MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by abe_m | 2025-07-03 00:18:36+00:00
The majority of people are not suitable for management, and do not advance in "careers". Most people just work the same job over and over, until the retire or die.

But the cost of everything has got out of hand. Why bother going to work if you're going to be basically homeless anyway? Housing+food+health care has detached significantly from wages and the costs of other goods.
by joshstrange | 2025-07-03 00:18:53+00:00
That's kind of hard to do with the PlanetScale schema migration concept (branching). Doing something like prefixed tables doesn't work and you can't create multiple databases on 1 server (or at least you couldn't and I did ask support about it).

I could make my application multi-tenant in the application code but that would require a lot of refactoring and testing. It's possible but it's a big lift to do that. If I could do that, I'd have much more flexibility. I don't think compliance will ever be an issue for me so that isn't holding me back.
by jjtheblunt | 2025-07-03 00:19:13+00:00
Don't lose hope; I left grad school right before the first dotcom failures 25ish years ago. I think you'll find that when some novel technology erupts onto the scene, the job market goes through a shift of semi incoherence, that hits folks like us.

but, it's temporary and can introduce a way more enthralling era of jobs.
by squigz | 2025-07-03 00:22:17+00:00
> On the other hand, from my brief number of ASL lessons (about a years worth taken as an adult in my mid 20s) the facial expressiveness inherent to ASL gives it something hearing people don't get in normal conversation. But to me that's a pretty small benefit compared to the things a deaf person is missing.

I don't know ASL, so can you elaborate on this? Aren't facial expressions just as important for non-deaf people?
by fnordpiglet | 2025-07-03 00:22:22+00:00
That’s sort of narrow sighted - Asimov, Clarke are even more a bygone era yet their fiction is still very relevant. It may be the technologies they pin the story to are not the ones that are present in the future they foresaw but the premise still holds.

Snow Crash is positing once the mechanical and geographic advantages flatten globally you’re left with services of some sort - media, logistics, software: FAANG. It doesn’t seem far from the mark.

I wouldn’t be dismissive of the minds of the past. They’re in the context that leads to your present and have a unique perspective. The filter of history means the books that bubble up are from the most insightful and brilliant of their era, which means effectively the signal is clearly separated from the noise unlike the presents analysis of itself. If you want to understand what’s happening now read the science fiction of yesterday.
by aspenmayer | 2025-07-03 00:23:01+00:00
This is sort of explored in the film Strange Days, which is probably not very well known generally but perhaps would have a large fan base on HN.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_Days_(film)

Had no idea til I looked it up just now that James Cameron did the story, of Avatar, which shares a lot of tech influences with Strange Days. They could even be in the same cinematic universe, though many years apart.
by rerdavies | 2025-07-03 00:24:36+00:00
My specific point of discomfort is that imperatives may be fine in menus, and lists, and buttons (where "click here" is never going to happen anyway). But as an inline hyperlink they seem idiomatically incorrect. "Learn more about Amaya" is still an imperative sentence.

I guess technically, "To learn more about Amaya, view the datasheet." is also an imperative sentence. But to my mind, it scans better as inline text. Not quite sure how to nounify that one either. And interestingly, inability to find the "learn more about" link on landing pages for products I'm interested in is a source of constant frustration for me. There should be a word for "something halfway between the the breathless lede on a landing page, and "here's a thousand pages of documentation". For hardware products, the "datasheet" is exactly what I'm looking for; there doesn't seem to be an equivalent for software products.
by krapp | 2025-07-03 00:24:39+00:00
>Just an observation that at any given point in human history such a philosophy could only survive long enough to be passed generation to generation if its members offloaded the burden of having to make that moral choice onto someone else ie police or military.

People have no choice but to offload the "burden" onto the police and military, that's the entire premise of civil society and the state's monopoly on violence. Your ability to commit violence within society is already legally proscribed, and except in the case of military conscription, has never been required.

>I don't think such a belief could have ever developed and survived in a vacuum.

No, because it is explicitly an expression of opposition to the violence of secular society. In the absence of such violence, such a belief wouldn't be necessary.

>Every group of humans with surviving beliefs in known history have had some subgroup of (or been a subgroup of) other humans willing to resort to violence to protect the whole.

We're going to have to agree to disagree that the purpose of the police and military, or most equivalent groups throughout history, has ever been to "protect the whole."
by nyarlathotep_ | 2025-07-03 00:25:00+00:00
This is also how the contracting firms maintain business.

Accenture, Deloitte, et al are some of the only businesses that are "trusted partners" for the big F500s* or the only firms that are sufficiently capitalized/insured etc etc such that they can "win" the big jobs. Quality and such doesn't matter much--if you and I could spin up and LLC tomorrow with the ability to deliver something at 10x the quality in half the time, it literally wouldn't matter, for exactly those reasons. It's an identical situation to buying services/software from MS.

*the amount of work outsourced at these places is staggering, speaking from experience.
by 0xbadcafebee | 2025-07-03 00:25:27+00:00
I haven't used Couchers, but I was once very active with the Couchsurfing community in a couple cities. Here's what made Couchsurfing once a vibrant, thriving community:

- Forums. Regular-old stupid 1990's CGI web forums. They are the perfect way to grow organic community on the web. Simple, functional, compact, reliable. They don't bury content in endless scroll, they organize discussion by topics, pinned messages help drive central/ongoing discussions, and local moderators keep things in order. Couchsurfing began a steep nose-dive when the redesign de-emphasized forums.

- Regular local group meet-ups. There were plenty of people who hosted and surfed who never went to one of these; but for many, this was their first introduction to the community, and their first "profile reviews" that gave them social credit/standing. For others, the meetups were all they ever did... not really the point of the site, but it was a symbiotic relationship. Without regular in-person meet-ups, the community is too decentralized, and moderation suffers. Once regular meetups died, and the other "features" of Couchsurfing emerged, it became a weird hookup app, which you could see not only in "chat", but also in profiles and reviews. The social pressure and moderation of local meetups created a culture and reinforced its values. (also: depends 100% on forums)

- Reviews. Love 'em or hate 'em, you live and die in the community by your reviews. I feel like we should have public, irrevocable reviews for all kinds of things now. And bad reviews aren't necessarily a death sentence, but they are the meat and potatoes of the site, so they really have to work well. Looks like Couchers is still improving them, which is good.

- Weirdness. Part of the allure of Couchsurfing was the unexpected. People would tailor their profiles in all sorts of ways; long lists of rules, unique formatting, almost like an old MySpace page. Maybe you'd stay with a Mormon, or a Naturist, or at the last art-punk squat in Berlin. This creates safety issues, uncomfortable situations. But it also challenges people to deal with the real world (when they elect to).

I see Couchers has banned some of these last types of interactions (nudism & shared space). Regardless of what you think about this, every such restriction will shrink the human experience surfing used to provide. You can still have a restrictive hospitality site, but it's unlikely to be as successful. I think it would work if dedicated to one thing, like tourism, or rock climbing. But if you want it to be general, it's gotta be messy.
by timr | 2025-07-03 00:25:41+00:00
Yeah, try reading a better source [1]:

> NASA will now take over, Victoria LaCivita, communications director at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, told ABC News. "All preexisting reports will be hosted on the NASA website, ensuring compliance with statutorily required reporting," LaCivita said, referring ABC News to NASA for more information.

So, they're explicitly answering the second half of that question. Again, not suggesting the fact pattern is good, just that this article is terrible. I assume the AP could have also managed to get the same quote before running to press with speculation?

[1] https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-administration-shutters-majo...
by daveguy | 2025-07-03 00:25:43+00:00
> There is a popular derivative heuristic that the economy is "good" when ADP > BLS.

Surely that doesn't apply when both metrics are bad? I don't know. I'm not familiar with job reporting statistics. So info / perspective would be appreciated.

Also, when you say "over fits" I'm used to that in a machine learning context where it means data outside the fit is worse. Did you mean that ADP is more accurate with private sector and BLS is more accurate with public sector. Or is it more a matter of ADP comes in higher with private sector and BLS comes in higher with public sector. Usually, "overfit" is a bad thing in a machine learning context, but I wouldn't expect ADP to do worse in private and BLS to do worse in public. But the opposite. I would appreciate it if you could clarify the terminology from your perspective.
by apical_dendrite | 2025-07-03 00:26:22+00:00
I don't even know what you mean by "let those kind of people go". If they can't get funding, they won't become scientists in the first place. If they lose funding, the US can't just prevent them from moving overseas. It's (still) a free country! And a large proportion of them are foreign-born anyway.

Geoff Hinton couldn't get a job doing AI research in his native UK, so he moved to the US, where there were a lot more opportunities. At that time, neural networks weren't seen as particularly promising. Decades later, it paid off big. That's the kind of thing that will happen less and less (or work in reverse, with US researchers taking jobs overseas) since there will be far fewer funding opportunities.
by gertlex | 2025-07-03 00:27:37+00:00
> Silicon Valley, the population of ordinary people residing there, 10 years ago (2015), heaved diversity. In corporate employment, it took decades to break through gender and race ceilings in industry to various degrees, but it largely happened, mostly, for better or worse.

What's the meaning of "heaved diversity" here?

I think I agree with the rest of your comment, about the concentration of varied talent being important.
by padjo | 2025-07-03 00:27:44+00:00
No you said it’s probably a dns configuration, posted some pointless name server addresses and implied government sysadmins are incompetent.

What actually happened is exactly what this article said and I wouldn’t be surprised if they get no response from NOAA because of the administration’s well documented feud with the AP.

And if you believe NASA will publish anything beyond the most perfunctory version of this report under this administration I have a bridge to sell you.
by Dylan16807 | 2025-07-03 00:29:43+00:00
> For a whitelist system, then by definition yes?

A whitelist system would consider all IPv4 traffic suspicious by default too. This is not an answer to why you'd be suspicious of IPv6 in particular.

> I’ve not heard of any feasible solution more precise than banning huge ranges of ipv6 addresses.

Handling /56s or something like that is about the same as handling individual IPv4 addresses.
by breadwinner | 2025-07-03 00:30:14+00:00
Some have reportedly been offered $300 million, with more than $100 million in total compensation for the first year.

Think about it this way: This is a lot cheaper than buying Open AI. If you hire the top 10 researchers from Open AI that's basically the same as buying Open AI except it's a lot cheaper.

So basically Zuck is acquiring Open AI for $3 Billion. So cheap!
by baby_souffle | 2025-07-03 00:31:14+00:00
> Then you simply aren't familiar with their work. These (and NIH) are the engines of a large portion of the world's science.

The problem is that not all cutting edge science is "sexy". NOAA and NASA are doing some _really_ cool stuff with weather monitoring / climate predicting. Sexy? Arguably no. Unless the weather app on your phone is sexy.

Important? I'd argue that it's critical that we keep getting better at it.
by simonw | 2025-07-03 00:31:34+00:00
Ted Chiang wrote a great piece about that: https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/chatgpt-...

I think it's a solid description for a raw model, but it's less applicable once you start combining an LLM with better context and tools.

What's interesting to me isn't the stuff the LLM "knows" - it's how well an LLM system can serve me when combined with RAG and tools like web search and access to a compiler.

The most interesting developments right now are models like Gemma 3n which are designed to have as much capability as possible without needing a huge amount of "facts" baked into them.
by prng2021 | 2025-07-03 00:32:14+00:00
Serious question, anyone have guesses on how such an awful set of UI changes could have gotten approved? Even amongst my non-tech friends, they all agree that based on screenshots, things are harder to read. The latest iOS 26 beta even makes the glass effect more opaque which to me is an admission they screwed up, but they also certainly can’t completely backtrack at this point.

Apple has consistently balanced beauty and function, from their hardware to stores to product packaging. They must have an army of experienced UX designers and well thought out user testing processes. Given all that, how in the world did this liquid glass idea even get past the preliminary mockup stage? Were/are they simply betting that the cool factor of the glass effect will outweigh the usability issues? And that Windows Vista’s glass UI went out of style simply because it wasn’t realistic enough?
by Volundr | 2025-07-03 00:32:52+00:00
Let's review:

> You can get pulled over for no reason in the US and have drugs planted on you by a cop simply having a bad day.

The next reply in this thread:

> lol you watch too much tv.

No I'm not asserting they are "asking". They won't bother to ask. They'll either plant something and take your stuff that way, or "smell drugs" and seize your assets under "civil forfeiture".
by jadbox | 2025-07-03 00:34:47+00:00
I've heard nice things about Zig being a more ergo alternative to Rust, but I haven't seen anyone compare it to D yet. From my brief testing, it seemed like Zig wasn't as ergo as D, but in theory it could evolve to maybe get there. From the outside, it doesn't seem like Zig has made any super major ergo improvements in the last year, but I could be wrong.
by jefftk | 2025-07-03 00:34:55+00:00
> I can't see how it can be fair use.

The key question is whether it is sufficiently "transformative". See Authors Guild vs Google, Kelly vs Arriba Soft, and Sony vs Universal. This is a way a judge could definitely rule, and at this point I think is the most likely outcome.

> Microsoft will forever be a pariah if they get away with this.

I doubt this. Talking to developers, it seems like the majority are pretty excited about coding assistants. Including the ones that many companies other than Microsoft (especially Anthropic) are putting out.
by bnj | 2025-07-03 00:35:20+00:00
As I read your reply, I couldn’t help but think of the number of spontaneous photos I’ve been able to capture over the last decade because a camera is now built into my phone and available wherever I am. I still carry my camera a lot of the time, and for those who keep missing photos that depend on an instant shutter perhaps that would be a good move— but it’s hard to see how the effort to integrate a camera into phones is acting as a limit instead of expanding one
by victorhooi | 2025-07-03 00:36:17+00:00
See - I don't get this. I've heard people mention it about the deaf community, but it just doesn't make sense to me - perhaps I'm missing something.

I have congenital hearing loss in both ears, and wear hearing aids. I don't know ASL (at least not well enough to use), as I am more or less able to function with hearing aids, with the usual caveats - background noise, group settings, still quite reliant on lip-reading and context to fill in gaps etc.

Within my financial means, I would glad pay to wave a magic wand and restore my ears to "normal". This gene therapy sounds interesting, but I'm not sure if that mutation is the cause of my hearing loss. And I'm always wary of side-effects, haha.

I do see my hearing loss as a disability - and no matter how much you try to dress it up, or with "don't diss my dis-ability" PR campaigns - it still does suck every day. I'm not saying you should discriminate against people for their disability - and I've steadfastly advocated for increased accessibility to level the playing field (e.g. in my workplace, at church, in the community). But I'm not exactly Matt Murdoch or Echo here.

And yes, I'm also "neuro-diverse" (starts with A) - and yes, I guess you could argue there's advantages there, under specific circumstances. But there's most definitely a penalty there.
by aspenmayer | 2025-07-03 00:36:20+00:00
We’ll probably call it something less on the nose, more euphemistic, almost clinical, medical even.

Nerve stapling, perhaps?

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Fridge/SidMeiersAlpha...

George Carlin - Euphemisms - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isMm2vF4uFs
by sevensor | 2025-07-03 00:36:29+00:00
If we assume science still has new things to tell the world, who better for researchers to share their discoveries with than the next generation? That’s the argument, anyway. In practice, it’s a crapshoot. Many researchers are dreadful educators due to incentives, training, and disposition. Every now and then you’ll run across a researcher who is also a great educator, but there’s no institutional force that pushes them in the right direction.
by timr | 2025-07-03 00:36:47+00:00
> No you said it’s probably a dns configuration,

I said that barring better information, you can't rule it out. Still true.

> posted some pointless name server addresses

They're government servers, is the point. And don't you find it a little bit curious that someone bothered to change the NS records? It's not the usual way that a website goes down. In fact, it's the sort of thing that happens when you're in the process of (potentially incompetently) moving a domain from one server to another.

> What actually happened is exactly what this article said and I wouldn’t be surprised if they get no response from NOAA

Yet other reporters, from multiple different left-leaning news outlets, managed to get these elusive comments from super hard-to-reach people like...the White House press secretary for science policy. It's almost like there was a press conference or something.

Sometimes you actually have to do work to be a reporter, and when you skip that part and jump directly to conspiracy, it's not defensible. It's just trash journalism.
by apical_dendrite | 2025-07-03 00:36:49+00:00
And some important work is even less sexy than that. People like Ted Cruz love to mock work on animal models, because if you don't know anything about the field it sounds ridiculous ("look at these idiots wasting money putting shrimp on a treadmill"). But finding a simpler animal model has been one of the most successful ways to understand biological systems, and we've found all sorts of useful things by looking at how animals solve problems.
by metalman | 2025-07-03 00:41:01+00:00
There is a very large amount of redundency in enviromental data gathering and reporting, plus given.the most basic facts that it is impossible to close source the information source, and that there are now countless sensors on.earth and in orbit that can be re calibrated to provide conitiniousl'y consistent new data to older ongoing studies, there is essentialy nothing that can be effected by a political directive to actualy stop reporting, short of martial law, and then people would start printing pamphlets with potatoes and coffee dregs
by ghushn3 | 2025-07-03 00:41:32+00:00
> ... because that influx of people will increase labor supply, lowering unions' bargaining ability. Unions primary leverage is their ability to withhold labor (AKA a strike).

Plenty of big unions out there, and plenty of places where growing base actually strengthens the union, since they can afford to do more for members in the event of a strike. People will back their union if their union is fighting for them.

> Innovation and efficiency creation happen as the result of capital investment,

That's one way innovation and efficiency occur, for sure. Plenty of other ways. Most of human history innovation and efficiency gains were done without capital. Not all money is capital, and not all non-monetary resources are capital either.
by perrygeo | 2025-07-03 00:42:19+00:00
If this administration doesn't want to do anything to solve climate change, that's their choice. It's a terrible choice, but it's in their power to do so.

However, there's a huge difference between dismissing the severity of the evidence vs. going out of your way to hide evidence. The first is born of arrogance. The later is naked cowardice - they know exactly how wrong they are. If they wanted to project strength, they could simply leave the reports up and say "we don't care". Instead they scurry around behind the curtains trying to cover their tracks. Fucking pathetic.
by zzo38computer | 2025-07-03 00:42:55+00:00
In my opinion, some features of D are good, but I do not like all of them.

CTFE is good.

I do not really like the UFCS; if you want it to be used like a member of the first parameter then you should define it as a member of the first parameter (possibly as a inline function that only calls the freestanding function with the same name, if that is what you want it to do). (You could use a macro to do this automatically if you want to.)

Scoped imports is good, but I think that scoped macros would also be helpful.

Exhaustive switch seem like it might be better if designed differently than it is, but the idea seems to be not bad, in general.
by marinmania | 2025-07-03 00:43:13+00:00
You can't deduct losses against regular income. The idea is that if you win $100,000 one day and lose $100,000 the next day you should be taxed 0 since on net you won 0 total. Under the news rules it sounds like you would still be taxed even if you won 0 on net.

I am anti-gambling so I don't really care, but the current system seems fair (assuming its enforced well)
by timr | 2025-07-03 00:44:05+00:00
> It's from your source. It's the very last sentence in the article as of right now.

Sorry, what? I don't have any affiliation with ABC. Someone else posted the link.

NPR has the same basic comments [2]:

> All five editions of the National Climate Assessment that have been published over the years will also be available on NASA's website, according to NASA spokesperson Bethany Stevens. NASA doesn't yet know when that website will be available to the public.

How you get from that to "we don't know if they'll ever publish it again!" is beyond me.

[2] https://www.npr.org/2025/07/01/nx-s1-5453501/national-climat...