label for every box of parts or object in the whole store had funny hand lettered descriptions that someone spent a lot of time on.
by notorious_pgb | 2025-05-29 06:00:06+00:00
I think this is a pretty damn good metaphor for the introduction of these concepts, especially in a context where the learner(s) might need to imminently apply this knowledge.

What drove me to write this post (as someone who didn't attend college where I might've learned exactly what I'm about to say -- big grain of salt) is that it took me being forced by circumstance to become a firmware engineer for a time to actually understand not just how to multithread well, but what the hell this all even was.

And I guess I saw one too many Reddit comments (mistake #1) which downplayed the idea that there's any benefit to knowing the answer to such things.

That all said, this blog post / metaphor is definitely aimed at someone who's already been using threads effectively for some time -- I don't think it'd fare very well as a first introduction.
by forgotoldacc | 2025-05-29 06:00:29+00:00
I like how you focused on "200 years" and not the fact I said "irrelevant". Being old and irrelevant doesn't suddenly make it relevant, no matter how many people like to pretend it is to support their weekly stock pump and dump tariffs on/tariffs off schemes.

And the court here is ruling that the tariffs weren't made in a way that follows the law/Constitution, so your anger is misdirected.
by chii | 2025-05-29 06:03:55+00:00
you can't, because unless you're not the only one with a copy, your hash cannot be verified (since both hash and claim comes from you).

One way to make this work is to have a mechanism like bitcoin (proof of work), where the proof of work is put into the webpage itself as a hash (made by the original author of that page). Then anyone can verify that the contents wasn't changed, and if someone wants to make changes to it and claim otherwise, they'd have to put in even more proof of work to do it (so not impossible, but costly).
by diogolsq | 2025-05-29 06:04:28+00:00
The fact that you consider this “saving time” might show that you are not being diligent with your code.

So what if the BDD is done?

Read >> Write.

As the final step, you should be cleaning up AI slop, bloated code, useless dependencies, unnecessary tests—or the lack thereof—security gaps, etc. Either way, any fine-tuning should happen in the final step.

This review stage will still eat up any time gains.

Is the AI result good enough? fix it, or refeed to AI to fix it.
Show HN: I made an AI prompt manager to stop rewriting the same prompts
by debeast | 2025-05-29 06:04:31+00:00
I made EchoStash.

If you’ve ever written a great prompt, used it once, and then couldn’t find it again — I’ve been there too.

I kept losing my best prompts in chats, notes, or random documents. Every time I started a new project, I ended up rewriting the same stuff or wasting time trying to remember where I saved things.

So I built EchoStash — a simple tool for developers who use AI tools regularly.

It helps you save, organize, and reuse your prompts. You can tag them by project or tool, and when you need something, just search.

The cool part? EchoStash has AI-powered search. You don’t need to remember the exact words — just type what you’re looking for, and it’ll find the right prompt.

It’s fast, minimal, and built to save you time without getting in the way.

Would love feedback from devs working with LLMs or building AI workflows. --> https://www.echostash.app
by myself248 | 2025-05-29 06:04:58+00:00
Donated. Sciplus (under their old name of Jerryco) was a significant part of my upbringing, whether they realized it or not.

*wavy flashback transition*

As a kid from Michigan, I grew up reading the Jerryco catalog and asking my parents about weird phrases therein, which is how I learned all sorts of cultural references that were, in retrospect, probably not what most folks expected their young children to be asking about. I also learned a lot more context than I got from the dry, factual descriptions in the Edmund Scientific catalog. (Or the Lab Safety Supply catalog, for that matter. I evidently really liked reading catalogs.)

To this day, I have a tote labeled "Bottles, boxes, and bags", after their catalog section.

So when the family took a trip to Chicago, we did a bunch of touristy stuff that I don't remember in the slightest, and also a side-trip to the Jerryco store. It was heaven, it was Mecca, it was Woodstock, it was a candy store, it was a hands-on science museum, all these things at once and more. I devoured it -- a physical tactile experience reflecting the vast weirdness and limitless possibilities of the catalog! I wanted one of everything but had to restrict myself to a few handfuls, because I was 8 and had no money and my parents didn't have much either. With parental and staff guidance, I picked out some stuff I thought might be fun to play with -- some solar cells (exotic tech in the 80s!), a couple switches I liked the feel of, some motors, who knows what else.

Those are the items I remember because, years later in my teens, those different types of solar cells were the foundation of an award-winning science fair project testing their efficiency under different types of light. In my twenties, one of those rocker switches, still kicking around my parts drawer, ended up being the perfect size to replace a failed switch in a spotlight I was repairing. In my thirties, one of those motors snuck into the back of an engineering demonstration that needed a bit more grunt than the stock Lego motor could provide.

Three decades of engineering usefulness, from one trip at age 8. Beat that.

I've visited one other time, in 2012 or thereabouts, to the Geneva store. It wasn't quite as vast as the store in my memory, perhaps due to the whole "growing up" thing, or perhaps Geneva just isn't as big as Park Ridge. But it was every bit as magical. Packed to the gills with obscure stuff, quirky signage and decor, and tempting prices. And I could see other young scientists and engineers prowling the aisles, getting their hands on surplus that cost some business megabucks when it was new, turning these weird mechanisms over in their hands until they made sense, synthesizing new uses...
by jamesblonde | 2025-05-29 06:05:17+00:00
The 2nd last line is the summary - "The HTAP challenge of our time comes down to making the lakehouse real-time ready."

We are building this platform as well. There are 2 aspects to it - the "enterprise way" and the "greenfield way". The greenfield way will win out in 10-15 years, but unless you have capital to last that long, as a startup we need to go the Enterprise way first until we are big enough to go the unified HTAP-style way. The Lakehouse - open columnar data - is here to stay. It needs a better connection to OLTP than Kafka, but it will take time between A and B.
by tgma | 2025-05-29 06:05:25+00:00
> I have never understood why people want to use LLMs for programming outside of learning

"I have never understood why people want to use C for programming outside of learning m. I have written PDP11, Motorola 6800, 8086 assembly professionally and to this day I feel like they would slow me down. I have used C in the past and I was not am still not a fan. But I recently had to break it out for a new project. Turbo C actually make C not a totally miserable experience to write, to the point I’m honestly astonished that people have found it pleasant to work with before they were available. There is so much boilerplate and unnecessary toil. And Turbo C with a macro library thankfully can do most of that work for you, because most of the time you’re hand-crafting artisanal reimplementations of things that would be a single function call in every other language. A macro can recognize that pattern before you’ve even finished the first line of it. I’m not sure that speaks well of the language."

They are enormously powerful tools. I cannot imagine LLMs not being one of the primary tools in a programmer's toolbox, well... for as long as coding exists.
by JulianPGough | 2025-05-29 06:05:40+00:00
Mmmm, I thought I had carefully avoided doing exactly that. I think I say at various points that there were good reasons at the time for the choices they made, and I try to show, as sympathetically as I can, the logic of their thinking.

I certainly tried to attack the current state of the theory, not the scientists whose very understandable and human actions, many of them perfectly sensible at the time, led us to that current state. I am sorry if I failed to bring off that delicate balancing act.
by const_cast | 2025-05-29 06:05:45+00:00
We leave a lot of those people behind, forced into a life of poverty.

We can educate truck drivers probably, but not all. But the concept as a whole has issues. Can we re-educate and engineer to be a 10x engineer? How many of them? So, what happens when you must be a 10x engineer?

People have limits. It varies person to person, but we all have limits and as we go higher "up" the rate of hitting limits increases. We can cut out low hanging fruit like, say, literacy. But I can't be Einstein, and neither can you. So, let us both pray we won't need to become Einstein.
Statically typed languages are like Elephants
by pyeri | 2025-05-29 06:07:44+00:00
Comparing statically compiled languages to elephants is actually quite fitting.

Elephants are strong, reliable, and efficient when properly managed*, just like statically typed/compiled languages (C++, Rust, Go, C#) which offer *performance, safety, and strong guarantees* at compile time.

But elephants also require care, experience, and expertise to handle*, and can become stressed or unwieldy if overloaded or mismanaged — similarly, statically compiled languages tend to have higher complexity, longer build times, and steeper learning curves, which can cause pain as projects scale or evolve.

Plus, elephants are majestic and powerful, but not the most agile — likewise, static languages sometimes feel "heavy" or less flexible compared to dynamic languages in rapid prototyping or scripting.

This analogy works nicely to capture the tradeoff between power and complexity. They are great "workhorses", but you need good "handlers" (developers and tools) to keep them calm and effective.

Where do you stand on this? Do you like the power and strength of static typing or the flexibility that dynamic typing offers?
by chii | 2025-05-29 06:08:22+00:00
i dont find the need to have such a disclaimer at all.

If the content can stand on its own, then it is sufficient. If the content is slop, then why does it matter that it is an ai generated slop vs human generated slop?

The only reason anyone wants to know/have the disclaimer is if they cannot themselves discern the quality of the contents, and is using ai generation as a proxy for (bad) quality.
Show HN: Entropy – Sharing screen is scary in SaaS age
by RazCo | 2025-05-29 06:09:22+00:00
Sharing screen is really scary today with all PIIs and secrets sprawling around your screen, so I built Entropy, a small Chrome extension that spots API keys, tokens, emails, and throws a blur overlay on them in real time.

The goal is to make screen-sharing feel safe again without adding steps to a demo.

Everything runs locally—regex + entropy heuristics compiled to WASM—and the extra CPU cost averages ~1 ms per mutation on my M1.

Custom rules can be added with a JSON file for teams that have proprietary token formats.

visit https://entropysec.io

Feedback please <3
by Tadpole9181 | 2025-05-29 06:10:20+00:00
Except you're quoting a small part of a law, and conveniently lack the knowledge to understand that "aforesaid" means there's a definition to "unequal impositions or discriminations". These are quite literally spelled out, none of which are criteria met. Ergo, the president cannot simply declare himself King of the economy at will just because he wants to.

Which makes sense, since that would be uncomprehendingly stupid.
by tsimionescu | 2025-05-29 06:11:48+00:00
First, if people didn't believe that BTC protects from double spend, then it would not be used by anybody. Secondly, the whole point of the proof of work scheme is that it's impossible, or at least extraordinarily costly, for anyone to outrun the main chain enough to publish a new block that replaces blocks from a week ago. It's in fact considered impossible for blocks from an hour or so ago.

So, assuming the BBQ supplier waited about an hour for confirmation, the chance that the money would be lost is minuscule with BTC transactions. With Lightning transactions, the same is not true at all - the customer could close their channel abruptly two months later when the BBQ joint is on vacation, and the money would suddenly vanish forever (assuming they don't catch the fraud in the time window before it becomes permanent).

Of course, in both cases, if you're the person who sent the money and the BBQ never arrived, you're out of luck entirely. Which is why the claim that BTC or Lightning enable trustless monetary transactions is mostly bogus, even with a no-double-spend guarantee. And waiting one hour for a payment to a BBQ joint to clear is basically unworkable (and the reality is more like two hours - one hour for the transaction to make it to be mined, and the other hour to confirm the block where it was included remains permanent).
by JulianPGough | 2025-05-29 06:12:28+00:00
Glad you like the theory! As for the age of the blazar... Pretty confident.

"Bañados and his team..." searched systematically "...for objects that were redshifted so far that they did not even show up in the usual visible light (of the Dark Energy Legacy Survey, in this case) but that were bright sources in a radio survey (the 3 GHz VLASS survey)."

So the redshift is very solidly established. And the light from the blazar simply has to be that far back, if it's that far redshifted.

SOURCE: https://www.mpg.de/23880270/record-discovery-points-to-parti...