MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Springtime | 2025-06-07 09:09:05+00:00
This is a reasonable reaction to this. I pause when accusations jump immediately to spying as other explanations can exist without adding to FUD and noise online. It's not always difficult to find the purpose of something either with a bit more digging.

I've seen something similar occur for some popular Youtube videos, too. A video author will fire up some arbitrary Windows setup, which can come bundled with third-party software and use Bing for various things including weather in the taskbar and queries in the search bar, then open Wireshark to scaremonger with DNS queries, accusing Microsoft of spying just for requests made by the services/programs/features they have enabled in their install.

When often cursory lookups of the domains in search engines show what their purpose is and are contrary to such videos' alleged (and worse, guessed) purpose.

It's a problem as there are legitimate concerns with certain aspects of Windows software with non-privacy respecting defaults but for an average user it gets muddled with irrelevant/incomplete info that doesn't lead to high quality actionable results.
by JdeBP | 2025-06-07 09:10:52+00:00
One doesn't explain a present day claim in the past tense. (-:

In the days of the BBS boom, our cables had all of the wires, our modems did all of the signals and had lights for them on their front panels, and our operating systems either had proper interrupt-driven access to the UARTs as standard or we used things like FOSSIL. Hardware flow control was pretty much a standard feature in those times, for consumer stuff that one could buy off the shelf. Not having it did not sell, in the times when manufacturers were pushing v.42 and then v.92 in their marketing literature.

If you are saying that now people have to worry about not having hardware flow control again, then that's further demonstration of how things have regressed. Serial cables with only 4 wires used to be something that was passé.

That said, a lot of the mythos about flow control has grown up because of conflation with the limits of access to a 1-byte FIFO 8250 UART on the ISA bus via MS/PC/DR-DOS. That was generally agreed to cap things at around 9600 BPS. But then along came 16550s with 16-byte FIFOs, and later still southbridges and hardware that just pretended that an ISA bus even existed. And OS/2 and Windows NT. Along with all of the vendors who were selling ISA or PCI internal modems.

It really never was the case that there was one fixed bit-rate that was "the fastest" above which suddenly everything changed. And nowadays the UARTs that modern PC users have (the internal ones usually secretly still being there in the chipsets) are devices on what is at minimum (and almost never) a "low" speed 1.5Mb/s version 1.0 USB. The aforementioned FT232R has 256-byte transmit and 128-byte receive FIFOs, and its datasheet claims up to 3M BPS.

Stating a serial port speed limit from roughly 1989 in 2025 is quite bizarre to those of us who lived through the BBS boom. It must have arrived in a DeLorean driven by some bloke named Marty.
by imiric | 2025-06-07 09:13:04+00:00
That's a red herring question that's impossible to answer.

The point is not that Meta and other companies break laws. It's that they keep breaking the same ones related to privacy. They do this because their business model depends on exploiting their users' data. Privacy laws to them are a nuisance that directly impact their revenue, so if they calculate that the revenue from their activity is greater than the fines, then it's just the cost of doing business. If, OTOH, it turns out that the amount of resources they would need to expend on fines or to comply with the laws are greater than the possible revenue, i.e. the juice is not worth the squeeze, then they simply bail out and stop doing business in that jurisdiction. But so far, even billion-dollar fines are clearly lower than their revenues.

It's a simple numbers game, so I'm not sure what your argument is.
by audunw | 2025-06-07 09:13:31+00:00
If the goal is viable commercial operation, Helion has vast benefits over the other approaches when it comes to the economics of turning the fusion energy into electricity.

All approaches have huge hurdles to overcome. Helion may have bigger challenges on the Q side, but all-in-all I think the probabilities of being viable ends up similar.

All other fusion power plants are thermal power plants. I suspect all thermal power plants will end up being economically unviable in the world of renewables, for various reasons. They’re just too bulky and slow, and require special consideration wrt cooling. It’s one of the reasons why gas power is king these days.

If we think really far ahead, the scaling of thermal power plants is limited by the heat they put out. It ends up contributing to global warming just from the thermal forcing they apply to the environment. The effect of the ones we have today are already surprisingly significant. Helion is a path to being able to produce a huge amount of energy with fairly limited impact on the environment (eventually limited by the thermal energy they dump, but perhaps they can use thermal radiation panels that dump the waste heat energy directly to space)
by hermitcrab | 2025-06-07 09:14:07+00:00
>The only unique identifier for an aircraft across its lifecycle from production to end of life is a combination of the manufacturer, make and serial number. >I know this because I am on (for better or worse) the patent that involves defining that as a unique identifier for aircraft.

Isn't that blindingly obvious? If so, how did it get to be a patent? And is someone now extracting rent from it?
by Timwi | 2025-06-07 09:14:31+00:00
Although I'm in a similar boat as you, I don't think access to ChatGPT would have helped because it's still much too sycophantic to tell people the kinds of things they need to hear in order to learn interpersonal skills.

If you use ChatGPT like people use /r/AmITheAsshole, you'll never get a YTA.
by BrandoElFollito | 2025-06-07 09:14:51+00:00
Yes, you are of course right.

My point is that even with a formal advanced education on an area (say -- physics), you are bound to weight the "consensual appraisal" of the authors of a claim to make up your mind.

With my PhD (and having left academia after it), I can easily determine that homeopathy is physical bullshit. It may very well work for different reasons (placebo effect), but when I read about people who try to explain that cosmic rays this or quantum energy that -- I know they are idiots.

And then came Jacques Benveniste who was published in Nature with his "water memory" hypothesis. Holy shit - physics has just changed! Why? Because it was in Nature.

Nature then realized this is a scam, retracted the paper, and physics is back on its (unfortunately) boring track (there is nothing that physicists hope more than a radical revolution in physics)

So we need to trust people who have the right titles, university affiliation, track record on TV and whatnot. In biology, despite having worked in some areas there, I have even less trust in myself.

Then comes the "-logy" soft science where it is not difficult to check that what they say makes sense or not just by looking at the math (which is simple, but can be very deceiving)

And then comes math itself. There can be a definitive answer, as you say, but the proof is completely beyond mere mortals. If you look at the Fermat's conjecture proof (a very simple conjecture, which also makes its beauty), it is completely unreadable for someone who is not in the subject. I did a lot of math and past the 10th line I am done.
by firesteelrain | 2025-06-07 09:16:12+00:00
It’s really not hard. I added onto a house I owned back in 2009 after returning from Iraq and saving a bunch of money. IRS also gave me a huge refund that year. Something with GWOT vets and taxes with combat pay. Anyhow, converted a covered porch to a room, had permits, raised the floor, added electric, energy efficient Argon gas windows, etc. You give 84 lumber the blue print plans from the architect and they tell you how much material you need. After I got to the stage to add furring strips for the concrete block part and insulation (which is easy too), I was ready to add the dry wall. Just lift it up to the wall then screw it in. Dry wall tape, corner bead, and mud to cover the seams. Orange peel can hide imperfections. Then paint. Pretty straightforward
by zbentley | 2025-06-07 09:20:01+00:00
No, sorry. Testing answers “does the feature work?”. Usage telemetry answers questions like “was the feature a good idea?” and “are enough users successfully using the feature to justify the cost of creating/maintaining it?”.

Those are not questions for which pre-release testing can provide answers.

I’m not weighing in on opt-in vs opt-out, or on anonymization. Just saying that testing doesn’t cover this niche.

(Separately, I think you’re largely wrong about testing as well: crash dump collection is about finding issues that pre-release testing wouldn’t find at any price. For things like OSes especially, the permutation space of hardware * software * user behavior is too large. While I’m sure a few companies use crash reporting as a crutch to support anemic QA programs, I do not think that many do.)
by KronisLV | 2025-06-07 09:20:34+00:00
Over here in Latvia they established a deposit system where drinks cost more to buy at the store but you get that money back (store credit, or you can just donate it) when you bring the bottles/cans to a drop off point.

I haven’t really tossed away a bottle/can in years. I mean, I didn’t really use to do that previously anyways, but now I don’t even throw them into the regular trash, instead collect them in a separate bag.

I’d say it’s all about some sort of an incentive.
by johnisgood | 2025-06-07 09:20:48+00:00
I have not heard of it, but considering it seems easy to install, I might recommend it to others.

I will keep installing Void and Arch on my own systems, however.

Thanks for the suggestion!

BTW, according to the archive.org you sent me, Begginer's Guide indeed turned out to be the Installation Guide: https://web.archive.org/web/20200708051126/https://wiki.arch...

(I just selected a newer version from your link).

So I think it indeed was the Beginner's Guide, or even the old version of Installation Guide that I really liked, it had all the things you need to get it up and running. Now everything is in its own wiki page and it is really annoying when I just want to use links in one or two tty and do the installing from tty1.
by DrSiemer | 2025-06-07 09:22:46+00:00
We're not that far off from generated pixel art looking indistinguishable from the real deal.

Friends working together generally only happens when they are still in school and have a surplus of time for projects that do not generate a consistent paycheck. As somebody with a lot of ideas and plenty of capable friends, my experience is that none of them are interested in doing unpaid work once they get on the job market.
by jorangreef | 2025-06-07 09:24:43+00:00
Yes, we drive with the seat belts on.

It’s not expensive.

Because we batch, this naturally separates the control plane from the data plane, amortizing assertions against the (larger) buffers now flowing through the data plane.

We do also have some intensive online verification checks, and these are gated behind a comptime flag.

Finally, we compile Zig with ReleaseSafe and further have all Zig’s own assertions enabled. For example, checked arithmetic for bounds overflow, which is not something you see enabled by default in safe builds for most languages, but which is critically important for safety.

The reason why all this is so important, is because if your program does something wrong in production, with people’s money, you want to know about it immediately and shutdown safely.

In other words, production is where you most need the safety, not in development (although you obviously want them there too to find bugs faster). But again, it’s the bugs that make it to production that we’re trying to catch with assertions.
by thomasahle | 2025-06-07 09:24:48+00:00
Some specialized people could probably do 20x20, but I'd still expect them to make a mistake at 100x100. The level we needed for space crafts was much less than that, and we had many levels of checks to help catch errors afterwards.

I'd wager that 95% of humans wouldn't be able to do 10x10 multiplication without errors, even if we paid them $100 to get it right. There's a reason we had to invent lots of machines to help us.

It would be an interesting social studies paper to try and recreate some "LLMs can't think" papers with humans.
by aquariusDue | 2025-06-07 09:25:08+00:00
I feel like Grav was waaay ahead of its time. For the past year I've been chipping away at something inspired by it but written in Rust with KDL as the format for storing pages (and page data).

Hopefully I'll be able to release it by the end of the summer.

Grav was what convinced me that ultimately a CMS doesn't have to be married to a database, at least for what could be conventionally considered small websites.
by Timwi | 2025-06-07 09:25:28+00:00
Hm, this article is absolutely about a court order that exhibits “[...] almost no regard for the privacy of parties not involved to a given dispute”, so I don't get your point. If your point is that OpenAI are contesting it, then that doesn't refute the original point that the legal system allows NYT to issue such a court order in the first place that needs contesting. Ideally the privacy of uninvolved parties would be protected by the legal system, not by OpenAI.
by thyristan | 2025-06-07 09:26:24+00:00
Not all, not always. FPGAs usually have more memory than is accessible in parallel (because memory cells are a lot cheaper than routing grid) and most customers want some blockram anyways. So what your synthesis tool will do with very high LUT usage is to do input or output multiplexing. Or even halving your effective clock and doubling your "number" of LUTs by doing multi-step lookups in then non-parallel memory.
by johnisgood | 2025-06-07 09:27:26+00:00
Yeah but what is up with all that "." and "@"? Yes, I know what they are used for, but it is noise for me (i.e. "annotation noise"). This is why I do not use Zig. Zig is more like a lighter C++, not a C replacement, IMO.

I agree with everything flohofwoe said, especially this: "C is clearly too sloppy in many corners, but Zig might (currently) swing the pendulum a bit too far into the opposite direction and require too much 'annotation noise', especially when it comes to explicit integer casting in math expressions ".

Seems like I will keep using Odin and give C3 a try (still have yet to!).

Edit: I quite dislike that the downvote is used for "I disagree, I love Zig". sighs. Look at any Zig projects, it is full of annotation noise. I would not want to work with a language like that. You might, that is cool. Good for you.
by saagarjha | 2025-06-07 09:27:39+00:00
> As an example, consider the following JavaScript code…The generated bytecode for this JavaScript (under V8) is pretty bloated.

I don't think this is a good comparison. You're telling the compiler for Zig and Rust to pick something very modern to target, while I don't think V8 does the same. Optimizing JITs do actually know how to vectorize if the circumstances permit it.

Also, fwiw, most modern languages will do the same optimization you do with strings. Here's C++ for example: https://godbolt.org/z/TM5qdbTqh
by zbentley | 2025-06-07 09:27:40+00:00
> (paid) user studies

Would it count as a paid user study if enabling telemetry for Windows knocked $10 off of the price of your computer?

I can’t decide if that’s a neat idea or dystopic. Which, historically, probably means it’s dystopic and that plenty of people are already doing it.

I think “traditional” paid user studies often suffer from the same sampling problems that make political polls and behavioral paid medical studies less useful (you’re not surveying the average voter; you’re surveying the average voter who likes to answer polls). But maybe the “$10 off” idea would capture a broad enough demographic as to be more useful.
by JimDabell | 2025-06-07 09:28:51+00:00
> The ecosystem has fragmented further. Every app uses even more tools and frameworks, each with its own quirks and version incompatibilities

I disagree, at least partially. When this article was written, one of the biggest difficulties with front-end development was browser incompatibilities. Front-end developers were deploying to a hostile, inconsistent environment.

Things have gotten much better on that front. Browser support for standards is much better. People upgrade to the latest versions much more quickly. Systems that transcode from modern style to backwards compatible style, like Babel, TypeScript, Lightning CSS, or PostCSS, are commonplace.

The end result is that front-end developers are far more able to target modern APIs and functionality without worrying about compatibilities anywhere near as much. The browser environment has become much more consistent and capable.

Do some developers overcomplicate things with monstrous WebPack configs? They sure do. But the important thing is that they chose that. If you want to keep a super-simple build, you can do that too. You have the choice of how complicated your stack is; you don’t have a choice of how complicated the browser environment is.

> With E2EE and blockchain-based apps becoming mainstream

Blockchain isn’t mainstream, and hardly any front-end developers need to care about E2EE.

> Advanced interactions, personalization, and real-time updates require sophisticated client-side computation. We're beyond "thin clients"

This is marketing speak that doesn’t reflect the day-to-day work of a front-end developer.

> The Big 4 invest $millions in each interface and users expect the same level of UX/UI from anyone. Let's talk about simplicity on the surface :)

What do accounting firms have to do with this?
by johngai | 2025-06-07 09:29:12+00:00
We’ve been using CRMs and ERPs for years, and to be honest, most of them feel like they were built a decade ago—with outdated UX, bloated features we never use, and endless integrations just to do basic things.

A few months ago, we came across Barawave, a cloud-based AI-powered CRM + ERP that claimed to bring everything into one place: sales pipeline, customer comms, invoices, email marketing, and even WhatsApp/SMS—all with built-in automation.

Skeptical at first, we tested it with a small internal team. Two months later, our entire company has moved to Barawave.

Here’s what stood out:

Unified Inbox for SMS, WhatsApp, and email (we used to bounce between 3 tools for this)

AI Workflow Builder lets us automate repetitive tasks without needing Zapier or custom code

Invoices, subscriptions, and contracts are all in one dashboard—and it actually looks clean

Built-in client portal that our customers love

Fast support, and the founder actually jumps in to help

We’re now seeing faster response times, better client retention, and less time wasted switching tools.

If you’re tired of duct-taping 5 platforms together to run your agency/startup/team, I highly recommend checking out Barawave. It’s not perfect yet, but it’s getting updates weekly, and it’s already more usable than most “enterprise” tools we’ve paid thousands for.

Site: https://barawave.com

AMA if you want to know more about our setup or how we’re using it!
by GregarianChild | 2025-06-07 09:30:29+00:00
Modern GPU instructions are often VLIW and the compiler has to do a lot to schedule them. For example, Nvidia's Volta (from 2017) uses 128-bit to encode each instruction. According to [1], the 128 bits in a word are used as follows:

• at least 91 bits are used to encode the instruction

• at least 23 bits are used to encode control information associated to multiple instructions

• the remaining 14 bits appeared to be unused

AMD GPUs are similar, I believe. VLIW is good for instruction density. VLIW was unsuccessful in CPUs like Itanium because the compiler was expected to handle (unpredictable) memory access latency. This is not possible, even today, for largely sequential workloads. But GPUs typically run highly parallel workload (e.g. MatMul), and the dynamic scheduler can just 'swap out' threads that wait for memory loads. Your GPU will also perform terribly on highly sequential workloads.

[1] Z. Jia, M. Maggioni, B. Staiger, D. P. Scarpazza, Dissecting the NVIDIA Volta GPU Architecture via Microbenchmarking. https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.06826
by johnisgood | 2025-06-07 09:31:31+00:00
Many games I would like to play are Windows-only, so that kind of sucks, but then again, I installed Windows 11 just for this purpose. So not complaining, until my programs and games will stop working when Windows 13 (or whatever) comes out. I had to upgrade from Windows 9 to 11 because it became obsolete and unsupported.
by cedws | 2025-06-07 09:33:31+00:00
And if you say no, make plans for next time. As a Gen Z I’ve noticed a lot of people my age will always decline, never take initiative in making plans, then wonder why nobody hangs out with them.

I’ve started using what I call the ‘two strikes rule.’ If I make two attempts to invite someone out and they’re declined without reciprocative energy, I give up on maintaining the relationship. Same with conversations. I’m tired of dealing with social vampires.
by latexr | 2025-06-07 09:34:36+00:00
Can we please stop using the em-dash as a metric to “detect” LLM writing? It’s lazy and wrong. Plenty of people use em-dashes, it’s a useful punctuation mark. If humans didn’t use them, they wouldn’t be in the LLM training data.

There are better clues, like the kind of vague pretentious babble bad marketers use to make their products and ideas seem more profound than they are. It’s a type of bad writing which looks grandiose but is ultimately meaningless and that LLMs heavily pick up on.
by lightbulbish | 2025-06-07 09:35:18+00:00
Have you used it? Haven't heard about it but tbh I can see how it would eventually outperform cursor and/or windsurf. As LLMS get better, and more background tasks etc, will come, I don't see a sustainably moat around IDEs generally (except switching cost, but if it is mostly vs code... )

saw you did below. What is your experience so far? fast requests are great. Anything big lacking?

I was using roo code for a bit and it was cool to see how fast it was going compared to windsurf.
by brador | 2025-06-07 09:35:36+00:00
Many of you are failing to conprehend the potential scale of AI generated codebases.

Take note - there is no limit. Every feature you or the AI can prompt can be generated.

Imagine if you were immortal and given unlimited storage. Imagine what you could create.

That’s a prompt away.

Even now you’re still restricting your thinking to the old ways.
by userbinator | 2025-06-07 09:36:37+00:00
but the solution is to just bump the soft limit of open file descriptors in my shell

As you can see the max value reached is around 1600, which is way above the previous limit of 256.

Without asking and answering "why the hell does it need to keep so many files open", I don't think that's a good way to do things. Raising the limit is justified only if there is a real reason why the process needs to have that many files open simultaneously.