MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by matt_s | 2025-06-12 12:23:53+00:00
Apple is absolutely into the mature company phase if what they are coming up with is essentially a different bevel on buttons that "makes apps and system experiences more expressive and delightful". They are the IBM of the 90's at this point, way overvalued stock, not much room there for growth.

Setting that aside, video game visuals serve a different purpose than application UI widgets for menus, forms, buttons, etc. In a video game there are different reasons to highlight objects in a game world and relative to other objects and their movement or ability to move/interact with them. Objects in a game world might have their own light source, move in different ways so that the player knows its something they can interact with. If you look at open world games there are a lot of things happening visually in varying degrees of grabbing the gamers attention.

In a UI that is task oriented, like operating systems for PCs or phones, there needs to be less visual clutter, its not a game. It should be obvious to massive numbers of the population what function a UI element serves and accessibility standards come into play because often these OSes are used in corporate environments which should allow for people with different visual abilities to do their work.
by Ichthypresbyter | 2025-06-12 12:23:57+00:00
AIUI a Catholic monk who is also an ordained priest is addressed as Father not Brother (certainly this is true of the Dominicans I've met).

I think this is also true for Orthodox monks.

I'm not sure if there's a Christian denomination that has pastors who aren't priests, and also has monks. So this sounds to me more like a situation where all fellow members of the church are addressed as Brother/Sister.
by SecretDreams | 2025-06-12 12:24:11+00:00
There's footage after takeoff of it descending with the air ram deployed, no engine power, gears down, and flaps up.

TBD on the cause, but loss of engines for some reason seems to be the case.

I do agree that a lot of info comes out first week that isn't all right. I'm just reciting what's been shown in videos.
by infecto | 2025-06-12 12:24:23+00:00
The why respond like this is because you lack citations and provided an opinion that is not intuitive. Enlighten us instead of speaking like it’s all fact and share sources. You only stated suicide rates in the over 60 group and did not mention whistleblowers. You are again speaking on such authority without citing your supposed well known data.

I have looked before and have never seen specific studies on suicide rates in whistleblower groups but there is an awful lot of studies suggesting higher rates of depression and suicidal thoughts. Again I don’t know this case well but until there is evidence of murder it feels like MAHA feelings instead of science. I can think of a number of cases in recent history where the whistleblower has committed suicide, everytime people talk about it being murder but zero proof. Happy to be corrected but also tired of conspiracies.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6604402

https://thesignalsnetwork.org/whistleblower-john-barnetts-li...
by vbezhenar | 2025-06-12 12:25:48+00:00
My Macbook used to grind CPU for 10-20 minutes after every power on. That happened with literally fresh install and it does it every time. I don't know why does it do that. May be some indexing? This lack of transparency was one of the reasons for me switching to Linux too. I don't want my OS to do anything at all in background, that I didn't explicitly configured to. I want to be in full control of my software. Linux is far from perfect, but much better.
by xorcist | 2025-06-12 12:26:11+00:00
Not sure about this specific example, but are we sure they had the choice?

I've been in many similar situations where all the vendors in the marketplace have the same limit on their offering. You might want on-prem for example, but offerings are getting scarce because vendors are valued on recurring revenue so they are no longer interested.

If the choice is between a locked down oven or starting an oven factory yourself, it's not easy. We have built this economy for us and it is what it is, even when it clearly is a local maxima.
by efunnekol | 2025-06-12 12:26:33+00:00
I mostly disagree with this.

I have been using 'aider' as my go to coding tool for over a year. It basically works the same way that it always has: you specify all the context and give it a request and that goes to the model without much massaging.

I can see a massive improvement in results with each new model that arrives. I can do so much more with Gemini 2.5 or Claude 4 than I could do with earlier models and the tool has not really changed at all.

I will agree that for the casual user, the tools make a big difference. But if you took the tool of today and paired it with a model from last year, it would go in circles
by km144 | 2025-06-12 12:27:07+00:00
> Is there more we can add to the AI conventions markdown in the repo to guide the Agent to make fewer mistaken assumptions?

Forgive my ignorance, but is this just a file you're adding to the context of every agent turn or this a formal convention in the VS code copilot agent? And I'm curious if there's any resources you used to determine the structure of that document or if it was just a refinement over time based on mistakes the AI was repeating?
by rsynnott | 2025-06-12 12:27:23+00:00
Tennessee’s pop density seems to be a little lower than Ireland’s. Now, Ireland is not known for its good public transport, but just Dublin’s commuter lines have something like 100x the peak capacity of the Dollywood train.

And Ireland’s anemic rail network is more a result of no investment from the 50s til the 90s than a density thing, really; there is clearly demand for far more capacity and they currently can’t build it fast enough.
by squircle | 2025-06-12 12:27:28+00:00
My gut feeling here is that complex software systems have critical functions whose usefulness is deterministic reliability. On the other end of this spectrum, interface and experience are primarily subjective and relatively non-deterministic . That is, relying on automated tests at the level of HCI, as opposed to rigorous testing by engineers and an open feedback loop with end-users, forces all humans working with these systems into a reinforcing negative feedback loop where only the squeekiest wheel is greased. This is an abstract and off the cuff reaction (without having read the entirety of this article) but, I think the point I'm attempting to make is: process and method are important so, what approaches actually lend themselves to the best outcomes for all involved?
by zbentley | 2025-06-12 12:27:30+00:00
But like…this is very telling, no? If major conventions in a language involve runtime debugging/printing actions to just find out where a method is defined (and your approach here is the norm in every Ruby codebase I’ve worked on; this isn’t an attack on you in the slightest) that doesn’t say anything good about the Ruby ecosystem.

Hell, just finding out what methods can be called from a given code location is something that most Rubyists I’ve met answer either with a runtime debugger or hard-fought and non-transferable memory about a particular piece of code.

Like, I don’t need perfectly accurate programmatically-available answers to those questions in my IDE (though that would be nice). I’m fine reading code and working it out if things are added via reflection/metaprogramming. But if the domain of code to read to determine those things is “who knows/could be anything in the codebase or dependencies”, this is a poor quality tool and/or community.

If you read that and think I’m complaining about one specific instance, codebase, or Ruby community habit, I promise I’m not. It’s not about the 2014 obsession with “DSL”s (that aren’t really DSLs); it’s not about method_missing, open classes, pervasive monkey patching, and so on. It’s about all those things, and more, and the overwhelming enthusiasm (with no small side of smugness) with which the Ruby ecosystem doubles down on them constantly.

Is it the language itself? The community? I don’t know, but I know there are plenty of equivalently capable alternatives to both, and that’s enough for me to avoid the hell out of Ruby and Rubyists for a long time to come.

Is Ruby the worst? No, that honor goes to a multimillion line Perl monolith worked on by far too many not-as-clever-as-they-thought-they-were people over far too long. But all the Ruby I’ve worked on is close enough to that experience to make me question the choice of tool.
by clejack | 2025-06-12 12:27:39+00:00
That's a fair point, but I think it primarily depends on the nature of the committee. I could be wrong because I don't operate in oss spaces, so I'm not sure about their structure.

The first acknowledgement is that ui and design is just as important as technical functionality because a good idea that no one can use is a bad idea.

If we can have a technical team collaborate to design oss code, why can't we have a design team as well that's focused purely on themes, UX, and design philosophy?

Of course this is all prefaced on the idea that the money is there to support such a team. I suspect good designers are less likely to be on the "working for free" bandwagon.

Financial support can bring in better talent, then the oss teams need to structure them selves properly so intransigence doesn't set in.
by aipatselarom | 2025-06-12 12:28:20+00:00
The guy's just asking if four engines instead of two would have made a difference?

It's curiosity, it's learning, it's looking for an explanation.

That's exactly the kind of comment that deserves to be here.

>[...] who doesn't have any relevant expertise,

Is that a requirement to comment on this thread?

Do you fulfill that requirement you brought in?
by sumtechguy | 2025-06-12 12:28:21+00:00
The integration with sourcesafe and all of the tools was pretty cool back then. Nothing else really had that level of integration at the time. However, VSS was seriously flakey. It would corrupt randomly for no real reason. Daily backups were always being restored in my workplace. Then they picked PVCS. At least it didnt corrupt itself.

I think VSS was fine if you used it on a local machine. If you put it on a network drive things would just flake out. It also got progressively worse as newer versions came out. Nice GUI, very straight forward to teach someone how to use it (checkout file, change, check in like a book), random corruptions about sums up VSS. That checkin/out model seems simpler for people to grasp. The virtual/branch systems most of the other ones use is kind of a mental block for many until they grok it.
by michtzik | 2025-06-12 12:30:23+00:00
https://www.cpsc.gov/About-CPSC/Commissioner/Richard-Trumka/...

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/09/business/gas-stove-ban-federa...

https://www.npr.org/2024/09/13/nx-s1-5003074/climate-gas-sto...

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-01-15/gas-stoves-...
by sylware | 2025-06-12 12:30:51+00:00
Cloudflare, the guys who block me because I use noscript/basic (x)html browsers or do host many scanners/hacking bots(script kiddy grade) which scan/attack my self hosted email server? Yes, those guys?

My point was if they can go hardcore with full ip range blocking, they can also go hardcore on noscript/basic (x)html interop for dominant/critical web sites (amazon/gogol/chatgpt(most AI prompts)/banks/govs/etc).
by defrost | 2025-06-12 12:30:53+00:00
I've spent a few million line kilometres in a variety of airframes and understand that "designed to operate" through an event is not the same as "actually survives" that event.

There are many factors at play and things are complicated by unexpected failures.

Thank you for the video that demonstrates a pilot aware in advance of planned "engine failure" can cope with such an event in scheduled test conditions.
by potato3732842 | 2025-06-12 12:32:37+00:00
Less time on runway means more throughput for a given buffer time between planes or larger buffer for a given throughput.

Now, obviously there's a discussion to be had about where the line is and what should and shouldn't be standard operating procedure but there's basically no safety improvement to have even a fully loaded 757 or Learjet or whatever drag it's butt to the very end of a 15000ft runway.

A pilot may be trying to scoot out of there ASAP because he knows based on the radio and who's where that's gonna make everyone else's jobs a little easier. An airport is run by professionals all of whom are trying to make things run smooth. It's at the complete opposite end of the spectrum from a school or Starbucks parking lot.
by Waterluvian | 2025-06-12 12:33:56+00:00
This is immediately one of my favourite articles of all-time. It's well-written, visually appealing, and the subject matter is absolutely down my alley. I might actually just buy one and try this out.

I absolutely love how you show and tell, by having an article with an EXP system. But when do I get skill unlocks? I'm really hoping to be able to enjoy your next article with upgrades.
by derf_ | 2025-06-12 12:33:57+00:00
> But it was a competitive environment where they needed to nail absolutely everything first time and just couldn't pull it off.

They didn't need to and couldn't have expected to. The real problem was that to get to a successful product, you needed to be willing to lose money for a long time. Android and iPhone were years ahead in terms of polish and optimization, and were not exactly sitting still. Firefox OS was going to be bad for a long time before it could ever be good, and did not have the luxury of its competitors being in the same state any longer (people don't remember how bad Android used to be). These are necessary growing pains for any incredibly complex system: mythical-man-month stuff that should be familiar to anyone in software development.

At the time, Mozilla had just renegotiated their search deal for $900 million over 3 years [0], with guaranteed payments that did not depend on actual search traffic. That was a lot more money than the project had ever seen before, and meant there was a limited window in which Mozilla could neglect the desktop browser in the hopes that the mobile OS would take off. In hindsight it proved to be too limited.

When Firefox OS was finally killed, management told us [1] something along the lines of, "The growth expectations we had going in to the project turned out to be unrealistic." I think it is okay to stop doing something when it is not working. This is just the inverse of Charlie Munger's advice to, "Figure out what works and do it." One wonders what could have been done with more realistic expectations, though.

[0] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2011/12/firef...

[1] I was also there, although outside of fixing a few media-handling bugs, I never worked on B2G directly.
by DrScientist | 2025-06-12 12:34:00+00:00
Fair point - but I see no reason why you'd commision unsupportable ovens or lifts - these are not unique things to aircraft carriers.

I'd suspect custom ovens or lifts are more likely to breakdown than some standard industrial ones whose manufacture and design has been optimised over many years.

Just like new software is much more likely to have bugs that battle tested ( sic ) software.
by myrmidon | 2025-06-12 12:34:04+00:00
> Ok, so say they don't evacuate the city. What is the actual risk here that we're talking about?

The risk is that hundreds of people avoidably die of cancer over the following decades, and that you lose an immense amount of trust and credibility in government. This is not easy to de-risk because there are a lot of potential mechanisms for bio-accumulation/concentration, and by the time you find out what those exact mechanisms are empirically, the damage might already be done (and by then its too late, and people are no longer gonna trust anything you tell them).

I'm not arguing that the Fukushima evacuation was 100% the right call to make even in hindsight, but it was most certainly a defensible position (even in retrospect).

> Then do you potentially think that the reason the price is rising is because of regulation?

Strongly disagree with the framing. My opinion is that most early reactors did not meet modern safety/pollution expectations and quite frequently resulted in a toxic mess that still requires cleanup today (Sellafield would be a non-US example).

Despite all regulations, the safety track record (2 meltdowns at 500ish reactor sites) is arguably really poor, especially when reactor meltdowns had been portrayed as "virtually impossible" by early proponents.

> What other effect are you considering?

The very same effects that make bespoke heavy machinery comparatively expensive nowadays in general:

- Low benefit from industrial automation

- Mechanical engineering sectors have shrunk in the west (=> parts/subassemblies and qualified labor more expensive)

- Generally higher wages

Those apply much less to renewables because those are less labor intensive and benefit from economies of scale more (by design). Its also much easier to benefit from cheap foreign labor with those (especially solar).

As a sanity check:

I would always expect coal power plants to stay significantly cheaper than nuclear power (when disregarding CO2/fuel cost). But even in that setting, modern coal power (just like nuclear power) already struggles to compete with solar/wind on levelized cost basis today (and trends are very clear!)

So even if we dropped all nuclear regulation today completely (with disastrous likely effects) then the absolute best we could hope for would be to get competitive (on levelized cost) with the most expensive forms of renewables (offshore wind and rooftop solar). Given that it would likely take decades to act on such a plan, all the risks (and current downward trends on renewables and storage costs) chasing that approach seems utterly pointless to me.

Thus I believe the current nuclear approach (build a few reactors here and there so the know-how is not lost completely), which is exactly what both China and the US are doing, is perfectly sensible.
by laurieherault | 2025-06-12 12:34:25+00:00
I totally understand! Just for this article, I restarted it 12 times!

What really made a difference for me was starting very very very very very small, with almost no ambition. That is truly the most important point in my article, but I am not sure if I managed to communicate it clearly.

The idea is really to say something like: my goal is to write for 5 minutes, and if that is too hard, I do 2 minutes. And if I manage that, I consider the task done and I can pick another one, also 5 minutes long.

This gives me a real sense of accomplishment and helps me focus on what I have already done instead of everything that is left to do.
by ahartmetz | 2025-06-12 12:34:26+00:00
The Me 262 was perhaps the only one that had positive ROI. Others, like the type XXI "electrical" submarines, and surface-to-air missiles, just came too late and proved wildly successful after the war. Yet others were just useless, like the V1 and V2. Kinda crazy that both sides kept trying terror bombing of civilians - it was never anything but a giant waste of resources that increased the enemy's motivation. And it's occasionally still happening in current wars!
by uticus | 2025-06-12 12:34:53+00:00
> Of course, the devil is in the details: the military needs service documentation, detailed schematics, 3D models of parts so they can be manufactured in the field, and so on.

This phrase, embedded in a quote touting the benefits, seems to me to show a big downside. If the Navy (owner) gains the right they also gain the responsibility, and it's not like the Navy is not some huge bureaucratic system. Quite the opposite, the Navy makes most contractors look like DIY Mom and Pops. A sailor may fix an oven themselves until someone gets burned or electrically shocked, at which point the bureaucratic machine starts up and we end back up at square one: waiting to fix ovens until after-actions, reg updates, personnel coaching, part investigation, etc.

In fact the more I focus on this phrase the more the whole article seems like a sarcasm piece (and not just because of the Vulture's reporting style).
by Hetzner_OL | 2025-06-12 12:34:59+00:00
Hi there, During our KYC process, we do sometimes ask customers to submit additional information, including IDs, so that we can verify their identity. However, we follow the General Data Protection Regulation in the EU, amongst other regulations. So we only keep that data for the account verification process. We also have a data protection officer and team who can answer questions potential customers have about data protection measures that we take. Their contact information is here: https://www.hetzner.com/legal/privacy-policy/ --Katie, Hetzner Online
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-06-12 12:35:08+00:00
> does that rule apply during liftoff or only when it's in-flight?

Any time after it’s too late to abort takeoff.

Pilots should be able to “regain full control of the aeroplane without attaining a dangerous flight condition in the event of a sudden and complete failure of the critical engine…at each take-off flap setting at the lowest speed recommended for initial steady climb with all engines operating after takeoff…” [1].

[1] https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/downloads/136694/en 25.143(b)(1)
by FirmwareBurner | 2025-06-12 12:36:23+00:00
I wrote a long comment before just to explain you my thought process in detail so you know that I'm here for good faith debates, not to break rules, but OK, I'll make it short for you now: You still haven't explained why my comment on the Android topic I was replying to is in bad faith but the on I replied to isn't, when I explained you in detail why it is, by the same yardstick you used to judge my comment?

You keep saying it's not you who decides what's right and wrong, that it's the users who decide based on the rules by flagging. Then why am I wrong with my assertion that then it's the rule of the mob who decides what is right and what is wrong, and not the rules, since there's obviously no impartial judge here, just the angry mob which is anything but impartial and unbiased, since just like in voting at elections, people don't vote based on facts and logic, but based on feelings and tribalism over a person(see US election results).

So if people want to flag bomb a certain user because of beef and not facts, they will, and instead of giving me an unbiased explanation on why the comment I was replying to was not breaking the rules like you say mine was, you avoid the topic and parrot some boy scout speech on the honesty and integrity of the userbase, when I show you the hypocrisy of that and ask for an exact explanations. If you don't want to explain me why that comment wasn't breaking the rules but somehow mine was, that's fine, just don't have the audacity to piss on me and tell me it's raining.
by incomingpain | 2025-06-12 12:36:39+00:00
>If you write (with intentionality and some manner of purpose), why?

I wasnt born with perfect knowledge. In fact, as I learn more about things, I often change my opinion about those things.

What is the inflection point where you figure out your opinion changed? You could be talking, and that does happen; but generally speaking it happens when you're writing.

>I suppose this is an ontological question of... does it matter?

What also matters greatly is that your writing has to be allowed to be wrong. The consequence of imperfect knowledge is that you're going to be wrong.

A key problem in social media is that they are designed to censor people. By censoring, all sides lose the opportunity to improve and understand. It's very important to get away from any censorship.
by celicoo | 2025-06-12 12:36:49+00:00
It's really sad what Next.js has become. I still use it, but I have to maintain my own fork with patches. The next.config.js file is an ugly escape hatch that lets you change default behavior for things that should be properly extensible instead of being hidden behind "feature flags" in the first place. Honestly, the framework is a solid D grade at this point — complete spaghetti code.