MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by amy_petrik | 2025-08-03 03:18:28+00:00
> I've always wondered why that behaviour emerged..

Pretty straigthforward. "The scene" originated in 6502 or 68000 or what have you assembly programmers in the '80s. If you program assembly, you crack software. If you program assembly, you make cool graphics tricks to show off your fast code. And, if you program a computer in the '80s, the sound card is basically just a synthesizer chip, waveforms and shit, thus, chiptunes.
by zaptheimpaler | 2025-08-03 03:18:46+00:00
The IPO only sold a few percentage of their shares. Even if we assume they sold all of them at opening price, by close the company and employees still hold like 80% of their shares that are worth triple what Adobe would have paid. Besides, antitrust is also about consumers, not JUST about businesses. We will all benefit immensely from real competition instead of having Adobe continue to dominate the market. We're talking about Adobe FFS, they have some crazy prices and shitty dark patterns around trials & cancellations.
by jancsika | 2025-08-03 03:18:50+00:00
> Whereas the software industry, with near zero government involvement, has had enormous improvements in function and has pushed the cost to literally zero.

What's most frustrating about this-- just take the poultry industry. To bring the cost to zero, all it would take is a single hacker to steal one government-regulated chicken and click "Copy" in its elusive little context menu[1].

Try telling that to a young person today. If you're like me you'll get the so-called "Gen Z Stare" in response.

1: Assume a 2d chicken.
by dmix | 2025-08-03 03:19:16+00:00
The same question could be asked why more cars elsewhere. If only the western municipalities could figure out how to do it without spending decade on a simple tram like they do in Toronto then the public support would very likely match the benefits people constantly claim on the internet. Ditto with high speed rail.

Things which are practical and economically feasible within the established system are much less liable to be controversial or end up DOA after having to survive through 3-4 different political administrations.
by gsf_emergency_2 | 2025-08-03 03:19:36+00:00
My rec to get high on frenemies' supply is getting stale.

Any better refs for the following interesting dynamic?

https://khironclinics.com/blog/understanding-the-dynamic-in-...

>According to research, narcissism usually starts to develop at around the ages of seven or eight – at the time when we start to assess ourselves based on our perception of others.

1st phase of ((Mormonite) Ender's Game style) formal schooling needs to start before 6 to get that identity whiplash at 7 (triggered by, eg, inexplicable & conclusive defeat by the Formics)?

etymology of the clinic's name?

>Statius creates an image of Chiron that is not only a loving father, but a strict and wise teacher, disassociated with the bestial aspects of centaurs.

Edit: maybe a new theme of ideal frenemy-chiron as HN+dang+mods could be uh ... productive-seeming?
by seanwilson | 2025-08-03 03:19:50+00:00
> Once you've tested the complex things that (almost) no language has a type system able to express, you also have tested null checks, function parameter types, etc. by virtue of you needing to visit those situations in order to test the complex logic. This isn't a real problem.

I just don't find this in practice. For example, I've worked in multiple large Python projects with lots of test cases, and nobody is making the effort to check what happens when you pass incorrect types, badly formed input, and null values in different permutations to each function because it's too much effort and tedious. Most tests are happy path tests, a few error handling tests if you're lucky, for a few example values that are going to miss a lot of edges.

And let's be honest, it's common for parts of the code to have no tests at all because the deadline was too tight or it's deemed not important.

If you have a type system that lets you capture properties like "this parameter should not be null", why would you not leverage this? It's so easily in the sweet spot for me of minimal effort, high reward e.g. eliminates null errors, makes refactoring easier later, that I don't want to use languages that expect me to write test cases for this.

> half-assed type systems are easier to understand for average developers

Not sure why you call them that. Language designers are always trying find a sweet spot with their type systems, in terms of how hard it is to use and what payback you get. For example, once you try to capture even basic properties about e.g. the size/length of collections in the types, the burden on the dev gets unreasonable high very quickly (like requiring devs to write proofs). It's a choice to make them less powerful.
by exasperaited | 2025-08-03 03:19:53+00:00
I am accusing no one individually or particularly. I am observing that the problem is that within a bubble, people collectively become increasingly unserious and less intellectually honest as their appetite for risk increases with their desire to get a slice of the action. Indeed, it gets worse as people begin to think it might not last forever.

The same thing happened in the dotcom era, the same thing happened in the run-up to the subprime mortgage crisis. Every single bubble displays these characteristics.
by bookluvr416 | 2025-08-03 03:20:50+00:00
Summary: Full-stack engineer looking for front-end or full-stack opportunities. I have significant experience in the healthcare IT industry, open to other industries as well. Location: Philadelphia, PA Remote: remote preferred, hybrid possible Willing to relocate: no Technologies: React, JavaScript, Next.js, TypeScript, Ruby on Rails, Tailwind CSS, HTML, CSS, GraphQL, Node, AWS, OCI, learning Python Résumé/CV: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_Xp0HsGRcIFn_JnHdxZT5I_-fkwHsl9v/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=108591034527128282853&rtpof=true&sd=true Email: amandawitecki(at)gmail(dot)com LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/amanda-witecki-586334135/
by lettergram | 2025-08-03 03:20:53+00:00
There’s a reason rural folks have a higher fatality rate. That said, at least in the US, there’s the presumption that those who live more rural are more rugged, capable, and harder working.

I used to live in Chicago and SF. I’ve since moved to rural Tennessee. I can tell you everyone, including my kids, now have learned to drive our tractor. Granted I’m with them, but we had my 4-5 year old moving hay and they were helping me change oil.

I understand the concern, but everyone learns through doing. There’s definitely danger in that, and you should try to limit risk. At the same time; not teaching them is also high risk in that environment, as they’ll do it anyway with friends later.
by refurb | 2025-08-03 03:21:02+00:00
The fun part is that government intervention has driven a lot of the messed up things about US healthcare.

Super inflated prices nobody pays? - law on “U&C prices”

Consolidation of small oncology clinics into huge hospital systems? - law on 340B prices

All of these laws were put into place in an attempt at regulating prices, and as a result, entities exploited the law to give themselves even more profit than if the laws never existed.

Now that’s not to argue the government is solely at fault, but it’s remarkable how much government intervention had made the US system worse, not better.
by kjkjadksj | 2025-08-03 03:21:20+00:00
The night started as soon as you were able to drink back then. It was college. Some bars had specials starting at 1pm. People would be there with their backpacks on still straight from class. People would get off work and immediately drink. We’d usually be drinking for at least 5 hours before we started crawling bars. On weekends we’d drink literally the entire day. We’d duct tape cases of beer to our chest and wouldn’t remove them until they were all drank or stolen from us.
by fugalfervor | 2025-08-03 03:21:32+00:00
> I found all of the first jobs I had in highschool and just after. 3/3 of my first roles now advertise a minimum salary over twice what I was paid 14-18 years ago. Prices have gone up around 20-30% since then overall so I would have had 40% more purchasing power today with the same jobs.

Holy Anecdote, Batman!
by snowwrestler | 2025-08-03 03:21:35+00:00
Scrutiny scaled with the size of the buyer. When a top-five tech company is the buyer, it doesn’t really matter how small the purchased company is. Many of the most concerning acquisitions were small… Instagram had 13 employees when Facebook bought it.

When a huge company can easily acquire basically any small promising competitor, that is exactly what Khan (and many others of both parties) consider a problem. Chilling those sorts of deals was indeed the point.

But if the buyer was, say, the 312th largest tech company in the U.S., the chance of FTC intervention was essentially zero. If buyers in mid-size range were pointing at Khan to explain an M&A slow-down, I personally would not take them at their word.
by b_e_n_t_o_n | 2025-08-03 03:23:17+00:00
I'm not sure, but a general feeling I've been having on this topic is that advanced type systems are like a separate higher-order language atop the grammar that actually does things. And by encoding more and more responsibility in the type system, you're just pushing your business logic to a different language. The same propensity for human error exists there as well.

Which is why I'm partial to the data-oriented approach that clojure seems to promote. If at its core, programming is just Data And Its Various Transformations, you can encode your data in simple structs or lists, and then your transformations encode the rules and logic. In this model you're still making illegal states unrepresentable, it's just being done in the base programming language instead of the type system. Having a type system that can verify that things aren't null, a string isn't a number etc is a benefit of course. But I don't see much difference in putting that logic in the base language or the higher order type system language, except the base language is more expressive and flexible.

I'm not sure if this is correct of course, I don't have enough experience to really be certain. But it does sound reasonable and some much smarter and more experienced developers seem to think so as well. But I'm open to having my mind changed.
by oceanplexian | 2025-08-03 03:24:09+00:00
I vibe code quite a bit and will plow through a lot of front end code despite being a backend engineer. In my case, it's on personal projects where I'm ambitious and asking the LLM to "replace an entire SaaS" sort of thing. At work most of the code is a couple lines here or there and trivial to review.

When I try the more complex things I will do multiple passes with AI, have 2-3 LLMs review it and delete deprecated code, refactor, interrogate it and ask it to fix bad patterns, etc. In an evening I can refactor a large code base this way. For example Gemini is meh compared to Claude Opus at new code, but somewhat decent for reviewing code that's already there, since the 1M context window allows it to tie things together Claude wouldn't be able to fit in 256k. I might then bounce a suggestion back from Gemini -> Claude -> Grok to fix something. It's kind of like managing a team of interns with different specialties and personalities.
by timr | 2025-08-03 03:24:37+00:00
> Scrutiny scaled with the size of the buyer.

Maybe, but it doesn't take a lot of scrutiny to scare the crap out of you if you're a major player in some niche industry with a few hundred million in ARR. Which is most public companies.

That's the perverse thing about this stuff: the biggest players are probably the least sensitive to the regulatory burden.
by john01dav | 2025-08-03 03:24:38+00:00
There's a specific removed video that I want back (the whole channel seems to have been bought by someone who wanted pre edition subscribers or something, then everything on it was nuked and replaced with content that doesn't interest me). I tried emailing the channel's new email address to ask for it, and got no response. Do you know of any practical way to try to get it back?
by kjkjadksj | 2025-08-03 03:24:42+00:00
Aero doesn’t really matter until you are riding at like 25+ mph. Internal cables are like a couple watt reduction at high speeds. Sure it matters for pros when a race is determined by seconds or less and that makes or breaks your career. For commuters and people riding for fitness though? Absolutely not. If you are riding for fitness wouldn’t you actually want a bike with more drag like all those people running with weighted vests and parachutes?
by trane_project | 2025-08-03 03:24:55+00:00
I'll keep the self-promotion to a minimum, but I have been spending lots of time reading on the science consensus on how children actually become fluent readers as part of my upcoming product Pictures Are For Babies (https://picturesareforbabies.com), a literacy program that uses a deliberate practice engine I created to teach literacy from A-B-C to post-secondary level.

Phonics is all the rage, and I was planning to make it central to my pedagogy, but it turns out the answer is a bit more complicated, especially if you want to work with children with reading difficulties.

Phonics is part of the answer, but it's only the first step. Introducing children to the explicit mapping of graphemes to phonemes (letter to sounds) teaches decoding, but skilled reading is not decoding.

Actual reading is developed through a process called orthographic mapping. The result of this process is storing the grapheme to phoneme mappings in long-term memory for immediate retrieval. The words stored in this way form a sight vocabulary that spans tens of thousands of words in fluent readers.

When taught only phonics, kids run the risk of plateauing in later grades. It's not evident at first because the material they are given is simple and deals with concrete subjects (e.g. "Mike got a bunny for his birthday"). Later material uses many more words that don't follow phonics "rules" and deal with abstract material. Under these circumstances, decoding is too slow and effortful and leaves little remaining capacity to deal with harder tasks like comprehension.

The main cause of issues in developing this sight vocabulary is phonological deficits, not IQ, motivation, intelligence, visual processing, or attention like one might imagine. Kids with these deficits have trouble understanding that words are made up of smaller sound units and cannot work with them. Because of that, they cannot store the mapping efficiently and their vocabulary and fluency is limited.

Thankfully, the best interventions that fix these deficits are not too complicated and can correct the issues with as little as a dozen of hours of correct instruction. The main drawback is that finding and targeting those deficits is time-consuming for the instructors, but my program deals with that through the practice engine, which automates all that work.

The bad news is that most teachers are not aware of this and are simply being moved to phonics, which will not work for all children unless those phonemics deficits are identified and remediated. Worse news is that most commercial products that claim to be evidence-based or backed by the "science of reading" still use phonics and make no mention of orthographic mapping, the actual process that produces fluent readers. Again, phonics instruction is part of the answer, but nowhere near the entire story.

You can look at my pedagogy document for more info. Although it's meant to be about my product, it still contains a primer of the actual research on how full literacy (not just reading, but writing as well) is developed: https://picturesareforbabies.com/home/pedagogy/
by nwienert | 2025-08-03 03:25:42+00:00
Not them, but I find that people who take out political frustration against non-political things quite annoying.

For example, when Tesla was blue-coded, way more comments here were highly forgiving, if not outright glazing. They became red-coded, and suddenly you’d see tons of highly technical reasons they sucked. You can gut yourself into coming up with many reasons this isn’t true, but it’s definitely true.

Trucks have gotten this since the beginning.

It’s not that it’s triggering, it’s just more annoying to have to waste a lot of time reading things that are clearly therapy for the poster more than any sort of interesting opinion.
by lazyasciiart | 2025-08-03 03:25:46+00:00
As has been planned and legislated for years, it does transfer out of state as of 2030, which is such well advertised information that people who don’t know it are clearly operating entirely on curated propaganda, not their own thoughts.

You were right in one thing: that yes, it’s going to be insolvent. Why? Because the idiots in legislature were convinced by the anti-safety-net bastards to add an exemption carve-out that fucked the entire financial plan. If you let anyone opt out of Medicare it wouldn’t have existed for six weeks. And now those bastards have the nerve to turn around and say oohhhhh noooooo it’s not even fiscally stable!

But, homeless industrial complex? Ridiculous conspiracy theory nonsense.

For anyone not blinded by that nonsense - the WA LTC benefit would fill in the gaps for people who do not qualify for Medicare long term care, which is basically everyone who is going to need the Medicare benefit, and keep them from going bankrupt, destroying their family or simply dying for lack of care in that year it takes before Medicare kicks in for them.
by trane_project | 2025-08-03 03:27:43+00:00
See my other, more detailed, comment on this thread, but the reason for this is that phonics is part of the solution, but it's not what creates fluent readers.

Most phonics programs do not treat automaticity as the goal, so kids with effortful and slow decoding count as "reading". The science is very clear on what causes this lack of automaticity and what exercises best correct it, but most programs ignore it.

So kids with no deficits will develop mostly fine, but those with them will look to be "reading" but will have trouble once the material requires too much of them.
by onecommentman | 2025-08-03 03:29:25+00:00
Two other supporters of the case against travel:

D H Lawrence from the 1928 essay “New Mexico”

“Superficially, the world has become small and known. Poor little globe of earth, the tourists trot round you as easily as they trot round the Bois or round Central Park. There is no mystery left, we've been there, we've seen it, we know all about it. We've done the globe, and the globe is done. This is quite true, superficially. On the superficies, horizontally, we've been everywhere and done everything, we know all about it. Yet the more we know, superficially, the less we penetrate, vertically. It's all very well skimming across the surface of the ocean, and saying you know all about the sea. There still remain the terrifying under-deeps, of which we have utterly no experience.

The same is true of land travel. We skim along, we get there, we see it all, we've done it all. And as a rule, we never once go through the curious film which railroads, ships, motor-cars, and hotels stretch over the surface of the whole earth. Peking is just the same as New York, with a few different things to look at; rather more Chinese about, etc. Poor creatures that we are, we crave for experience, yet we are like flies that crawl on the pure and transparent mucous-paper in which the world like a bon-bon is wrapped so carefully that we can never get at it, though we see it there all the time as we move about it, apparently in contact, yet actually as far removed as if it were the moon.

As a matter of fact, our great-grandfathers, who never went anywhere, in actuality had more experience of the world than we have, who have seen everything.

The know-it-all state of mind is just the result of being outside the mucous-paper wrapping of civilization. Underneath is everything we don't know and are afraid of knowing.”

Also, Noel Coward, “Why do the wrong people travel when the right people stay at home”, song from musical “Sail Away”, 1962
by tw061023 | 2025-08-03 03:29:40+00:00
It's the other way around. You are the real programmer and the committee and the "modern C++" crowd are more interested playing with legos instead of shipping actual software.

No way anything std::meta gets into serious production; too flexible in some ways, too inflexible in others, too much unpredictability, too high impact on compilation times - just like always with newer additions to the C++ standard. It takes one look at coding standards of real-world projects to see how irrelevant this stuff is.

And like always, the problem std::meta is purported to solve has been solved for years.
by bapak | 2025-08-03 03:29:46+00:00
Static hosting is essentially free. Add ads and it's a cash machine, not the opposite. Either there's something that they didn't tell us or they're incompetent.

The only thing needed is a staticization of their website, which any CMS they had could very easily be set up to do. Look at the archives of NYT, they're barebone pages that preserve the content without any dynamic areas.
by whateveracct | 2025-08-03 03:30:02+00:00
I think "in decline" is too zoomed out.

What's happening is a gap - people are becoming more bimodal with respect to these things.

There are lots of people who live pretty normal lives (by the standards of the last 20-40y) but there are also so many people who have nihilistic views of it all and are left behind.
by kaashif | 2025-08-03 03:30:27+00:00
> "In decline" is the sort of state that's can only be articulated in abstract terms.

It absolutely is not. It's very concrete and is a real problem.

In the UK, for example, there's a well documented trend of pubs and clubs shutting as business declines.

And this has real world impacts or causes, the number of people who are single is rising substantially: https://archive.is/kyk2L

This isn't rationalizing personal loneliness as a societal ill. It's noticing a societal ill based on real world effects.
by adastra22 | 2025-08-03 03:30:38+00:00
I used Cursor for about 5 months before switching to Claude Code. I was only productive with Cursor when I used it in a very specific way, which was basically me doing by hand what Claude Code does internally. I maintained planning documents, todo lists, used test driven development and linting tools, etc. My .cursorrules file looks like what I imagine the Claude system prompt to be.

Claude Code took the burden of maintaining that off my shoulders.

Also Cursor was/is utterly useless any all non-Anthropic models, which are the default.
by stackskipton | 2025-08-03 03:31:24+00:00
What is your argument? That smaller roll ups could not happen and that was bad? Alot of smaller M&A in tech space was bad, it just was not Figma buying Adobe bad.

I think startups exiting via M&A is part of the problem. It creates perverse incentives which is basically fuck profits, squash all competition while lighting money on fire and THEN when you are so embedded, sell the company so original investors get their money back and new owners screw over everyone knowing there tunneling out of your really thick walls is going to be extremely difficult.

In a model where company had to turn a profit and investors would slowly make their money back, it would probably be net win.
by seanhunter | 2025-08-03 03:31:47+00:00
A fun thing to think about is if you’re allowing generalizations to more than 3x3x3, there can be more than one fully-solved configuration. A 4x4x4 cube for example has 4 identical centre pieces on each face where the centre piece of a 3x3x3 cube is. I’m pretty sure these 4 pieces can be in any configuration as long as they are the correct colour and the cube is still completely solved. Likewise each edge piece in a 3x3x3 is replaced in a 4x4x4 with two “wings” which can be swapped without changing the fact that the cube is solved.