MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by danielbln | 2025-07-25 19:59:34+00:00
Unpopular take: I couldn't give a single damn about the code. If it passes the spec and tests (that I review) and the feature works, that is good enough for me. I'm in the business of automation, and in the business of solving problems. Writing perfect, beautiful code is not what I'm in the business of. Now of course, good enough doesn't mean "complete horse shit spaghetti code", but it also doesn't mean I give a damn if some function is maybe not pure enough or whatever.
by TheCraiggers | 2025-07-25 19:59:42+00:00
Perhaps. You're right that it's currently unlikely, but I still argue that it would be easier to legislate than split up. It's not like the financial industry doesn't already have an insane amount of rules and regulations at both the state and federal level preventing them from being too nefarious. Having a rule that states "You're not allowed to cut off vendor foo just because they sell bar" doesn't seem that much of a stretch, especially if you look at credit as basically another form of legal tender.
by grishka | 2025-07-25 20:00:08+00:00
There are different kinds of self-hosting.

Sure, you can own your server and have it at home. It must be nice to have enough space at home to dedicate some to a server room (servers are noisy btw). But many people live in small apartments in a city and so don't have that luxury.

You can own your server but rent some rack space from a data center to put it into. That would still be self-hosting.

You can rent a virtual or dedicated server from a hosting company, and even that would be self-hosting.

The author seems to not consider the fact that this is a spectrum but also, from a practical standpoint, mostly the same thing.
by scyclow | 2025-07-25 20:00:15+00:00
There are a lot of people mentioning crypto as a possible solution to this, and a lot of people responding that crypto is a ponzi scheme, and they're not interested. But congress recently passed stablecoin legislation that could possibly fix this problem. Recipients would have a straightforward way of receiving money, and they wouldn't need to gamble on the price of bitcoin. Most people would probably still use a third part payment processor to handle the rough edges of managing money on the blockchain. But if any of them try to pull something like this it would be incredibly easy spin up a new processor and migrate accounts.
by exiguus | 2025-07-25 20:00:28+00:00
I don't know were you have this numbers from, but in 2021 34% of women were killed by partner and 76% of women where killed by a known person (family, friends, colleges, partner) [1].

Edit: 100% are murder victims

https://bjs.ojp.gov/female-murder-victims-and-victim-offende...
by smithkl42 | 2025-07-25 20:00:58+00:00
My understanding (bowing to ChatGPT) is that you can get 1 pound of iron from <2 pounds of iron ore. But to get 1 pound of lithium, you need around 500 pounds of lithium ore.

So if an electric car requires 2000 pounds of iron and 50 pounds of lithium, that works out to 4000 pounds of iron ore that needs to be mined and refined, vs 25,000 pounds of lithium ore.
by Tadpole9181 | 2025-07-25 20:01:19+00:00
The group responsible also want to ban Detroit: Become Human, for context.

That game advocates staunchly for civil rights and the autonomy of women, children, and other minorities. The Holocaust allegory is so on the nose you can't even call it veiled. It says domestic abuse is unforgivably, undeniably wrong.

They don't even care about marginalized groups or even women themselves. Any piece of content that gives them the heeby jeebies, any media that has conflict: banned. Doesn't matter if it even supports their purported agenda.
by akomtu | 2025-07-25 20:01:25+00:00
Once you pause and think what gambling is - the disconnect between your actions and results, when you pull a lever and get a random outcome - you'll realise that a good deal of the big tech is about gambling. When you scroll to see random videos chosen by an algorithm - that's gambling. Sometimes you "win" a dopamine spike and see something interesting, but most of the time you see junk and your emotions go negative.
by vouaobrasil | 2025-07-25 20:02:09+00:00
> Who decides what technologies are too dangerous? You, apparently.

Again, a rather knee-jerk reply. I am opening up the discussion, and putting out my opinion. I never said I should be God and arbiter, but I do think people in general should have a discussion about it, and general discussion starts with opinion.

> AI isn't nukes - anyone can train a model at home. There's no centralized thing to restrict. So what's your actual ask? That nobody ever trains a model? That we collectively pretend transformers don't exist?

It should be something to consider. We could stop it by spreading a social taboo about it, denigrate the use of it, etc. It's possible. Many non techies already hate AI, and mob force is not out of the question.

> You're dressing up bog-standard tech panic as social responsibility. Same reaction to every new technology: "This tool might be misused so nobody should have it."

I don't have that reaction to every new technology personally. But I think we should ask the question of every new technology, and especially onces that are already disrupting the labor market.

> If you can't see the connection between that and Harrison Bergeron's "some people excel so we must handicap everyone," then you've missed Vonnegut's entire point. You're not protecting the weak - you're enforcing mediocrity and calling it virtue.

What people call excellent and mediocre these days is often just the capacity to be economically over-ruthless, rather than contribute any good to society. We already have a wealth of ways that people can excel, even if we eradicated AI. So there's definitely no limitation on intelligent individuals to be excellent, even if we destroyed AI. So your argument really doesn't hold.

Edit: my goal isn't to protect the weak. I'd rather have everyone protected, including the very intelligent who still want to have a place to use their intelligence on their own and not be forced to use AI to keep up.
by Karrot_Kream | 2025-07-25 20:02:09+00:00
We did end up making this switch later on due to growing class sizes anyway. That certainly helps focusing the class. We ended up focusing on computation more for the CS sequence and on the nuts and bolts of getting a program working for the non-CS sequeunce.

But my rationale for moving to Python still stands. In fact, I know several brilliant ML researchers who write code that would never come close to making it to production. The things we optimize for are different. Production code in a tech company needs to be readable, maintainable, explainable, and scalable. An ML researcher's code needs to support their research. These different perspectives are still why I think focusing on a wider appeal language like Python over something like Scheme still makes sense.

FWIW our CS program mandated a programming languages class and the first third of the class was taught in Scheme.
by nosignono | 2025-07-25 20:02:42+00:00
It has to do with agency, primarily. Is the character in the media given the agency and depth necessary to support their sexual appetites? Or are they treated like an object by the camera, a 2 dimensional cutout whose purpose is only to be an object.

Compare, for example, Sex and the City, where 4 women were regularly engaged in a variety of sexual encounters and say, background dancers in a music video or advert that exist to appeal as objects to a male audience.
by GoatInGrey | 2025-07-25 20:02:47+00:00
An irony in this conversation is how normalized it is for women to be concerned about men as a demographic when it's only a small minority that inflict harm. While it's controversial for men to be concerned about women as a demographic when it's only a small minority that inflict harm.

I still maintain my pet theory that this is a downstream effect of the normalization of paranoia around pedophiles that began hitting the mainstream in the '80s. The modern world is exceptionally safe, yet to the average person, it feels exceptionally dangerous.

...While I've got the hood up, I'll continue soapboxing.

I've started seeing rare instances such as a young woman walking around a corner and there is a man rounding the same corner, surprising her by mistake, and the woman starts crying or breathing in a panicked way, unable to regulate herself for several minutes. It's not always walking around the corner at the same time, but there's a common pattern of being surprised by a man just going about his day and experiencing a severe fear response to that interaction.

When I look at a lot of cultural related issues today, beyond just gender, I see many signs of pervasive psychological issues. I don't know what the solution is, but I'm very confident that the root cause is more complicated than something you can describe in a single sentence.
by bediger4000 | 2025-07-25 20:02:51+00:00
The USA has a strong tradition of freedom of speech an free press which strictly forbids prior restraint. It's good to see that media organizations vociferously defend their right of free press, and that we have bureaucrats that take their oaths to the Constitution seriously, and are impartial, not letting themselves be influenced by the executive officer himself. The founding fathers would approve and be proud of this arrangement! They fought a revolution against arbitrary monarchs!
by comrade1234 | 2025-07-25 20:03:48+00:00
I have property in NW Wisconsin and this is true. Also bear, which are hunted with dogs in this area. It's hard to understand - it seems a lot of middle-class and higher income people that hunt don't particularly like venison/bear/goose/etc and so they give it away. They just like to kill. (But I like to eat all of those and I have hunted but no longer do because everyone gives me their meat)

But the lower-income people I talk to do hunt for food and get enough meat to last the year.
by CalChris | 2025-07-25 20:04:07+00:00
Berkeley seems to want to slice the baby in half. cs61a teaches in Python but then retains the implementation of a Scheme interpreter. They don't use SICP anymore. They use John DeNero's online text, Composing Programs.

https://cs61a.org/

https://www.composingprograms.com

BTW, my complaint about Scheme in 61a was that after the class, the department never used it again. They didn't even have the decency to use Guile or some standard Scheme. Instructional Computing had some hacked up something Scheme.
by ipv6ipv4 | 2025-07-25 20:04:37+00:00
How can you in good conscience write such obvious, and easily falsifiable falsehoods?

https://www.cleveland19.com/2025/07/24/3-lorain-police-offic...

https://nypost.com/2025/07/24/us-news/long-island-cop-shot-i...

https://www.wisn.com/article/milwaukee-police-officer-corder...

and on, and on...
by quesera | 2025-07-25 20:04:42+00:00
Exactly. I've seen goo.gl URLs in printed books. Obviously in old blog posts too. And in government websites. Nonprofit communications. Everywhere.

Why break this??

Sure, deprecate the service. Add no new entries. This is a good idea anyway, link shorteners are bad for the internet.

But breaking all the existing goo.gl URLs seems bizarrely hostile, and completely unnecessary. It would take so little to keep them up.

You don't even need HTML files. The full set of static redirects can be configured into the webserver. No deployment hassles. The filesystem can be RO to further reduce attack surface.

Google is acting like they are a one-person startup here.

Since they are not a one-person startup, I do wonder if we're missing the real issue. Like legal exposure, or implication in some kind of activity that they don't want to be a part of, and it's safer/simpler to just delete everything instead of trying to detect and remove all of the exposure-creating entries.

Of maybe that's what they're telling themselves, even if it's not real.
by strcat | 2025-07-25 20:04:51+00:00
> some things about the UX in this is so bad, which i love because it discourages me from using the phone more. every time i end a phone call i struggle hanging it up. i don't know how to go forward in the browser because the swipe always makes me go back, even when i swipe forward. it's using the ugly material ui components from google. it's great!

Android has a standard system back navigation gesture based on the previous system back button. Apps integrate support for it. Chromium disables their back/forward gestures when using the modern gesture navigation in the OS. It would have made sense to have a forward gesture but Android never had that as something apps had to implement so it would only work in a small subset of apps and would be generally unavailable, which would be confusing.

Phone app has a button for ending the call. It's our fork of AOSP Dialer with minor changes including UI improvements. Calculator, Clock, Contacts, Gallery, Keyboard, Messaging and Phone are AOSP apps which we need to overhaul or replace. These look and function the same way Google's apps used to but are outdated. They're the open source projects which were abandoned beyond security patches after they forked them off into their own proprietary Google apps. Gallery and Keyboard will likely be replaced while the rest will be overhauled. We know these apps have a bad UI but our focus has been on the core OS instead of apps people can replace. We're beginning to do more work overhauling these.
by LukeShu | 2025-07-25 20:05:33+00:00
RJ45 is a keyed 8-position jack, not a normal 8-position jack. ("Keyed" means that there's a notch in the side making it a different shape; you would not be able to fit an "Ethernet" connector into it.)

Closer is RJ38X, which is a series 8-position jack, not a normal 8-position jack. ("Series" means that the jack shorts pint 1 to pin 4 and pin 5 to pin 8 when there's not a cable plugged in to it; you would be able to fit an "Ethernet" connector into it, but even so it's probably not what you want.)

AFAICT (skimming 47 CFR part 68, and the historical AT&T documents that became 47 CFR part 68), there is no RJ-number for a normal 8-position jack.
by somat | 2025-07-25 20:05:57+00:00
Heh flashback, I had an ati all in wonder, which was a video card with built in video capture. Now this involves a lot of ports so the model I had used a port breakout dongle for the video capture stuff, and some engineer had the bright idea to run all these pins through a mini-din connector. Think a ps/2 connector with about 10 pins crammed into it. Now ps/2 connectors are sort of stupid in the first place. why a round connector that is keyed to only go in one way? But this 10 pin variant was a nightmare to insert and by about the third time I made a firm resolution to never unplug it again if I could help it.

Footnote: keyed round connectors are not actually that bad, super strong, easy to seal and you can fit a large nut or bayonet clamp to them to make them extremely secure. However, this depends on having a well placed shell/key and mini-din doesn't, it is a bad connector. Not enough shell and key for solid locating so the pins tend to ride on the face while you try and orient it.

I think this was the one I had.

https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/all-in-wonder-9600.c86...
by takinola | 2025-07-25 20:06:02+00:00
No other programming concept has caused me more grief than dealing with time and timezones. It starts to get really mind-bendingly complex once you start thinking about it deeply. That is even before you start encountering the quirks (some places have timezone changes that depend not only on the time of year but also on the actual year). Lesson learnt - choose a library (moment is great) and never think about time again.
by OneDeuxTriSeiGo | 2025-07-25 20:06:09+00:00
I see this claim often but bypassing DRM is an inevitability to the point where it's commonly done within hours of a new release simply for the fun of doing it.

And to quote Gabe Newell (founder and owner of Valve, the company that operates Steam):

> "We think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem," he said. "If a pirate offers a product anywhere in the world, 24 x 7, purchasable from the convenience of your personal computer, and the legal provider says the product is region-locked, will come to your country 3 months after the US release, and can only be purchased at a brick and mortar store, then the pirate's service is more valuable."

> The proof is in the proverbial pudding. “Prior to entering the Russian market, we were told that Russia was a waste of time because everyone would pirate our products. Russia is now about to become [Steam’s] largest market in Europe,” Newell said.

from https://www.escapistmagazine.com/Valves-Gabe-Newell-Says-Pir...

---------

There are certainly cases where people will pirate to avoid paying but in the event that the option to pirate is not available, they will generally just go without instead. The only situations where piracy really becomes a matter of pricing is in the openly exploitative services like Academic Journals.
by chambers | 2025-07-25 20:06:24+00:00
Yeah, this tracks.

If the OP consulted with Turso on this blogpost, then Turso probably believes the reported behavior is indeed a failure or a flaw, which they think a local db should be responsible for.

The confusion is that Limbo, their solution to this presumed problem, is not mentioned in the article which means that everyone has to figure out where this post is coming from.
by cleandreams | 2025-07-25 20:06:34+00:00
My base salary was fine but the magic was in the stock.

I got a payout on acquisition by a FAANG+ (as first employee). It was only 300K but I put 50K of that into Nvidia. Actually I invested all my payout from my startup stock into tech stocks. And I got a terrific golden handcuffs deal.

After that I could afford to retire and I did.
by davideg | 2025-07-25 20:06:35+00:00
Brown CS (back in 2004) gave you a choice: you could either take a 2-class intro sequence that started with Scheme and eventually OCaml before moving into OOP with Java, or you could start with Java from the get-go and make cool/flashy projects like Tetris by the end. Both course sequences were supposed to bring you to roughly the same place by the end.

I took the Scheme path and feel great about having a deep theoretical foundation in CS, but I know plenty of folks who started with the fun/shiny stuff and became amazing software engineers. So all in all I'm really glad they gave us a choice.

I will admit that there were people in my classes who didn't really understand what they were getting themselves into and possibly would have benefited from starting with Python or Java and getting more inspired about building cool projects. It really was a YMMV ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
by justusthane | 2025-07-25 20:07:21+00:00
No, it wouldn't. SPF alignment just verifies that the Envelope From address matches the Header From address, and in this case both are no-reply@accounts.google.com, so SPF is aligned.

Strict vs relaxed just specifies whether a subdomain address is aligned with a different subdomain (or root domain) address.

Note that autoforwarding an email, as is happening in the article, is different from clicking Forward in your mail client. When emails are automatically forwarded, generally all the headers, including Envelope From, are preserved, so to the recipient it looks like it came from the original sender, not the party who forwarded it.

See "Forwarding versus Remailing" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_forwarding
by wassimulator | 2025-07-25 20:07:36+00:00
At the end of the talk, and article, there is a short video demostration of the current state of the game engine, and it has hills and banked curves and whatnot. For the talk I opted for a flat grid.

Suspension is implemented as well but it didn't feel to me like a unique problem to implement for cars, at least not a simple suspension that can carry a car, and it didn't fit too well with the flow and limited time I planned for this.
by saagarjha | 2025-07-25 20:08:26+00:00
What I find amusing is that YC’s Garry Tan is going around explaining to Prem how he actually got a good deal and that the Windsurf founders were very generous to their early employees. Meanwhile from his perspective he joins a company with friends he’s known for years, takes on basically the same risk that the founders did, probably gets some fraction of the equity they did for that work (10%? Less?) and then when payoff time comes he gets cheated out of that too.

If I was a venture capitalist dependent on 20-somethings believing in the dream I sold them maybe I wouldn’t write snarky replies on them on Twitter when this happens and actually look into fixing things for early employees (like, maybe, giving them similar terms that the founders get), but that’s just me I guess.
by bevr1337 | 2025-07-25 20:08:59+00:00
Indeed, some professional software is now cheaper and more accessible to the individual consumer. Before Adobe went to the subscription model, I only had access through school programs and later through my newspaper's office. When Adobe inevitably released a new Photoshop version, my employer could easily swallow the price tag. It seems quaint thinking about how I drove across town to access software.
by bitbasher | 2025-07-25 20:09:17+00:00
> You can rent a virtual or dedicated server from a hosting company, and even that would be self-hosting.

That's what I do. I use Linode/Akamai, which now has encrypted VPS instances.

Ideally, I'd have my own hardware but I don't want to deal with the maintenance and failure cases (house fire, etc). I think a VPS is a solid tradeoff.
by b00ty4breakfast | 2025-07-25 20:09:54+00:00
I agree with your sentiment, but declaring that a company shouldn't be free to decide who they can and can't do business with isn't the solution to this problem and I am no friend of the business world.

It seems fine now when it's something you don't like but what happens when it's a situation that isn't so agreeable? like being legally oblidged to do business with South Africa during apartheid or working with a chocolate company that (allegedly) used child slave labor to farm it's cocoa??
by ben_w | 2025-07-25 20:10:02+00:00
> Who decides what technologies are too dangerous? You, apparently.

I see takes like this from time to time about everything.

They didn't say that.

As with all similar cases, they're allowed to advocate for whatever being dangerous, and you're allowed to say it isn't, the people who decide is all of us collectively and when we're at our best we do so on the basis of the actual arguments.

> AI isn't nukes - anyone can train a model at home.

(1) They were using an extreme to illustrate the point.

(2) Anyone can make a lot of things at home. I know two distinct ways to make a chemical weapon using only things I can find in a normal kitchen. That people can do a thing at home doesn't make the thing "not prohibited".