MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by ajsnigrutin | 2025-06-17 00:23:36+00:00
Me? Never again.

I used to... like some app, paid for a "PRO" version to get additonal features. Everything was ok.

Then 6 months went by, and they added a cloud feature, to upload some stuff and configs and sync between devices, and it turned from one time payment to a subscription plan. Then built-in features got moved into the cloud, and previously working stuff didn't work without subscriptions anymore. Then they added ads. PRO has maybe 2 more features than a free version and no nag screen at the start, and that's it.
by out-of-ideas | 2025-06-17 00:24:09+00:00
did you use the one 15+ years ago? what else can you tell about it?

sandboxie is quite old yes; and `dog` vs `god` LOL; did you drop your question in to an LLM? copilot gave me (re dog) winpatrol - though i dont think it has task any application based api stuff https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/download/winpatrol/

there was also things like vmwares thinstall which would wrap up an exe's installation process to make a more or less portable application (edit was here)

there were apps like InstallSheild's system monitoring software which could really monitor a systems changes before and after and build installations of files/registries changed

then there stuff like Deep Freeze which made windows more or less immutable (to a degree) where a reboot would "restore" the system - useful in schools ect
by NaOH | 2025-06-17 00:24:29+00:00
Related:

'Maya blue': The mystery dye recreated two centuries after it was lost - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42288864 - Dec 2024 (21 comments)

'Maya blue': The mystery dye recreated two centuries after it was lost - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42292443 - Dec 2024 (1 comment)
by mrandish | 2025-06-17 00:25:19+00:00
That sentence made me assume OpenAI leaked this story to WSJ as a negotiating tactic. You're right that leaking this indicates OpenAI's position is weak. The threat to make an antitrust complaint is also strange since 'going nuclear' like that probably wouldn't help OpenAI soon enough to matter. Antitrust action isn't fast. So all it would do is potentially hurt MSFT and prove OpenAI is a risky partner willing to torch one of their largest partner/investors.
by ninjin | 2025-06-17 00:26:09+00:00
The difference is that as a scientific reviewer you are not hiding a physical location and what you need is plausible deniability, which would still exist. In addition to this, actively attempting to deanonymise your reviewers is on the level of scientific misconduct that your employer and professional organisation should consider taking disciplinary action against you. I am not arguing that this makes it entirely safe to publish anonymised reviews and that we will not affect reviewer behaviour (maybe for the better in some cases, as "one-sentence reviews" will be something in the public record), but it is in stark contrast to the example that you bring up.
by slyall | 2025-06-17 00:26:19+00:00
I think they mean "get to grips with a computer" to mean stuff like Word, Excel, Outlook or being able to fill in online forms and the like.

Between say 1990 and 2005 the average 20 year old might never have used a computer for anything beyond playing games.

Hence the University Degree requirement for any sort of white collar job.
by op00to | 2025-06-17 00:26:27+00:00
What’s wrong with doing chores or going for a walk? Doing such things increases my productivity. At a certain point you hit a cliff where further effort doesn’t increase productivity.

When I worked in an office, I would often go on walks by myself or with colleagues, explore the campus, etc. It’s hilarious to believe you can’t fuck off and play hooky when you’re in an office.
by seadan83 | 2025-06-17 00:26:41+00:00
> If you don’t think so, you haven’t looked for a job in a while.

This is not an argument. Any individuals experience is not going to be anything of a representative sample of pretty much anything. You need data to make your claim. You probably will also need to define "collapse."

US-based AI companies are doing pretty well, if there were a collapse, that would not be the case. Plenty of companies are hiring. The job market is not what it was when there were 0% interest rates, but "collapsed" - that's some hot-take shit IMO good for twitter and clicks.
by Zak | 2025-06-17 00:30:28+00:00
I'm just thinking of my own friends and family, who are mostly not tech nerds and none of whom live in the Bay area. Gmail launched with so much more storage than any other free email service everyone thought it was an April Fools joke (no doubt in part because it was launched on April 1). Everybody wanted it, and nobody who got an invite code before I did would give me theirs.

This is all anecdotal of course. Maybe it wouldn't have worked, but how quickly they gave up was weird.
by sa46 | 2025-06-17 00:31:25+00:00
It might be. I've seen the trick pop up a few times:

1. https://puzpuzpuz.dev/thread-local-state-in-go-huh

2. https://victoriametrics.com/blog/go-sync-pool/

It's probably too complex for the Otel SDK, but I might give it a spin in my experimental tracing repo.
by browningstreet | 2025-06-17 00:31:48+00:00
Sama seems disinclined to follow the straight and true. Apparently he can’t get what he wants without re-routing his partner’s buy-in buttons. Could he have founded OpenAI without all this drama? Was there no way to raise the money he needs without all the smoke and mirrors?

I’m a fan of the ChatGPT product but he feels like a David Mamet creation.
by bsoles | 2025-06-17 00:32:34+00:00
I don't disagree. I am mostly talking about my hesitations for not willing to pay small amounts of fees for bunch of internet services. I am afraid that the "cost" of paying for these services would end up being a lot more than the actual amount of money.

Incidentally, this is also the reason, as much as I would like to, for not donating to public/non-profit organizations. Anybody who has donated to a political party or an organization like ACLU would know what I am talking about...
What does it mean to use C++ in the front end?
by AliceHe2003 | 2025-06-17 00:32:52+00:00
I’ve been working on a browser-based image editor written in C++, and when I tell my friends about it, the most common reactions I get are “Huh???” and “Why???” ...Let’s break it down.

First: Wait, how does C++ run in the browser? I’m not just tossing raw C++ into a browser tab. The browser only knows how to speak 2 languages: JavaScript and WebAssembly. WebAssembly (WASM) is a bytecode language that is interpreted in the browser. The trick is to write C++ functions and compile them to WASM using Emscripten. Javascript still controls the DOM, so WASM can’t do everything - you’ll have to call the C++ functions from JavaScript.

If Javascript and WASM need to work together, they’ll need a way to communicate and transfer data! To do this, JS allocates shared buffers, writes data into it, then calls into C++ using ccall. The C++ function processes the data and returns control to JS, which can then read from the shared buffers.

C++ compilers typically mangle function names by encoding additional information—like parameter types—to support features like function overloading and prevent naming conflicts. To make C++ functions accessible from JavaScript, I used “extern C”, a directive that tells the compiler to preserve the original function names and disable name mangling.

And yes, if you mismanage memory allocation or forget to free, you can cause undefined behaviours your browser app

Second: Why go through all this trouble? Image editing—especially with real-time filters, frequent canvas updates, and support for dozens (or even hundreds) of layers—is computationally heavy. JavaScript alone may not keep up, especially when you're pushing for high performance and smooth UX.

Why? Because JavaScript is an interpreted language—it’s read and executed line by line at runtime, which adds overhead. WebAssembly, on the other hand, is a lower-level bytecode. When you compile C++ to WASM, you get the benefits of LLVM's compiler optimizations along with the portability of the web.

So even though WASM is still technically interpreted, it's much closer to machine code and runs at near-native speed. That means complex image processing operations—like applying custom filters or merging high-resolution layers—can happen fast, without freezing the browser or dropping frames. The end result? A frontend that feels like a native desktop app, but runs in your browser.

For anyone who's interested, here's the GitHub repo! https://github.com/alicehe2003/ImageEditor

This project was inspired by how Figma is built!

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/alice-he-95406b293_github-alicehe2003imageeditor-web-based-activity-7340407818077859842-r3FK?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAEcFpZABjEOydMovU7l8KMPjazq9tzhE9Rc
by ninjin | 2025-06-17 00:32:53+00:00
My favourite movie of all time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Strangelove

The writing and acting is superb and the same goes for the sets and camera work. Come to think of it, the only thing I dislike (and greatly so) is the trailer as it to me profoundly fails to communicate the atmosphere of the movie.
by niczem | 2025-06-17 00:33:14+00:00
Meshtastic is fun but limited—more of a radio chat app than real mesh infrastructure. If you're serious about decentralized comms, check out Reticulum: https://reticulum.network

It’s not limited to LoRa—Reticulum works over IP, serial, packet radio, or whatever you have. Delay-tolerant, multi-hop, encrypted, no servers needed. Still lots of work to do and apps to build, but the foundation is solid.

Great talk from EH22: https://media.ccc.de/v/eh22-97-eggceptional-meshnetworking
by seadan83 | 2025-06-17 00:33:21+00:00
> I can tell you've not been involved in defending against an active attack.

Um... I'm really happy you can mind read dude.

The whole premise here is whether passwords on SSH keys actually help.

SSH keys tend to live in two places: (1) a developers laptop, (2) some sort of CI/CD machine.

The passworded SSH key helps in case (1) only when a person walks away from the laptop and leaves it unlocked. An attacker can't simply then open up a SSH terminal and then SSH to whatever they see in the history. Or, it helps in case a person has a laptop that never locks and the org is simply trying to buy enough time to rotate the persons public keys before the SSH key password is cracked. The SSH key password can buy time, yes - but it does not change the actual security posture.

In case (2), all sorts of considerations need to be made. Though, any password would need to be encoded in a way that is just as accessible as the secret key itself. In case (2), the password really does nothing.

So, yeah, passwording a SSH key does not really help very much. If the keys are left around, then it is the fact they are left around that is a problem. The solution is not to create a scanner that all SSH keys have a password on them, but instead be sure that no SSH keys are installed on systems where they do not belong.

> They are the ones who get to flow through any crack they can find.

I would agree, that is why defense in depth is a good principle just as zero trust security.

So.. passworded SSH keys are kinda really security theater. Please give an attack vector on a persons laptop where the password SSH key is going to stop an attack that is otherwise unachievable. I'll steel man the counter position and mention that physical access is one case (except in that case we are only buying time). AFAIK, that is really it, that is the one place where a password on a SSH key helps.

To hack a persons laptop and read contents in the .ssh directory is a full compromise. To pick up the pieces after that, you need to do things like make sure the compromise can be observed, that privilege escalation is limited. If it comes down to the password on a SSH key being last line of defense - it's game over.

Keep in mind, your burden of proof is to show cases where SSH password actually provides a true increase in real security. The meta conversation of "well, you obviously never have.." is not interesting.

I'll note, if it is the case that SSH passwords are actual security - then, presumably you would feel comfortable stating "yeah, the SSH key was stolen, but nothing needs to be done because the SSH key had a password on it!" It's like the locks on doors, it is for the honest people, the criminals are only slowed down but not stopped by most door locks.
by shiomiru | 2025-06-17 00:34:34+00:00
It's a bug, thanks for reporting. I've created a ticket: https://todo.sr.ht/~bptato/chawan/63

Could you please pull the macos-input branch from https://git.sr.ht/~bptato/chawan and report back on what the `a` file includes after opening a site and typing some commands? (Should be created in the current working directory.)
by Lammy | 2025-06-17 00:38:09+00:00
Complete speculation: They might not have had it in the first place or might not have had legal license to modify it themselves. The About Box shown in the article implies Microsoft just licensed MathType from Design Sciences, Inc. DSI got acquired by WIRIS just a few months before that in 2017 which may also have had something to do with it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MathType
by trod1234 | 2025-06-17 00:40:30+00:00
> I can guarantee you that bullying was around before 1966.

Sure, but it wasn't nearly as prevalent, exposure was limited, and the school's zero tolerance policies towards violence back then wouldn't get you (the victim) immediately expelled when that bully and his many friends lied.

You also didn't have all the other torturous exposures.
by bravesoul2 | 2025-06-17 00:40:31+00:00
The problem is if no one can describe something with words without an LLM to scour though every line of code it probably means it can't make sense to humans.

Maybe that is the idea (vibe coding ftw!) but if you want something people can understand and refine it is good to make it modular and decomposable and understandable. Then use AI to help you with the words for sure but at some level there is a human that understands the structure.
by dirtbag__dad | 2025-06-17 00:42:26+00:00
This article is inspiring. I haven’t had the moment to get my head out of the Cursor + biz logic water until now. Very cool to think about LLMs automagically creating changelogs, testing packaging when dependencies are bumped, forcing unit tests on features.

Is anyone aware of something like this? Maybe in the GitHub actions or pre-commit world?
by lamontcg | 2025-06-17 00:42:27+00:00
> At 25 mph, which I would hope would be the speed limit on roads next to schools

I regularly drive on a two lane 55mph highway that school buses stop on and let kids out.

It runs through a reservation and has no sidewalks at all.

> modern brakes are incredibly good.

They're probably not worth that much of a superlative, and they're fundamentally limited by the tires.

This is just a pet peeve of mine, since it is used by people to argue that modern vehicles are so much vastly better than cars in the 1980s that we should be able to drive at 90mph like it is nothing.

But reaction times and kinetic energy are a bitch, and once traction control / stability assist hits its limits and can't bail you out, you might find out the hard way that you're not as good of a driver as you think you are, and your brakes won't stop you in time.

> Speed is the factor in collisions

This I will definitely agree with. Say it louder for everyone in the back.
by gnabgib | 2025-06-17 00:43:09+00:00
Doesn't seem to be the title, and yet the last submission has a similar title - so maybe it was renamed?

Title: Comment on The Illusion of Thinking: Understanding the Strengths and Limitations of Reasoning Models via the Lens of Problem Complexity (which would need an edit to fit in 80 chars)

Discussion (15 points, 18 hours ago, 11 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44287172

Related:

An article with exactly this name (57 points, 8 days ago, 51 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44221900

"The Illusion of Thinking" – Thoughts on This Important Paper (54 points, 7 days ago, 75 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44234626

Original The Illusion of Thinking: Strengths and limitations of reasoning models (486 points, 10 days ago, 270 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44203562
by vkou | 2025-06-17 00:43:10+00:00
> The fact remains that distrust of science continues to grow.

Of course it does, billion-dollar interests who have a vested interest in attacking it have a well-funded propaganda arm, and as we've been discovering over the past century - angry, loud, and frequently repeated bullshit with a profit motive floods any signal out of the room.

What's really sad is people who have legitimate concerns or desires for improvement hitching their horse-cart to the former.

No amount of peer review or replication is going to convince someone whose fortune is built on peddling snake oil.

> Ignoring the problem is not going to fix it,

Here's a solution. Hold the people making these attacks to the same level of rigor as what they are attacking. Stop giving proven liars a loudspeaker. The day the press will do that is the day some meaningful progress to fix that damage may be made.

Until you do that, we're going to continue getting shit outcomes.
by RestlessMind | 2025-06-17 00:43:15+00:00
Gmail as a product was simple - a better version of Yahoo or Hotmail where you don't have to worry about storage size nor have to sort emails into various folders. Search worked magically and spam filters were better than anyone else. In short, UX was superior.

Hangouts UX sucked big time. I remember lots of frustrating sessions with my parents about why video calls weren't going through, or how can some random family member join our family thread when they don't have a Gmail account etc.
by lelanthran | 2025-06-17 00:43:28+00:00
> OP doesn’t feel that novel. I read the code and it all has been done before.

Thank you for reading the code. Where was this done before?

A few projects were mentioned in this page (Yoffee, Lit, etc) but after closer examination none of them appear to be "define an object in simple terms, then use HTML to inline it", where object is "HTML fragment with methods in a script element that are scoped only to that specific instance of the fragment".

I'm curious to see prior usage.
by math_dandy | 2025-06-17 00:44:56+00:00
TLDR: Browser vendors made Shadow DOM for themselves.

Browser implementors use Shadow DOM extensively under the hood for built-in HTML elements with internal structure like range inputs, audio and video controls, etc. These elements absolutely need to work everywhere and be consistent, so extreme encapsulation and fixed api for styling them is an absolute must.

The Shadow DOM API is the browsers exposing, to developers, a foundational piece of functionality.

If you’re thinking about whether Shadow DOM is appropriate for your use case, consider how/why the vendors use it —- when an element’s API needs to be totally locked down to guarantee it works in contexts they have no control over. Conversely, if your potential use case is scoped to a single project, the encapsulation imposed (necessarily!) by Shadow DOM is probably overkill.

Web components are a decent way to make reusable UI, but if they don’t have strong encapsulation needs, you might avoid Shadow DOM.
by wizardforhire | 2025-06-17 00:45:05+00:00
In this day and age I dont understand why there isnt a more successful fork of firefox or a new opensource browser thats more succesful with privacy as a concern. My only speculation is collective lazyness and lack of sex appeal as new technologies have emerged. I’m probably biased as I lived through the browser wars. I guess I’m probably projecting combined with curiosity. I know most of the old greybeards have moved on and those of us left are stuck carrying the torch, but man it sure seems the culture has been eroded significantly. Case in point back in my day it seemed like there was a new browser every few months or so. I’m done ranting, I’ve got kids to yell at to get off my lawn.
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-06-17 00:45:54+00:00
That's more of a double-edged sword hack than "using DRM". The theory of DRM is for the system to restrict the content from the user, i.e. the system is adversarial to the user and vice versa.

What Signal is doing is trying to get the system to restrict the content from the rest of the system. Which might work as a transient hack but doesn't actually work to protect the user when the system is adversarial, because Microsoft (the adversary) has the DRM private keys. Even some hypothetical DRM system which is effective in oppressing the user wouldn't prevent Microsoft from purloining the user's data whenever they want because they're the ones who make the DRM.
by davidw | 2025-06-17 00:46:08+00:00
One thing that I am not liking about the LLM world is that it seems to be tilting several things back in favor of BigCorps.

The open source world is one where antirez, working on his own off in Sicily, could create a project like Redis and then watch it snowball as people all over got involved.

Needing a subscription to something only a large company can provide makes me unhappy.

We'll see if "can be run locally" models for more specific tasks like coding will become a thing, I guess.
by rtpg | 2025-06-17 00:47:39+00:00
The theory is that because Dark offers a nice interactive environment when you have a request come in you can inspect the data, "fix up" your code, rerun it quite smoothly. Completely removing the deploy question. Really good for glue projects IMO. Think stuff like google scripts (though google scripts are much more miserable to ues)

Many moons ago I had tried to play with Dark and unfortunately the surrounding language stuff really didn't work out for me though. I really liked the concept but ultimately I think I would have preferred if they had just built out the environment on some other language.

Even just lua would work decently well for their use cases, if paired with a good "standard" library.

The UI was fun to use, in any case.

EDIT: to be clear I'm a bit of a type weenie but for the stuff Dark could be good with you really sometimes just want to look at the JSON and poke at it, and your type systems aren't going to be helping you _that much_
by Groxx | 2025-06-17 00:51:23+00:00
>Why not just try it and if it's sucks throw it away, the same way you might with a new food item? That argument doesn't work on them for some reason.

Even mediocre food is still functional, and usually still enjoyable.

Quite a lot of paid software does not meet that bar. It's far more likely to both cost you money and waste a few hours (much longer than that food demanded, unless you got food poisoning).

I generally agree it's far out of balance, but I do think it's broadly understandable.
by lmm | 2025-06-17 00:55:27+00:00
The telephone network was famously thought to be impossible to bootstrap even 50 years ago. We won't ever be able to "black start" our computers unless someone cares enough to put money and effort into it. (Also all technological civilisation is somewhat self-dependent e.g. do you think it would be possible to make microprocessors without running computers?). Possibly reproducible build efforts and things like Guix will make it happen.
by addaon | 2025-06-17 00:56:03+00:00
> I can swear a lot while talking. I have never written a curse word in my code, especially professionally.

I can swear a lot while talking. I have, once or twice, written curses in my code, sometimes including curse words, especially professionally. "Within this function lie buried the bones of those intrepid explorers who came before you. It is hallowed ground, and cursed be thy soul if you re-order anything without a +2 from a priest. You have been warned."