MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Defletter | 2025-06-25 01:35:30+00:00
Your fundamental problem is that you presume and assert that "ideas that apply to individuals" cannot also apply to groups, communities, and institutions. You realise such things are, ultimately, just collections of individuals, right? Institutions are not freak forces of nature either, they are created by people, for people, to act on behalf of people; the institutions act as individuals (hence why you can sue an institution like it's a person) and is comprised of people. Obviously, there are things institutions can do that an individual cannot and vice versa (eg: an institution cannot marry), but this clean and objective divide you continue to insist upon is simply untrue.

> Trust between nations is a concept that exists, but it's not the same thing as trust between individuals.

And here's an example of the above: you reject my claim that trust between nations and trust between individuals are comparable and within the same category because it's not literally the exact same thing. Okay, let's follow your logic: trust between people and their institutions are not the same concept; trust people family members and friends are not the same concept; trust people have in their tools or craft is not the same concept. It is not useful or relevant to compare any of this because if it's not literally the exact same thing in the exact same context, it's irreconcilably different.

> You have taken the idea that reparations are right

Not quite. I am arguing for reparations as a form of devil's advocacy (relevant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44364746). What I've been doing in this thread is questioning your (and others') unwavering loyalty to finance obligations regardless of whether they span centuries to where there's no overlap whatsoever between those who agreed to the obligations, those who are paying for it, and those who are receiving it. You do not bat an eye at this, and you seem somewhat exasperated at needing to explain it, asserting the apparent obviousness of it. But when it comes to material human suffering and the legacies of injustice that can still be felt and witnessed today, the idea of attempting to remedy this does not compute.

---

Put simply, you are so entirely entrenched in this "don't therefore can't" mentality that you cannot comprehend alternatives. It's like when people cannot comprehend hypotheticals: What if you didn't work here? But I do. Yes, but what if? But I do work here. Societies could, if they wanted to, see past injustice as something contemporary society has an obligation to resolve... we don't do this because we've chosen not to, not because it's impossible to do so. And the choice to do so or not is a moral decision. Ditto with choosing to prioritise financial obligations over remedying human suffering. I'm sorry that you are unable to see this. I'm not going to entertain this conversation further.
by Nursie | 2025-06-25 01:36:30+00:00
I agree with your last line, but the rest not so much - Yes, the monopoly on violence exists, but the idea that one must always consider that the state will kill people on the introduction of a simple fine is just silly.

Looking at the monopoly on violence as the backing to the entire system of law? Sure, it's absolutely there. It's something to consider when discussing the merits of the existence of the state at all.

But within the context of the state already existing, looking at the introduction of an individual rule that may result in a fine through the lens of "is this worth someone's life" is nonsensical - it's just not going to cost anyone's life, it's not a reasonable thing to consider. Especially outside of countries where law enforcement are routinely armed and trigger-happy - there is no reasonable pathway to a fine costing lives. What we do see is fines just going unpaid if they can't be recovered by administrative means.

It is notable that in both your and the GPs timelines, the other party turns to violence first. Your line -

> What if the bank tries to stop you doing that? Then you send in armed police.

really seems only to apply in places like the US where you have a bigger problem with police killings and a societal leaning towards firearms and escalation of violence. The UK (for example) will only send in armed police as a response to situations in which the other party is also armed and a credible threat to lives, they won't just start shooting.

tl;dr - considering the consequences of complete societal breakdown as part of your scenario when deciding to introduce a new type of parking fine is... well it's fricken hilarious really.
by phs318u | 2025-06-25 01:36:48+00:00
Thanks. That was a great read. Somehow missed that. Two points to make:

1. Not sure why osnews charactarised this as an "epic rant". I thought he was remarkably restrained in his tone given both his role and his (reasonable) expectations.

2. This to me shows just how hard it is for leaders at large companies to change the culture. At some point of scaling up, organisations stop being aligned to the vision of the leadership and become a seemingly autonomous entity. The craziness that Bill highlights in his email is clearly not a reflection of his vision, and in fact had materialised despite his clear wishes.

When we think about how "easy" it would be for the executive of a large organisation to change it, those of us not experienced at this level have an unrealistic expectation. It's my belief that large organisations are almost impossible to "turn around" once they get big enough and develop enough momentum regarding cultural/behavioural norms. These norms survive staff changes at pretty much every level. Changing it requires a multi-year absolute commitment from the top down. Pretty rare in my experience.
by k310 | 2025-06-25 01:37:02+00:00
Page 129 of that volume: Palo Alto Tiny BASIC, by Li-Chen Wang.

A copy is up a Github. Frozen for preservation. [0]

A handy listing [1]

A web version is available. [2]

Run it: [3]

[0] https://github.com/pvmm/tinybasic?tab=readme-ov-file

[1] https://raw.githubusercontent.com/pvmm/tinybasic/refs/heads/...

[2] https://troypress.com/palo-alto-tiny-basic-in-your-browser/

[3] https://geddd.github.io/BAM-BASIC-programs/Tiny_BASIC_IL_in_...
by WaywardGeek | 2025-06-25 01:38:08+00:00
As you all know, the UK tried to force Apple to give them a secret mass surveillance capability, not just for UK citizens, but Apple users globally. As a result, Apple disabled "Advanced Data Protection" in the UK.

OpenADP is Open source Advanced Data Protection for everyone. It defends vs secret mass surveillance via software transparency and distributed trust. That distributed trust is built through OpenADP servers run by volunteers around the world.

OpenADP has servers in the US, but for resistance to any one government, volunteers in several countries are needed. There is a quick-start guide for running OpenADP on a Raspberry PI. If you've got a Raspberry PI to spare, and some free time, consider volunteering for OpenADP.
by keepamovin | 2025-06-25 01:38:28+00:00
Are patents (and trade secrets) the right model for protection?

I've been wondering this. It seems that, they were the right model, back in The Day. Back then, what you had (in my model) was a few inventors, cash-strapped or with wealthy benefactors, and they wanted to protect their inventions. Poor inventors, in other words.

I imagine that, back in the day, with smaller government and regulations, and everything 'cheaper' even 'litigating' the case would have been achievable for such poor inventors. In such a scenario, the patent could be a tool of the tiny against the behemoth exploiter (ye olde robbere barron). Ie, true protection.

These days however? Not so much. To litigate takes years and millions, effectively denying the protection to those who could most benefit from it. The "high bar" to protect your protection creates an incentive where you see conglomerates emerge that use that cost to coerce settlements, and make a business out of it by purchasing many such supposedly 'protective amulets'.

It's also a good model for the 'protective amulet forging guilt' (ie, lawyers). Who will often tell you, "Have you considered a patent? We can help if you choose to go that route."

But is the patent, once so lauded, useful and genuine - really the right model for protection today? Could it be reformed? Or should it be relegated to the past? Like mint coin collections of yesteryear - now without real value, except for collectors and traders (ye olde patent trollus).

I don't know. Thoughts, anyone? Especially valuable I think would be personal experience and the thoughts gained from that, as well as any big picture reflections.
by LegionMammal978 | 2025-06-25 01:40:20+00:00
Almost all reals are uncomputable. Also, almost all reals are absolutely normal. But the two concepts have nothing to do with each other.

> Yes some normal numbers are in the constructable reals, but it is a measure zero subset.

Almost all irrational computable reals (in the sense of natural density) will be normal, for any sane enumeration. Just because a real number is computable doesn't mean it's less likely to be normal.
by nothrabannosir | 2025-06-25 01:43:00+00:00
Nix is overkill for any of the things it can do. Writing a simple portable script is no exception.

But: it’s the same skill set for every one of those things. This is why it’s an investment worth making IMO. If you’re only going to ever use it for one single thing, it’s not worth it. But once you’ve learned it you’ll be able to leverage it everywhere.

Python scripts with or without dependencies, uv or no uv (through the excellent uv2nix which I can’t plug enough, no affiliation), bash scripts with any dependencies you want, etc. suddenly it’s your choice and you can actually choose the right tool for the job.

Not trying to derail the thread but it feels germane in this context. All these little packaging problems go away with Nix, and are replaced by one single giant problem XD
by lysp | 2025-06-25 01:43:24+00:00
They were aware the site was at risk of strike prior to it happening.

1 - they moved uranium off site (or may do that regularly as standard practice).

2 - centrifuges were likely moved off site just to prior to the strike.

The whole facility looks to only take a small area, around the size of a basketball court, so have no doubt this will be able to set up in another small area. Possibly multiple decentralised areas after this attack.
by cjbgkagh | 2025-06-25 01:43:58+00:00
You can calculate these things based on wing size and airspeed and neither are hard to figure out, it’s clearly subsonic and it’s been seen in public.

While skunkworks are certainly a thing they’re not hiding some Star Trek antigravity device, physics is still physics and physical limits are physical limits. Look at the Otto Celera 500L if you want to see what attacking physical limits looks like. It’s an engineering problem and the fundamentals are well understood. The real magic is in creating the money to pay for it.
by pwnna | 2025-06-25 01:44:11+00:00
So I don't understand where the meme of the blurry super-resolution based down sampling comes from. If that is the case, what is super-resolution antialiasing[1] then? Images when rendered at higher resolution than downsampled is usually sharper than an image rendered at the downsampled resolution. This is because it will preserve the high frequency component of the signal better. There are multiple other downsampling-based anti-aliasing technique which all will boost signal-to-noise ratio. Does this not work for UI as well? Most of it is vector graphics. Bitmap icons will need to be updated but the rest of UI (text) should be sharp.

I know people mention 1 pixel lines (perfectly horizontal or vertical). Then they go multiply by 1.25 or whatever and go like: oh look 0.25 pixel is a lie therefore fractional scaling is fake (sway documentation mentions this to this day). This doesn't seem like it holds in practice other than from this very niche mental exercise. At sufficiently high resolution, which is the case for the display we are talking about, do you even want 1 pixel lines? It will be barely visible. I have this problem now on Linux. Further, if the line is draggable, the click zones becomes too small as well. You probably want something that is of some physical dimension which will probably take multiple pixels anyways. At that point you probably want some antialiasing that you won't be able to see anyways. Further, single pixel lines don't have to be exactly the color the program prescribed anyway. Most of the perfectly horizontal and vertical lines on my screen are all grey-ish. Having some AA artifacts will change its color slightly but don't think it will have material impact. If this is the case, then super resolution should work pretty well.

Then really what you want is something as follows:

1. Super-resolution scaling for most "desktop" applications.

2. Give the native resolution to some full screen applications (games, video playback), and possibly give the native resolution of a rectangle on screen to applications like video playback. This avoids rendering at a higher resolution then downsampling which can introduce information loss for these applications.

3. Now do this on a per-application basis, instead of per-session basis. No Linux DE implements this. KDE implements per-session which is not flexible enough. You have to do it for each application on launch.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersampling
by ummmzokbro | 2025-06-25 01:44:24+00:00
It very much is double taxation and to state otherwise seems disingenuous.

Taxing corporate profits is layering an additional (hefty) tax on its beneficiaries - people.

Search 'double taxation' and you will see this term is generally accepted by financial professionals in many jurisdictions to describe the above scenario where a corporation makes a profit, is taxed at the corporate level and then additional taxes must also be paid by the receiver of the already taxed funds (ex. shareholder, bondholder).
by bcrl | 2025-06-25 01:45:11+00:00
I will put relevant details in a resume or cover letter that are not meant for public consumption on LinkedIn. There are plenty of people that can't go into too many details in public about their current role because of NDAs.

Hiring is messy. It always has been and always will be precisely because it involves human beings. I've been on both sides of the table often enough, and every hire is ultimately a coin toss. You try to weed out the people that are obviously horrible, and give a chance to the people that seem like they have a few useful strengths or might be able to grow into the role. Most important is that they can fit in with a team. There is no such thing as a perfect hire, and I would not trust a computer to do a decent job of building a team that works well together.

Moreover, I would have deeply serious concerns if someone working for me in a hiring position complained that resumes aren't in a standardized format. How are they going to cope with the emotional mess that managing humans is as soon as someone steps outside of the predefined box they have put them in?

"Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."
by easton | 2025-06-25 01:45:35+00:00
disclaimer: I used to commit to winget a lot and now I don’t.

…but is it really less secure than brew or choco? The installers are coming from reasonably trusted sources and are scanned for malware by MS, a community contributor has to approve the manifest changes, and the manifests themselves can’t contain arbitrary code outside of the linked executable. Feels about as good as you can get without requiring the ISVs themselves to maintain repos.
by glenstein | 2025-06-25 01:45:43+00:00
I was intentionally broad in my claim to account for those possibilities, but also I would reject the idea that instant reproducibility is generally out of reach on account of contextual variance for a number of reasons.

Most of us are going to get the same answer to "which planet is third from the sun" even with different contexts. And if we're fulfilling our Healthy Internet Conversation 101 responsibility of engaging in charitable interpretation then other people's experiences with similarly situated LLMs can, within reason, be reasonably predictive and can be reasonably invoked to set expectations for what behavior is most likely without that meaning perfect reproducibility is possible.
by marc_abonce | 2025-06-25 01:47:34+00:00
I wouldn't consider a GitHub full of "tutorial apps" as a red flag because it's very easy to underestimate the work behind a project when looking at it from an outsider's perspective.

This is especially true for code that was voluntarily written in someone's free time. For example, each work day is made of 8 hours 5 days a week, but a "hobby day" is more like 3 hours every other weekend. So I would consider one or two features per year to be a pretty productive pace for a volunteer, free time project. Or, worst case scenario, I would just be neutral about it and ignore those projects.
Detailed Guide to Developing Flutter Plugins for HarmonyOS
by flfljh | 2025-06-25 01:47:48+00:00
# Detailed Guide to Developing Flutter Plugins for HarmonyOS

## 0. Environment Setup

*Prerequisite*: Configure HarmonyOS Flutter environment *Reference*: [HarmonyOS Flutter Environment Setup Guide](https://juejin.cn/post/7317214081261207603) *Note*: Downloading and compiling the engine is time-consuming. Pre-built engines are available upon request.

------

## 1. Obtain Original Plugin Code

``` git clone <original_plugin_repository> ```

------

## 2. Generate OHOS Directory

``` # Option 1: Direct generation (may fail) flutter create -t plugin --platforms ohos

# Option 2: Create demo project and copy flutter create -t plugin --platforms ohos demo cp -r demo/ohos ./ ```

------

## 3. Configure Local Dependency

Add local dependency in `pubspec.yaml`:

``` dependencies: your_plugin: path: ../path_to_plugin ```

![iwEcAqNwbmcDAQTRCQAF0QS4BrDBDM9ETs38UAcIagyL5gAAB9IGLKvECAAJomltCgAL0gALGaw.png_620x10000q90](https://p.ipic.vip/kjme9r.jpg)

## 4. Build Plugin Package

```bash flutter build hap \ --local-engine-src-path /path/to/ohos_flutter/src \ --local-engine ohos_release_arm64 ```

*Successful Output*:

```markdown √ Built build/hap/release/entry-release.hap (XX.XMB) ```

------

## 5. Verify Generated Files

After successful build:

![1](https://p.ipic.vip/6k3z3k.png)

## 6. Locate Plugin HAR Package

Plugin output directory:

```markdown your_plugin/ohos/build/outputs/ └── har └── your_plugin_ohos.har # Plugin package ```

![2](https://p.ipic.vip/2cjnbx.png)

## 7. Add HAR to Demo Project

Copy HAR to demo project:

bash

```bash cp your_plugin_ohos.har demo_portal/module/ohos/libs/ ```

------

![3](https://p.ipic.vip/n9sgfo.png)

## 8. Configure HAR Dependency

![4](https://p.ipic.vip/wlkxik.png)

## 9. Initialize Plugin

![5](https://p.ipic.vip/ee33ah.png)

## 10. Test Plugin Functionality

![6](https://p.ipic.vip/4fy0hk.png)

![7](https://p.ipic.vip/w30wew.png)

## 11. Develop Native Implementation

Follow these steps for native development:

1. Analyze existing iOS/Android native logic 2. Create HarmonyOS equivalent in `ohos/src/main/cpp/` 3. Implement platform interface:cpp
by _verandaguy | 2025-06-25 01:48:42+00:00
I'm not saying that doing this can't be fun, or even good to learn off of, but when it's touted as a feature or a spec, I do have to ask if it's a legitimate point.

If you build the world's widest bike, that's cool, and I'm happy you had fun doing it, but it's probably not the most useful optimization goal for a bike.
by derefr | 2025-06-25 01:51:06+00:00
> Instead they play games about mortgage interest deductions because they want to incentivize certain kinds of living arrangements over others and give handouts to some voters but not others.

Your "they" is doing a lot of work here.

In reality, this system isn't top-down; it's bottom-up. Influential groups of voters (corporations, sure, but also just various stripes of "rich people" — and even upper-middle-class people at the municipal level) go out and lobby their local and regional representatives to get exceptions carved out for them (and, mostly coincidentally, people like them.)

The voters who don't get handouts are the ones who have no political influence.

(Fun fact: our current situation with capital-gains taxes, was an attempt to "rationalize" a system that was previously similarly cronyist in shape. It used to be that there were particular exceptions carved out for investment classes A and B and C that rich-and-influential people invested in, and none carved out for your regular Joe. People got mad, and the government's solution — rather than removing the carve-outs — was to just make them equally accessible to everyone.)
by assbuttbuttass | 2025-06-25 01:51:55+00:00
Destroying Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities was never the real goal, it's just a convenient casus belli (the same as WMDs in Iraq). Ted Cruz openly stated in an interview last week that the goal is regime change in Iran.

The goal with these preliminary strikes is to get Iran to retaliate, and use that as justification for further escalation.
by jksmith | 2025-06-25 01:52:20+00:00
My first company out of uni was a company that sold a tv advertising application written in dos. It did all the reports, put together spot advert packages, measuring reach and frequency, cost per point, etc. Used Neilsen ratings for data. The company at the time paid commissions along with salary to programmers. The app still lives on in windows, but I've been out of that game for decades. Written in TP for dos, then Delphi for windows.
by _verandaguy | 2025-06-25 01:52:21+00:00
Right, these are more useful features, IMO, than the ability to rip through 125GB of data every second. I can live without that, but syntax highlighting's a critical feature, and for some languages LSP support is a really big nice-to-have. I think both of those are, in this day and age, really legitimate first-class/built-in features. So are fuzzy searching and PCRE find&replace.

Add on a well-built plugin API, and this will be nominally competitive with the likes of vim and emacs.
by PaulDavisThe1st | 2025-06-25 01:53:01+00:00
It is generally accepted by financial professionals with a particular political and ideological outlook on the tax system.

You do some work, you earn income, which presumably (or hopefully) exceeds your perception of the cost of doing the work to you. You pay taxes on that. You then give the money to some third party, as a gift, for goods & services, to repay a debt, or whatever reason. Subject to the stipulations of the tax code, the recipient pays taxes on whatever they receive (e.g. for gifts there is a threshold, for debts they will pay tax only on the interest received etc. etc.). Nobody calls this double taxation.

A corporation does what it does, earns income, which hopefully exceeds the cost of doing whatever it is that it does. They pay taxes on that. They then give the money to some third party, as a dividend or bond repayment or whatever other reason. Subject to the stipulations of the tax code, the recipient pays taxes on whatever they receive. Some people try to call this double taxation.

Trying to dress this up with concepts like "the shareholders receive the profit, but taxes have already been paid on that" is just missing the point entirely: our tax system taxes money when it moves, not based on how it is labelled (at least when it works as intended).
by xorbax | 2025-06-25 01:53:25+00:00
Because it appears to be a massive data breach involving unqualified and unvetted random citizens. It was useless in terms of its own states goals, was randomly abandoned, and likely did damage that will take years to fully comprehend. Using our tax dollars, destroying our investments, and we're supposed to brush it off as no big deal? Were it some 20 year old hired by Soros I'm sure you'd muster interest.