MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by instig007 | 2025-07-03 02:48:24+00:00
> For example, there's no way to implement a function `List<T> -> T` using monad operations; it requires something entirely separate (e.g. indexing into a List, in this case).

this is called catamorphism, that is folding. The opposite transformation is called anamorphism, that is generation from a seed value.
by georgyo | 2025-07-03 02:49:09+00:00
This again is a limitation of mapping labels to IMAP, which does not understand labels.

Both the Gmail web interface and the Gmail API allow the ability to set all the labels for a message. This can effectively enable your desired functionality. But IMAP can only deal with "folders", and cannot correctly decide when to remove a single label or remove all other labels when it sees a move action.

IMAP also only deals in messages and not threads. Gmail labels also technically only apply to messages, but the web interface shows the union of all labels of a thread. This is another decision I agree with. It means that when someone explicitly adds me to a thread, the whole thread gets highlighted in my feed.

I personally really enjoy the Gmail/fastmail/proton behavior so please don't make another political campaign to make things worse again. We have enough of those.
by leakycap | 2025-07-03 02:49:36+00:00
Almost all buyers finance.

You cannot generally get a loan on a car with much hail damage. Buyer pool now significantly smaller = less value, must sell for less to attract one of the few potential buyers.

This means for most people trying to unload their hail damaged car, they get to sell to dealer at auction pricing (aka rock bottom prices, penny on the dollar value), sell it to an auction yourself, or hope someone on CraigsList is desperate for a car enough they don't care it's a golf ball.

It's interesting how something like this might be hard to understand if you haven't been through it. Previously working in the car industry, not understanding this is actually common among car buyers and a source of frustration for people who get stuck in their low-value, hail damaged cars.

Think about something other than a car: If I buy something that is normally worth X, but it is damaged and is now worth 0.3X and there I pay 0.3X I did not save 0.7X off what I got... I got something worth what I paid.

You cannot extract value from a deal where you were paying less because you received less (aka damaged and less valuable property with less market value).
by GianFabien | 2025-07-03 02:49:42+00:00
I've worked on installation of several SAP systems, most multi $M. Based on this limited subset I offer the following:

* You need to have experienced SAP *technicians* on board. It is far too big and complex to learn as required. * In every case one of the Big 5 consulting firms were involved. Learn to work effectively with them. Be mindful of the fact that they might see you as a competitor that cuts into *their* billable hours. * SAP documentation is horrendous. It is massive. Often misleading. Version and configuration details can easily lead you astray. * Customization to client's requirements is the norm. These in turn are typically even worse documented (if at all). * As much as you might wish to avoid it, you need to work with Oracle, DB2, etc database vendors too. * The hardware configurations are often bizarre. Especially when deployed in clusters with fall-back, etc.

I hope you have a VC with deep pockets and lots of patience. Your first paying client could easily become a huge time and effort sink.
by castillar76 | 2025-07-03 02:50:09+00:00
Note that Quakers never rejected the possibility of being killed for their beliefs, just the choice of killing others for them. Pacifism does not equate to passivism, after all: it simply means that they reject the notion of visiting violence on others.

It's also important to note that pacifism has been a divisive issue for Quakers from very early times. The play 'Sword of Peace' that's performed throughout the year in Snow Camp, NC, is about Meetings in the US struggling with the question of pacifism vs. the desire to aid their nascent country during the American Revolution. It was a debate for Friends during the US Civil War, both World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, and onwards – one of the tenets of Quakerism is the need to wrestle with those issues by listening to the 'still small voice within' rather than blindly accepting the dictates of others. For many Friends, the threat posed by British colonial rule, the Confederacy, or Nazi Germany simply outweighed the demands of their conscience not to bear arms.

Friends often refer to the anecdote of William Penn asking George Fox (one of the founders of Quakerism) whether Penn should stop wearing his sword because he was now a Quaker. Fox told him, 'wear thy sword as long as thee is able' — meaning he should give it up because his conscience dictated it, not because he was a Quaker.
by diegof79 | 2025-07-03 02:50:17+00:00
> Don't pretend that the downsides of messing with an existing UI aren't real.

Wow, you are barking at the wrong tree.

In my comment, I didn't say that the UI style changes were good or bad for usability. The comment thread had two postures: either these design changes have a business reason, or they are there to justify the designer's salary.

I wanted to highlight a third plausible reason: people crave experiencing something new, which is why businesses reflect that. For example, I love the classic Mac OS B&W style, but if Apple maintains the same style from 1984 to the present, many people will perceive it as outdated. (In fact, I remember reading MacOS 9 reviews pre-Aqua, that many comments highlighted how MacOS looked legacy compared to Windows 95.)

I'm not defending poor style changes or implying that they don't affect usability.
by 2muchcoffeeman | 2025-07-03 02:51:27+00:00
So educate parents or rethink what they need laptops for?

I didn’t say it was going to be easy. But all the middle aged guys who created all these tech startups that are rotting your children’s brains didn’t grow up with this level of technology.

So it’s clearly possible. Does the government or parents have the will to make the change? Maybe not.
by jauntywundrkind | 2025-07-03 02:52:03+00:00
I don't have the direct insight to know but I'd put money on running the personalized recommendation algorithms (like a Google and Facebook do) taking a good lot more effort than UI / render work.

Walking down the rabbit hole, we get into interesting realms when we talk about UI; there's layout compute, then actual render compute. Theatter is gonna get some on the GPU, and is intense compute, but it's done on this absurdly efficient ultra parallel highly tuned computer: the amount of compute is high but it's got all this hardware tuned specifically for rendering. There's a nearly philosophical question of how we want to regard that compute; significant if measured absolutely, small-ish if measured in the context of energy used.

Keeping the page alive, loaded, scrolling is going to drain some compute. Maybe we deduct the compute required to keep the OS up, an empty app or page running? Discord the "not the workload".

My understanding is that when a request comes in to Google Search and many other systems there's a often a fan out to hundreds of systems, unimaginaly many little bits of work and telemetry flying around. And then double that again for ad-buy auctions! I'd love a better resource that does better than I'm doing here, but I tend to think there's just a wild amount of work and data shuffling around as requests come in, that that's why these hyperscalers need these millions upon millions of servers.
by fnordpiglet | 2025-07-03 02:52:44+00:00
Thermoelectric cooling needs as much research as possible. Mechanical cooling is extraordinarily space consuming. CHESS has the potential over the next 10 years to largely replace vapor compression in most systems other than the most extreme gradients or scales. They are small enough to incorporate into most devices and would allow smaller devices more thermal load. In some ways I think efficient TEC like CHESS could be more useful than room temperature super conductors.
by adamschwartz | 2025-07-03 02:53:09+00:00
I’m confused, but maybe two wrongs here do make a right. Please allow me to explain.

Putting aside for the moment that I personally find Apple’s iOS 26 design objectionable[1], I don’t understand why `backdrop-filter: blur` is the focus of recent implementations jumping on the Liquid Glass hype train.

Using background blur to create UI layer separation (often in combination with darkening/saturation or other contrast enhancements) has been around for over a decade on iOS and almost as long on the web. So what’s new here?

Adding to my confusion, I’m a bit surprised folks here think this is so challenging in CSS. A few commenters have pointed to great implementations elsewhere, but I think they’re underselling them.

Plainly: the solution that involves `backdrop-filter: filter(#filter)` where `#filter` references an inline SVG embedded with `<feImage/>` and `<feDisplacementMap/>` works very convincingly well.

Check out this demo for example:

https://codepen.io/Mikhail-Bespalov/pen/MYwrMNy

This implementation choose to hard-code `<feImage href="data:image/png;base64,..."/>`. But if glass3d.dev chose to implement 3d highlights in a similar fashion (and wanted to support e.g. a dynamic `border-radius`) this image could easily be rendered in the browser runtime in canvas, and dumped into the CSS using `toDataURL()`. Similarly, a component library with a CSS pre-processor could generate these for any static shape at build-time.

The closest thing I’ve seen to this is:

https://ruri.design/glass

These implementations are out there.

Coming back to the why/should for a second though.

[1] In its current realization, Liquid Glass cannot effectively replace what blur accomplishes. Because Liquid Glass layers are more transparent, the contrast issues are real, and the spectral highlights distract the eye as much as (or more than) they help make up for that lack of contrast. It draws attention to the eye where blur would relax it. It’s a UI meant for an XR system (where it arguably solves a real problem, much like a HUD does in a video game) hacked into devices where it makes no sense, all in the name of a “unified OS” design language.

If any aspect of Liquid Glass is successful it will be when it’s used sparingly to delight in places that are low stakes and where other affordances are present (like a small circular button floating in the corner of the screen with hardware concentricity). A circle shape’s refractions would be smaller, softer, more symmetrical, and therefore arguably less noisy/distracting—in a way resembling a softer blurry background.

Which brings me full circle back to two wrongs.

This website doesn’t do anything new, but that’s why it’s good. Because the truth is, Apple failed to deliver a Siri-based LLM on a schedule it announced and is now trying to distract us with some shiny new thing. Damn, it worked.
by varunmara | 2025-07-03 02:53:38+00:00
Remote interview fraud has become very common, not only cheating with AI tools like cluely, but hiring fake candidates, it was obvious with soham parekh, a guy from India managed to get hired by multiple startups, imagine the condition of companies with thousands of employees, rampant fraud is already there at contract workers, full time mostly using AI tools but this has now spread to even startups, nothing more better than physical interview centers nationwide, that’s why colleges are not facing the same problems tech companies are facing with AI cheating
by jdkee | 2025-07-03 02:53:39+00:00
Via Wikipedia:

The average consumption of residential and agricultural customers is relatively high, at 16,857 kWh per year in 2011,[119] because of the widespread use of electricity as the main source of space (77%) and water heating (90%).[124] Hydro-Québec estimates that heating accounts for more than one half of the electricity demand in the residential sector.[125]
by mindslight | 2025-07-03 02:53:44+00:00
That's a weird framing making for a very odd conclusion, given that he is expanding the powers of the government, claiming those powers vest directly in him, and increasing the number of enforcers of that power. It's like the CEO of a company eliminating the R&D department, cutting everyone else's pay, and bulking up on security guards to perform random searches looking for pretexts to fire more people. From my perspective, the bureaucracy was an ever growing amount of administrative overhead, but it was at least moderating authoritarian power and keeping the worst impulses of autocracy at bay.

I do agree they are not the same - reverting to autocracy is throwing the towel in on the American experiment. Previous elites in power at least had the decency to view their looting as a symbiotic parasitic relationship. What is the same is the dynamic of distracting the rubes with feel-good populist outrage while shamelessly robbing them blind.
by instig007 | 2025-07-03 02:53:52+00:00
> Right, ‘some type that has a Select(Func<T, S>) method available’

not just Select(Func<T, S>), but a Select(Func<T, S>) that preserves its original contextual instance of Select and doesn't leak into a different instance with Select.

> But I don’t need a function that does that

you don't need it yet ;)
by 9x39 | 2025-07-03 02:53:55+00:00
> Is this something that happens regularly in America?

Murder and manslaughter occurs in every country. Violence is hyperlocal and can be entirely stochastic. There are simply broken humans everywhere.

>One can defend oneself and others in a myriad of ways that do not involve murder.

Too much fiction, not enough fighting experience. There are myriad ways in which you cannot effectively defend yourself and cannot flee in these lose-lose scenarios. There largely wouldn't be victims, if this were true.
by gruez | 2025-07-03 02:54:45+00:00
>But in a roundabout sense ... yes they are working. At least if the goal is to discipline and squeeze labor, and return leverage to employers.

I can't keep track of how many times how "X" is some sort of dastardly ploy to oppress workers, only for (different?) people to argue that "not X" also oppresses workers, with plausible sounding stories for both sides. Last time it was work from home. Is is a dastardly plot to subjugate workers by exposing them to international competition, and dehumanize them by making every interaction mediated by a glowing rectangle? Or is return to office a dastardly ploy by the capitalist class to regain leverage, by forcing workers to waste time commuting, getting distracted in open concept offices, and buying overpriced lunches?

The same is true for Tariffs. In the 2010s it was not unpopular for leftist types to say how globalization was a disaster for the American middle class, and how it only enriches capitalists. Now you're saying that tariffs were actually some sort of 5d chess move by the capitalist class to crash the economy, so they can subjugate workers? Nevermind that the capitalist class seemed pretty against the tariffs, given how much stock market dropped, and only recovered after Trump walked back on his tariffs. That's not to say something is wrong just because there's a plausible sounding argument for the opposing side, but it does mean you need to do more legwork to prove your point than to tell a nice story.
by BeetleB | 2025-07-03 02:54:52+00:00
I don't doubt your experience at all. The question I have for you is: Can you speak for all deaf people? I'm not saying everyone who is deaf is fine. But I do know that for many (even if a minority), it is fine, and it is different enough that they worry their kid will not have the experience they had, and may have a worse experience (in some ways) with hearing.

It's not a clear cut easy decision. I would say one should understand and respect the parents' decision. They know the factors way better than I do, and likely in many ways better than you do (especially as you don't know ASL).

I work with a deaf person (not born that way, but been that way most of her life). I'm sure she'd pay a hefty sum to get normal hearing - partially because her whole family (kids, etc) are not deaf. Even when she openly talks about the advantages of being deaf. If she did have a deaf child and chose treatment for her kid, I'd totally understand. But if she chose against it, I'd also totally understand.

What I don't get is people insisting they are totally wrong/evil for not pursuing the treatment for their kids. Almost always they don't understand the factors at play.
by dataflow | 2025-07-03 02:55:04+00:00
> If you're a C programmer and want to avoid the GC, there's nothing to be viral.

What you're suggesting is the moral equivalent of "it's easy to avoid diseases, just avoid contact with those infected", or "it's easy to avoid allergens, just avoid foods you're allergic to", or "it's easy to avoid contamination, just set up a cleanroom", or "it's easy to write deterministic code, just avoid randomness", etc.

Yes, there are things that are easy to achieve in the vacuum of outer space, but that's not where most people are interested in living.
by newyankee | 2025-07-03 02:55:06+00:00
Its funny when I saw this road, I realised the distance is probably more than the N-S or E-W distance of Bangladesh , a country with > 171 million people last checked.

In fact barely equal to the diagonal length of the country. How much ever one talks about fertile plains, tropical weather being able to support more people, this no is still bonkers to me
by gruez | 2025-07-03 02:56:39+00:00
>Indirectly, it's quite possible for a software engineer to lose their job due to tariffs if they lead to reduced profits to their company due to higher supply chain costs. Most software engineers don't work at Google, Meta, and their ilk. Many work in sectors affected by tariffs.

Source? My prototypical software engineer is someone working for a SaaS, or similar services based company (eg. insurance company or bank), not someone developing software for a car company or metal parts shop.
by leakycap | 2025-07-03 03:00:17+00:00
Maybe I don't have the interview volume others do, but aren't you able to tell pretty quickly in your face-to-face or live video call interview that a person is competent or not (such as using a tool to compensate for a lack of experience)

I keep hearing of employers being duped by AI in interviews; I don't see how it is possible unless:

1) The employer is not spending the time to synchronously connect via live video or in person, which is terrible for interviewing

2) The interviewer is not competent to be interviewing

... what other option is there? Are people sending homework/exams as part of interviews still and expecting good talent to put up with that? I'm confused where this is helpful to a team that is engaged with the interview process.
by smarm52 | 2025-07-03 03:00:40+00:00
The primary purpose of Foreign Aid isn't about charity.

McGillivray, F., & Smith, A. (2008). Punishing the prince: a theory of interstate relations, political institutions, and leader change. Princeton University Press.

It's about influencing governments. It's a really nice way to "bribe" foreign officials for things that a government wants.
by palmfacehn | 2025-07-03 03:00:46+00:00
>mainstream dogma of capitalism being objectively good

Is that what you perceive the mainstream dogma to be? When I observe use of the word "capitalism", it is usually in regards to rationalizations for interventions or other socialist policies. Whereas proponents generally use specific language, like market, market-based or laissez-faire. Opponents are can be observed using language like, neoliberal, deregulation, greed and capitalism.

The Sad Decline Of The Word "Capitalism"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alejandrochafuen/2013/05/01/the...

>Although Karl Marx did not create the word, it was after his work “Das Kapital” (1867) when the term “capitalism” began to be widely used to describe an economic system based on private property as the means of production. Marx remains the great labeler: “capital,” “the capitalist” and “the capitalist system of production” appear repeatedly in his writings.

...

>Should we care if we lose the term capitalism? Assessing its popularity, or lack thereof, I recently reviewed the mission of 25 leading market oriented think tanks around the globe. I could not find a single one using the term. “Free enterprise,” “free-markets” “free-economy” and better yet “free society” will continue to crowd out “capitalism,” if not as a system, at least as a word.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

Looking over HN comments, I observe that uses of the term generally contain anti-market critiques.

https://hn.algolia.com/?q=capitalism

Popular stories also seem to use it in a generally negative way, or with a modifier to "improve" it.

I'm not convinced that the mainstream dogma is positive. To the contrary, I would regard use of the word as symptomatic of anti-market sentiment.
by nothrabannosir | 2025-07-03 03:00:50+00:00
> Being preached at about science by a population of people who probably mostly failed high school science is not a good time.

I agree with the part about preaching, but fair is fair: they were preaching scientific consensus. They preach what is said by the overwhelming majority of active scientific researchers in this field.

You didn’t say they were wrong I agree, but still .. they were (/ are) right. And why should they be perfect, anyway? They are who they are, flawed and all, but they are right about this and they were right to make that movie and they were right about people being selfish.

Ironically you could say that we are now basically reenacting the movie, proving its point. There’s an asteroid heading for us and here we are, judging the high school grades of the people telling us about its trajectory.

I thought it was very depressing and surprisingly self reflective and poignant in that sense.
by 1vuio0pswjnm7 | 2025-07-03 03:01:16+00:00
"Mozilla (despite its issues) is nowhere near as evil as Google and a browser monopoly is good for nobody."

Truthfully, it is good for somebody. For example, it is good for Google.

By extension, it is also good for Mozilla because Mozilla sends FF user data, e.g., default search query data, to Google in exchange for money.

If Google's search business declines due to loss of monopoly (aka competition) and as a result Google decides to stop funding Mozilla, then that's bad for somebody.

Perhaps the reader can figure out who that somebody might be.

re: "nowhere near as evil"

Why would I want to use the lesser of two evils when I can generally avoid popular modern browsers altogether. Zero evil.
by meroes | 2025-07-03 03:01:21+00:00
The problem is these meetings are so low information density even an AI summary is not worth my time. And it’s not some elitist mindset. It’s like the entire reason there are these regular meetings is to make some mid level person feel better. They like giving directions vocally because that authority is harder to question than if they wrote up a memo and all the receivers can poke holes in it. I’m convinced most meetings are to make up for poor writing skills.
by Aeolun | 2025-07-03 03:01:37+00:00
> and I don't know how to tell them its because they skipped some meetings where they could've been part of that discussion.

That there was a meeting where that decision was made between 55 minutes of crud doesn’t really mean anything to me though. I’m not wasting an hour of my day every day on the off chance today’s meeting will contain anything of importance.