MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by n8cpdx | 2025-07-31 17:12:03+00:00
I have many of these same issues. I actually think ublock is causing some of them; removing and reinstalling fixed some of the hangs for a while, but they eventually came back. I think I also switched from Firefox to chrome version or vice versa.

The general “chrome” of the app is unfortunately a buggy mess regardless of extension config.

I still think it’s easily worth it because for some critical sites it adds so much value. I just accept I’ll have to force quit a few times a day.

Also, PSA, extensions don’t automatically update on desktop.
by Perz1val | 2025-07-31 17:12:17+00:00
Rust does not produce magic in the assembly code. It does not even produce faster assembly code. Rust toolchain on it's own does not even produce assembly code. It just passes that to LLVM that does THE ENTIRE optimization. Without LLVM (written in C++) doing the heavy lifting, Rust is probably slower than V8 (written in C++) running JavaScript. There's no technical marver in Servo compared to Ladybird. I don't understand the yapping how a language makes projects good/bad, despite it being proven completely false again and again. The appeal is in independence and politics around the project.
by danudey | 2025-07-31 17:13:09+00:00
> I don't think it has to be ADHD.

It definitely doesn't have to be ADHD, but that loop of "new interest" -> "hyperfixation for a period of time" -> "no interest" is classic ADHD, and in almost all of the people I know who do have ADHD this was the first major sign for them.

There is definitely a difference between starting projects that don't turn out to be interesting or useful and not bothering, but the way OP described their experiences is textbook and should definitely not be minimized as it is definitely not the typical case for neurotypical people.

> I don't have ADHD, and none of my friends have it that I know of. We all start things we don't finish, though.

One of the other things I've noticed about people with ADHD or autism, even undiagnosed, is that they tend to congregate together - neurodivergent people tend to cluster together through similar interests and thought patterns. This leads to the logic of "I don't think I have ADHD because everyone is like this", but that's a selection bias that hides the distinction that people could otherwise make.

> think finishing things is a crucial skill, and we need to practice it in order to get good at it, and we won't do that if we tell ourselves it's about as good to give up as it is to keep going.

Again, this sort of phrasing can minimize the impact of the executive dysfunction inherent with ADHD; again, not saying that you or the OP definitely do have ADHD, but this idea that "finishing things is just something you need to practice at" is the ADHD equivalent of "have you tried not being sad?" For many ADHD people, it just does not, and cannot, work that way, or at least not without interventions like medication and conscious coping strategies.

> since that will end up being an excuse rather than an explanation for a lot of people

I dislike this line of thinking, because it sort of inherently (if subconsciously) implies that, without a real diagnosis from a professional (which can cost thousands of dollars that people don't have), it's probably just an excuse people are making for... what? being lazy? being incompetent? ...and that we shouldn't take those explanations seriously. If we want to destigmatize neurodivergence then we need to be willing to take people at their word and support them.

If someone says "I can't finish projects because I'm so ADHD lol", then you can either say "that's just an excuse unless a psychologist has said otherwise" or you can say "If that's the case, how can we support you, and what are you working on to support yourself?" and, if those supports don't work, then you look for alternate explanations.
by pessimizer | 2025-07-31 17:13:17+00:00
> And for this round the people have spoken that they want it good and hard.

Actually, the people have said "please stop this, this can't go on" at every election since 1992, with the possible exception of 2012 (unless you admit that 2012 President Obama was running against 2008 Candidate Obama.) They again said it in 2024.
by myelin | 2025-07-31 17:13:26+00:00
The self-hosted app never went away; I've been running it for the last 8 years or so, first on a MacBook Pro, then a Raspberry Pi, and now a repurposed HP T620 thin client.

They promote their cloud controller pretty strongly, followed by the Cloud Key, which is their own preinstalled self hosting setup, but the self-hosted UniFi Network server has stuck around. (It changed names a couple of times; it was the "UniFi Controller", then "UniFi Network Application", and now "UniFi Network Server".)
by dang | 2025-07-31 17:13:50+00:00
Related:

Bits 0x02: switching to Orion as a browser - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44681616 - July 2025 (28 comments)

Kagi Is Bringing Orion Web Browser to Linux - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43302073 - March 2025 (226 comments)

Orion Browser by Kagi: Lightweight, WebKit Based - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43203394 - Feb 2025 (3 comments)

A three month review of kagi search and the orion web browser (2024) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42652125 - Jan 2025 (160 comments)

Orion Browser by Kagi - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38441139 - Nov 2023 (188 comments)

Orion Browser 0.99.126.1 Release Notes: Orion+ Lifetime License Now Available - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38088208 - Oct 2023 (3 comments)

Kagi search and Orion browser enter public beta - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31584791 - June 2022 (201 comments)

My next main browser: a review of Orion - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30610651 - March 2022 (149 comments)

Orion is a new WebKit-based browser for Mac - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28799049 - Oct 2021 (184 comments)
by freediver | 2025-07-31 17:13:56+00:00
Kagi founder here. I like simplicity too, but if that is the only thing I cared about I would have never attempted to build a paid search engine.

We started working on the browser before we started working on search. There were many browsers and search engines before us, and all of them failed because you can not compete with an ecosystem company (Google) with a single product. If your customers use your search engine, but then use Gmail and Chrome, your main competitor has means (friction) with them to attempt to win them back over (and you are paid, they are free!) if you ever become more than a nuisance.

This is why it was clear to me from day one that we need to offer a hollistic replacement for big tech for consuming the web - and search, browser and email (yes, we are building that too) account for 99% of consumption of the web.

Yes, it makes our job everything but simple, but without it we will not survive long term - I am 100% sure. (and in the meantime generative AI showed up and made things even more complicated)

I still love my job and the challenges it brings, every single day. While we live as a company in a complex environment we try to remove the complexity for our customers and make high quality products. I have pretty high standards for browsers and have been using them for almost 30 years - and Orion is by far the most powerful option on the market (speed/energy/privacy/features). Inviting you to give it a try.
by keybored | 2025-07-31 17:13:58+00:00
OP is a decent article which just becomes fodder for the usual

1. I love my job because (1) CRUD apps are so immensely satisfying (2) turns out that optimizing ad metrics at FAANG was my innately-sought destiny (3) being acquired by GOOG is bitter-sweet because now my wife will complain that I am not retiring even though I can

2. As opposed to the normies that just have this job because they need a job
by kmill | 2025-07-31 17:14:36+00:00
We're working on a new rewrite tactic this summer at the Lean FRO (I don't know if I ever directly mentioned that to you yet on Zulip).

One interface I'm planning on is `rw [(pos := 1,3,2) thm]` to be able to navigate to the place where the rewrite should occur, with a widget interface to add these position strings by clicking on them in the Infoview. The whole occurrences interface will also be revamped, and maybe someone from the community could help make a widget interface for that too.

Of course there's already `conv => enter [1,3,2]; rw thm`, but putting it directly into `rw` is more convenient while also being more powerful (`conv` has intrinsic limitations for which positions it can access).

The interface is what people will notice, but technical idea of the project is to separate the "what" you want to rewrite from "how" to get dependent type theory to accept it, and then make the "how" backend really good at getting rewrites to go through. No more "motive not type correct", but either success or an error message that gives precise explanations of what went wrong with the rewrite.

And, yeah, it's great that Lean lets you write your own tactics, since it lets people write domain-specific languages just for solving the sorts of things they run into themselves. There's no real difference between writing tactics as a user or as part of the Lean system itself. Anyone could make a new rewrite tactic as a user package.
by Twirrim | 2025-07-31 17:14:44+00:00
Yes. I've had a small webapp running under it quite happily (complete overkill, but it's a personal project and I was curious).

Very basic hello world app hosted under gunicorn (just returning the string "hello world", so hopefully this is measuring the framework time). Siege set to do 10k requests, 25 concurrency, running that twice so that they each have a chance to "warm up", the second round (warmed up) results give me:

pypy : 8127.44 trans/sec cpython: 4512.64 trans/sec

So it seems like there's definitely things that pypy's JIT can do to speed up the Flask underpinnings.
by ajkjk | 2025-07-31 17:15:15+00:00
I feel like there is another angle to this which is largely glossed over in our modern world, which is: there are at least several viable reasons to pick a job or career. One, of course, is that you need the money. Two is that you enjoy it. The third is often left out, which is the moral angle: that it's the work you want to do in the world. You can do something everyday because it feels important to you, without enjoying it, per se, as long as it's not too stressful or abusive. It's a difference sense of "enjoyment", that it gives a deep satisfaction to do, even if the minute-to-minute experience isn't fun or entertaining or anything like that.

For instance (a bad example because I haven't done it yet, but it's illustrative:) I don't really think I'd enjoy the minutiae of running a coffee shop. But I do frequently imagine that I'm eventually going to quit everything else and try to open one. Not cause I fancy myself a cafe owner, but because I'm drawn to the project of creating a certain kind of space in the world, and having control over it so that it can stay close to my vision. Some of my favorite spaces in the world were cafes that have since disappeared or lost their charm and I'd like to try to bring some of that back. I suspect that I can survive and embrace the daily work if it is part of that overall vision.

This feels like a different angle than "you can do it because you're crazy". Actually you can do it because you really want to do it, no crazy required.

But this only works, I feel, if you're truly morally motivated by the thing you're trying to do. Very hard to pull off with modern jobs: corporate jobs seem to go as far out of their way as possible to destroy any sense of fulfillment; academic jobs (I'm told) subject you to torturous competition and bureaucracy as if to drain any inspiration you had left; menial jobs treat you as disposable and you're disempowered from effecting change. Probably this trend of making work unmeaningful is one of the great tragedies of our society. It is like the only acceptable way to be is for your meaning to come from "take your money and use it to do hobbies and buy things for your family", and it's much harder for the meaning in your life to come from the work itself, because there are so many things waiting to punish you if you try to live that way. But there are still certainly ways to do it.

In my opinion it should be a major goal of society to remove as many barriers to doing meaningful work as possible. Fulfillment ought to be seen as equally important to health. (As far as I am aware nobody has any idea how to fix this at a systemic level. The... cult? ... of capitalism opposes it too strongly.)
by munificent | 2025-07-31 17:15:35+00:00
> Why is it so hard to unpack, even a little bit?

I think a major part of the reason is we like thinking about the packed thing. I'm sure that most people who fantasize about owning a coffee shop will never do so and probably deep down know they'll never do so. But the fantasizing itself is a pleasurable activity. Unpacking the job bursts that bubble and ends the enjoyable fantasy.

It takes a lot of self awareness to be mindful and deliberate about when you are planning (which requires unpacking and can be unpleasant but may be ultimately useful) and when you're fantasizing (which is deliberately low stakes and enjoyable but will not materially affect your life).

It's very easy to get stuck in the trap of fantasizing while falsely believing you are planning.
by vincent-uden | 2025-07-31 17:15:53+00:00
We seem to think in similar tracks! I do have the exact features you describe already. Each BOM that I add can then be searched for and its parts deducted in batches (of for example 25 times the amount of parts are needed per module).

And a BOM can be imported from a csv file exported from a Digikey/mouser shopping cart. Although now that you mention it, re-stocking from such a csv would be a really nice addition.
by dnsbty | 2025-07-31 17:16:18+00:00
This is one area I expect LLMs to really shine. I've tried a few static analysis tools for security, but it feels like the cookie cutter checks aren't that effective for catching anything but the most basic vulnerabilities. Having context on the actual purpose of the code seems like a great way to provide better scans without needing to a researcher for a deeper pentest.

I just started a scan on an open source project I was looking at, but I would love to see you add Elixir to the list of supported languages so that I can use this for my team's codebase!
by naikrovek | 2025-07-31 17:16:21+00:00
You’re right but this isn’t tomato farming. This is writing software to automate certain actions and expose that automation as an api.

This is an attainable goal for just about any skilled software development team, and the analogy of a tomato farmer doesn’t really fit.

AWS has to provide a generalized solution to serve a wide range of customers and needs, while a company writing its own stuff needs only provide a solution for its own needs.

Damn near everything I do can be expressed as EC2, S3, and Lambda. And IAM.

Those are not challenging APIs to write in order to expose basic functionality and authentication, and such an API existing in my employer 10 years ago would have proven cheaper than AWS, especially for bandwidth; it’s all the manual steps and manual checks that needed to be done within my employer which drove us to AWS quickly.

We could definitely do EC2, S3, and Lambda cheaper than AWS charges us today.
by Esophagus4 | 2025-07-31 17:16:40+00:00
As a fellow American, wouldn’t it be similar to the FDA putting out a PSA about what baby formula should be avoided?[1] Or warning of the dangers of benzone contamination in sunscreen?[2] Or the CFPB putting out a PSA on responsible credit card practices?

Seems like we have government PSAs too if I’m understanding the comment correctly.

[1] https://www.fda.gov/food/alerts-advisories-safety-informatio...

[2] https://www.fda.gov/drugs/understanding-over-counter-medicin...
by cjs_ac | 2025-07-31 17:16:44+00:00
Australia has infamously robust consumer protection laws. Because of the high cost of running a business in Australia, especially one that involves physical goods, Australians are buying ever more things from overseas over the Internet, which means more exposure to retailers and subscription services that have no Australian presence and therefore can't be subjected to Australian law.

Australian governments also take a very paternalistic approach to dealing with their citizens. This stems from Australia's history as a set of penal colonies.
by elcritch | 2025-07-31 17:17:21+00:00
> Well, CBOR is MessagePack. Carsten Bormann forked MessagePack

Sure, that’s sort of true but missing context. Bormann (and others) wanted to add things such as separate string and byte sequence types. The MessagePack creator refused for years. Fair enough it’s his format. But it frustrated the community dealing with string vs bytes issues. It also highlights a core philosophical difference of a mostly closed spec vs an extensible first one.

> changed some of the tag values, wrote a standard around it, and submitted it to the IETF against the wishes of MessagePack's creators.

That’s just incorrect and a childish way to view it in my opinion.

The core philosophy and mental models are different in key aspects.

MessagePack is designed as a small self mostly closed format. It uses a simple TLV format with a couple hundred possible user extensions and some clever optimizations. The MP “spec” focuses on this.

CBOR re-envisioned the core idea of MessagePack from the ground up as an extensible major/minor tag system. It’s debatable how much CBOR is a fork of MPack vs a new format with similarities.

The resulting binary output is pretty similar with similar benefits but the core theoretical models are pretty different. The IETF standard bares little to no resemblance to the MessagePack specification.

> The facilities are the same (well, the tag is 8 bytes instead of 1 byte, but w/e); it's TLV all the way down (Bormann ripped this also).

The whole point of CBOR is that the tags go from 1-8 bytes. The parser designs end up fairly different due to the different tag formats. I’ve written and ported parsers for both.

It’s not like the MessagePack creator invented TLV formats either. He just created an efficient and elegant one that’s pretty general. No one says he ripped off “TLV”.

You can’t just take a message pack parser and turn it into a CBOR one by changing some values. I’ve tried and it turns out poorly and doesn't support much of CBOR.

> This refers to CBOR's indefinite length types, but awkwardly, streaming is a protocol level feature, not a data format level feature.

The indefinite length format is very useful for embedded space. I’ve hit limits with MessagePack before on embedded projects because you need to know the length of an array upfront. I wished I’d had CBOR instead.

This can also be useful for data processing applications. For example streaming the conversion of a large XML file into a more concise CBOR format would be much more memory efficient. For large scale that’s pretty handy.

> > However, MessagePack sacrifices human-readability > This, of course, applies to CBOR as well.

For the binary format yes. However the CBOR specification defines an official human readable text format for debugging and documentation purposes. It also defines a schema system like json-schema but for CBOR.

Turns out “just some specs” can actually be pretty valuable.
by Joel_Mckay | 2025-07-31 17:17:35+00:00
Depends when you attended classes, and how you defined the antisocial behavioral spectra. In some ways, the >DSM-5 muddled a lot of disorder definitions to better cover more complex diagnosis under the US healthcare system.

>they cannot have different occurrence rates

I can see how one might reason this to be true, but that is just not consistent with the data collected over the past hundred years.

Psychopaths are born that way, and often start harming pets or other kids very early in life. The Internet just supplied an ecosystem to normalize parasitic behavior, and satiate their demanding egos. Even when proven wrong, they often still insult people during an attempt to apologize.

Have a wonderful day =3
by keernan | 2025-07-31 17:17:58+00:00
I am more concerned about "big brother" - the increasing use of the internet by the government to "watch" its citizens. The recent efforts by England's demand that Apple provide the English government with a "back door" into Apple OS. And more and more governments demanding ID under the guise of protecting children. How is that going to work? Are we all going to need a government issued digital identity in order to use the internet?
by Twirrim | 2025-07-31 17:19:14+00:00
They've long since fixed the C based modules interaction, unfortunately a lot of common knowledge is from when it couldn't interact with everything.

If you've written it off on that basis, I'd suggest it's worth giving it another shot at some stage. It might surprise you.

Last I saw there was still a little bit more overhead around the C interface, so hot loops that just call out to a C module in the loop can be just a smidgen slower, but I haven't seen it be appreciably slower in a fair while.
by vincent-uden | 2025-07-31 17:19:50+00:00
While the UI isn't set up for it atm, the database already handles the case of more than 49 unique parts. My idea was to have several of these grids stacked on top of each other in a shelf, so you'd be able to flip through the layers, each containing up to 49 parts.

For my purposes, the bins are small enough that I'm fine with only keeping a single part in each bin. The problem is however related to something I was considering, namely multi-square bins for bigger parts. I decided against implementing it simply to reduce the scope for now, but it is for sure possible.

If I were to place multiple parts in a single square, I'd probably subdivide the bin and keep related parts in each sub-bin. Perhaps resistors in a series of Ohms or resistors with the same resistance but different sizes.
by danudey | 2025-07-31 17:20:04+00:00
"This thing that medical professionals say is real isn't real, and you can tell that because astrology isn't real either".

The reality is that, for a lot of people, their struggles aren't "their fault". People with visual disabilities aren't as good at playing darts, people who have issues with gross motor skills aren't as good at baseball. That's all accepted, but as soon as you get into invisible disabilities everyone leaps to say "I can't see it so it doesn't exist". It's a load of BS, and it's why so many people who do have these issues struggle - because they're being told, by people who don't care to understand what they're going through, that it's all their fault because they're just shitty people who need to try harder.

One of the things that people spouting nonsense like yours seem to miss is that these issues that people with ADHD have aren't just laziness; it's not just "I don't want to do work". People will find it impossible to do anything, even things they enjoy. It's not just slacking off from chores and playing video games instead, it's not being able to bring yourself to do chores but also not being able to bring yourself to play video games, or read a book, or go get groceries. It's a fundamental inability for you to direct your executive function, and until people like you stop spouting uneducated nonsense and start actually listening to people's experience it's going to continue to be an uphill struggle for people who have to go through what you're dismissing.
by dkarl | 2025-07-31 17:20:13+00:00
Far less prominently. I'll never forget when a programmer I worked with in 2001 or so said that he had decided to study CS in college for the money, having never written a line of code beforehand. The rest of us looked at him like he had squeezed a second head out of his neck. We had first gotten into it as a hobby and were later surprised to find that we could get paid for it. Only a few of us had CS degrees or had even taken CS coursework in college.