MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by ImPostingOnHN | 2025-05-09 22:18:22+00:00
> Their fix is systematic discrimination against specific groups to redistribute power to achieve the outcomes

you're talking about the american revolution against the british here, right?

or are you referring to the same thing somewhere else?

> Now, a different group favoring no racism, equal opportunity, and generosity to all groups based on need is reversing the prior group's work

right, the problem is that the current elites in power in the current usa government are villifying those people and trying to reverse the reversal: restore racism; eliminate equity; allocate generosity based on political alignment and fealty to one particular personality rather than need
by w10-1 | 2025-05-09 22:18:26+00:00
The article doesn’t give enough attention to the glacial but steady changes in the ownership model that will have great benefit in avoiding copies in value types, Swift’s strength and Achilles heel.

I have to say Paul Hudson has almost single-handedly taken over communicating the essentials of Swift to the world; he’s fantastically reliable, brief but enthusiastic, guiding people around the many pitfalls.
by heylook | 2025-05-09 22:18:51+00:00
> I think their point is the billions in private investment which preceded those millions.

But the "billions" didn't precede the "millions". They're just completely incorrect, and anyone that knows even a tiny amount about the actual history can see it immediately. That's why these comment sections are so polarized. It's a bunch of people vibe commenting vs people that have spent even like an hour researching the industry.

The history of semiconductor enterprise in the US is just a bunch of private companies lobbying the government for contracts, grants, and legal/trade protections. All of them would've folded at several different points without military contracts or government research grants. Read Chip War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_War:_The_Fight_for_the_Wo...
by rs186 | 2025-05-09 22:19:05+00:00
13 > 12 so over a dozen dependencies. If you look at acorn or babel/parser, they barely have any dependency.

Repository size is directly related to how long it takes to run a build, which is extremely important if I were to contribute to the project.

> Serde seems exactly a case where you absolutely should use an external dependency.

I can't see any reason a parser has a hard dependency on a serialization library.
by turtleyacht | 2025-05-09 22:20:42+00:00
From an interview with Leonard Kleinrock in Computer Networking: A Top-Down Approach by Kurose and Ross (2010):

---

Looking a bit further out, I see a networking future that includes the following additional key components. I see intelligent software agents deployed across the network whose function it is to mine data, act on that data, observe trends, and carry out tasks dynamically and adaptively. I see considerably more network traffic generated not so much by humans, but by these embedded devices and these intelligent software agents. I see large collections of self-organizing systems controlling this vast, fast network. I see huge amounts of information flashing across this network instantaneously with this information undergoing enormous processing and filtering. This Internet will essentially be a pervasive global nervous system. I see all these things and more as we move headlong through the twenty-first century.
by ericmay | 2025-05-09 22:21:30+00:00
No, it wasn't parody. I was just pointing out that those who are freaking out about U.S. protectionist policy and how it's "unfair" with respect to China don't seem to understand that they have their own protectionist policies, and similar arguments used as negatives about the U.S. market are used as positives when describing the Chinese market, such as the references about local supply chains, or how Tesla had to set up its factory in China or else not be able to ship cars to China (among other, economic factors to bring costs down which again just prove the need for the US to tariff imported automobiles too in order to lower costs).

This is really rather obvious and simple in the public sphere, though certainly trade policy is extremely complex.

Liberals and the Democratic Party are continuing to lose economic arguments and elections because they fail to understand these double standards that many millions of Americans clearly understand, even if they don't understand the complexities of trade policy that underpin these arguments.

China needs to fully open its markets, or perhaps we should do what we can to stop trading with them and influence others to do the same.

Protectionist policies like these matter a little less with small countries, but with a country with the economic power of China they matter quite a bit. If China doesn't open its markets, and they won't, that will be the precise cause of the demise of bulk of the world's free trade schemes. It's untenable for other nations to lose their manufacturing capacity while also not being able to compete fairly in Chinese markets. This ranges from their forcing of joint ventures, to banning of American social media and technology companies, to measures they take to depress their currency to keep their exports artificially cheap. Certainly other countries engage in these practices, but the scale of China's economy doing so is again untenable. I'd argue that it would be great if we could all lower trade barriers, but unless China does there's no reason for the United States to do so any longer either except where it can negotiate specific deals that are hopefully mutually beneficial.

To put it simply, yes absolutely the United States, as does the European Union, have tariffs, various rules on imports, and other mechanisms that restrict free trade. China does too. If we aren't going to have "free trade" or head toward more free trade together, I'm not interested in complaints about the United States restricting trade in other ways like placing tariffs on imports or removing the de minimus exemption. Everyone is restricting trade to their advantage, we're just doing it too or in new ways, which others will do as well and so on. If you are clutching your pearls about it, you've lost the argument. If you are complaining about the United States doing it but not other countries including the EU or China, you've also lost the argument.

I don't really follow your comments about New Zealand in the context of this conversation, but certainly an interesting anecdote!
by pclmulqdq | 2025-05-09 22:22:12+00:00
> I have a lot of sympathy for this viewpoint, but I also ask that we try to remind ourselves. We are asking for professionalism from hobby projects.

Nobody is asking for professional quality standards from hobby projects. At best, they are asking for hobby projects to advertise themselves as such, and not as "this is a library for [x] that you can use in your stuff with the expectations of [maintenance/performance/compatibility/etc.]."

Resume-driven development seems to cause people to oversell their hobby projects as software that is ready to have external users.

> If you want a mature protobuf implementation you should probably buy one

No software is ever developed this way. For some reason, libraries are always free. Approximately nobody will buy paid libraries.
by zmmmmm | 2025-05-09 22:23:26+00:00
My guess is that initially it will get eaten away by parties that currently trade in US dollar for convenience shifting to trading directly in their native currencies. It's a pure cost / risk equation for them that they have to manage this third variable in their dealings and if that outweighs the benefits of using a common currency they will make an agreement to trade directly. This will happen slowly over a long time and eventually a new default currency will emerge as a result of these decisions.
by xigency | 2025-05-09 22:23:49+00:00
Note that this article uses A.I. somewhat interchangeably with the concept of recommendation algorithms in general. It's a long read (admittedly, I had not finished reading on submission) but well thought out with a number of really strong quotes, along with citations.

Previously submitted a few months ago without comments; I'd be interested in HN's thoughts, however counter-productive that might be to the thesis [feeding the next LLM scraper].
by pfdietz | 2025-05-09 22:24:19+00:00
So, how exactly do you claim conclusively that molten fuel (in a fast reactor with sold fuel elements) will not flow into a bad configuration? I don't see how one can possibly do that analysis. Teller didn't see how either.

I already said MSRs would be the one kind of fast reactor I could see the analysis work, so thank you for agreeing with me on that.

As a charitable act toward you I will ignore the rest of your comment.
by jskherman | 2025-05-09 22:24:45+00:00
Yeah, I also found dotted notebooks to be the sweet spot. It's cleaner than a lined or gridded notebooks and especially helpful if they're already numbered.

The tweaks they found in the article is basically a proto-version of the Bullet Journal but just with its index system.

Physical notebooks are nice but as I have to come to know throughout the years, they are also kind of "disposable" and cannot survive long-term if you have to do any amount of moving. You wish you could keep all of your journals/notebooks in an archive but seems infeasible when you don't have your own house or your house is just too small. The rising rent and house prices just makes this all the worse.
by ahofmann | 2025-05-09 22:25:21+00:00
This old tale gets always told, and it is still a lie. Since AWS exists, every five years someone calculated the cost of AWS for our PHP stuff. And the results were always the same: we could have 4 to 7 times more CPU, ram, storage and bandwidth when we just rent servers somewhere. AWS is ridiculously expensive and renting servers was always the cheaper and better option (yes, we calculated the price for our system admins). Never was any spike of usage, or growth, a problem for our servers and software.
by cryptonector | 2025-05-09 22:25:27+00:00
As long as the pace of automation does not exceed some max rate that people can't figure out what to do with the excess labor, we should be ok.

Though I suppose it's always possible that we'll reach something of a "singularity" where we enter the realm of The Phools, by Stanislaw Lem. I can't find a copy of it online, so you might just have to buy the book in which that short story appears.

Briefly and to spoil it: In the story there is a planet with human-like people called Phools and a very stratified, hyper-capitalistic society with three classes, workers, priests, and owners, and someone invents computer that fully automates all factories which then causes 100% unemployment among the workers who then start starving to death. In the story the owners and priests ask the inventor to ask the computer to come up with a solution. You can imagine what the computer came up with... At the end the traveler screams at them something like "Phools! All you had to do was redistribute your income!".

Today -and on this planet- there are certainly a few people today who speak of "useless eaters" and who would like the outcome from that short story. And I can imagine that happening almost naturally. Already fertility rates are crashing worldwide, and we're on a path towards a crashing human population worldwide, and if that happens naturally then I think it means that humans respond to price and other signals and adjust their family planning accordingly, and that would not be a bad thing. Pray though that it's not like in The Phools where the population crashed in a much more dramatic and speedy way, and not at all naturally.
by JohnMakin | 2025-05-09 22:26:54+00:00
I don’t make commentary publicly on ACAB usually but will share a story. I have had friends and family in law enforcement, but tend to take the view the institution is corrupt and the incentives and profession turns people in the best case scenario to unfeeling instruments of the machine, and in the worst case, turns shitty people into monsters. dunno if that makes me “ACAB” but if I were to take that position I’d say “all cops are bad, bad meaning incompetent, not necessarily evil.”

if you define ACAB in this way and competence defined as protecting the public from crime and maintaining the common good, then yea probably a lot if not ACAB.

I’ll share a story because this one moment in my life I was certain I was milliseconds from death and probably is the closest I ever came to it and it would have been at the hands of a cop “doing their job” with no bad intentions, just doing it poorly.

I worked in public transportation in a small, extremely wealthy community with a police force I’d describe as well funded and is considered highly trained. Part of my job required me to work very late hours into 2-4am. I took public transportation to work and bicycled home.

Unbeknownst to me, there had been some type of home invasion in the area as I was leaving work at 3am, and they shut the area down with roadblocks and set heavily armed officers up at every street intersection. I was riding my bike through the side alleys like I usually did to get home, unaware of the situation.

It’s pitch black except for some street lights nearby. Suddenly I get lit up by half a dozen bright lights in my face with armed officers pointing their weapons and screaming at me to get off my bike and on the ground. i did but had my backpack still on, they screamed to take it off as I did on my knees i saw an officer walk straight forward to me quickly with his hands on his gun aiming directly at my skull. I will never forget the look in his eyes, i felt i was toast. luckily i didnt panic and slowly put the backpack on the ground. then they realized i was a transportation worker and let me go and told me there had been a robbery. I was rattled but left.

The thing that really chapped my ass though and made the situation worse was at the next intersection, almost the exact same thing happened, because the bozos at the first one didnt radio their idiot friends and tell them not to shoot me. so twice in the space of like 5 mins i get guns drawn on me - they figured it out quicker the second time, but i stupidly popped off a little “are you gonna point your guns at me a third time or tell the next guys not to shoot me,” which didnt help the tension and got my bag searched for my trouble.

Experiencing something like that and knowing what a razors edge it could have been to dying for essentially no reason at the hands of a moron that makes more than i ever will with a pension irks me and always probably will.
by dathinab | 2025-05-09 22:27:03+00:00
to extend on this:

in rust crates are semantically one compilation unit (where in C oversimplified it's a .h/.c pair, and practically rustc will try to split it in some more units to speed up build time).

the reason I'm pointing this out is because many sources of "splitting a module across files" come from situations where 1 file is one compilation unit so you needed to have a way to split it (for organization) without splitting it (for compilation) in some sitation
by palata | 2025-05-09 22:27:08+00:00
> I'm not familiar with [...] but if I saw what actually happened, I could probably understand well enough.

That's probably exactly what those who closed it thought: "I'm not familiar with it, but I'm certainly a better judge than the person who is working with it".

Do you realise that you are going around telling everybody who complains about the StackOverflow moderation that they were certainly wrong, and StackOverflow was certainly right, and if they showed you the specific question you could certainly teach them why they are wrong? That would be the first step to understanding why people don't really enjoy your behaviour.
by lantastic | 2025-05-09 22:27:10+00:00
Wow, that's massive. I guess it's inevitable that a popular piece of open-source software for end-users will be compelled to accrue dependencies due to popular demand for features that require them.

I feel Telegraf made a good compromise: out of the box, it comes with a _ton_ of stuff[1] to monitor everything, but they make it possible to build only with pieces that you need via build tags, and even provide a tool to extract said tags from your telegraf config[2]. But lots of supply-chain security stuff assume everything in go.mod is used, so that can results in a lot of noise.

[1] https://github.com/influxdata/telegraf/blob/master/go.mod [2] https://github.com/influxdata/telegraf/tree/master/tools/cus...
by vanviegen | 2025-05-09 22:27:46+00:00
Sure! As long as the scope that creates the state does not subscribe to it, state can be created anywhere.

In the following example, each of the three 'things' has its own votes state:

function drawThing(title) { const votes = proxy({up: 0, down: 0}); $('h1:'+title); $('button:', () => votes.up++); $('button:', () => votes.down++); $(() => { // Do this in a new reactive scope, so changes to votes won't rerun drawThing, // which would reset votes. $(`:${votes.up} up, and ${votes.down} down`); // Of course, we could also call `drawVotes(votes)` instead here. }) } onEach(['One', 'Two', 'Three'], drawThing);
by ggreer | 2025-05-09 22:28:34+00:00
What did Heller get wrong? In the majority opinion[1] they do a pretty good job of explaining why they think the right to bear arms applies to the people, not just the militia, and how the amendment enshrines an individual right, not a collective one. In contrast, the dissenting justices can't seem to agree on why the second amendment doesn't apply. Stevens argues that the right to bear arms and other rights (the right to assemble, the right to petition the government) are collective, not individual. He also claims that the second amendment only applies to the militia, but he ignores that the historical sources he cites define the militia as all people capable of bearing arms. Breyer's dissent defines the militia differently, and Breyer spends most of his time arguing that the government can restrict the rights of law-abiding people if the government thinks that doing so will serve its interests (in this case, fighting urban crime). Breyer applies this argument selectively, since if he evaluated other constitutional rights in the same way, it would gut all of them.

Banning law-abiding individuals from possessing firearms may or may not be good policy, but it's hard to see how it's constitutional. If people want to change that policy, they'll need to amend the constitution.

1. https://web.archive.org/web/20100531191739/http://www.suprem...
by dathinab | 2025-05-09 22:28:40+00:00
> not possible to depend on only a part of a module in Rust though right

yesn't, you can use feature flags similar to `#if` in C

but it's also not really a needed feature as dead code elimination will prune out all code functions, types, etc. you don't use. Non of it will end up in the produced binary.
by constantcrying | 2025-05-09 22:30:10+00:00
>13 > 12 so over a dozen dependencies. If you look at acorn or babel/parser, they barely have any dependency.

Which ones are superfluous?

There are good reasons to use dependencies. If someone has solved a problem you need to solve as well it is pointless to duplicate the effort.

>Repository size is directly related to how long it takes to run a build, which is extremely important if I were to contribute to the project.

Totally false. There is zero inherent relation.

>I can't see any reason a parser has a hard dependency on a serialization library.

And because you can't see a reason there is none?

It is totally meaningless to talk about any of this if you can not point out why this is superfluous.
by johnnyjeans | 2025-05-09 22:30:31+00:00
> but doesn't give you a whole lot to make your own custom data structures

For anyone unfamiliar with Odin that might misinterpret this, Odin has structs and parametric polymorphism for those structs. What it does not have is operator overloading or methods (which also means no constructors or destructors). In this sense, its product types are like ocaml's, only without methods too. Odin is not object oriented.
by donmcronald | 2025-05-09 22:30:40+00:00
> I'm inclined to think that is true, that the US is retreating from the world stage and the dollar will follow, but whether that happens now, later or never, I couldn't say.

I don't understand why or how that would be a goal. Doesn't the US get / consume something like 25% of the world's production while having about 5% of the population? If they're consuming 5x their share, the bottom is way, way further down than anyone can fathom, isn't it?
by hinkley | 2025-05-09 22:30:50+00:00
I have been privileged in my career to never need to parse Excel output but occasionally feed it input. Especially before Grafana was a household name.

Putting something out so manager stops asking you 20 questions about the data is a double edged sword though. Those people can hallucinate more than a pre-Covid AI engine. Grafana is just weird enough that people would rather consume a chart than try to make one, then you have some control over the acid trip.
by mopsi | 2025-05-09 22:30:54+00:00
Your numbers are way off. Ukraine has not received "over $500B". According to the Kiel institute tracker, as of February, the total military support for Ukraine from all all over the world combined stands at 132 billion EUR (~148bn USD). Nor does Russia control a third of the country. Russia controls 18.3%, of which 7.05% was occupied before 2022 and 11.25% since then. The total area held by Russia peaked in the first month of the war at 25.86%, was reduced to 18% with Ukrainian counteroffensives, and has stood there since the late 2022.

Scroll to "Overall control of Ukraine": https://www.warmapper.org/stats

While looking at the chart, keep in mind that Russia currently loses around 30-45k people a month as dead and wounded and they have nothing to show for it. The last major territorial gains were during the first month of the war in March 2022. It's a total military disaster with no end in sight.

And the person you replied to is absolutely right: Russia is not fighting for the potato fields of Ukraine, but to dismantle the entire international security system that the US built after the WWII to secure commerce and influence on the world. Ukraine is one of the stepping stones. Here's the full blueprint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics#Con...
by skissane | 2025-05-09 22:31:52+00:00
> Your hubris would be justified had every media outlet and pundit been talking ad nauseam about how Trump was absolutely going to sweep the field, but they didn't. Harris losing was a shock to many, many informed people.

My own sense is a fair number of people were predicting Harris to win because that's what they wanted to be true – people on the centre-left who said she was in trouble would be attacked for dragging their own side down rather than taken seriously – and other people saw that and didn't want to be attacked so they kept quiet. And it was a "shock to many, many informed people" because journalists and pundits were subject to the same phenomenon. Polling averages showed a race which was either 50-50 or with Trump slightly ahead, yet many Democrats were confident Harris would win.

I don't think it was always like this. I think if someone on the centre-left said in 2008 or 2012 that they thought Obama was in trouble, people may well have disagreed (correctly, as it turned out), but their opinion would not have received the same strong negative emotional reaction.