MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by grafmax | 2025-08-09 10:41:56+00:00
Living standards have risen due to productivity gains being distributed across society. Factors such as wise policy and labor unions contributed to this effect. These factors are largely absent today. Productivity gains have flowed mostly to the ownership class since the mid 1970s (this is the pay-productivity gap). As the article notes, 50% of people identify groceries as a major cause of stress, which doesn’t sound like a medieval king. Society has the capacity to make life better for everyone. It requires collective action to redistribute wealth from the ownership class across society however.

Even raising living standards for the poor through redistribution wouldn’t solve all our problems. Concentration of wealth is itself a net negative because it is concentration of power. Greater wealth concentration makes society more undemocratic, even if the bottom 50% were to become richer. Today billionaires have so much money that a group of them has gotten together to fund the abandonment of democracy in the US. They are largely succeeding. We are collapsing into “illiberal democracy” - a phenomenon that has been spreading across the globe in recent years. Our greatest problems, like climate change, worsen as wealthy interests prop up policies of denial rather than effective solutions.

A medieval king had political control. If society was heading in a direction that was going to harm them, they could do something about it. But members of the modern day middle class have virtually no political control. That is concentrated in the hands of the few and harms us all.
by maccard | 2025-08-09 10:42:19+00:00
This was exactly my complaint when the USB C standards were coming in - having a universal connector means nothing I you need a specific cable and/or power supply to charge it. You might say it’s not spec compliant and that’s fine - but it’s still a USB C port. We’d all be better off if they had just kept it as micro usb because at least then I’d _know_ I need a different cable for it
by kentiko | 2025-08-09 10:42:25+00:00
> Since then, he's used it as his daily driver, putting on at least 120 kilometres a day driving from his home in Wyses Corner, N.S., to Halifax and back each day of his working life.

120km per day of commuting is crazy to me. I work from home and occasionally do a 14km bicycle commute to the office.
by anonymoushn | 2025-08-09 10:43:06+00:00
Well, for example you may have some functions which accept types and return types, which are not compatible with some input types, and indicate their incompatibility by raising an error so that compilation fails. If the program actually does not pass some type to such a function that leads to this sort of error, it would seem like a bug for the compiler to choose to evaluate that function with that argument anyway, in the same way that it would be a bug if I had said "template" throughout this comment. And it is not generally regarded as a deficiency in C++ that if the compiler suddenly chose to instantiate every template with every value or type, some of the resulting instantiations would not compile.
by Reason077 | 2025-08-09 10:45:07+00:00
> "I plugged it until fully charged, then wore it conti> nuously. After 24 hours of use, even with all my fiddling, that battery was at 80%. After four days, it still had 40% left"*

So if a £16 generic competitor can last 4 days, what's Apple doing wrong? Why can't a £450 Apple Watch (non-Ultra) last a full 24 hours on a charge?
by Kim_Bruning | 2025-08-09 10:48:18+00:00
It might have caught on to your attitude, mind ;-)

To drag in a pet hobby horse (pun intended).

Kluger Hans (Clever Hans) turns out to have been a much odder experiment than people ever thought. Sure, Hans cheated on the mathematics test by means of cold reading the audience.

Original conclusion: Horses are dumb.

But guess what? Today you can buy a part that does maths for you for under a dollar apiece in rolls of 500. But a system that does what Kluger Hans (arguably) actually did? Costs on the order of several billion dollars in 2025.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans
by oblio | 2025-08-09 10:48:45+00:00
True.

At the end of the day, until at least one of the big providers gives us balance sheet numbers, we don't know where they stand. My current bet is that they're losing money whichever way you dice it.

The hope being as usual that costs go down and the market share gained makes up for it. At which point I wouldn't be shocked by pro licenses running into the several hundred bucks per month.
by animal531 | 2025-08-09 10:49:05+00:00
I love good finger toys at my desk to keep my ADD busy while I'm working. They need to be:

- Light: If they make a clanking noise every 5 seconds when you pick them up and put them down its just distracting.

- Plastic: There are other materials that work, but in general metals and fabrics react too strongly with your fingers over time, whereas plastic can be easily cleaned.

Having a little water window isn't a problem, but the water is also not as directly cool looking. Usually in the '90s you'd get those mixed color oil/water toys where the colors would make them stand out more, but shaking them would mix the substances causing them to lose function.

As such the electronic version is quite durable in comparison.
by Sharlin | 2025-08-09 10:49:42+00:00
Sure, because it's compile-time code inside a (semantically) run-time check. In recent Rust versions you can do

fn main() { const { if false { let _:() = panic!(); } } }

which compiles as expected. (Note that if the binding were `const` instead of `let`, it'd still have failed to compile, because the semantics don't change.)
by gregorygoc | 2025-08-09 10:50:13+00:00
My observation is that in general smart generalists are smarter than smart specialists. I work at Google, and it’s just that these generalists folks are extremely fast learners. They can cover breadth and depth of an arbitrary topic in a matter of 15 minutes, just enough to solve a problem at hand.

It’s quite intimidating how fast they can break down difficult concepts into first principles. I’ve witnessed this first hand and it’s beyond intimidating. Makes you wondering what you’re doing at this company… That being said, the caliber of folks I’m talking about is quite rare, like top 10% of top 1% teams at Google.
by throwaway2037 | 2025-08-09 10:52:54+00:00
Seriously question about focus stealing: What is state of the art at the moment for desktop windowing systems? Is the "correct" action when a window wants to steal focus: Pop under the active window and give a non-focus stealing hint (UI balloon?) to the user that this window needs attention?

I can think of two real world examples: (1) debugger hits breakpoint and steals focus (this is sometimes configurable), (2) WiFi needs re-/auth.
by jacquesm | 2025-08-09 10:52:57+00:00
I did this in high school when we weren't allowed a calculator during tests and got into an argument with a teacher who told me that it is impossible to do this in your head so I must have cheated. A short demonstration on random numbers sufficed. I've taught my kids the method and they are now set up for similar arguments ;)

The hardest part if you want to generate more digits is to keep track of the intermediary sum during the multiplication, that's why I never got past three significant digits. That would be an interesting little contest though!
by roenxi | 2025-08-09 10:54:29+00:00
As always, the world is quite messy and one study doesn't really tell us very much. Maybe the Californian fast food sector is just having a tough time for unrelated and coincidental reasons.

However, the theory always said that a minimum wage rise reduces the number of jobs so it is a strong chance that around 20,000 people were put out of work by this policy.
by alinzainescu | 2025-08-09 10:54:55+00:00
In a world of digital isolation, Mavenly brings back authentic human connection. We believe that every neighborhood has hidden experts ready to share their passion, and every person deserves to learn from someone who truly cares. Together, we're rebuilding community, one meaningful experience at a time. FORGET ONLINE COURSES. LEARN FROM YOUR NEIGHBORS. Learn from a local CEO, chef, Oscar winner, forklift driver, Grammy winner, 22-year-old amazing chess player, and the most amazing bird guy! Real people sharing real skills. Connect with passionate experts in your community for authentic experiences that matter.
by erehweb | 2025-08-09 10:58:02+00:00
The OP thinks that candidates spending a lot of time on applications is OK, as long as the company shows respect by spending a lot of time themselves. I think this is mistaken - I care about how much time I have to spend, and am a lot less concerned about how much time the company takes.

There's a trade-off: if a company spends more time / requires more effort on an interview process, they can get a better signal on the candidate's abilities, but then they'll lose out on candidates who are unwilling / unable to commit this time. This might just be a hard trade-off in recruiting.
by throwaway2037 | 2025-08-09 10:58:24+00:00
> "applications need to be able to decide where exactly windows go." There is basically no behavior which literally requires this, and certainly no sane behavior that requires this.

I just had a thought. Whenever I pop-up a child dialog (incl. message boxes) in a desktop UI app, I normally (1) center it over the parent window, or (2) place to the right of the parent window so that many layers of blocking child dialogs common in complex config settings build a "UI train" from left to right. In both cases, I am using "pixel perfect" placement of these windows. I never had any users complain about it. Is this not a valid use case?
by jasonvorhe | 2025-08-09 10:59:12+00:00
> Because it strengthens Europe’s long-term competitiveness, democratic control, and stability.

I don't see the point. What makes Europe democratic control something to cherish? The chat control plans, the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, the Digital Services Act, the militarization - none of it seems to be democratic tied to any values surrounding freedom.
by OsmanDKitay | 2025-08-09 11:00:55+00:00
The key distinction is that im not trying to reinvent the API format wheel, im building a new steering wheel for a new kind of driver the AI agent. The actual "poorly reinvented wheel" today is screen scraping and brittle DOM manipulation which is how most agents are forced to interact with websites. AURA is the direct answer to that chaos.

A spec like jsonapi is excellent for structuring the payload of a single, known api endpoint. AURA operates at a higher level of abstraction, site-wide capability discovery and state management.

An agent doesnt just need to know how to format a request it first needs to know what is possible to do and whether it can do it right now. This is the problem json:api isnt designed to solve. For example, when an agent first visits a site it fetches the aura.json manifest and sees the login and list_posts capabilities. The create_post capability isnt even visible to it. After the agent successfully uses the login capability, the server's next response includes the dynamic aura-state header, which now advertises that create_post and logout are available. This state-aware dynamic map of available actions which changes with the user s context, is the core of the protocol. It s a formal language for the if-then logic of a user interface, built on established standards like rfc 6570 uri templates so it s a stable foundation. It s not another way to format json, it s a way for a website to declare its interactive grammar to the web.
by idbehold | 2025-08-09 11:02:51+00:00
>But this does fall apart for very very large grids, as you get close to the height limit described in this article.

This was solved by a now unmaintained virtualization library that predates both of these libraries: https://github.com/bvaughn/react-virtualized

The react-virtualized library works around this issue by scaling the the scroll position it sets for a row based on the ratio of "max CSS height allowed by browser" to "computed height of all rows" if the latter is greater than the former: https://github.com/bvaughn/react-virtualized/blob/master/sou...
by hanikesn | 2025-08-09 11:02:51+00:00
First: It's great to have some serious competition in the durable execution market! You build some impressive tech already! It took me a decent time to investigate before pulling the trigger on temporal at my current PSP fintech as you'll end up with a pretty hard vendor lock-in which has to be worth it.

I have to say the architecture blog post is very leightweight on details, which makes it hard to judge so you have to dive into the docs for the spicy details and I see abig showstoppers for our usecase:

1. Workflow versioning: It seems currently impossible to properly upgrade inflight workflow without manually forking the workflow

Also the marketing material and docs aretoo handwavy on the idempotency and determinism constraints, which makes them dbos seem to good to be true. I'd also love to see higher level abstractions around message sending. Temporal's signal, query and update are essential building blocks for our use cases and allow some quite interesting use cases as you can really view workflows as actors.

I hope you can keep innovating as temporal really is too heavy for a lot of use-cases.

See: https://docs.dbos.dev/production/self-hosting/workflow-recov... https://www.dbos.dev/blog/handling-failures-workflow-forks
by knotimpressed | 2025-08-09 11:03:12+00:00
Definitely agreed on the lack of consistency between orders and even between boards in the same order. I’m doing very low volume for myself and not giving anyone else the banks, so I’m more than happy to check over all the boards for visually obvious issues with a loupe.

As another commenter said, is there anything beyond short circuit/overcurrent for the load side, and undervoltage/overcurrent protection on the cell side that’s crucial for a non professional bank? I’m happy to pop a few boards testing them myself.
by setopt | 2025-08-09 11:03:57+00:00
> What is the modern way?

Pretty sure they mean something that at least involves use-package, vertico/consult/etc. or equivalent, company or corfu, project.el or projectile, and magit.

> You can start with a minimal config like Emacs Bedrock or Prelude, and then learn about those options first.

Prelude seems nice but I wouldn’t call it minimal unless you’re comparing to Doom and Spacemacs.
by alphazard | 2025-08-09 11:04:12+00:00
It's too soon to say. Increasing the cost of labor will reduce jobs in the short term, and increase the cost of fast food. In the medium term, that may lead to people cutting back on fast food, which then leads to more job loss.

If fast food companies have perfect knowledge of their market, then the immediate job loss would be all that happens, but they don't so it will take some time to adapt to the new market, and see if consumers will bear the increase in cost.

That's not even considering substitutes for labor, which have never been as competitive as they are now. AI, robotics, single-purpose machines, etc. One negative to a minimum wage is that we don't actually know the market price of labor. When there is a shift from humans to machines for labor, it will happen quickly and without warning, rather than slowly as humans become dissatisfied with decreasing wages.
by wkat4242 | 2025-08-09 11:05:20+00:00
> Then it will cause an insane backlash and nobody would use the product. So it is in their interest to not train/record.

I don't think there would be that much backlash. People are getting hooked on it and many don't actually care about privacy.

We know about Google, meta and people still use them. Not a big dent in openai usage either since their revelations.

But I understand your point!
by gr4vityWall | 2025-08-09 11:05:55+00:00
The Illumos' family is an interesting one. I wish it was easier to get it installed on modern hardware. Any of my attempts with distros like OpenIndiana, Tribblix and OmniOS didn't go further than the boot menu.

I wonder how far a compatibility layer for Linux drivers could go to help other UNIX kernels' usability. Maybe the Oxide folks know more of what would be involved in such an effort.
by Esophagus4 | 2025-08-09 11:06:58+00:00
> most interview questions have very little to do with day-to-day responsibilities. all good software engineers are generalist and live coding does not select for generalists

If I had a dollar for every time I heard this (flawed) argument, I’d be rich and would no longer have to sell ads on my Hacker News comments. I’m going to get hate for this unpopular opinion but here we go.

So often, “But Leetcode isn’t like REAL programming” is the siren song of the programmer who probably overestimates their coding skills and experience.

Yes, I hate to say it - live coding is actually one of the best signals you can get on a candidate’s seniority and ability to program a computer (and more importantly, their core computer science skills). A good interviewer is trained to know how to probe your CS knowledge during this, and will watch how you structure code, break down problems, debug, and think about testing. They will even ask you to make changes to see how coachable you are and what you might be like to work with. It’s not about inverting a binary tree while sharing your screen, it’s about showing me how you solve a problem, then translate what’s in your head to code.

Take home exercises provide little to no signal, and screen out people who have families (who wouldn’t bother with a 4 hour take home exercise after work). I don’t want to see how you Google, I want to see how you think.

These candidates always want some version of, “But trust me, bro! Hire me: I’m a senior engineer, I don’t remember how to Leetcode! I’m good, I promise!” But what they won’t admit to themselves is that a good senior engineer is able to do all the things a junior can do PLUS all the things a senior can do.

It’s not perfect, but I won’t hire anyone that can’t pass a live coding round.

This comment brought to you by Poppi. Poppi: it’s soda for people who are silly enough to believe soda can be healthy.
by Bostonian | 2025-08-09 11:07:56+00:00
Automating knowledge work is a good thing, although it will displace some workers. Consultants are hired to make more companies more productive. If LLMs can give good business advice, that will increase access for smaller companies.

https://archive.is/E3kxj

'This summer the knowledge settled in about where we are with artificial intelligence. Almost everyone is rattled by the speed of its development. The story is no longer “AI in coming decades will take a lot of jobs” or “AI will take jobs sooner than we think.” It is “AI is here and a quiet havoc has begun.”

Jobs growth in July was lower than expected, the May and June jobs numbers were revised downward, and news reports on this mentioned various causes—tariffs, general economic uncertainty and, lower down, AI.

But all sorts of feature reporting puts AI higher up. Last week Noam Scheiber in the New York Times reported economists just out of school are suddenly having trouble finding jobs. As recently at the 2023-24 academic year, said a member of the American Economic Association, the employment rate for economists shortly after earning a doctorate was 100%. Not now. Everyone’s scaling back, government is laying off, big firms have slowed hiring. Why? Uncertainty, tariffs and the possibility that artificial intelligence will replace their workers. Mr. Scheiber quotes labor economist Betsey Stevenson: “The advent of AI is . . . impacting the market for high-skilled labor.”

That’s only economists, not beloved in America, we probably have enough. Here’s another unbeloved group. This week Journal reporter Chip Cutter had a piece titled “AI Is Coming for the Consultants. Inside McKinsey, ‘This Is Existential.’ ” If AI can crunch numbers, analyze data and deliver a slick PowerPoint deck in two seconds, what will the consulting firm do to survive? Rewire its business. Smaller, leaner teams; let AI build the PowerPoint. McKinsey’s global managing partner, Bob Sternfels, said that in the future the company will likely have one AI agent for every human employee. It’s already reduced head count.'
by johnisgood | 2025-08-09 11:08:42+00:00
People quickly jump to conclusions all the time on here. I did not claim that it is not a valid translation. All I said is that I did not know the word and that probably many native English speakers do not know it either. Additionally I claimed that I think it is better to use "news-speaker" instead of "herald" as it is obvious to most if not all people who speak English, whether native or not. I am fine with "reporter", too.

You could go around and ask people if they know the meaning of "herald". I did, and many people did not know, but "news-teller" is definitely obvious, and as I have previously said in two other comments: while "news-teller" is not a standard or formally recognized English word, it is likely that many English speakers would still recognize and understand its meaning, more so than "herald", in my opinion, and in accordance to my experiences.

Language evolves. :)
by austin-cheney | 2025-08-09 11:10:14+00:00
The primary problem with hiring is that developers are a single status with not performance benchmark. The solution is to segment need by capability.

Let’s face the reality that most developers will never be able to write original software and just put text to screen using a tool or framework. Don’t call these people engineers. These people are the assembly line of software. Measure them according to desired patterns. They are copy/paste but smarter than data entry and understand some of the restrictions in place. Expectations are low and compatibility and replacement are the key business values.

Next are the people who test software, the QA. We expect more from these people and then work them harder for less money at a lower level of reputation.

Next are the people who evaluate software. These people are closer to engineers. These people include accessibility, security, and performance experts. These people are more like a combination of QA and senior developers. Evaluate these people on these criteria: written essay, technical knowledge, force them to measure things in real time and see how they perform.

Next are the people who actually write software applications. Let’s call these people solution delivery. These people are similar to junior architects and actually build things. These people should be evaluated only on the basis of organizational capabilities above that of the engineers that measure things.

Finally are the software owners. These people resemble a combination of project management and junior architects. They must have the experience to know how to build original software, like the junior architects, but also a planning vision to push though demands from competing stakeholders. There is busy savvy to this comes from a solid engineering planning vision plus superior communication skills most lesser software people never honed. Think of these people as senior principals with real authority. Evaluate these people on their delivery experience, using numbers, and reputation.
by MLR | 2025-08-09 11:10:38+00:00
If it's actually only a 2.7% decline in employment relative to baseline then the increase in total wages paid would have to be very small to make this a bad policy.

I agree that a lost job should carry some kind of premium compared to a total increase in wages paid, and you also have to go and look at the total hours worked to get a good picture, but if the total relative increase in remuneration was higher than about 10% or so I think that's probably enough to be able to hand wave the employment decrease.

If it only turns out to be 5% I'd be a bit iffier about it.

In the UK we have a pretty generous minimum wage (for over 21s), I think even relative to $20 in California, and the effect on employment has been very small while minimum wage jobs now give a pretty OK life, so I'm inclined to support high minimum wages generally.