MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Reubachi | 2025-05-01 19:41:32+00:00
easily no question, ios would get apple naming convention. 85 percent of their revenue is from ios and connected services.

Which also means, "it's time to breakup apple" means nothing, not sure why OP suggested that as a method to punish a legally problematic CEO/board. they don't have a multisegment monopoly allowing them complete control over supply chains, or multi region monopoly on smartphones that would be effected by a breakup.
by lolinder | 2025-05-01 19:41:42+00:00
I don't buy that justification. These two companies (and the others like them) set up a model for funding their business knowing full well that they would have to compete with others who were able to provide the same service they were. That's always been baked into FOSS—you can't plan around a monopoly when you're releasing your code for free, that's part of the trade-off you make.

When AWS and Co did provide hosting and provided it better than these guys could, now it's suddenly AWS who are the bad guys for using the FOSS software the way the license always said they could. Now we're suddenly supposed to ignore the terms on which FOSS has always been released and pick up our pitchforks against the big mean cloud provider.

Instead of sticking to the fundamental principles of FOSS (principles which they won business by openly espousing) and adapting their business to the fact that Elastic and Redis lost in the competition they knowingly set up, they fixated on hosting (on top of AWS and Co, no less!) as the business model and changed the licenses to give themselves a monopoly on it.
by throw10920 | 2025-05-01 19:41:54+00:00
> Crippling my ad blocker doesn't make my browser faster on average, even though dishonest benchmarks from advertising companies may claim otherwise. Removing XUL also didn't make TreeStyleTab faster; quite the opposite.

OK, so now you're moving the goalposts, continuing to dishonestly redefine words, and cherry-picking specific instances of addons that support your point, while ignoring the fact that I soundly refuted your utterly insane previous argument.

> Aside from crippling ad blockers

No? WebExtensions clearly did not "cripple" ad blockers by any stretch of the imagination. Maybe you're conflating WebExtensions and Manifest v3?

> Removing XUL also didn't make TreeStyleTab faster; quite the opposite.

Cherry-picking items to try to support your point only proves that you don't have robust evidence to support it in general. This is the hasty generalizations fallacy. As someone who lived through the WebExtensions transition, I didn't perceive any slowdown in any of my dozen or so extensions.

> are there any other theoretical performance improvements enabled by WebExtensions

Yes - if you had any knowledge at all of the old addon model, you'd know that the old XUL-based addons prevented Firefox's move to the multi-process Electrolysis architecture, which significantly improved performance.

> is it all about reducing opportunities for badly-written extensions to have an impact

Yes, that is (on top of everything else) a performance benefit. Humans are not robots - all humans write bad and buggy code, and the XUL model not only made it much easier to write buggy and slow code, but the lack of a well-defined interface resulted in ossification that massively inhibited Mozilla's ability to develop Firefox.Even if it didn't, making changes that help/force the lower 99% of programmers to write better code while mildly inhibiting the ability of the top 1% of of programmers is absolutely worth it, and in practice has massively improved performance.

If you tried to run old Firefox on a modern CPU with a bunch of extensions, you'd very clearly see the performance difference due to the ability to actually take full advantage of more than one core, and due to the improvements that Mozilla was able to make by deprecating the old API.

Perhaps stop commenting unless you can stop committing numerous fallacies, making utterly insane statements, pretending that human factors don't exist, and making statements about things that you have no understanding of.
by bee_rider | 2025-05-01 19:42:06+00:00
I don’t like this definition as much because it includes most people who are living paycheck-to-paycheck with minimal leisure expenditure, right?

Like if you by groceries, rent an apartment, have a bus pass, qualify for Medicare, and you have a Netflix account or get fast food (discretionary spending), then you seem to be middle class by this definition. Is that right? Maybe Medicare bumps you out. But ok, you can get the cheapest marketplace plan.

I mean, to be below middle class by this definition your expenses have to exactly match your revenue, or you are living beyond your means. So other than some tiny slice (in some perimeter vs area sense) of the populace, being working class seems to be definitionally unsustainable.
by dvvalia | 2025-05-01 19:42:32+00:00
SEEKING WORK | Mumbai | Remote OK for India/Some of EU timezones

Location: Mumbai, India Remote: OK Willing to relocate: No Technologies: - Python/Pandas - Java/Spring Boot - Data Engineering (ETL/ELT, data pipelines) - Product Development - Other (SQL, Redis, Docker, AWS, Azure, DBT) Résumé/CV: https://dvalia.in/blob/Darshan_Valia_Resume_Technical.pdf Email: On Resume Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dvalia/

Data/Backend engineer for the past ten years (Java, Python, SQL). Experience building ELT pipelines and data platforms (from scratch!) for financial data, but happy to work at any level for any problem that needs solving. Would love to work on product management, solutions architecture, or customer engineering. Currently working on an agentic AI project.

Remote is preferred for time zones spanning Europe to India; onsite/hybrid in Mumbai is also great.
by stefan_ | 2025-05-01 19:42:37+00:00
The reason they investigate every airplane crash for a root cause is not necessarily because the number of deaths tilts the statistics, it's because they are highly complicated mechanical and electrical machines where there is always the chance for a systematic fault that will doom many further planes if not found and rectified.

The same of course applies to self-driving cars; they are literally cars driven by software, of course you need to do a root cause investigation every time to rule out that it's not a bug in the software that will kill another person (and many after) when the next car happens to go down that rare branch of the system. It's embarrassing to see that the people that call themselves engineers at these companies have not held their work to this standard, and are instead publishing glossy brochures making whacky statistical arguments.
by juliantigler | 2025-05-01 19:43:17+00:00
Thanks! But I want to emphasize that Organize isn't meant to replace old school organizing. Rather it's meant to expand those proven techniques to a larger audience that can't be served by the limited number of existing organizers (i.e. workplaces too small to attract a professional organizer).

Plus, it's helpful to remember that organizing isn't only for workplaces trying to improve poor conditions. It's also for workplaces with good conditions that want an assurance that the company can't unilaterally take them away! This is something many if us in tech jobs forget until things like layoffs or forced return-to-office give us a reminder.
by timewizard | 2025-05-01 19:43:22+00:00
> If you are basing something on 10 incidents but it's 50% of the total, it's still terrible accuracy.

The ratio of 3.2 trillion to 56.7 million, which is already incredibly generous to Waymo's position, is 5 orders of magnitude in difference. So any calculations from Waymos data are going to be insanely inaccurate and not something you can extrapolate from.

The main, and most obvious case, evidenced by this, is Waymo does not operate where snow falls. Human beings do.

We're missing so much of the picture I don't think you can say Waymo's are 75% less accident prone, or 80% less likely to hit a pedestrian. Those are just nonsense numbers.
by dvvalia | 2025-05-01 19:43:23+00:00
Location: Mumbai, India Remote: OK Willing to relocate: No Technologies: - Python/Pandas - Java/Spring Boot - Data Engineering (ETL/ELT, data pipelines) - Product Development - Other (SQL, Redis, Docker, AWS, Azure, DBT) Résumé/CV: https://dvalia.in/blob/Darshan_Valia_Resume_Technical.pdf Email: On Resume Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dvalia/

Data/Backend engineer for the past ten years (Java, Python, SQL). Experience building data platforms (from scratch!) and ELT pipelines for financial data, but happy to work at any level for any problem that needs solving. Open to work on product management, solutions architecture, agentic AI or customer engineering. Remote is preferred for time zones spanning Europe to India; onsite/hybrid in Mumbai is also great. Unfortunately cannot relocate.
by baobun | 2025-05-01 19:43:33+00:00
I share this perspective. If I am actually curious about your experience with X, I might start by telling you mine. That gives you a natural way to follow up with yours and also gives you my context. It also makes it less awkward for you to change the subject without having to explicitly deny answering a question (or play politician by dodgning it).

Most people seem to agree this is preferred with the basics:

"Hi, I'm baobun, great to meet you!" vs "Hi, what's your name?"

I on the other hand don't get the expectation that conversation should be structured like a Q&A or interview. But sure, if I notice my conversation-partner is "an inrerviewer" I try to calibrate accordingly.

Remember OP is a anglosaxan reporter and seems unaware of that cultural bias. Flipping the opening:

> ‘Over-askers’ can come across as selfish – but there might be personal and societal reasons for their inability to share first

It's a "me" problem exactly as much as it's a "you" problem. Communication is a two-way street on all levels.

Leaving space is important no matter what and a 20 minute breathless monologue without giving openings is rude regardless of its ending in a question-mark.
by mmh0000 | 2025-05-01 19:43:42+00:00
Derogatory slang for North Koreans[1]

Though not commonly used; though it does pop-up from time-to-time[2]

[1] https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Norks

[2] https://www.nationalreview.com/the-feed/korean-war-ii-watch-...
by prmoustache | 2025-05-01 19:44:04+00:00
Last company that hired me did everything remotely. This was in a company that only hired people living in countries where it had offices and no b2b contract so there are a number of things that needed to be local: - local ID or work permit - physical address in the country - bank account in same country - social security number

Stuff can be forged but that needs local spy level of skills to make it work.

They were also hiring a company specialized in background checks, I literally had to fill up a form with the 14 places I had been living in all my life with dates of entry and exit, super annpying given the UI was slow as hell and that I had low recollection of addresses and date of my early years, I had to ask my parents. I may have been able to cheat probably but I didn't try.

I am also seeking a new position and I have realized that most b2b / work from anywhere jobs you could apply for were for cryptocurrencied / blockchain related companies so they surely make it easier for malicious remote applicants. I think it means they are kind of desperate / have difficulty to find talents. In other areas most companies only hire people who live in same juridiction they have an office and hr department.
by SpicyLemonZest | 2025-05-01 19:44:23+00:00
You'll be happy to know, then, that the NHTSA publishes the data you're looking for at https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/standing-general-orde..., in addition to Waymo's own reporting in their safety hub. For me personally, I find summary data to be more informative than a pile of individual reports, but I hope your comparison goes well!
by renewiltord | 2025-05-01 19:44:30+00:00
For cycling and walking in SF, the Waymos are optimal. If there's one at the front of the line at the red light I know I won't be right hooked as I go straight in the bike lane. Very well-behaved. I am so glad they're here. Some concentration of them actually ruin crazy drivers' ability to do damage because they set the speed limit and won't go through reds.
by shishy | 2025-05-01 19:44:44+00:00
Yes, it depends on what you're doing; for general paper discovery / search tasks, title abstract can be enough (which is also why Springer and Elsevier have been pulling even their abstracts from sources like OpenAlex).

But for something like that you need full texts to look into results sections. I'm very curious how you're dealing with information contained in tables, or if you're dealing with snippets of text from the full-text alone. Have you poked around Elicit yet?
by godelski | 2025-05-01 19:44:59+00:00
> your responsibility is to produce working code that you are confident in

I highly agree with this but can we recognize that even before AI coding that this (low standard) is not being met? We've created a culture where we encourage cutting corners and rushing things. We pretend there is this divide between "people who love to code" and "people who see coding as a means to an end." We pretend that "end" is "a product" and not "money". The ones who "love to code" are using code as a means to make things. Beautiful code isn't about its aesthetics, it is about elegant solutions that solve problems. Love to code is about taking pride in the things you build.

We forgot that there was something magic about coding. We can make a lot of money and make the world a better place. But we got too obsessed with the money that we let it get in the way of the latter. We've become rent seeking, we've become myopic. Look at Apple. They benefit from developers make apps even without taking a 30% cut. They would still come out ahead if they paid developers! The apps are the whole fucking reason we have smartphones, the whole reason we have computers in the first place. I call this myopic because both parties would benefit in the long run, getting higher rewards than had we not worked together. It was the open system that made this world, and in response we decided to put up walls.

You're right, it really doesn't matter who or what writes the code. At the end of the day it is the code that matters. But I think we would be naive to dismiss the prevalence of "AI Slop". Certainly AI can help us, but are we going to use it to make better code or are we going to use it to write shit code faster? Honestly, all the pushback seems to just be the result of going too far.
by standardUser | 2025-05-01 19:45:01+00:00
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. By all accounts, Waymo operates more safely than a human driver. It's operated tens of millions of rides in several major cities over several years, hence all the useful data. There is absolutely nothing stopping the continued expansion of self-driving vehicles, Waymo or otherwise, and there are myriad factors moving it forward rapidly.
by Reubachi | 2025-05-01 19:45:50+00:00
Genuine question as I'm seeing this sentiment a lot in these threads, and I must be missing something.

What you've just described would be the single greatest punishment to an entity in the (admittently recently established) history of case-law, would upend the tech sector (maybe justly), lay off 10s of thousands and effectively stop work at downstream supply chains.

I get that this is the point of the punishment. However, do you think politicians, investors, lawyers with controlling stake, The DOD with security integrations, would allow that to happen?

Put another way, do you think the rule of law exists for the hyper rich when the current admin put.....Linda McMahon on the presidents cabinet?
by more_corn | 2025-05-01 19:46:04+00:00
Perhaps you need to come up to speed on the new text of the deal: “The earlier drafts were so punitive that they seemed designed to force Zelenskiy into a position where he either rejected the approach outright, allowing Trump to cut off arms supplies and force Ukraine’s capitulation, or accept and be swept away by public outrage. Whatever the plan was, Trump also appears to have miscalculated.

Zelenskiy fell into neither trap. Even during his explosive Oval Office humiliation, he somehow managed to hold his own without burning all bridges.”
by uncial | 2025-05-01 19:46:08+00:00
So I don't think this specific implementation has practical use cases (someone prove me wrong!), but there's a really really cool general point here--

We've had this technology for centuries.

Seriously. This doesn't need transistors or clever materials. Mechanically, it's much less complicated than what (say) 18th century clockmakers were doing -- it's just bars going up and down!

So if you'd asked me 200+ years ago, I'd say: this device can compute nautical charts, calculate differential equations, and some third incredibly useful thing. Nowadays we can do all that much better with silicon etc, and I don't see this competing practically on that playing field...

... but I think it's useful mental technology to notice that there were simple ways to perform arbitrary computations, accessible much earlier on in the tech tree, that sort of got skipped for some reason. So while roons is probably siloed to education/experimentation/fun, I really hope it inspires someone to go -- what else are we missing?
by timewizard | 2025-05-01 19:46:11+00:00
If an only if every drunk person decides to take one instead of driving themselves home.

Drunk people being known for having exceptionally poor judgement and self awareness.

It suggests that they _could_ cut fatalities by that much. Then again, a whole new mode of accident, where the inebriated decide to step out of a moving vehicle and injure themselves that way.

This is a dynamic system where human decisions are never fully removed from the loop.
by palmotea | 2025-05-01 19:46:11+00:00
> Eh, after COVID it doesn't make sense to talk like that. There actually were grand conspiracies to smother the truth in which the output of scientific research was rendered untrustworthy. The people who tried to sound the alarm were slammed as paranoid lunatics, and then turned out to be correct.

> And one of the people organizing those conspiracies was Fauci. In order to protect ... virologists. We know all this because we can read the emails and Slack logs where the conspiracies were organized.

Downvoters, I was shocked to learn that was actually true: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/16/opinion/covid-pandemic-la...:

> Or take the real story behind two very influential publications that quite early in the pandemic cast the lab leak theory as baseless.

> The first was a March 2020 paper in the journal Nature Medicine, which was written by five prominent scientists and declared that no “laboratory-based scenario” for the pandemic virus was plausible. But we later learned through congressional subpoenas of their Slack conversations that while the scientists publicly said the scenario was implausible, privately many of its authors considered the scenario to be not just plausible but likely. One of the authors of that paper, the evolutionary biologist Kristian Andersen, wrote in the Slack messages, “The lab escape version of this is so friggin’ likely to have happened because they were already doing this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario.”

> Spooked, the authors reached out for advice to Jeremy Farrar, now the chief scientist at the World Health Organization. In his book, Farrar reveals he acquired a burner phone and arranged meetings for them with high-ranking officials, including Francis Collins, then the director of the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Anthony Fauci. Documents obtained through public records requests by the nonprofit U.S. Right to Know show that the scientists ultimately decided to move ahead with a paper on the topic.

> Operating behind the scenes, Farrar reviewed their draft and suggested to the authors that they rule out the lab leak even more directly. They complied. Andersen later testified to Congress that he had simply become convinced that a lab leak, while theoretically possible, was not plausible. Later chat logs obtained by Congress show the paper’s lead authors discussing how to mislead Donald G. McNeil Jr., who was reporting on the pandemic’s origin for The Times, so as to throw him off track about the plausibility of a lab leak.

There's more.
by creer | 2025-05-01 19:46:40+00:00
An aspect of this is "why are we here?". This conversation needs to be useful for that. Doesn't need and shouldn't be "rudely useful", but still, let's try and make some progress. This is true even if your purpose is to pass the time pleasantly by chatting with your neighbor until your airplane boards. If you are merely humoring that person, then okay you have no interest and there is no point.

This is something that bothers me with "safe" ways to conversation. So safe as to be pointless. And same for "endless answers" and "derailing the conversation" - which might be fun material perhaps in some nerdy way, but might as well kill a conversation.

Striking a conversation is a skill, so is keeping it on track.
by jeffbee | 2025-05-01 19:46:57+00:00
It's just ape hubris that makes you think these were the right swerves instead of just dumb luck that you did not flip over the center barrier head-on into a school bus.

The Waymo doesn't have to swerve as much as a human because it can see a mile away and never blinks, and it knows that the right thing to do in every swerve-worthy situation is to slam on the brakes to take the energy out of the event. It also drives around with the brakes pre-pressurized because it isn't trying to compensate for the fact that its control system is partially made of meat. Anyway you can go to r/waymo or r/selfdrivingcars for lots of videos of Waymos avoiding objects.
by anosidium | 2025-05-01 19:48:10+00:00
I’m currently developing Oliphaunt, a native macOS client for Mastodon, designed to offer a clean, responsive and fully native experience that feels at home on the platform. You can find more details, including screenshots and a project overview, here: https://github.com/anosidium/Oliphaunt-Feedback-And-Support. A new TestFlight build will be available soon, with plans for an eventual App Store release.

I’m also working on the next version of HacKit, a macOS Hacker News reader focused on simplicity, performance and adherence to macOS design language. It’s already available on the App Store: https://apps.apple.com/app/id1549557075 and further information can be found here: https://github.com/anosidium/HacKit-Feedback-And-Support.

I’d be delighted to hear any feedback, suggestions, or ideas — or simply to connect with others working on Apple platform development.
by indigodaddy | 2025-05-01 19:48:16+00:00
Yeah it's interesting, these scenarios are generally at high speeds on an interstate highway, and generally involve some level of predicting what the villain driver is going to do (split second prediction though mind you, it all happens in the blink of an eye), and sometimes the right thing to do is to swerve (if no one is adjacent in surrounding lanes) whilst either not using the brake at all or almost no braking. Basically avoid the brake and do your quick swerve after you've confirmed there is no one in the left/right adjacent lane or close enough behind you. Once again this all happens in the blink of an eye. Perhaps AI would be better? I'm not complete sold though..
by efdee | 2025-05-01 19:48:17+00:00
> I had to run a debloater on my system

Hot take: your ""debloater"" screwed up your system.

I've had problems with Windows, but none of the ones you've described.

> For the average user this experience sucks. But for me, I'm okay.

I guess this describes my Windows experience. I _know_ some people have problems. I don't, because I guess either I got used to it or I know how to avoid it.