MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by FirmwareBurner | 2025-07-09 13:36:32+00:00
> We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

And who gets to decide who the intolerant parties are in an argument/dispute in order to justify the use of force against them?

The quote you posted literally advocates for censorship, oppression and genocide of the other side, except since it's of those YOU view as being intolerant, so then it's somehow moral and OK for you to do it against them, but you wouldn't agree to that when the other party does it to you when they view you as the intolerant one.

Because that's exactly what the Nazis did when they got into power: they removed the ones who they considered to be intolerant form their perspective, and it's exactly the rhetoric Zionists use to justify genocide in Gaza: they're just removing intolerant people so then it's morally ok.
by piva00 | 2025-07-09 13:36:35+00:00
> Also would have been nice to have a critical look at how the Chinese were able to corner the Solar market via state sponsored means.

What would be a critical look though? They thought it would be good to invest in it and so they did, other countries also had that choice if they so wished to sponsor it for strategic purposes but they are ruled by a different ideology which made them decide to not do it.

I don't think there's anything to be critical about, they invested a lot in it and are reaping the benefits.

Should we also be critical about how the Internet started as a state-sponsored project? Many things that aren't commercially viable in its initial state of development need state-sponsorship to get off the ground to be exploited by private companies, the Chinese saw an opportunity for that in solar PV, kudos to them.
by LLgordon | 2025-07-09 13:36:39+00:00
Findigs | Full-time | NYC | 3x/week in office

At Findigs, we’re transforming the rental experience — making it fairer, stress-free, and more convenient by changing the fundamentals of renting.

We build high-scale applications that streamline renting for millions. Our modern tech stack includes TypeScript, Python, Node.js, React, and scalable cloud infrastructure. We foster a collaborative culture where engineers have high ownership and autonomy, taking features from concept to deployment.

Join our sharp, supportive, and mission-driven team in our newly renovated SoHo/NoHo office.

Open role:

Senior Software Engineer ($180k - $210k) —> Apply here (https://jobs.lever.co/findigs/3b39616d-223f-4326-a500-f804c3...)
by nemomarx | 2025-07-09 13:36:48+00:00
There are also a lot of people on the ground that don't want it to work, or will protest it, and that's where state power seems to work well to cut through opposition and just build things. Certainly a lot of tradeoffs are made to allow that but the Chinese government seems very good at building.

I'm not sure if it's the model or the particular culture working though - aren't there also a lot of party bureaucrats over there? So the core is authority or agency directed at the center of it, I think.
by hiAndrewQuinn | 2025-07-09 13:36:54+00:00
I've become pretty convinced everyone working in software should have a something like a static site generator somewhere in their back pocket. It could be Astro, Hugo (my choice), or even pandoc running in server mode, which is unhackable because you would have to first understand the Haskell type system to hack it. But it should be there for all the little times you just want to spin up something fast, cheap, and content-driven.
by xdfgh1112 | 2025-07-09 13:37:09+00:00
Kind of a clunky and verbose syntax at the moment. I wonder what languages get pipe syntax right?

Obligatory: Raku supports pipe in both directions, passing input as the last parameter instead of requiring the function to take only one parameter. It also has a shorthand:

my @array = <7 8 9 0 1 2 4 3 5 6 7 8 9>; my @final-array = @array.unique.sort.reverse; say @final-array;
by kragen | 2025-07-09 13:37:22+00:00
Well, I thought maybe I should care, even if the request was unreasonable; but then I looked at some of the irritated people's comment histories, and breathed a sigh of relief.

Generally the comments I'm proud of tend to have more dates rather than less dates, because often they either provide verifiable information about things that have happened in the past at specific times, or cite specific sources, including the publication date. I think comments like that are more valuable than comments that simply take a position or state a complaint.

Consider, for example, this overview of the historical development of delay slots in RISC architectures https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44503609, or this discussion of what GlobalFoundries' prospects for developing a 7nm node really were when they abandoned it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44503245, or this summary of the causes for the antibacterial properties of honey and the evidence for its astounding shelf-stability https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44495658, or this brief history of the ideology of pre-Satoshi cryptocurrencies https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44471683.

These are all within the last week. I'm pleased with how each of those comments came out, and, although the last one went relatively unnoticed (probably because it was deep in a contentious thread), all of the others were very well received.

However, presumably not by the sort of people who are more interested in how other people format their comments than they are in biochemistry, archaeology, or computer architecture. Which is fine with me. Different people have different interests, and some people evidently have a very strong interest in how other people format their dates, and don't have much to contribute on topics like computer architecture. Possibly this isn't the right site for them, and if so, they'll figure that out sooner or later, and go criticize other people's comment formatting elsewhere.

Sooner, I hope, because I'm really not interested in their opinions.
by evantbyrne | 2025-07-09 13:37:45+00:00
There wasn't as much JS to test. I built a progressively-enhanced SQLite GUI not too long ago to refresh my memory on the methodology, and I wound up with 50-ish lines of JS not counting Turbo. Fifty. It was a simple app, but it had the same style of partial DOM updates and feel that you would see from a SPA when doing form submissions and navigation.
by dgacmu | 2025-07-09 13:37:57+00:00
Return on energy is different from cost, and it's strange that you're ignoring that. When you look at the levelized cost of energy, solar and onshore wind win: On a per-kWh basis, they produce the cheapest energy around. Gas combined cycle plants are close, but they have pollution and CO2 drawbacks.

LCOE doesn't capture everything you want, but when your grid mix is low on solar, it's the most relevant metric. When we get 15x return on energy and the energy we produce is cheap, you can ... use 1/15th of that energy to make more solar panels. And we're getting better at producing them by the year: Energy input is down and efficiency is up.

Nuclear is about 3x as expensive per kWh generated and it's not as dispatchable. Fossil fuels have this annoying problem of emitting co2and contributing a lot to climate change. That doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying to find ways to drive the cost of nuclear down - we should! - but from the perspective of "What generation should I install tomorrow?", solar and wind, augmented with a bit of storage, are really impressive: They're the fastest to bring online and provide the cheapest energy. The cost to them is you probably have to pay your gas plant operators a higher capacity fee for rare occasions, but that's ok. In a region like mine (PJM - pennsylvania, new jersey, virginia, ohio, etc.), they still make a profit while burning less gas, and consumer energy cost drops.

It seems weird to get all religious about technology choices when they each have advantages and disadvantages and combine pretty well to even out those differences. It would be expensive to be 100% solar+wind+storage because of the overprovisioning needed. But a mix instead of running 100% fossil (or 100% nuclear) would drop your costs considerably and be faster to build out.
by scubakid | 2025-07-09 13:38:24+00:00
That's an impressive number of years to stick with a product you questioned. Probably 2x longer than Google would have maintained it lol

(who says products by indie devs always have higher long-term support risk?!)

I'm really happy to hear it turned around for you. The 4 months of down time sound terrifying. Can you share more about how you navigated that, how it impacted customers, and what you were able to restore vs what you couldn't, and what processes you changed in the aftermath?
by taeric | 2025-07-09 13:38:59+00:00
I thought the general view was that leaving the CGI model was not necessarily better for most people? In particular, I know I was at a bigger company that tried and failed many times to replace essentially a CGI model with a JVM based solution. Most of the benefits that they were supposed to see from not having the outdated execution model, as you call it, typically turned into liabilities and actually kept them from hitting the performance they claimed they would get to.

And, sadly, there is no getting around the "configure everything perfectly" problem. :(
by lxgr | 2025-07-09 13:39:15+00:00
Without knowing the exact details, it seems to me like Oracle has a point here:

Java Card supports, broadly speaking, two types of bytecode verification: "On-card" and "off-card". On-card is secure against even malicious applets; off-card assumes that a trustworthy entity vets all applets before they are installed, and only signs them if they are deemed well-formed.

The off-card model just seems like a complete architectural mismatch for the eSIM use case, since there is no single trustworthy entity. SAT applets are not presented to the eUICC vendor for bytecode verification, so the entire security model breaks down if verification doesn't happen on-card.

Unfortunately, the GSMA eSIM specifications seem to be so generic that they don't even mandate Java as a bytecode technology, and accordingly don't impose any specific Java requirements, such as "all eUICC implementations supporting SAT via Java Card must not rely on off-card bytecode verification".
by rsynnott | 2025-07-09 13:39:18+00:00
"Unaligned"?

Direct from the horse's mouth: https://xcancel.com/elonmusk/status/1936333964693885089?s=46

> We will use Grok 3.5 (maybe we should call it 4), which has advanced reasoning, to rewrite the entire corpus of human knowledge, adding missing information and deleting errors.

> Then retrain on that.

> Far too much garbage in any foundation model trained on uncorrected data.

This isn't 'unaligned'. It is 1984'd.
by unshavedyak | 2025-07-09 13:39:30+00:00
I agree with you, but man i can't help but feel humans are the same depending on the company. My wife was recently fighting with several layers of comcast support over cap changes they've recently made. Seemingly it's a data issue since it's something new that theoretically hasn't propagated through their entire support chain yet, but she encountered a half dozen confidently incorrect people which lacked the information/training to know that they're wrong. It was a very frustrating couple hours.

Generally i don't trust most low paid (at no fault of their own) customer service centers anymore than i do random LLMs. Historically their advice for most things is either very biased, incredibly wrong, or often both.
by kwanbix | 2025-07-09 13:39:42+00:00
The full price is 48+tax, so 44+tax for the upgrade sounds wrong.

I personally use Mint/Ubuntu with XFCE which I found it to be the closest to my work habit and the closer to Windows (I use both Linux and Windows).

About ZorinOS Pro, I think it is too expensive. They are competing with Free Windows, Free MacOS, and Free Mint/Ubuntu/Fedora/Arch. That said, if it works for them, let them be. AS long as they respect the GPL/LGPL and contribute back, I don't see a problem.
by lou1306 | 2025-07-09 13:39:52+00:00
I just meant very generally that we (humans) are still struggling to make regular programs secure, we built decades worth of infrastructures (langages, protocols, networks) where security was simply not a concern and we are still reckoning with that.

Jumping head first into an entire new "paradigm" (for lack of a better word) where you can bend a clueless, yet powerful servant to do your evil bidding sounds like a recipe for... interesting times.
by falcor84 | 2025-07-09 13:39:53+00:00
Well, I think that the vast majority of those predictions about the internet did came true, with my main evidence being the extent through which the covid lockdowns didn't harm the productivity of the typical company - I think that the fact that all the operations just moved online would have been unimaginable in the early 90s, except by avid sci-fi readers.
by nikitaeverywher | 2025-07-09 13:40:16+00:00
There's no way to block it — that's by design. The only way would be to block the entire website or disable JavaScript entirely. DataUnlocker makes the app function as a single integrated unit, so trying to cut out one piece causes the whole thing to stop working.

It's a broader topic worth deeper discussion to be honest. I'll be posting more on it soon — including why I believe the internet privacy "movement" should align with this: instead of breaking tools used in web apps (while I agree if you can, you can), the focus should go on pseudo-anonymizing users (web clients) while preserving functionality – parts of it are already implemented (VPNs, one-time sessions, etc). I can honestly see both sides of the debate — it's a long-standing and nuanced topic.
by jeroenhd | 2025-07-09 13:40:56+00:00
For what it's worth, Windows 10 will sunset in two years. You can pay $30/year for security updates (or get updates for free by enabling Windows Backup or spending Microsoft Reward Points you earn by using Bing) and keep using Windows 10 until programs stop working, which will probably take a while with the current status.

My advice on dual booting Linux in general:

1. Resize the partition from Windows if you're going to install to the same disk

2. Do not use MBR mode to install anything. Windows updates will break your Grub bootloader, and Grub updates will break the Windows bootloader. Most PCs default to UEFI these days already, but it's always good to check

3. If at all possible, use the computer's UEFI OS dialog rather than chainloading Windows from the Linux bootloader. Kind of requires a user-friendly motherboard GUI, but if Bitlocker decides to turn itself on, you'll be struggling with recovery keys a lot less if you let both bootloaders just manage themselves.

4. If that's not possible or the motherboard OS selection sucks ass, and Bitlocker is enabled, write down the recovery key, boot through the Linux bootloader once (Windows will notice the boot process changed and prompt for a recovery key), and enter the recovery key. After a reboot, Bitlocker should unseal when booting from the Linux bootloader automatically, and now directly booting from the motherboard OS selection will require the recovery key.

5. If you're going to use a new disk, make sure to create a sufficiently large UEFI partition (>1GB, storage is cheap these days!) so bootloader/kernel updates don't break in the coming years.

6. Not really a dual booting issue, but if you're doing tech support for your relative, do yourself a favour and set up a tool like Timeshift (including automatic snapshots on updates, and if your configuration permits automatic integration into Grub). It'll offer system restore-like features, allowing you to revert the system to a known-good configuration in case an update breaks something. Timeshift itself works best on btrfs installs, but it'll also work in rsync mode on any file system, and other tools like it exist.
by monkeyelite | 2025-07-09 13:41:09+00:00
Think about all the problems associated with process life cycle - is a process stalled? How often should I restart a crashed process? Why is that process using so much memory? How should my process count change with demand? All of those go away when the lifecycle is tied to the request.

It’s also more secure because each request is isolated at the process level. Long lived processes leak information to other requests.

I would turn it around and say it’s the ideal model for many applications. The only concern is performance. So it makes sense that we revisit this question given that we make all kinds of other performance tradeoffs and have better hardware.

Or you know not every site is about scaling requests. It’s another way you can simplify.

> but it is an outdated execution model

Not an argument.

The opposite trend of ignoring OS level security and hoping your language lib does it right seems like the wrong direction.
by hombre_fatal | 2025-07-09 13:41:20+00:00
You're making the opposite mistake: you're seeing someone's description of a tool's feature and confusing it with the way we've already done things without even checking if the tool is transformative just because it kinda sounds similar.

Astro's main value prop is that it integrates with JS frameworks, let's them handle subtrees of the HTML, renders their initial state as a string, and then hydrates them on the client with preloaded data from the server.

TFA is trying to explain that value to someone who wants to use React/Svelte/Solid/Vue but only on a subset of their page while also preloading the data on the server.

It's not necessarily progressive enhancement because the HTML that loads before JS hydration doesn't need to work at all. It just matches the initial state of the JS once it hydrates. e.g. The <form> probably doesn't work at all without the JS that takes it over.

These are the kind of details you miss when you're chomping at the bit to be cynical instead of curious.
by ripe | 2025-07-09 13:42:14+00:00
> Indian: no idea how it works in practice but it involves crore and lakh...

They write thousands just like in the U.S. system, with the same commas: 20,000. But beyond that, the "lakh" is 100k, the "crore" is 10M, and commas in written figures go in twos:

The population of Australia is about 2.8 crores: 2,80,00,000. The Delhi metro area is over 3.4 crores: 3,40,00,000.

They have more unique words for every 100-multiple unit after crore, to go along with the commas, but in everyday practice they don't use those terms. Instead, they go "long" on the crores. Thus, India's population is about 146 crores; the new Mumbai underground Colaba-Bandra-SEEPZ line will cost ₹21,000 crore.

When reporting foreign money, they use the U.S. system with millions and billions as usual: ₹21,000 crore is parenthesized (US$2.5 billion).
by jsnell | 2025-07-09 13:42:19+00:00
This genre of writing is quite hard to engage with productively. It is really long due to throwing everything at the wall. Doesn't matter if the argument is obsolete, a lie, unprovable, or actually a legit and we'll researched complaint. Into the article it goes.

For people who want to believe the author, this flooding the zone approach is catnip. They get the confirmation they need. The people who don't want to believe the author will just dismiss the entire article after the first argument they recognize as invalid.

And for the people in the middle, it's impossible to have a good discussion about the article and get a better understanding because there are too many unrelated arguments packed together. Trying to rebut or support just one of them just feels like a waste of time.

If you're trying to write an effective anti-AI article, it really would be way more effective to pick the 1-2 strongest points (whatever they are).
by gjm11 | 2025-07-09 13:42:39+00:00
Side-note: for me, at least, "salty" isn't anything to do with tears; in my idiolect when someone's "salty" it doesn't mean they're sad, it means they're angry or offended or something along those lines. The metaphor is more about how salt (in large quantities) tastes strong and sharp.

(Which maybe illustrates that a metaphor can succeed even when everyone doesn't agree about just what it's referring to, as you're suggesting "call" may have done.)
by fer | 2025-07-09 13:42:57+00:00
>Seems like it could easily be training data set size as well.

I'm convinced that's the case. On any major LLM I can carpet bomb Java/Python boilerplate without issue. For Rust, at least last time I checked, it comes up with non-existing traits, more frequent hallucinations and general struggle to use the context effectively. In agent mode it turns into a first fight with the compiler, often ending in credit destroying loops.

And don't get me started when using it for Nix...

So not surprised about something with orders of magnitude smaller public corpus.
by Vinnl | 2025-07-09 13:43:16+00:00
Not usually, but in the context of

> Astro find a very nice balance of having your server and client code in one codebase, being able to define which is which and not having to parse your data from whatever PHP is doing into your JavaScript code is a huge DX improvement.

the point is pretty much that you can do more JS for rich client-side interactions in a much more elegant way without throwing away the benefits of "back in the days" where that's not needed.
by vardump | 2025-07-09 13:43:17+00:00
Ok, let me ask another way.

Can it operate without an internet connection and with an open standard that lets the me, the user, to be in control using a hub (if necessary) and software I choose, including an open source option should I so choose?

Or do I have to use proprietary hubs and software to control the devices?

In short, are there any end user hostile features or can I use the devices like how Zigbee works?
by devilbunny | 2025-07-09 13:43:28+00:00
And even then isn’t necessarily enough. A college friend worked at a pizza place that did almost all business by delivery. The store itself actually crossed a city-county border. The cash registers were physically in the back, because that was the county (with lower sales tax). Technically, all money changed hands in the county, not the city.

I would be more suspicious of this story if I hadn’t seen that the registers were, actually, in the back. And they didn’t have a pickup window back there or anything.
by izacus | 2025-07-09 13:43:35+00:00
> I am not delighted by the fact that an Apple Home Thread network, a Google Home thread network, and a Home Assistant native thread network appear to be different things that are not entirely compatible with each other.

Hmm, in what way? The Matter standard does demand that devices support at least 5 of such "fabrics" at once. Where is the issue in practice?
by Rochus | 2025-07-09 13:44:44+00:00
(2014)

A passionate essay, which overstates its case, relies on anecdotal or selective evidence, and employs rhetorical strategies that weaken its objectivity. The strongest points are its identification of fallacious reasoning in OOP advocacy and its call to consider alternatives. But it doesn't consider that the same kind of criticism applies to all method hypes; if you look at FP or Agile or present advocacy that promise you heaven on earth and the solution to all problems if you use e.g. Rust, it's no better than the garbage promised by OO marketing at the time.