MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by bbatha | 2025-08-12 14:25:53+00:00
Kodak managed the film and camera market about as well as they could. The mismanagement was a failure to diversify. The total digital camera market excluding cell phones, would be a fraction of Kodak's film business back in the film era. The film and camera story is a popular one but is fundamentally wrong. The shrinkage of the camera/film market was inevitable. You can look at Fujifilm who does sell cameras and basically owns the remaining film market with instax, however neither of those sustain the business they are effectively a chemical and medical manufacturer who dabbles in photography now.

Kodak on the other hand attempted to diversify to those markets in the 80s and 90s but made some terrible investments that they managed poorly. That forced them to leave those markets and double down on film just in time for the point and shoot boom of the 90s and the early digital market. Kodak was a heavy player in the digital camera market up to the cell phone era: they had the first dSLR and were the dSLR market for most of the 90s, they had the first commercially successful lines of digital point and shoots, they had the first full frame dSLR in the early 00s and jockeyed for positions 1-3 in the point and shoot market until the smart phone era. They continued to make CCD sensors for everyone during this time. Ya they missed the CMOS change over and smarthphone sensor market, but that was well after they were already in the drain.
by OskarS | 2025-08-12 14:26:06+00:00
You do need some way to overflow properly, because sometimes that is what you want. A common example would be PRNGs, which frequently rely on overflow (the classic LCG, for instance). You could argue that should just be a library function or something (e.g. `add_with_overflow`), though that's more C++ than C.

You are absolutely, 100% correct though: I've never seen a case where accidental overflow doesn't start causing bugs anyway. Like, the Pac-Man kill screen is caused by a byte overflowing (it happens on level 256), and the game goes insane. Pac-Man was written in assembly where overflow is defined behavior, but that doesn't matter at all, the game is still broken. If signed overflow is essentially always a bug anyway, why not make it UB and optimize around it? Especially since it is super-valuable in being able to unroll loops.

People always bring up signed integer overflow as an argument for why UB is scary, and it always seemed like such a bad argument to me. Like, I can understand why people think UB has gone too far in C/C++, but signed overflow is such a bad example. It's one of the most sensible bits of UB in the entire standard, IMHO.
by bryanlarsen | 2025-08-12 14:26:14+00:00
You don't want to use a plumber that has scaled their business. That means that they're sending out a new hire to do your plumbing rather than the plumber that originally built the company's reputation.

The best plumbers spend $0 on advertising. They've got enough business through repeat customers and word of mouth to keep their small set of plumbers busy, and they're expanding slowly enough to properly train apprentices and ensure quality.
by wlonkly | 2025-08-12 14:26:46+00:00
The long-standing requirement that you must use subnetting to isolate public from internal, and operational from management, workloads has been a thorn in the side of cloud-based FedRAMP-authorized companies for ages, and now they're finally updating it as part of the "FedRAMP 20x" program aimed at reducing red tape.

From the linked doc:

Current FedRAMP Guidance:

SC-7 (b) Additional FedRAMP Requirements and Guidance: SC-7 (b) should be met by subnet isolation. A subnetwork (subnet) is a physically or logically segmented section of a larger network defined at TCP/IP Layer 3, to both minimize traffic and, important for a FedRAMP Authorization, add a crucial layer of network isolation. Subnets are distinct from VLANs (Layer 2), security groups, and VPCs and are specifically required to satisfy SC-7 part b and other controls. See the FedRAMP Subnets White Paper (fedramp.gov/assets/resources/documents/FedRAMP_subnets_whitepaper.pdf) for additional information.

Updated FedRAMP Guidance:

SC-7 (b) Additional FedRAMP Requirements and Guidance: SC-7 (b) may be met by using any technical capability that ensures logical separation between publicly accessible components and internal networks by preventing traversal without inspection and authorization; traffic may not flow unrestricted from publicly accessible components to internal networks.
by pizlonator | 2025-08-12 14:26:51+00:00
This isn’t the reason why the UB is in the spec in the first place. The spec left stuff undefined to begin with because of lack of consensus over what it should do.

For example the reason why 2s complement took so long is because of some machine that ran C that still existed that was 1s complement.

> The reason is that if you compile with flags that make it defined, you lose a few percentage points of performance (primarily from preventing loop unrolling and auto-vectorization).

I certainly don’t lose any perf on any workload of mine if I set -fwrapv

If your claim is that implementers use optimization as the excuse for wanting UB, then I can agree with that.

I don’t agree that it’s a valid argument though. The performance wins from UB are unconvincing, except maybe on BS benchmarks that C compilers overtune for marketing reasons.
by jsmith45 | 2025-08-12 14:27:51+00:00
For simple tail recursion, expression as a loop is pretty simple, just define the function with the same parameters, and mutate the parameters, possibly creating local copies of the original values if you need the previous value to evaluate another new parameter.

But since your example is relying on mutual tail recursion with functions for each state. Yeah, that is much harder to cleanly map to a simple loop. Like obviously making a giant function to cover all the state functions with a giant switch statement is possible, and even relatively common, but not especially clean.

If all state functions have the same parameters, then an approach with functions per state that return the new state and new parameter values, which get called from a loop using a state value to function dictionary can be relatively clean. But if states need different parameters, yeah that gets complicated.
by motorest | 2025-08-12 14:28:08+00:00
> Explain what about Gmail is "highly interactive" because I'm genuinely not seeing it.

That's perfectly fine. If you can't see it, you can't see it. You need to know what to look for to see it, though. If you're oblivious to web development then every page is just a page.

> You receive like an email a minute?

Irrelevant. The range of operations that Gmail supports and falls within the lazy classification of CRUD operations goed way beyond sending and receiving emails. For example, see gmail's support for tagging, email classification, multiple types of inboxes, etc.

> It's literally basic web 2.0 junk from the early 2000s (...)

Tell me you're completely clueless about web development and WebApps in general without actually saying it. Just keep in mind that you also have the option of not commenting on things you're oblivious about.
by close04 | 2025-08-12 14:28:40+00:00
WinRAR in my experience has a better speed/compression ratio than 7Zip. If you need best compression 7z is probably best but it will cost you some extra time. The GUI and integration of 7Zip also aren't as polished as WinRAR's. I've been using both since their early versions and each have their individual strengths.
by jmclnx | 2025-08-12 14:28:44+00:00
I work on my local Linux system and that is the most update to date

Committed items are stored in 2 places:

1. anon ftp on sdf, back to using tar files via gopher, the main site

2. gitlab is a mirror and will make it easier for youngsters. FWIW, I find gitlab easier than github.

If gitlab starts going the way github did, I will delete my items on gitlab like I did on github a long time ago.
by nerdypepper | 2025-08-12 14:29:08+00:00
there's https://forgefed.org/ defined by the creators of forgejo. there is no complete implementation of the spec. from the last forgejo changelog, the "star" action has been completely federated. federated PRs and issues are a long way away.

https://tangled.sh is the other contender in this space that I know of. uses atproto (same as bluesky) under the hood.

fundamentally activitypub is insufficient to define these kind of networks. you'd need to have some sort of object-capability representation. the creators of forgefed are also moving in this direction: https://codeberg.org/Playwright/playwright
by The-Bus | 2025-08-12 14:29:23+00:00
It's also interesting to see what decisions editors have made about animals. In English, for example, the article for the African elephant[1] is just the animal's name.

In Italian, Spanish, and Tagalog it's the scientific name of the animal.

This makes sense in languages (like Spanish) where an animal may have a lot of different names depending on the country, region, or dialect. If you look at the article for Pig[2], you'll see at least fifteen names listed.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_bush_elephant [2] https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sus_scrofa_domestica
by anon7000 | 2025-08-12 14:29:28+00:00
Yeah it’s just a matter of time. Marketing executives already realize they aren’t able to control the message as well. If you get product recommendations through AI, you don’t see the company’s website and marketing copy, and don’t go through their various funnels. The company… can’t do marketing. How do you get the message you want into the training data?

While I despise ads, it’s an interesting problem. Even on my personal site, I can’t really control how people learn about me.
by aranw | 2025-08-12 14:29:50+00:00
> Seeing lots of commenters say they dumped their entire position in SP500. That is probably not the best move

Fair point about dumping entire positions not being ideal. I got lucky with the timing since the market dropped shortly after I sold. Definitely got lucky on timing that

Long term, I'll likely reinvest in the S&P 500, but as a much smaller slice of my portfolio alongside other indices, bonds, individual stocks, etc. The plan is to avoid that level of concentration going forward regardless of how well it might perform
by radarsat1 | 2025-08-12 14:30:14+00:00
I was thinking about this recently with respect to how many agent systems now let you specify a smaller/faster model for easier tasks and a bigger model for harder tasks.

It's interesting to think about what the trade-offs are. Assuming the system can properly classify a task as easy or hard (big "if" but I guess there are ways), there is nonetheless more to think about, depending on your pricing plan.

For subscription pricing, I guess you don't really care which model runs and in fact it's hard to find a reason to ever run the smaller model, so choosing between the models is more in the provider's interests for cost efficiency.

But for pay-per-use pricing, But if you have a bigger model that can get the answer right 80% of the time, and a smaller model that can handle smaller changes and get things right 60% of the time but correct its mistakes, then the system should try to run it on as many tasks as possible to save you money.. but in the end if ends up having to make a lot of corrections, then maybe you end up needing more total requests than the larger model. In that case maybe it's actually cheaper to run the larger model, if it takes fewer requests.

So I wonder how that kind of trade-off could be effectively calculated. I guess if you can figure out when "retries" happen you can count them and do some statistics on which model is more likely to work out in fewer shots. It's pretty complicated though, when you start to think about it in detail.

I do wonder if even having BOTH the smaller and bigger model make hypotheses, and try the smaller model's idea first, then if it fails, try the bigger model's idea, might be the way to go.
by ryandrake | 2025-08-12 14:30:43+00:00
Fakes become believable when they are on-brand and match people's existing expectations, in this case about a company. I would totally expect petty, retaliatory behavior from a company run by a petty, retaliatory guy. So a forgery totally bypasses my usual "bullshit detector". This is a human weakness that a lot of people, admittedly including myself, are vulnerable to.
by abound | 2025-08-12 14:30:57+00:00
My general rule of thumb:

- GitHub for things I expect broad collaboration on

- SourceHut for things I just want to share (or expect contributions from a specific group that are comfortable with email git flows)

- Self-hosted for everything else. This used to be Gitea, but I've recently switched to charmbracelet/soft-serve, which fits my needs well (it's small and comparatively simple)

As other folks have noted, the social features of GitHub are hard to replicate elsewhere, but I've enjoyed SourceHut's stripped back approach.
by hydrogen7800 | 2025-08-12 14:31:00+00:00
Avweb [0] has a bit more concise report of the story:

>On June 28, Chilean prosecutors allege that Guo submitted a false flight plan at Carlos Ibáñez del Campo Airport in Punta Arenas, indicating he would fly over the city. However, authorities claim he deviated from this plan without notification, continuing toward Antarctica and landing at Lieutenant Rodolfo Marsh Base in Chilean Antarctic territory.

>Prosecutors allege that Guo violated “multiple national and international regulations” by altering his flight path without prior approval and touching down on a portion of Antarctica claimed by Chile.

Also, this is a 675 nm (1250 km) trip, with 529 nm (980 km) over open ocean during the southern winter. [1] Still within range of a 182, but yikes.

[0]https://avweb.com/aviation-news/teen-pilot-detained-in-antar...

[1]https://skyvector.com/?ll=-62.19079798502279,-58.98632811745...
by adrimubo96 | 2025-08-12 14:31:04+00:00
I've been through the same problems as the author, but in the end, I managed to find something that is like an augmented TXT file: https://wiseowl.cat.

It has exactly what the author was saying:

"Every night, I check tomorrow’s calendar. I dump everything into the next day’s section. Scheduled items get times in front. Sub-bullets hold notes or reminders. Finished tasks? I delete them or add what happened. Still on the list? Not done yet. That’s it."

This app automatically moves what hasn't been done to the next day, it's pretty good to manage work and it doesn't add any extra workload to manage the TODOs. Can't recommend it enough for just 1 buck a month!!
by XorNot | 2025-08-12 14:31:16+00:00
Setting aside that you pulled that number out of your ass to argue against it, if something produces 400X it's purchase cost over it's operational life time, a 2% improvement takes that to 408X it's purchase cost for only a 2X increase in initial outlay, meaning it pays for itself 4 fold.

But very few innovations have that sort of effect on manufacturing cost to start with.
by mikeyouse | 2025-08-12 14:32:22+00:00
That was the ‘old’ DOJ, Tim Apple was in the Oval Office a few days ago to pay tribute in gold… it got them exemptions from tariffs and I wouldn’t be surprised if the DOJ dropped this case soon.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https%3A...
by uecker | 2025-08-12 14:32:23+00:00
Sorry, maybe I misread your comment. There are certainly languages easier to learn than C, but I would not say C++ or Rust fall into this category. At the same time, I find C compilation extremely fast exactly because of headers. In C you can split interface and implementation cleanly between header and c-file and this enables efficient incremental builds. In C++ most of the implementation is in headers, and all the template processing is order of magnitude more expensive than parsing C headers. Rust also does not seem to have proper separate compilation.
by sim7c00 | 2025-08-12 14:32:29+00:00
i agree. if in 2025 ppl dont understand plaintext of user data to places on the net is bad, they should not write code nor be maintainers of oss software -_-.

how many times does everyone need to be totally compromised by some shitty software before people start to care?

innocent individuals each days are suffering hacks and malicious interactions. people are losing their livelihoods. companies are getting shutdown... what more need to happen?? :S
by mgh2 | 2025-08-12 14:32:48+00:00
Apple is still behind the AI game/story, its stock barely grew from 3T market cap height in 2022. It is treated as a safe investment- i.e. when the bubble pops.

The rest of the pack is feeding on the AI hype train, each supplying their services to pump up the story (analogy): Nvidia on chips (shovels), Microsoft and Amazon on cloud (gold storage), Meta and Google on ads (marketing).
by scythe | 2025-08-12 14:32:57+00:00
>I have a feeling though that excess fat can go right through you in some cases like that - because there have been times where I was binging on peanut butter, like easily 16-24oz in a day often, like 2-3000 calories extra on top of my normal diet, and I didn't gain weight, I think a lot of it went through me undigested.

Nuts, specifically, do this:

https://www.nature.com/articles/0803735

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-n...

Peanut butter is usually pretty bioavailable, though. Unless it was particularly coarse (like the kind you get freshly made at an upscale grocer)?
by alternatex | 2025-08-12 14:33:03+00:00
Even though your first instinct might be to immediately pull away when people talk about SPAs, remember that this discussion is about how using a SPA feels vs a server-rendered app that refreshes on every user action. It's not a discussion about the technologies used to build it.

There are plenty of JS frameworks and some have a more ergonomic dev experience than others, but what is an undeniable fact is that most users prefer SPAs for highly interactive apps. There is a ton of research into user retention that proves this. Google aren't building SPAs because they like Angular.
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-08-12 14:33:20+00:00
> you really can not sign away your right-to-life even with assisted death. The process is explicitly tooled around this to ensure that people's rights are not violated

I’m saying that on a practical level the difference is unobservable. Part of your right to life, in this formulation, is your right to sign it away.

The terminality of a right to life makes it a poor comparison to privacy, which has no comparably-irreversible end state like death.
by mschuster91 | 2025-08-12 14:33:35+00:00
Back when I worked in heavy construction (aka, trench digging for telcos) I went through about six liters of soda a day when it was hot outside. And no, I was not diabetic, I was just very intensively working out!

The problem is, too many people in construction don't give a shit about their bodies. Corporate greed, incompetent/uncaring bosses, toxic masculinity, plain old incompetence and/or people "set in their ways"... these are the guys you see at age 50 with their spines shot, skin crumbling (or outright cancering out) and a plethora of health issues.
by giancarlostoro | 2025-08-12 14:33:48+00:00
Its worse if you get bombarded with negative reviews, which is why stuff like yelp holding you hostage is so bad. If you own an independent business outside of marketing, your reputation is everything. Especially now that anyone can blast your name because they didnt like how you said shiboleth or whatever.

So if you have a zillion negative yelp reviews, which you have no idea where they came from, since there's more negative reviews than you've ever had customers, but they want your money to hide them. ;)
by bilekas | 2025-08-12 14:34:09+00:00
Or he shouldn't have changed his flight plan without letting the ATC know, these things cause massive headaches for everyone else. ATC can't have regular service running when there's a rogue flight in the air.

He's lucky he is getting off with a slap on the wrist basically. The entitlement some people have is bewildering.

There are many ways to get approval for a flight to the Antarctic. Do it the right way.
by potato3732842 | 2025-08-12 14:34:12+00:00
Believable to who?

Surely there were a bunch of automotive engineers on Reddit getting downvoted to oblivion for suggesting that this doesn't pass a sniff test because it arguably violates subsection 69 of FMVSS 420 or that they don't need to do that because industry standard is to just prevent the car from starting next time, or whatever.
by dghlsakjg | 2025-08-12 14:34:17+00:00
> Reframing a violation of individual rights as good for society is literally how all authoritarianism is justified.

Almost every individual right is balanced against the good of society. My right to free speech is not absolute, and most of the limitations in place are for the good of society. My right to not have my house entered by government agents without a warrant is not absolute, and the restrictions in place are for the good of society. Telling people to stay out of the woods during the 2nd worst fire season (so far!) on record is not authoritarianism, it is a reasonable temporary restriction in a country where 40% of wildfires are caused by people in the woods.

Restricting civil liberties during times of crisis is incredibly common across states that are not at all authoritarian, and those that very much are.

> More practically, if someone is careless enough to violate the law by lighting a fire, then this type of ban is not going to change much.

There are a lot of ways to start fires. e.g. Many are started by the catalytic converter or another hot car part coming in contact with dry brush. There have been many fires started by the sparks of a train wheel operating normally. Human caused fires don't have to be careless, it can just be random shitty chance. What asking people to stay out of the woods does is lower the chance of those random occurrences, while it also frees up patrol resources to focus on those non-law abiding forest users who you say are the problem. Double win!

> Like misplaced gun control laws, it really only affects responsible law abiding citizens, and denies them their rights as individuals and taxpayers.

Canada doesn't have a right to gun ownership. It is a privilege that is earned at the individual level and can be revoked. Nor does Canada have a right to enter Crown Land. Nor does paying taxes have anything to do with your individual rights. That sentence is great at getting emotions up, but it doesn't have any argumentative value for people who place any value in reality and logic.
by lucianbr | 2025-08-12 14:34:29+00:00
While courts take years and write multiple volumes to justify any kind of measure at all, the corporations move fast and keep changing the way they extract value from society.

I'm not sure the system will ever catch up this way.

Plus, if a regular citizen without deep pockets breaks the law, somehow it never takes years and thousands of pages to convict them. I can easily believe it's not about the complexities of the case, but the depth of the pockets.

If it really was "just a complex situation", you would expect equal percentages of simple and complicated cases for regular joes and huge corporations, no?
by prometheus76 | 2025-08-12 14:34:49+00:00
"However, animals like us do not experience salt desire as a powerful, controlling drive as we do with oxygen, food and water." (from the article).

I disagree with that, especially when I was young. I would crave salt. I would lick my hand and sprinkle salt on it, then lick the salt off. I would break chunks off the salt lick block we had for our horses. I would lick the homemade play-doh my mom would make because it tasted like salt.

There's no substantiation for the claim in the article that we lack a salt craving. Apparently, the author hasn't, but I know a lot of people that do.