MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by bloppe | 2025-06-20 13:17:37+00:00
It's a silly comparison because the author implies that OSS is a monolith that's failing to coordinate amongst its parts, whereas proprietary software firms are individuals that excel at self-coordination but are never expected to coordinate amongst each other.

Individual OSS projects are often good at self-coordination. You don't need standards if you just reinvent the wheel yourself AKA how proprietary software often works.
by Loughla | 2025-06-20 13:17:38+00:00
I can go weeks without smelling cigarettes or seeing someone smoking a cigarette.

But every fucking day marijuana. Every public park; marijuana. Sports events; marijuana. Just sitting in traffic; marijuana. Waiting in fucking line at my kids' after-school pickup, marijuana.

It's a little ridiculous at this point.

I am a huge proponent of legalized marijuana, but for real. The people that do this are ruining it for the rest of us. Luckily it makes SO MUCH MONEY that I don't think we'll ever see it outlawed again, but. This is exactly what the pearl-clutching anti-pot people said would happen.
by huem0n | 2025-06-20 13:17:40+00:00
I long made the same mistake of assuming history. The answer is no, that kind of interaction wasn't transactional in a robotic way, it was highly trust-and-relationship building. Which is exactly what we are missing today.

Go to a farmers market week after week, buying and talking to people. It is completely different from a vending machine. I know the people at my market, if they asked for help I'd help them for nothing in return. And I have no doubt at all they would do the same for me.

The vending machine owner would get no such help from me, nor would I expect them to help me if I asked.
by unFou | 2025-06-20 13:18:07+00:00
I wonder if your example is a different kind of trade. When we trade time in a leisure situation, we're trading something more immediate and tangible. Whereas the transactional nature of the grandparent comment is more describing something more distanced.

An example of this that was told to me is imagine you're going to dinner with the in-laws (or maybe your best friend's parents). What would their reaction be if you took out your wallet and offered to pay them cash for the meal? As opposed to offering to e.g. bring a bottle of wine or helping to set the table?

Offering to pay might be the "transactional" trade meant by the grandparent. While offering to contribute [food | labour | goodwill] is more of the trading time in a leisure situation.
by edude03 | 2025-06-20 13:18:56+00:00
bko in the sibling comment said nearly exactly what I was going to say. While I do agree that you can "fall into" this start and it's very difficult to get out of - I'm very skeptical that with no other contributing preexisting factors you wouldn't be able to figure something out. You'd have to be extremely unlikely to

- not have any family

- not have any friends

- not have any savings

- not have anything they could sell

- not have any ability to do even temp work (IE, had some traumatic debilitating accident)

- Not being able to move somewhere that's cheaper

- Not being able to take advantage of any social programs (I'm canadian, it's pretty easy for example to get a large portion of your school paid by the government)

And if _all_ of this was true, other than potentially avoiding the impacts of being homeless - how would being given a place to live (especially in a High cost of living area) fix any of your other pretty serious issues?
by lotharcable | 2025-06-20 13:19:53+00:00
XLibre is a fork of Xorg X11's codebase started by a developer who got kicked out of the Xorg project because he was making lots of changes that broke everything and had a hard time getting along with the other devs.

Another dev blindly applied his MRs assuming he had tested stuff before submitting the request and they had to go back and revert a bunch of stuff.

Broke nvidia compatibility, broke xrandr extension, and a bunch of other stuff.
by ty6853 | 2025-06-20 13:19:57+00:00
You can enter Mexico, and they have only checked I had paperwork/passport about one times of ten. No reason why you can't do the same thing if you want to do currency arbitrage. Paraguay will give you a residence permit pretty much just for showing up if you can get ahold of a USA passport, or you can avail yourself of the compact of free association and live in Micronesia without a visa. The arbitrage game is for everybody.
by LostMyLogin | 2025-06-20 13:20:03+00:00
> And sometimes we would attempt to socialize with whatever person happened to be nearby, even a complete stranger.

Two days ago I was in Best Buy looking for a DAC for my headphones. They have a section of gaming keyboards and headphones where a kid in his mid to late 20's started to strike up a conversation with me. It went from whether I play video games, to if I live in town, to his story on dropping out of college.

The entire time all I could process was the question of why this kid was talking to me and I kept giving him short bland responses. Not that long ago I would have sat there for an hour talking with this guy and loved every second of it. Then I would have come home and annoyed my wife by telling her all about it.

I know it's cliche to say but something changed in me over the initial COVID lock-downs where I went from socializing being a necessity in my life to just wanting to be home and not dealing with people. A point that bums me out the more I think about it.
by lordnacho | 2025-06-20 13:20:08+00:00
Serendipity has been lost. If you aren't at least open to talk to randoms, you are stuck in your own network. People you know from school or work, and people they know, that's it.

You won't be approachable when you are paying attention to a phone.

And it's valuable. There's a lot of people you'll find interesting, but they happen to not be within 2 hops of you. If you want to put a number on it, look at what people pay (opportunity cost) for educational or work opportunities. The social network you'll get is often touted as one of the main benefits of private school, for instance.

Despite being a bit of an introvert, I often reach out to randoms. Just to see what's there. It's been a great strategy thus far.
by jmyeet | 2025-06-20 13:20:09+00:00
The article not talking about alienation is either a failing from shallow analysis or a political statement in and of itself not to criticize capitalism. To blame this solely on technology is somewhat of a Luddite take. That's a symptom.

The very fact that you have free time, weekends, paid leave, enough money to enjoy these things (until the last few decades anyway), etc are the result of anti-capitalist collective action. People quite literally died so you can have these things.

It's no accident the society is so hyper-individualistic now. That's be design by the capital-owning class to destroy any form of collectivism because it's a threat to the economic order.

So things like "third spaces" disappearing can't be viewed in a vacuum. It's a foreseeable consequence of hoarding property (ie ever-increasing housing prices). The powers-that-be love that. You're not forming bonds with your fellow human beings. You're also not "wasting" time on recreation instead of working a third job you hate just to make ends meet and make somebody else more money.

A key part of Marx's alienation is the alienation of labor. This is where you're not paid enough to afford the goods or services you produce. We see this in the developing world: literal children being paid pennies to make clothes they can't possibly afford. We are increasingly seeing the alienation of labor in the developed world.
by mcello | 2025-06-20 13:20:25+00:00
AmplifyHumans — AI companions that grow with you, learn from your world, and 10× your thinking + execution.

Think: second brain × chief of staff × assistant on steroids.

Join early → www.amplifyhumans.com

In a few days, I’m sending a 5-min survey to early users. You’ll get: Exclusive insights from early adopters Priority access to the private MVP demo

This isn’t a demo-day chatbot. It’s a long-term bet to build tools that compound you.

What would you want in an AI that truly amplifies you?
by margalabargala | 2025-06-20 13:20:35+00:00
Why is that?

Here's what we know:

- we appear to experience what we call free will from our own perspective. This isn't strong evidence obviously. - we are aware that we live in a world full of predictable mechanisms of varying levels of complexity, as well as fundamentally unpredictable mechanisms like quantum mechanics. - we know we are currently unable to fully model our experience and predict next steps. - we know that we don't know whether consciousness as an emergent property of our brains is fully rooted in predictable mechanisms or has some decree of unknowability to it.

So really "do we have free will" is a question that relies on the nature of consciousness.
by kmm | 2025-06-20 13:20:45+00:00
Without taking into account dark energy or a cosmological constant (so on scales smaller than a few hundreds of millions of lightyears), in the usual cosmological model you can see the expansion of the universe simply as a remnant of the initial kick all matter got from the Big Bang. There is no active pushing anymore, it's just matter moving apart, constantly slowing down due to the mutual gravitational attraction.

So for our bodies, planets, solar systems, even galaxies and clusters, because these are bound (either electromagnetically or gravitationally), the influence of the expansion of the universe on them is not just negligible, it's non-existent.

It's a little different when wo do include dark energy and other mechanisms more complicated than a simple matter or light content. For your intuition, you can think of this as a constant omnipresent negative pressure. We have no idea how it works on scales smaller than those of the observable universe, but if we imagine it works the same on every scale, then it's an extremely tiny force constantly pulling your body apart.
by pu_pe | 2025-06-20 13:21:24+00:00
> So you fire your expensive, grumpy human team and request larger and larger additions from your AI: a new guestroom, built-ins, and a walk-in closet.

> You feel great, until…you realize that your new powder room doesn’t have running water; it was never connected to the water main.

> You ask the AI to fix it. In doing so, it breaks the plumbing in the kitchen. It can’t tell you why because it doesn’t know. Neural systems are inherently black boxes; they can’t recognize their own hallucinations and gaps in logic.

I've seen plenty of humans causing problems where they didn't expect, so it's not like using using humans instead of AI prevents the problem being described here. Besides, even when AI hallucinates, when you interact with it again it is able to recognize its error and try to fix the mistake it made, just like a human would.

The article correctly describes tech debt as a tug-of-war between what developers see as important in the long-term versus immediate priorities dictated by business needs and decisions. It's hard to justify spending 40 man-hours chasing a bug which your customers hardly even notice. However, this equation fundamentally changes when you are able to put a semi-autonomous agent on that task. It might not be the case just yet but in the long run, AI will enable you to lower your tech debt because it dramatically reduces the cost of addressing it.
by spwa4 | 2025-06-20 13:22:22+00:00
I think the point is that the force of gravity is so much stronger than the expansion that the (equivalent) force a normal-sized star exerts on your body from the other side of our galaxy is greater than the force expanding space between you and that star. One of them, not all of them together.

All of them together are so much stronger it's not even funny. And that's for the "underdense" region that we are in. Not a void, but about half of our galaxy's environment does count as a void.
by imiric | 2025-06-20 13:22:27+00:00
> I raise the counter that all decentralized systems eventually become centralized once they reach mass appeal.

Not necessarily. Systems built on decentralized protocols can still avoid centralization. We see this with core internet protocols (DNS, BGP, TCP/IP, SMTP, etc.), and modern protocols alike (BitTorrent, XMPP, Matrix, most blockchains, etc.).

It's true that many people may gravitate towards a specific service operating on one of these protocols for whatever reason, and particularly with federated protocols, but it wouldn't be correct to say that e.g. Gmail or Cloudflare DNS are centralized in the same way that e.g. Google Ads or YouTube is.

Even when services built on decentralized protocols become popular, decentralization avoids vendor lock-in by definition, and users are free to choose any other service according to their needs. It also avoids monopolies since anyone else can build a competing service that caters to the same market.

> Your account got taken over? Need to reverse transactions? Need recourse if someone defrauded you? Don’t want to check each factoid you read? Need to ensure that users are not spreading actual terror content?

All of those are service concerns. Yes, they are easier to address when the system is centralized, but not impossible otherwise. The main reason we don't have good decentralized solutions to them is because companies have no incentive to invent them. And in the cases when they do exist, they have no incentive to use them.

I believe this is in large part due to the failing of the WWW to be decentralized from the start. Its original proposal[1] included a phase 2 of the project where "authorship becomes universal", which failed to materialize. This made it lucrative for hosting companies to fill a functional void, which gave way to tech giants, social media, and Big Tech as we know it today. I think we still would've had a need for centralized services regardless, but they would've been much less popular and powerful than they are today.

[1]: https://www.w3.org/Proposal.html
by davemp | 2025-06-20 13:22:48+00:00
There’s a difference between understanding your tool and unnecessary cognitive load.

Make does not provide a sane way to run in parallel. You shouldn’t have to compose a command that parses /proc/cpuinfo to get the desired behavior of “fully utilize my system please”. This is not a detail that is particularly relevant to conditional compilation/dependency trees.

This feels like it’s straight out of the Unix Haters Handbook.

[0]: https://web.mit.edu/~simsong/www/ugh.pdf see p186
by gchamonlive | 2025-06-20 13:23:52+00:00
I think the best reading on the fundamental afflictions that affect society is in Han's Burnout Society.

So thinking about loneliness and alienation is really easy through the lenses of the hyperpositivity and the rise of narcissism. Suddenly these are all aspects of the focus on the individual and the "You can" ethos.

> too many people feel that nobody sees them as a fellow human being

It's really hard to feel seen when everybody only interacts with everybody else if it serves their own project of self improvement.
by notepad0x90 | 2025-06-20 13:23:55+00:00
Nice, started of with an insult, pretty much you broke plenty of HN rules. Try to be civil please.

This isn't about a political disagreement. It is a universal fact in any country or form of government that betraying your country is considered equivalent to condemning its people and is one of the highest crimes a person can commit. I didn't make that up, nor do I deserve to be insulted for stating that fact. Political enemies and enemies of the country are different things, you're conflating the two for rage-bait reasons I suppose, so you can feel anger at someone. Sorry, I am neither a trump supporter, an authoritarian, or someone who supports criminalizing political disagreements. You just made that up so you can insult someone.

A person is not a traitor because someone calls them a traitor, that is purely childish. Treason and rebellion are well defined under the laws of every single country in existence. It is a crime that must be proven in court. If you believe the courts can adjudicate crimes like murder then they are also capable of doing the same for treason and rebellion. Therefore, standing by my earlier statement, if a person is proven in court as supporting rebellion and treason against his country, they should be punished accordingly with punishment that fits the crime.

> "we should not let the state decide -based on often ideological, nationalistic or simply corrupt criteria- what thoughts, symbols or expressions of opinion by people are suddenly treason. "

Wow! rarely do I see text-book examples of a straw man argument, but there it is! who in this thread claimed that should be the case? an enemy of a country is not declared as such because of those reasons but because they intend to cause harm to its people. There is no grey area here, if a group wants to kill americans, that's why they're the enemy, it's that simple. it isn't "democrats" or "people we don't like" , it is "nazis who want to murder americans" or "isis who want to destroy america", "the confederate army who led a bloody civil war against america", there is no slippery slope or grey area as you would like there for it to be. don't support people who want to murder us, it is that simple. It is possible to have laws that define specific parameters of their enforcement.
by camgunz | 2025-06-20 13:24:19+00:00
I'm not sure what your experience is. To your 2nd point, I googled "homelessness studies" and here's some stuff I found:

The bulk of homelessness is a housing problem [0]. Per-capita rates are the highest in the most expensive places to live. This isn't because homeless people migrate to the places w/ the best homelessness programs either: they're largely long-term residents of their cities [1]. Homelessness is increasing because incomes are not keeping up with housing costs [2]. Since 2001 incomes have increased 4%, while rents have increased 19%. While severe illness can lead to homelessness, it also works the other way around [3]. There are many homeless families, often headed by women but many are also "intact" families [4]. People of color are also dramatically overrepresented: Black Americans are 13% of the population but 40% of the homeless [5]. It's hard to imagine Black Americans are 3x more likely to have severe mental illness or addiction problems.

I think it's pretty conclusively a housing cost problem. Maybe not entirely, maybe not everywhere, but it does seem like we'd take care of most of the problem in most places by bringing down housing costs.

(n.b. the NIH book source is from 1988, but I found most of its basic findings were corroborated by more recent sources)

[0]: https://homelessnesshousingproblem.com/

[1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK218239/#ddd00010:~:tex....

[2]: https://endhomelessness.org/state-of-homelessness/

[3]: https://community.solutions/research-posts/the-costs-and-har...

[4]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK218239/#ddd00010:~:tex...

[5]: https://endhomelessness.org/resources/sharable-graphics/raci...
by joshstrange | 2025-06-20 13:24:26+00:00
If you boss/ceo/manager/etc is pushing for you to use LLM tools heavily, expecting to replace developers, or stupid enough to think "vibe coding" is the future then run, don't walk, to find a new job.

I can promise you there are plenty of companies that have not drank the kool aid and, while they might leverage LLM tools, they aren't trying to replace developers or expect 10x out of developers using these tools.

Any company that pushed for this kind of thing is clearly run by morons and you'd be smart to get the heck out of dodge.
by uncircle | 2025-06-20 13:25:13+00:00
You describe microkernels are if there is only one way to implement them.

> A different process can just ignore your message

> arbitrarily get stuck on something and not act in time

This doesn't make sense. An implementation of a microkernel might suffer from these issues, it's not a problem of the design itself. There are many ways of designing message queues.

Also:

> In a microkernel, there can't be such trust [between processes]

Capabilities have solved this problem in a much better and scalable way than the implicit trust model you have in a monolithic kernel. Using Linux as an example of a monolith is wrong, as it incorporates many ideas (and shortcomings) of a microkernel. For example: how do you deal with implicit trust when you can load third-party modules at run-time? Capabilities offer much greater security guarantees than "oops, now some third-party code is running in kernel mode and can do anything it wants with kernel data". Stuff like the eBPF sandbox is like a poor-man's alternative to the security guarantees of microkernels.

Also, good luck making sure the implicitly trusted perimeter is secure in the first place when the surface area of the kernel is so wide it's practically impossible to verify.

If you allow me an argument from authority, it is no surprise Google's Fuchsia went for a capability-based microkernel design.
by dm03514 | 2025-06-20 13:26:14+00:00
I just started using hurl a couple months ago.

For my uses it's great that it has both test suite mode and individual invocation mode. I use it to execute a test suite of HTTP requests against a service in CI.

I'm not a super big fan of the configuration language, the blocks are not intuitive and I found some lacking in the documentation assertions that are supported.

Overall the tool has been great, and has been extremely valuable.

I started using interface testing when working on POCs. I found this helps with LLM-assisted development. Tests are written to directly exercise the HTTP methods, it allows for fluidity and evolution of the implementations as the project is evolving.

I also found the separation of testing very helpful, and it further enforces the separation between interface and implementation. Before hurl, the tests I wrote would be written in the test framework of the language the service is written in. The hurl-based tests really help to enforce the "client" perspective. There is no backdoor data access or anything, just strict separation betwen interface, tests and implementation :)
by oersted | 2025-06-20 13:26:16+00:00
I suppose that what I'm advocating is being passionate about the technical problem, and only the technical problem. Making decisions based on facts and principled reasoning, and not vague aesthetic preferences or personal animosity.

This is no utopia, and it is not rare, it's pretty basic professionalism and engineering discipline. If you really care about the problem you are solving, you'll push the rest of the baggage aside, especially your ego.

Surely name-calling and making unfounded gut judgements based on us-vs-them tribalism, like is seen in that response, is not very productive. He demonstrated no intention to solve the problem, no acknowledgements that it exists, no explanation why the solution is not appropriate, what alternative solutions might be better... He had no interest in working together to find the best path forward. He was simply being territorial and scaring off those that did not align with his Holy Taste, whatever that is.
by aleph_minus_one | 2025-06-20 13:26:16+00:00
> Forking is far from the first step in conflict resolution; it is the ultima ratio between projects in the open-source world, when all dialogue breaks down.

You also do a fork if you simply want to try out some rather experimental changes. In the end, this fork can get merged into the mainstream version, stay independent, or become abandoned. People wanting to try out new things has barely anything to do with all dialogue breaking down.