MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by machinemusic | 2025-08-31 19:54:07+00:00
Love this — and you’re spot on about the moat being the quality of debate + persona tuning. That’s exactly what the Debate Workshop is designed for.

It lets power users fine-tune their agents in two ways:

Quick Setup: upload or link favorite articles, stats, or notes → instantly bias an agent’s reasoning.

Guided Wizard: step-through flow for deeper tuning (data sources, weighting, voice personality).

So yeah, users can actually inject their own edge into the debate. That’s where it gets really interesting: the Workshop turns Neuron from just “six default analysts” into a customizable team that reflects your own process.

Would love your thoughts — does that feel like the right level of control for power users?
by andrewaylett | 2025-08-31 19:54:46+00:00
JJ has first-class support for conflicted trees, changesets, branches, and operations. The op log itself is a (really useful) feature not present in Git.

You can always end up with the same set of published commits, guaranteed. But the tools you have for manufacturing them and for interacting with their history definitely include things that are possible in JJ but not in Git.
by verdverm | 2025-08-31 19:55:16+00:00
If you give them a fair and reasonable go, you'll discover more than asking leading questions on HN. In example, there are many things you are unaware of as possibilities, like how easy it is to undo code changes to the last checkpoint (copilots chat checkpoint, not git or vcs). They can also make use of all the external tools, knowledge repositories, and search engines we use.

My personal experience has led me to increase my monthly spend, because the ROI is there, the UX is much improved

Hallucinations will never go away, but I put them in the same category as clicking search results to outdated or completely wrong blog posts. There's a back button
by isr | 2025-08-31 19:55:21+00:00
To be honest, I somewhat agree. I'm sure there's a lot to this that us outsiders don't know (or honestly, for me, couldn't be bothered to know as there are far more important rabbit holes to spend time on).

However, sometimes, a certain detachment can help when looking at what is, in the end, a "cultural disagreement" more suited to an elementary school's playground.

Whenever I see open source spats like this, and then see a Dev harangued and chased from forum to forum by what looks like a coordinated group ("groupies"?), all accusing him/her of rude behaviour, while they keep making attacks on his/her personality, character or temperament...

it leads me to think rather poorly of this "wild west posse".

Anyway, bottom line, Kent is writing open source software to benefit others (and people didn't have qualms about taking his previous bcache & using it to build out storage solutions to make millions), so perhaps he doesn't quite deserve all the abuse and ganging up, no matter whose feathers he ruffled, and how.
by nitwit005 | 2025-08-31 19:55:24+00:00
The candidates certainly think this is true. Remember that Obama ran on the word "change". The "in you believe in" part was often in small text below, or completely omitted.

Trump tried hard to be perceived as an outsider candidate when trying to return to office. Logically, that makes no sense, but I'm sure their research showed it was important.
by tonyarkles | 2025-08-31 19:55:43+00:00
Lol I will provide a small anecdote as a warning from my own life. I was at a point (pre-diagnosis) where I felt my caffeine intake had reached an addiction-like level and had decided to wean myself down to a more sustainable level. I’d read about adenosine receptors and the different substances that can act as stimulants/inhibit adenosine. I was starting to get a bit of a caffeine headache + drowsiness and the good idea fairy told me “hey why don’t you have some chocolate instead? Theobromine is an adenosine-receptor antagonist so it might help without consuming any caffeine”

This led to what was probably the worst headache of my life. I don’t know enough pharmacology to understand how exactly that worked, but it was terrible. Having a cup of coffee reversed the effect pretty quickly, luckily.
by necovek | 2025-08-31 19:56:01+00:00
That's easily solved, ain't it: check the "tech savvy" box, and all "safeguards" are off?

Yet instead, we are getting increasingly fewer phones with unlockable bootloaders and root access available. What gives?

I've also checked out my mom's phone a year or so back: she had so many crappy apps from official store that it was barely usable. Stores do not really help.
by ceejayoz | 2025-08-31 19:56:31+00:00
> the fact that Prasad was hired into Marks' old position does not suddenly make the position "political"

Correct, but "non-responsive", as you say.

> You have spent a lot of words arguing about anything other than the core point: the fact that Prasad was hired into Marks' old position does not suddenly make the position "political".

You have spent a lot of words arguing with the definition of "political appointee". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_appointments_in_the_...

Prasad and Marks are/were both political appointees because they were appointed to their roles by the President, Vice President, or a Federal agency head. In such a role, they lack certain protections (including around firing) a civil service role would possess. It's really quite simple.
by alkonaut | 2025-08-31 19:56:42+00:00
The POC shouldn't even be mentioning banks explicitly. Any one that needs or could know you. Any authority such as a tax authority, voting registry, whatever, that already knows who you are, could verify this. An authority is preferable to a bank.

And if a country already has a functioning digital ID solution that covers every citizen it should be a simple add-on to add this. The "functioning digital ID solution that covers every citizen" seems like the step to fix _first_ (definitely before imposing age verification laws online!).

Also, having such a system really should be seen as par for the course for any developed country.
by ginko | 2025-08-31 19:56:56+00:00
I've read this series before and I still don't buy part I saying this[0] is artistically just as skillful as this[1], only the artist intentionally idealized the depiction of the tetrarchs. To me this is clearly more primitive art.

[0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/67/Ve... [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/St...
by KronisLV | 2025-08-31 19:57:03+00:00
Just today I wasted some time due to an unexpected Tailscale key expiry and some other issues related to running a container cluster: https://blog.kronis.dev/blog/the-great-container-crashout

Right now, my plan is to move from a bunch of separate VPSes, to one dedicated server from Hetzner and run a few VMs inside of it with separate public IPs assigned to them alongside some resource limits. You can get them for pretty affordable prices, if you don't need the latest hardware: https://www.hetzner.com/sb/

That way I can limit the blast range if I mess things up inside of a VM, but at the same time benefit from an otherwise pretty simple setup for hosting personal stuff, a CPU with 8 threads and 64 GB of RAM ought to be enough for most stuff I might want to do.
by runako | 2025-08-31 19:57:35+00:00
> I really don't see how "bare metal" saves any engineering time

This is because you are looking only at provisioning/deployment. And you are right -- node size does not impact DevOps all that much.

I am looking at the solution space available to the engineers who write the software that ultimately gets deployed on the nodes. And that solution space is different when the nodes have 10x the capability. Yes, cloud providers have tons of aggregate capability. But designing software to run on a fleet of small machines is very different from accomplishing the same tasks on a single large machine.

It would not be controversial to suggest that targeting code at an Apple Watch or Raspberry Pi imposes constraints on developers that do not exist when targeting desktops. I am saying the same dynamic now applies to targeting cloud providers.

This isn't to say there's a single best solution for everything. But there are tradeoffs that are now always apparent. The art is knowing when it makes sense to pay the Cloud Tax, and whether to go 100% Cloud vs some proportion of dedicated.
by ars | 2025-08-31 19:58:04+00:00
You add a random number to the encryption key, and also send that random number (seed) as part of the message.

Boiled down to the very essence modern cryptography is: Using a secret seed plus a public seed, generate a long random number (of the same length as the message), then XOR that number with the message.

The hard part is generating that random number in such a way that you can not reverse the process and reclaim the secret seed.

Lookup "initialization vector" for more.
by Animats | 2025-08-31 19:58:07+00:00
As I point out now and then, Colossus was not a computer. It was a key-tester, like a Bitcoin miner. Here's the block diagram of Colossus.[1]

Before there were general-purpose stored program digital computers, there were many special-purpose computing devices. They checked some, but not all, of those boxes.

- IBM had electronic arithmetic in test before WWII, but that went on hold during the war. Mechanical arithmetic worked fine, although slowly, and by 1939, Columbia University and IBM had something that looked vaguely like a programmable computer, built from IBM tabulator parts.

- The G.P.O. (the UK's post office and telephony provider) had been fooling around with electronic switching since 1934. That's where Tommy Flowers, who designed the electronics of Colossus, came from.[2] He had a tough life. After the war, he wanted to get into computers, but couldn't get funding because he couldn't talk about what he'd done for security reasons.

- Memory was the big problem. Colossus just had some registers, built from tubes. And plugboards, the ROM technology of the 1930s and 1940s. Useful memory devices were all post-war. Needed storage to get to stored program computers.

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Logical-architecture-of-...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Flowers
by ghaff | 2025-08-31 19:58:12+00:00
The problem with probationary periods is that, especially if relocation is involved, it's really expensive/disruptive to the employee. I'm reasonably confident that I'd have cleared the bar but I probably wouldn't have taken a job when there was a clear short-term probationary period that required me moving across the country. Just too much risk unless it's an incredible opportunity.
by manwe150 | 2025-08-31 19:58:24+00:00
I don’t have any numbers to counter whether it is typical of “most”, but when trying to buy, I was outbid several times by people who paid “in cash”, and that was for million+ dollar homes. So it might be they do “rent” the capital, but possibly from a source other than a bank (eg from their forgone returns on stocks instead)
by jwally | 2025-08-31 19:58:42+00:00
It is, Claude and it boiled down to this.

My original idea was to have the bank sign a thing that contained your ip address and user agent; have the bank add in an age claim; and copy/paste it to the RP.

I figured it would produce a document a little more on point.

This setup with webauthn feels like overkill; but with banks and regs - it feels more beefy without adding a substantial amount of complexity.
by IgorPartola | 2025-08-31 19:58:45+00:00
I didn’t say you have to use it. I said you could. Or any other data store that fits your use case. I used a MongoDB instance back in 2012 in a serious production environment in this exact way and it worked flawlessly while Postgres was what gave us trouble (it had a bunch of features added since that would have made those issues disappear but back then it didn’t have built in replication for example.)

But again this is not an endorsement of MongoDB. I wouldn’t use it today but I did use it successfully and that company and tech stack sold for quite a bit of money and the software still runs, though I’m not sure on what stack. Again, if you are stuck on this one part of my comment… can’t help you.
by vishalontheline | 2025-08-31 19:59:50+00:00
A couple of things that have been effective for me:

1) Block said online service using the hostfile until addiction becomes manageable / goes away. Repeat as needed.

2) For work, keep a notebook. Review and set goals at the start of each day or week. Review and update notes / goals at the end of each day and week. Your own agenda, your game to keep yourself motivated.

Now, since your addiction is blocked and you have something to do, you'll at least get it done before turning to your addiction to kill time / unwind.
by magicalhippo | 2025-08-31 20:00:28+00:00
From what I have read and recall, the same rules do apply.

Rather, the disagreement seems to be over what constitutes a feature and what constitutes a bugfix.

As I recall, your view is that the repair code is part of the bugfix. However Linus deems it a feature, and thus applied the "no new features outside the merge window" rule.

I think Linus is correct here and you are wrong. New code made to repair flaws that previously could not be repaired is definitely a new feature of the repair tool.

On the other hand, I am sympathetic to your argument that this is after all an experimental filesystem which has different needs from a stable hardware driver say, and as I recall the repair tool changes were entirely contained in the bcachefs subtree. As such, the worst it could do was to fail compilation on certain platforms, which already happened previously.

Personally I would have dropped the bugfix vs feature debate and focused on trying to get Linus to allow the repair code in as a new feature. From what I recall Linus said, you already burned some goodwill by the previous kernel compilation failure, but perhaps Linus could change his stance if you worked with him.
by krior | 2025-08-31 20:00:41+00:00
> The question is whether and how much these policies are supported, and the popular vote is obviously relevant in this regard.

They are supported by the election. The american puplic accepted the result. Popular vote is not relevant for Trump.

> That's not really true, for all you know those voters didn't support either outcome. You would expect a "loud and clear" victory not to leave one third of people unconvinced enough to avoid voting altogether.

Maybe they had different reasons, but unfortunately thats not how not casting a vote works in a democracy. If you do not vote, you support the winner, no matter your intentions.

> Almost four hundred lawsuits have been filed against his administration

Trump has every branch of the government in his hand, law does not matter to him. Besides, he is a convicted criminal already. A few more lost lawsuits don't matter.

> Thousands of public protest events are happening

And millions of americans are not attending. Feels more like a vocal minority to me than a real movement.

> the tariffs themselves were just ruled illegal

I have not followed closely, but someday it gets to the supreme court and they will say "the president can do whatever he want", like they have said in the past.

> What does "serious" opposition look like to you?

Something that prevents Trump from executing his plans. Something that prevents Trump from just doing whatever he wants.

> time.com: "...thousands of protesters attended demonstrations on Independence Day..."

Thousands? Thats a fraction of a fraction of the american population. I am sorry, but I fail to see how that supports your point.

I will have to admit I am a little jaded when it comes to the US, but you must forgive me: when the US threatens your country with war, a lot of nuance goes out of the window. If an american clusterbomb kills me and my family tomorrow, I won't care that it has been ruled illegal by some lower court (Trump won't either).
by ryandrake | 2025-08-31 20:01:07+00:00
I still have doubts but I am warming up to Claude Code. Sometimes it gets in these ruts where it tries something wrong, gets shown it's wrong, keeps digging, and can't even explain how its failed suggestions could even work. Other times, it seems to reproduce the kinds of insights (and even judgment) that I'd expect out of an actual practitioner. After suggesting code to fix problems, I always ask it to explain the context in more detail. I was recently using it help to develop a Qt C++ application, and ended up getting this interaction from it:

> Can you speculate on why this problem was only happening with these embedded buttons? Is this a flaw in Qt, or is this application trying to do something unusual?

Why this problem occurred: This is a Qt design issue, not a flaw per se. Qt's item delegate editing model assumes editors are simple widgets (line edits, spin boxes, combo boxes) that don't spawn modal dialogs. When a modal dialog opens: 1. The modal dialog steals focus from the editor button 2. Qt's QAbstractItemView sees the FocusOut event and assumes editing is complete 3. It calls QStyledItemDelegate::destroyEditor() to clean up the editor 4. The button gets deleted while the color dialog is still running 5. When the color dialog closes, it tries to interact with the deleted button This application is doing something unusual - using a button that spawns a modal dialog as a table cell editor. Most Qt delegates use immediate editing widgets (text fields, dropdowns) that don't require modal interactions. The eventFilter solution works by intercepting the FocusOut event that triggers editor destruction, essentially telling Qt "I'm still editing, don't destroy me yet."

> Is there a danger of leaked Qt resources now that we are blocking destruction?

Yes, that's a valid concern. By blocking FocusOut events, we're preventing Qt's normal editor cleanup mechanism. However, the risk is likely minimal because: 1. Qt still cleans up eventually - The editor will be destroyed when the table view itself is destroyed or when editing truly ends (e.g., clicking elsewhere, pressing Enter/Escape) 2. Short-lived editors - These editor widgets are typically very short-lived (created when editing starts, destroyed when editing ends) 3. Parent widget cleanup - Since the button has a parent widget, Qt's parent-child ownership will clean it up when the parent is destroyed To be completely safe, we could add a more targeted approach - only block FocusOut events while a color dialog is actively open, rather than blocking all FocusOut events. We could track when the modal dialog is shown/hidden and only filter during that window. But for this use case, the current solution should be fine since: - Color picking is infrequent - The editor lifetime is still bounded by the table view's normal lifecycle - Qt's parent-child cleanup provides a safety net The memory usage impact should be negligible compared to the complexity of implementing more sophisticated tracking.

-----

I've definitely had less-satisfying discussions over bugs with actual human senior software engineers than this.
by wsces | 2025-08-31 20:01:15+00:00
Isn't this roughly what mDL (and broader future W3C Digital Credentials spec) offers albeit with the issuing agency of the ID (e.g. state DMV) acting as the credential issuer rather than a bank? A relying party make a claim for a coarse age limit 'is user over N years old'? With the user's consent, the application receives an attestation back from their wallet, with a chain of trust back to the issuer (without the issuer's intervention or knowledge).

The user's credential is bound to the device and protected by their biometrics (Face ID/Touch ID), and the consent screen feels very similar to using a Passkey (gaining in mainstream popularity) or Apple Pay (pretty mainstream at this point).

- https://www.w3.org/TR/digital-credentials/

- Apple's implementation - https://developer.apple.com/wallet/get-started-with-verify-w... (and moving to the browser in iOS 26 https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guide/apple-business-connect...)

The challenge here is adoption and availability of digital credentials. It appears State Department is allowing iOS 26 to issue digital credential representations of US passports also. Japan are also providing their national ID card in this way. Given some US states' online age verification laws (and whatever it is the UK are trying to do at the moment), seems like a great incentive for those governments to provide robust digital ID infrastructure.
by musesum | 2025-08-31 20:02:49+00:00
Long ago, a proud moment for me was writing -20K lines of code in a month.

A few years ago, I tried that again with a remote team of 20 coders. I failed; I couldn't keep up with the barrage of pull requests.

Today, pair programming with Claude Code and GPT feels more like the later.

I think there is an opportunity here for smart refactoring. But, needs a larger context. I tried this on some legacy code with Cursor and Claude opus 4.1, but a million tokens is not enough. I dunno; maybe translate between a private and shared LLM. Has anyone tried this?
by sfn42 | 2025-08-31 20:02:58+00:00
You're completely right, those are things that need to be considered and accounted for if necessary. Maybe a different solution would be better, like leaving the orders the way they are but adding new table CompoundOrders or something.

The details don't really matter for my main point though. The point is you don't solve this problem with workarounds. You find a way to redesign the system to suit your new needs - assuming the business thinks that's worth it. That's like our whole job, we build systems and when they need to change we change them. The only question is how we make those changes - do we do it properly or do we add workarounds until our codebase is a big pile of workarounds?
by tonyarkles | 2025-08-31 20:03:20+00:00
For N=1 (me), yes. I’ve been a smoker since I was about 12 years old and have tried to quit multiple times (short-term successfully a few times). I’ve had a few experiences with transdermal nicotine.

When I was in the hospital and couldn’t get out of bed, the nurses provided me with some. They seemed to be partially working, but I was still having pretty intense cravings all the time. After doing a bit of napkin math I realized that the patches were only providing about 1/3 of the daily nicotine I’d been consuming before my appendectomy.

When I tried to quit on my own, I started out with the recommended dosage from the package and had the same experience. They modulated the cravings a bit but were nowhere near effective enough to actually allow me to go through the day without chronic acute cravings. I bumped up my daily dose from the patches and did successfully stop smoking, but trying to reduce the dose too much led to the same brutal cravings. I ended up abandoning patches as a way to quit because of the daily hassle of trying to slowly wean myself off of the patches; a full patch decrement was too much at once, so I was cutting them into halves and quarters to try to make progress without ruining my concentration and focus.