MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by toast0 | 2025-07-31 17:27:36+00:00
IMHO, you likely want the server side to be in the kernel, so you can get to performance similar to in-kernel TCP, and ossification is less of a big deal, because it's "easy" to modify the kernel on the server side.

OTOH, you want to be in user land on the client, because modifying the kernel on clients is hard. If you were Google, maybe you could work towards a model where Android clients could get their in-kernel protocol handling to be something that could be updated regularly, but that doesn't seem to be something Google is willing or able to do; Apple and Microsoft can get priority kernel updates out to most of their users quickly; Apple also can influence networks to support things they want their clients to use (IPv6, MP-TCP). </rant>

If you were happy with congestion control on both sides of TCP, and were willing to open multiple TCP connections like http/1, instead of multiplexing requests on a single connection like http/2, (and maybe transfer a non-pessimistic bandwidth estimate between TCP connections to the same peer), QUIC still gives you control over retransmission that TCP doesn't, but I don't think that would be compelling enough by itself.

Yes, there's still ossification in middle boxes doing TCP optimization. My information may be old, but I was under the impression that nobody does that in IPv6, so the push for v6 is both a way to avoid NAT and especially CGNAT, but also a way to avoid optimizer boxes as a benefit for both network providers (less expense) and services (less frustration).
by ryandrake | 2025-07-31 17:27:36+00:00
There's nothing magical about 50%. The bar for "this policy should be inflicted on everyone" should be very high--I'd argue much higher than 50%. At the same time, the bar for "we should stop inflicting this policy on everyone" should be extremely low. I'd argue a 1/3 minority should be enough to repeal a law. If one out of three people feel they are harmed by something, maybe the government shouldn't be doing it.
by __red__ | 2025-07-31 17:28:16+00:00
There's a whole lot of discussion below so I'm just going to tag from here.

I think of pony actors in the same way as I think of erlang actors. They have a "mailbox", and when they receive a message, they wake up, execute some amount of code, and then go back to sleep.

This is how I think about it. This is not how it is actually implemented.

Here's the key that I think many people miss about pony.

Referential Capabilities DO NOT EXIST at runtime.

So let's talk passing a String iso from Actor A, to Actor B. (iso is the capability that guarantees that this is the only reference to this object):

// This is code in Actor A actorB.some_behaviour_call(consume myisostring)

The "consume myisostring" completely removes myisostring from Actor A. Any reference to it after this point will result in an "unknown variable myisostring" error from the compiler.

The reference to myisostring then gets sent to Actor B via its mailbox.

If ActorB was idle, then the message receive will cause Actor B to be scheduled and it will receive the reference to that String iso - completely isolated.

Now, if we're going to measure "performance of passing data between threads" as latency per transaction, then actor contention on a scheduler is going to be a bigger factor.

If you're measuring performance across an entire system with millions of these actions occurring, then I would argue that this approach would be faster as there is no spinning involved.
by globnomulous | 2025-07-31 17:28:36+00:00
In my experience, the usefulness of documentation in code declines as familiarity with a codebase increases. The result: people ignore it; it becomes outdated; now it's debt. Similarly, non-intralinear documentation (documentation that isn't in the code) tends to grow with a codebase. Meanwhile, the codebase changes, personnel change, and more and more of the documentation beco.ed noise, a historical artifact of solving problems that either no longer exist or can no longer be solved the same way.

That being said, good documentation is worth its weight in gold and supports the overall health and quality of a codebase/project. Open-source projects that succeed often seem to have unusually strong, disciplined documentation practices. Maybe that's just a by-product of engineering discipline, but I don't think it is -- at least not entirely.
by danudey | 2025-07-31 17:29:09+00:00
> During the test when I asked what various things were for, they wouldn't tell me, so I don't know which test was for what.

In a lot of cases they can't tell you because, either consciously or subconsciously, you will adjust your behavior and skew the test results. If you're told "this test is to evaluate your capacity for empathy" then your brain is going to start skewing your answers towards more empathetic ones because now that's the thing that's top of mind.
by intended | 2025-07-31 17:29:32+00:00
No, those aren’t the follow on questions.

The follow questions are to establish if you are crazy about this, not sane about this.

Anecdote - Incredible introversion, if not social anxiety - and at one point I just up and drove to meet strangers at a cyber cafe to play video games, because I was obsessive about video games at that point. Same for cooking, writing papers, reaching out to people, and so on.

You overcome yourself, when it’s something that resonates with you.

Going back to your question - the lack of advantage, or bad margins etc - this is the “problem” vs “Challenge” view point issue.

IF you are crazy about this, then you will figure out ways to overcome those challenges - pivot business, learn to be lean, or find sustainable ways to build runway etc.
by pjmlp | 2025-07-31 17:29:33+00:00
The information is scattered around the Wiki, LLVM and C++ related conferences.

Basically there should be a 1.0 somehow towards the end of 2026.

https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/blob/trunk/do...

This is a talk from last year CppNorth, there should be one this year as well,

https://youtu.be/8SGMy9ENGz8?si=reukeBjxAOivX6qI
by wtallis | 2025-07-31 17:29:54+00:00
> Despite that, purists were unhappy that Firefox was doing literally anything at all with a third party

That's a horribly dishonest explanation. The way that Pocket was integrated into the browser was obviously shady. Most clearly, there was no reason for it to be anything other than an extension. Mozilla earned most of the complaints that they were shoving Pocket down user's throats. The complaints weren't even primarily about "OSS purism"; Mozilla was simply being disrespectful to their users.
by uncircle | 2025-07-31 17:30:07+00:00
It's hard for a naive parser (one-token lookahead, for example), to tell after parsing `const add = (` if this defines a function or a variable.

A "function" keyword often exists just to help the parser. C3, for example, to simply the parser of its language that's a superset of C, adds a "fn" keyword for this very purpose of disambiguation.
by lo_zamoyski | 2025-07-31 17:30:19+00:00
> I think you misunderstand. My ideals [...] are closer to what you are calling the classical view.

I'm not so sure, because I reject the idea that capital and labor are always at odds. They are at odds if we take as normative and basic the "liberal" hyperindividualist pursuit of self-interest as the highest aim of a human being.

I also reject redistribution as the primary means of addressing what are first order problems. For example, if employers are paying less than a family wage while they themselves reap handsome profits, then the goal isn't to redistribute later somehow while propping up a culture of normalized greed, but to distribute justly in the first place. Redistribution, like you mention, is indeed an extreme event, but I contest the idea that it must come to such extremes, or that redistribution (even in "smaller and more palatable amounts") should be the norm for addressing bad distribution in the first place.

We needn't be pigeonholed into the false dichotomies that our modern paradigm, with some of its bogus categories and "necessities", imposes. Those clamoring for socialism are asking to jump out of the frying pan into the fire (I don't claim you are calling for this, but a naive segment is). Cultural norms, buttressed by the appropriate laws (the law is a teacher), are perhaps a better place to focus our efforts and our imagination. We should pay attention to the false categories and norms we have internalized that remove the stigma from predatory practices like underpaying or extracting compound interest. When you create a culture that is hostile to such practices, that goes a long way to shaping laws and behaviors.

I do not propose a political program here. I propose that we ought to examine the moral assumptions that box us into a drab range of possibilities. The hyperindividualist "liberalism" in question construes freedom apart from objective moral norms and enjoys privatizing moral questions. But even redistribution is a moral question! This is a larger topic than I have time to explore here, but if there is a take away, it is that we must stop skirting or privatizing discussion of basic moral questions (here of an economic nature and what they themselves presuppose), thinking that this somehow avoids conflict in a heterogeneous society. This only buys time as problems fester and persist.
by mystraline | 2025-07-31 17:30:33+00:00
Piracy, eh? So copied without approval.

Like archive.is or other news aggregator and paywall-bypass sites.

Or, just needs 1 falsely filed DMCA to ban. And whoops, made a mistake, and no process to unban.

By sneaking in with 'piracy', they're setting the stage to block any content they don't like.
by sijieg | 2025-07-31 17:30:50+00:00
There are a few things unlocked by Ursa:

1. It is leaderless by design. So there is no single lead broker you need to route the traffic. So you can eliminate majority of the inter-zone traffic.

2. It is lakehouse-native by design. It is not only just use object storage as the storage layer, but also use open table formats for storing data. So streaming data can be made available in open table formats (Iceberg or Delta) after ingestion. One example is the integration with S3 Tables: https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/storage/seamless-streaming-to-a... This would simplify the Kafka-to-Iceberg integration.
by jcranmer | 2025-07-31 17:30:53+00:00
The express purpose of building Servo in the first place was to experiment with ways to parallelize the layout algorithm. The advantage of Rust is that it is a language which enables the compiler to better enforce some of the rules that need to be followed to write correct thread-safe code. Note that Mozilla had previously tried--more than once--to do the same thing in C++ for Gecko, and both attempts had failed.

As for the rest of your comment... I believe Rust now has MIR-based optimizations, so it's no longer the case that "THE ENTIRE optimization" is due to LLVM. But it's a non-sequitur to say that Rust would be slower without LLVM. Rust doesn't do many optimizations on its own, because it's quite frankly a lot of boring tedium to implement an entire optimizing compiler stack, and if you've got a library you can use to do that, why not? If no such library were available, Rust would merely be implementing all of those optimizations itself, much as V8 implements those optimizations itself.
by jameslk | 2025-07-31 17:31:19+00:00
If server resources and scalability are a concern, speculative fetching will add more load to those resources, which may or may not be used. Same deal on the end user’s device. That’s the trade off. Also, this is basically a Blink-only feature so far

The article provides a script that tries to replicate pre-rendering that speculation rules do for Safari and Firefox, but this is only pre-fetching. It doesn’t do the full pre-render. Rendering is often half the battle when it comes to web performance

Another limitation is that if the page is at all dynamic, such as a shopping cart, speculation rules will have the same struggles as caching does: you may serve a stale response
by 827a | 2025-07-31 17:31:34+00:00
Jensen Huang has mentioned something like this similarly before: (iirc) When asked if he would change anything about his life if he could do it all over again, he says something like: if I had to do this all over again knowing what I know now, I wouldn't. If you actually knew the sacrifice and difficulty of that path upfront, deeply knew it and understood it fully in a way only having experienced it can create, essentially no one would walk that path, not even if it meant becoming one of the richest people in the world at the end.

The flip-side of that is a quote from DHH on a recent Lex Friedman podcast: "I wouldn't go back and say a thing to my younger self. I would not rob my younger self of all the life experiences I have been blessed with due to the ignorance of how the world works."
by gagik_co | 2025-07-31 17:31:51+00:00
Right now it's prime time for a bunch of "European" tech (which still very much depend on a ton of non-EU infrastructure and code) to start shilling for their "EU alternatives". It's like the new local buzzword after AI.

I started self-hosting and adopting Matrix for my app recently and most of these raised concerns seem manipulative at best. Thanks for all the work with the project!
by jjjutla | 2025-07-31 17:31:56+00:00
The confidence score is calculated by two factors: whether the function call chain represents a valid code path (programmatic correctness) and how well it aligns with the defined threat model for what it thinks is a security vulnerability. False positives usually occur from incorrect assumptions about context, for example, flagging endpoints as missing authentication when such behaviour is actually intended.

Was this an incorrect code path or an incorrect understanding of a security issue?

This is why we focus heavily on threat modelling and defining the security and business invariants that must hold. From a code level, the only context we can infer is through developer intent and data flow analysis.

Something we are working on is custom rules and allowing a user to add context when starting a scan to improve alignment and reduces false positives.
by omgwalt | 2025-07-31 17:32:18+00:00
The problem I have with this post is that it equates vibe coding with stupidity. You don't have to be stupid to be a vibe coder, and you can actually do things smarter than a traditional coder ... if you take the time to learn how to do it. His mistake wasn't being a vibe coder. His mistake was in not learning the proper way to connect it via API and failing to use tools to check the security.
by darksaints | 2025-07-31 17:32:35+00:00
I remember back when Rust was still in so much flux that there were regular discussions about syntax, and there was a proposal very similar to the syntax of carbon: square brackets for generics and type annotations, parens for indexing, etc. It was basically turned down because they wanted to win over C++ devs. I still wish it was the favored outcome...it looks so much cleaner and less jarring.
by Arainach | 2025-07-31 17:32:35+00:00
It's impossible for people to know about every topic. That was true in Plato's day and is dramatically more true now. People defer to what someone on TV or Tiktok told them and have no time to look into facts or primary sources.

Direct democracy would get you solutions that sound emotionally appealing but do not work. That or gridlock where you can't get 50% to agree on anything.

If you ask people "do you want A, B, C, or D" a majority may well say to do each. If you only have budget for one, getting them to come to consensus is impossible at the scale of direct democracy.
by bryan0 | 2025-07-31 17:34:00+00:00
The Matryoshka embeddings seem interesting:

> The Gemini embedding model, gemini-embedding-001, is trained using the Matryoshka Representation Learning (MRL) technique which teaches a model to learn high-dimensional embeddings that have initial segments (or prefixes) which are also useful, simpler versions of the same data. Use the output_dimensionality parameter to control the size of the output embedding vector. Selecting a smaller output dimensionality can save storage space and increase computational efficiency for downstream applications, while sacrificing little in terms of quality. By default, it outputs a 3072-dimensional embedding, but you can truncate it to a smaller size without losing quality to save storage space. We recommend using 768, 1536, or 3072 output dimensions. [0]

looks like even the 256-dim embeddings perform really well.

[0]: https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/embeddings#quality-for...
by creddit | 2025-07-31 17:34:08+00:00
This is a quote from your initial response to me and was quoted just above where I suggested it must be an alt:

> That's why I said it doesn't surprise me no one in any of these samples wears a genuine smile.

So I ask again, why are you explaining "why <you> said it doesn't surprise <you>..." when I've never interacted with you before that reply of yours and you didn't say that prior to this explanation in that post?

I guess that may just be your style of communicating, though? Like you're explaining what you said to yourself? In your post you it seems you were speaking to yourself for a lot of it - posing questions for yourself to answer, eg.
by Arainach | 2025-07-31 17:34:16+00:00
This doesn't work in practice. Look at how Senate Republicans have weaponized the filibuster in the last 20 years. A 40% veto is conceptually similar to your repeal process and it results in gridlock and nothing getting done.

It is harder to build than to destroy. If laws can be trivially repealed no one will be willing to commit to long term things. We're seeing that right now with the destruction of US soft power, economic power, and global leadership.
by aleph_minus_one | 2025-07-31 17:34:18+00:00
> The actionable items are "write code" and "build systems".

Indeed. At the parent page of https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html (https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/), you can read:

"if you want to write code, go to OpenPrivacy.org":

> https://www.openprivacy.org/

This website perhaps gives you some inspirations.
by Aurornis | 2025-07-31 17:34:36+00:00
You could always self-host UniFi Network. https://help.ui.com/hc/en-us/articles/360012282453-Self-Host...

This launches with UniFi Network and UniFi InnerSpace, which is a deployment visualization tool. I assume they'll add more of the applications to UniFi OS in the future
by haizhung | 2025-07-31 17:35:34+00:00
The parents putting these videos on autoplay are usually the ones who can’t afford to spend quality time with their kid.

Yet their kid demands attention. So they put the phone in front of them to be able to do whatever they needed to do.

I don’t really blame them, in today’s economic climate there are a lot of people who have to struggle every waking second to get by.
by ambicapter | 2025-07-31 17:35:57+00:00
> I don’t know if there’s something wrong with me, but as a grad student I hated walking around at the front of class going “I’m a lecturer here” and having the students say “hi lecturer!” It was the least satisfying part of the job. Maybe it feels better if you have the real title.

I think you're misusing the analogy completely. In the analogy, the cartoon version of the professor doesn't actually _do_ anything. I don't see how you could compare that to your real life, where you were actually doing something (teaching students). Unless you're dismissing the act of teaching students as a lecturer as a completely empty pursuit.
by azemetre | 2025-07-31 17:36:06+00:00
No, the true intent is to curtail big tech. Let's not get lost in the weeds, the law specifically targets certain companies that have proven to be harmful toward society. Social media that is not harmful is still perfectly legal and allowed.

No one has twisted Mark Zuckerberg to make something that profits off of misery, he's more than capable in making something less harmful and not getting banned. If you don't like Zuckerberg replace him with who you do like, it's the same story.

I also trust democracy and democratic institutions. The ability to destroy something is completely democratic and should happen by the people with things prove harmful.

What I don't trust are actors who engage in advocacy that is always anti-democratic in nature.
by tqi | 2025-07-31 17:36:08+00:00
> This is why people get so brain-constipated when they try to choose a career, and why they often pick the wrong one

Does everyone (or even most people) have a "right" career? I actually think this framing itself is harmful. If comparison is the thief of joy, then what could be worse than believing that there is some yet to be discovered perfect-for-you career out that you are missing.
by alexpotato | 2025-07-31 17:36:29+00:00
LOTS of thoughts here:

> If you think no one would answer “yes” to those questions, you’ve missed the point: almost no one would answer “yes” to those questions, and those proud few are the ones who should be surgeons, actors, and wedding photographers.

In "What Should I Do With My Life", Po Bronson has a great quote:

"Everyone thinks their dream job will be smooth sailing. But let's face it: EVERY job has shitstorms. Thing is, in the jobs you love the shitstorm is part of the 'fun and excitement' of that dream job."

I can 100% attest to this with a personal example: having been an SRE for many years I LOVE managing outages. I don't love that there ARE outages but I do love running them. I can imagine a librarian or other similar field that loves peace and quiet and predictably recoiling in horror at this statement. But that's the point. People are different and have different preferences. As patio11 said "everyone's preference space is n-dimensional".

> This is why people get so brain-constipated when they try to choose a career, and why they often pick the wrong one: they don’t understand the craziness that they have to offer, nor the craziness that will be demanded of them

This is why the advice of "pick the job that involves the thing you can't stop yourself from doing" is good advice. In my case, it's writing documentation. It's an urge I can not stop. And it's been great in my FinTech SRE career as it saves future me and other people lots of time during outages.

> You’ll discover all sorts of unexpected things when unpacking, like how firefighters mostly don’t fight fires,

My wife's cousin is a firefighter and he was mentioning that due to improvements in smoke detectors, fire alarms etc, it's becoming rarer and rarer to actually fight a fire. He seemed sad when he said it.
by zozbot234 | 2025-07-31 17:36:38+00:00
> This ‘90s API, and it set the core of the web stack. And it’s super object-oriented, and it’s just hard to express all that stuff in Rust, because Rust doesn’t lend itself to object-oriented programming. It doesn’t have inheritance, for example, which is a very fundamental building block.

That's a rather strange criticism, seeing as the only thing about objects that's slightly involved to express in Rust is implementation inheritance; and even then, it can be phrased in a very reasonable way by using the generic typestate pattern. I.e. expressing a class that can be inherited from as a generic object MyBaseClass<T>, where T holds the "derived" object state (and can itself be generic in turn, thereby extending the type hierarchy) and methods can either be implemented for any MyBaseClass<T> or for some specific MyBaseClass<MyDerivedObject>.

(This aims to do the right thing whenever a method on the base class relies on some method implementation that's defined deeper in the hierarchy, i.e. there is an indirection step, aka open recursion. That's the part that is missing when using simple composition.)