MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by mitchbob | 2025-05-18 02:45:11+00:00
I disagree with

> 6. A rough-surfaced pan is fine.

because what you're cooking is more likely to stick to a rough surface, and spatulas work best on a very smooth surface.

To deal with my wife's bacon habit and keep our cast iron skillets usable, I do the following after each time she cooks bacon or other fatty meats. It sounds like a lot written out, but it's actually pretty quick:

- Reheat the skillet and pour any remaining grease into our grease container.

- With the skillet on the stove, use a sharp-edged stainless spatula to scrape the surface of the skillet, focusing in particular on anything on it that's carbonized, until the entire surface feels very smooth, and scrape what I've scraped off into the grease container.

- While the skillet is still warm, put it in the sink, put a teaspoon or so of Dawn dishwashing liquid in the bottom, point the water from the faucet so it hits the Dawn and mixes with it, adding enough water to just fill the bottom of the skillet, then use the spatula again to scrape the bottom of the skillet in the same way I just did when the skillet was on the stove.

- Thoroughly rinse the skillet and dry it with a dishtowel.

- Put the skillet back on the stove, heat it on the biggest burner on high heat just long enough to dry any remaining water, then turn off the heat.

- Put a small amount of olive oil, less than a teaspoon for a 12" skillet, on the bottom of the skillet and use a paper towel to completely coat the surface with it.

- Move the skillet to a smaller burner, and with the heat turned all the way down leave it to season for a few minutes.

- Hang skillet on pot rack.

Our skillets have stayed smooth and non-stick this way for years.
by analog31 | 2025-05-18 02:45:18+00:00
Indeed, that's a good point. My state maintains a map of reported crashes, and most of the dots on the map in my locale are on the highest speed roads. It seems like when the cars are going slower -- and there are fewer of them -- there are fewer crashes. And if the severity is less, like you say, then that's a compounding factor.

We're not NYC, where every street is packed with moving and parked cars. Most of the traffic is on the faster roads, and the cyclists tend to thread our way through the sleepy residential streets. That's good enough separation for me. The parts of town where bikes have to mix with cars, are where they focus more attention on bike lanes.
by naikrovek | 2025-05-18 02:46:37+00:00
Ban me then.

The person I responded to clearly has a mental illness and needs help.

The people behind this site think it’s some bastion of civility, and it just isn’t. People can be assholes using any words they choose, and they do so continuously here, but you mods don’t care because your rules are followed.

“Orange website bad” isn’t a meme for no reason. It’s because the orange website is bad. So fucken ban me.
by floating-io | 2025-05-18 02:47:37+00:00
No, it really doesn't. The definition of "streaming", to me, can be boiled down to "you send individual data as soon as it's available, without collecting into groups."

Batching is, by definition, the gathering of data records into a collection before you send it. Streaming does not do that, which is the entire point. What happens after transmission occurs, on reception, is entirely irrelevant to whether the data transfer mode is "streaming."
by Panzer04 | 2025-05-18 02:48:02+00:00
It depends where the division is, I guess. It always feels a bit heavy-handed to force private companies to interoperate within their infrastructure. That being said, I don't really know a better way to do it.

Having terminals be more universal would be good, but good luck replacing old ones and convincing entrenched market participants to offer them..

The newer generation of products like BNPL are even worse; they often contractually prevent merchants from charging a surcharge commensurate with the cost of accepting that payment method.
by AlotOfReading | 2025-05-18 02:48:03+00:00
It's an example of universities accepting federal funds. I didn't actually know the breakdown of federal university funding in the 1950s, so I had to look it up. For separately budgeted research, federal funds were ~70% of dollars according to a 1954 NSF survey. For total expenditures, they were 42%. A bit over half of that went to medical and agricultural research.
by kjkjadksj | 2025-05-18 02:50:07+00:00
Safe cycling routes are misunderstood. The best thing is taking the lane so you are actually visible. If you take the lane, most streets become very safe and mundane in my experience. Four lane roads are even better than two lane because people can easily merge around you, you can stay out of dooring range and be very visible to traffic. On two lane roads people tend to get a little angry if you take the lane, although that is what you absolutely must do because the alternative is riding in the door zone and people squeezing you passing in the same lane.
by rdtsc | 2025-05-18 02:51:12+00:00
> This is the question I was answering and I gave you an example then you proceeded to say there is no overhead Erlangs process model, which now you admit exists

But that's not what NodeRed-Erlang does. The author is confirming it one one of the sibling comments. You invented some new type of workload, were all clients have to access the same heap concurrently and telling the author to rewrite everything in Rust. But that's your use-case, not the the one we're discussion. My use case is not that either.

> Geez this is tough crowd, first Erlang has no overhead, then its well that nots whats its good at, which I said. Then its well those are specific workloads, yeah serving little messages to a million clients is a specific workload too.

The application in this case fits Erlang perfectly. You're the one who introduced a new type of a use case - when you need to concurrently process the same video or audio and arguing that Erlang is not good for it. Yeah, we agree, it's not good for that, use something else, Rust, C etc. It's like we're talking about trains and you're saying, don't use trains, they can't fly, what if you have to cross the ocean or something like.
by FilosofumRex | 2025-05-18 02:52:18+00:00
At a minimum, MIT must disclose publicly, if and how, its faculty PI and admins complied with the review and approval requirements for human research subjects and NSF grant:

"This work was supported by the George and Obie Shultz Fund and the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program under Grant no 2141064. IRB approval for the survey was granted by MIT's Committee on the Use of Humans as Experimental Subjects under ID E-5842" https://couhes.mit.edu/policies-procedures/review-and-approv...
by davery22 | 2025-05-18 02:53:47+00:00
I think the article was getting at this at the end - different use cases naturally call for either a point-in-time snapshot (optimally serviced by pull) or a live-updating view (optimally serviced by push). If I am gauging the health of a system, I'll probably want a live view. If I am comparing historical financial reports, snapshot. Note that these are both "read-only" use cases. If I am preparing updates to a dataset, I may well want to work off a snapshot (and when it comes time to commit the changes, compare-and-swap if possible, else pull the latest snapshot and reconcile conflicts). If I am adjusting my trades for market changes, live view again.

If I try to service a snapshot with a push system, I'll have to either buffer an unbounded number of events, discard events, or back-pressure up the source to prevent events from being created. And with push alone, my snapshot would still only be ephemeral; once I open the floodgates and start processing more events, the snapshot is gone.

If I try to service a live view with a pull system, I'll have to either pull infrequently and sacrifice freshness, or pull more frequently and waste time and bandwidth reprocessing unchanged data. And with pull alone, I would still only be chasing freshness; every halving of refresh interval doubles the resource cost, until the system can't keep up.

The complicating real-world factor that this article alludes to is that, historically, push systems lacked the expressiveness to model complex data transformations. (And to be fair, they're up against physical limitations: Many transformations simply require storing the full intermediate dataset in order to compute an incremental update.) So the solution was to either switch wholesale to pull at some point in the pipeline (and try to use caching, change detection, etc to reduce the resource cost and enable more frequent pulling), or, introduce a pulling segment in the pipeline ("windowing" joins, aggregations, etc) and switch back to push after.

It's pretty recent that push systems are attempting to match the expressiveness of pull systems (e.g. Materialize, Readyset), but people are still so used to assuming pull-based compromises, asking questions like "How fresh does this data feed really _need_ to be?". It's analogous to asking "How long does this snapshot really _need_ to last?" - a relevant question to be sure, but maybe doesn't need to be the basis for massive architectural lifts.
by efitz | 2025-05-18 02:54:53+00:00
Batch processes IRL tend to “fetch” data, which is nothing like streaming.

For example, I’ve worked with “batch” systems that periodically go do fetches from databases or S3 buckets and then do lots of crunching, before storing the results.

Sometimes batch systems have separate fetchers and only operate vs a local store; they’re still batch.

Streaming systems may have local aggregation or clumping in the arriving information; that doesn’t make it a “batch” system. Likewise streaming systems may process more than one work item simultaneously; still not a “batch”.

I associate “batch” more with “schedule” or “periodic” and “fetch”; I associate “stream” with “continuous” and “receiver”.
by MBCook | 2025-05-18 02:55:33+00:00
The people of California voted for it (through their representatives).

They’re free to change it at any time.

It’s not the federal government’s job to mess with it just because it doesn’t align with head-in-the-sand worldview on electric vehicles.

California didn’t mandate anything for any other state. The fact the automakers don’t want to bother to implement “the winning strategy” for every other state of pretending EVs suck either indicates it’s a terrible strategy or they think there is a benefit to their bottom line to follow demand.

How horrible!
by 0xDEAFBEAD | 2025-05-18 02:55:36+00:00
I think you're both right. Relative to the past, any given locale is more culturally fragmented, but the globe is simultaneously more culturally unified. We've hit a weird midpoint: You might have more cultural common ground with someone on the other side of the globe who follows the same people on social media, than with your next-door neighbor.

Consider this thought experiment. Imagine you're going to get coffee with either a random person in your neighborhood, or a random HN user. Which conversation will have more shared topics of interest?

This is the "global village" which was prophesied in the 1960s. It won't go away until interstellar colonization creates communication delays and a new era of cultural fragmentation.
by solongso | 2025-05-18 02:55:56+00:00
If that's you're goal, you're going about it the wrong way. Thank you for introducing yourself and your fellow answerers. Let me introduce myself and my fellow questioners. I have a deadline and a problem. I've already spent 5 hours researching why what should work - according the the documentation and the conventional advice - doesn't. I've searched many sources, including SO. I've seen some articles which might have answered my problem. Tried the suggestions, but no joy. So now I'm six hour in, and my deadline is looming. It's probably around 1:00am. Between 1 and 2 I type up my problem and submit it to SO. I'm hopeful that perhaps in the morning someone who has successfully worked through my problem will have contributed a solution.

9:00am, I check SO. My reputation has decreased by 8 points, a number of self-styled enforcers have left negative comments comparing my issue to other issues which bear a superficial similarity to my posting, and my posting has been closed.

I'm not the most powerful contributor but over several years I've achieved upwards of 1,000 points. So I am by no means a nudnick. I've posted some good ones and I've helped some of my peers along the way. But recently, my experience has devolved to the point where the experience I describe above is the rule, rather than the exception. And when I tried to have the discussion we are having now, on the stack overflow meta site, your fellow enforcers shut down the discussion and deleted the posting. So I left. And now we can have the conversation here.

You can have all the justifications in the world for your approach, and you don't need to keep the audience you don't want. But if those of us voicing our displeasure here, are not simply a few malcontents, but a significant chunk of your former user base, you might want to look inward, and at the same time ask with a certain measure of humility - what are we doing wrong and how can we improve?

For starters, if you want a questioner to improve their posting or you have questions about why they posted, is it necessary to start off by immediately deducting from the poster's reputation? Ask your question, make your point, give the poster the opportunity to remediate or show you why you're the one who's off base (did you ever consider that possibility?) before decreasing someone's reputation.

Stop dehumanizing your knowledge base. Your resistance to AI is somewhat ironic, given all the effort you've devoted toward eliminating all courtesy and gratitude from your knowledge base. Do you want humans communicating on your platform? Let them. Perhaps after a question has been asked, answered, let the posting remain dormant for 30 days and then have some AI process go ahead and scrub the posting. Don't ding people for saying please and thank you and expect them to like you for it.

Just for starters. For now, I'm out of there. Change your game, maybe I'll be back one day.
by chowells | 2025-05-18 02:57:24+00:00
Yes, people noticed it's good. But that's not how I heard about the game. That's not how anyone in the three separate groups of friends I heard about the game from heard about it. In fact, the only person I knew who really follows that sort of stuff is the only person I know who wasn't interested.

I think you're confusing cause and effect. If you look at steam's concurrent player counts, you see that the number of concurrent players kept increasing for the first 10 days after the game's release. That's not consistent with curators instructing people to buy a game at release. That's consistent with massive word-of-mouth spread. Everyone is talking about it and rating it highly because it's good, not because they were told to.

https://steamdb.info/app/1903340/charts/
by kjkjadksj | 2025-05-18 02:58:42+00:00
I still think halo 3 looks a lot better than some modern games. Stuff like blur bloom and all that grass and foliage pop in does not in fact look good. It looks worse than just turning all of that off. And I can’t appreciate a high polygon count model when the game is a high speed fps so whats the point of that either. Halo 3 texture resolution to my eye is fine. I don’t think I would notice twice or 4x the size textures. Only thing I notice is the hardware demands.
by heresie-dabord | 2025-05-18 02:58:53+00:00
> Rep. Laura Gillen, a Democrat from New York, one of the states to adopt the mandate, said she supports the goal of reducing emissions but that the timeline is “out-of-touch with reality” and an undue burden on consumers facing a cost-of-living crisis.

US consumers are facing hardship directly caused by overtly erratic tariffing. US ICE makers are seeking protections. Consumers will not have smaller vehicles nor the affordable EVs they could use.

The air and water are fine, we never pollute, climate change is a silly leftist slogan, and Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
by jeffparsons | 2025-05-18 03:01:26+00:00
> I am curious to know what is behind these big US companies being so anti privacy.

Google has an email service so that it can ingest all your communication and use it to better target ads. If Google didn't have access to the content of your emails, there wouldn't be much point to Gmail.

Microsoft mostly cares about enterprises, and enterprises generally don't want E2EE email; they have legal requirements to retain e-mail of employees, and have their own reasons to want to be able to access employee emails sometimes.

Apple... I don't know where they stand on this.
by Groxx | 2025-05-18 03:02:21+00:00
If you don't mind having a "personalized" desk, arms that are meant to / able to go through the grommet often just have two (large) bolts. You could pretty easily drill through the middle of a desk and mount it at any distance.

I have the dual version of this, which they don't seem to sell any more: https://www.upliftdesk.com/crestview-single-monitor-arm-by-u... but if you look at the "all components" image, you can see the steel plates and bolts that I use to attach mine - the bolts aren't part of the bent black thing, they work with that or either of the shiny steel plates. Those both fit within a grommet hole (the large circular holes in desks) with bit of free movement to adjust it, and the bottom of the "stand" is completely flat so it could very easily go anywhere - you put the plate under the desk, stick the bolts through it + through the desk hole, and they go into threaded holes on the underside of the stand.

Some monitor arms are only meant to clamp onto the edge of a desk, and you won't be able to do this - I'd probably avoid those in this case tbh.

(I've probably failed to adequately describe it - I can take pictures or draw something out if you'd like. It's not complicated, it's just... there are not many similar things that I can point to as a comparison that most people have at hand)
by toomuchtodo | 2025-05-18 03:02:22+00:00
That it’s important, but should be automated and understood to be cost inefficient. The cost inefficiency is a readiness premium. But when you have admin officials saying iPhone manufacturing is coming to the US, that isn’t what is being advocated for. China is the largest producer and buyer of industrial robotics for manufacturing, for example. They are built to build, this is not what the US is advocating for.

Do you think this admin would put the necessary guardrails on public private partnership manufacturing supply chain infra to prevent it from being strip mined or otherwise extracted for profit and not be available when needed? I do not, but I do support treating such manufacturing supply chains as critical national security interests. Maybe we’ll get another shot in a few years when competent folks are in control, but maybe not.
by rowanG077 | 2025-05-18 03:02:51+00:00
There is no AI equivalent to Kurt Cobain or any other artists because 99% of what they are is not at all about their musical skill but all about marketing. There are thousands of musicians just as skilled if not more than Kurt Cobain or James Brown yet who don't have their fame. I also have no doubt an AI will outperform most musicians in short order in the foreseeable future. The step from making no music at all, to making acceptable music is gigantic compared to making acceptable music to making great music.
by meroes | 2025-05-18 03:04:00+00:00
Yes ban them so new cars are even more out of reach for many (the cheapest electric cars are too expensive still and might not come with enough base range for long commuters).

And those low earners will keep driving their shit boxes.

What got me to give up my ‘98 emission hog wasn’t electric because they were too expensive. It was a rebate for taking old cars off the road and a cheap combustion civic. Ban those civics and I’d still be driving something horrendous for the environment.
by rangestransform | 2025-05-18 03:05:49+00:00
The fact that the existing automakers do not have competitive offerings when the model S came out in 2012 is entirely their own fault. For not figuring out where the wind is blowing and massively reorganizing their entire company, they deserve to die to Tesla, BYD, Xpeng, Nio, and everyone else who figured out how to build a usable EV. They could’ve also built charging infrastructure at their own expense, like Tesla did before the charging infrastructure tax credits.
by solongso | 2025-05-18 03:06:08+00:00
It's absolutely true. I've had my posts edited to remove phrases like "thanks for any advice which you can provide". I've had people leave comments and ding my reputation because I've expressed gratitude. Maybe you don't think eliminating gratitude from basic communications qualifies as "dehumanizing". OK, let's agree to disagree. (BTW - to the guy who called me a "troll". If you can't disagree with a fellow of your species, without branding them a troll, you've just made my point. Thank you.)
by kjkjadksj | 2025-05-18 03:06:30+00:00
Interesting you mentioned movies because I think movies are resurgent now where it seems like everyone is seeing all the new releases. I can hardly book imax anymore because they book up a month in advance and are booked up a month out and then they pull it from the imax theater to make room for the next thing to be fully booked out a month out. There is serious demand it seems to keep up with the latest movies especially when it is offered in higher fidelity like imax and 70mm releases.
by superultra | 2025-05-18 03:06:37+00:00
We have ground breaking amazing shows like The Rehearsal (which could really only be made now), Resevoir Dogs, Shogun, Fleabag, The Bear, Severance, For All Mankind, Peaky Blinders…to name a few.There is so much good tv.

Some either you don’t know about any of these which is the fault of the algo I guess, or you’re stuck in a bubble of 15 years ago, in which the algo failed.
by necovek | 2025-05-18 03:06:45+00:00
Nope.

Pair programming still results in a code change needing review from another party (or you get increasingly buggy code because the two people have already prejudiced each other during design, discussion and implementation).

Just like "advanced metrics" in team sports (eg. two person lineups in NBA: they can tell you how effective were all lineups with eg. Jokic and Gordon in Nuggets been), nothing would stop management from looking at which person has led to a pair being most effective.

Still, that's beside the point: the goal of metrics is not to judge individual performance (even if it is a signal somewhat), but to be able to tell if we are improving (which you can only do through measurement). I invite you to come up with better metrics which can tell you if you are doing better or not in 3 months time.

If you believe you are being judged on artificial metrics, it's simple: push smaller commits and create smaller tickets. That will make management happy and will make you faster.