MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by josefresco | 2025-08-27 13:47:23+00:00
The Air Force's F-35A variant has an "average" flyaway cost of $82.5 million for the jet's 15th, 16th and 17th production lots.

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/10/newest-f-35-f-15ex-contr...

The F-35 base model is around $80 million, rising to the highest known price of $109 million per unit for the F-35B vertical takeoff and landing variant.

And then there's this:

"The flyaway cost for the F-15EX Eagle II is approximately $90 million for each aircraft in the program’s second production lot, about $7.5 million more than the newest price for an F-35A"
by atonse | 2025-08-27 13:47:25+00:00
I wondered if it was something new, or that it was just the larger than average pull requests these days I have with AI coding.

Good to know others are feeling it too, hopefully it can get resolved soon. In the mean time, i'll try my PR reviews on FF.

Update: Just tested my big PR (+8,661, -1,657) on FF and it worked like a charm!
by jmclnx | 2025-08-27 13:47:43+00:00
No kidding when the other site has filled up with people who only believes statements that any smart 5 year old would think is silly.

It is too bad things have got to this point, but we as voters let it happen. At least there are some countries that still value Science. The US seems to be doing all it can to hand what remains of our scientific lead to those countries.
by nonethewiser | 2025-08-27 13:48:57+00:00
That's interesting because I thought the exact opposite. How could the LLM generate the notes? Those are from the person's direct observations, investigation, etc. right? So the idea would be to farm that part out? As off-putting as LLM style writing is, letting the LLM make the content seems reckless and error prone.

I do agree that the LLM style vs. the authors style is off-putting. I have used LLMs to help me write things and I do not like how its not "my" voice. I see no reason it couldnt use my voice given some of my writing samples. In any case, I've found it very easy to revise it in my own words. This is part of the "revise" stage mentioned in the process. In addition, this step is barely necessary for some things, such as technical writing.
by crote | 2025-08-27 13:49:00+00:00
The problem is that software can be too flexible. A great example is companies ending up using Excel as a load-bearing database, relying on a bunch of incomprehensible macros to execute critical business logic.

Sure, it's flexible, but are they really better off than a competitor using properly-engineered one-off software? In the end, is there really a difference between software development and flexible-tool-configuration?
by fluoridation | 2025-08-27 13:50:02+00:00
The problem is less the size of a single dependency but the transitivity of adding dependencies. It used to be, library developers sought to not depend on other libraries if they could avoid it, because it meant their users had to make their build systems more complicated. It was unusual for a complete project to have a dependency graph more than two levels deep. Package managers let you easily build these gigantic dependency graphs with ease. Great for productivity, not so much for security.
by justin66 | 2025-08-27 13:50:55+00:00
Unless things have changed significantly coreboot is an example of what I'm talking about - not a ton of x86 motherboard hardware is supported very well. "But for real openness, nothing beats an older x86 PC" just doesn't seem true at all.

(but I'll look into coreboot. I'd get a kick out of trying it.)
by nonethewiser | 2025-08-27 13:51:28+00:00
And they can say no to the government with the equity stake and the government can divest.

I'm not arguing they are exactly the same... I just think the author shouldn't state the hypothesis at the end of the article without examining it.

Frankly I think it's a good summary of why Intel may be too big to fail. It's just framed wrong.
by Orygin | 2025-08-27 13:51:33+00:00
Sure, triage done by a human exist and they are generally absolved from taking that decision that could kill someone (to save others). Because the situation calls for it and would otherwise result in more deaths. But other than the situation calling for it, healthcare professionals are held to a certain standard and can be litigated against for medical malpractice.

That is not the case for ChatGPT apparently, and OpenAI should be held responsible for what their models do. They are very much aware of this because they did fine-tune GPT5 to avoid giving medical advice, even though it's still possible to work around.
by FlyingSnake | 2025-08-27 13:51:38+00:00
>They ended up with a final sample size of 813 people.

I want BlueSky to succeed but this sampling bias is simply too much to ignore.

This comment (by nunobrito) from few days ago on a similar topic is best analysis of this topic.

> These news are awfully similar to click-bait stating "the science is settled" by grouping a small set of the group and then pretending it represents the whole. The paper failed both to identify the overall number of scientists using X or the cases where multiple platforms are used (most common scenario). Therefore the paper only seems biased on its best scenario or downright propaganda at its worst. > NOSTR and Mastodon should never be left out of any serious research.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44982510
by rendaw | 2025-08-27 13:51:49+00:00
So reading about this my current company sounds exactly the same. And the one before it, and the one before that.

Critical issues happen with customers, blame gets shifted, a useless fix is proposed in the post mortem and implemented (add another alert to the waterfall of useless alerts we get on call), and we continue to do ineffective testing. Procedural improvements are rejected by the original authors who were then promoted and want to keep feeling like they made something good and are now in a position to enforce that fiction.

So IMO the lesson here isn't that everyone should focus on culture and process, it's that you won't have the right culture and process and (apparently) laws and regulation can overcome the lack of culture and process.
by rootnod3 | 2025-08-27 13:52:23+00:00
Fully agree. That is why I vendor all my dependencies. On the common lisp side a new tool emerged a while ago for that[1].

On top of that, I try to keep the dependencies to an absolute minimum. In my current project it's 15 dependencies, including the sub-dependencies.

[1]: https://github.com/fosskers/vend
by MerrimanInd | 2025-08-27 13:52:55+00:00
Every mechanical engineer educated in the USA knows the name of two famous collapses: the Tacoma Narrows Bridge and the Hyatt Regency balcony in Kansas City, MO. With an engineering ethics class being part of nearly every undergrad curriculum, these are two of the classic examples for us. I'm curious; do software engineers learn stories like the Therac-25 in their degrees?
by RajT88 | 2025-08-27 13:53:18+00:00
I mean - the argument for not treating the whole thing as an oceanic border is the fact that the territorial line of US and Canada Lakes Superior, Huron, Erie and Ontario - but not at all Lake Michigan.

Lake Michigan does not touch Canada. There are shipping ports along the shores of Lake Michigan, but it's an argument that it should not be treated as an oceanic border. No matter how you measure it, Chicago is hundreds of miles from the Canadian border.
by johnisgood | 2025-08-27 13:53:46+00:00
After initial save, do they perform automatic git pulls? What happens if there are potential conflicts? I wonder how it all works behind the surface. I know I ran into issues with "git pull --all" before, for example. Or what if it is public software that is not mine? I saved some git repositories (should I do .tar.gz too for the same project? Does it know anything about versions?).
by BLKNSLVR | 2025-08-27 13:53:48+00:00
I dislike this, rationally or not.

On my work laptop I've had to move my working folder out of "My Documents" so that going into subfolders doesn't stop and think for ten seconds each while it does... something... with OneDrive.

I just want to get to the files real quick, I don't want to calculate '42' at every fucking folder-open event.

I'm not a very nostalgic motherfucker, so I have no desire to relive computing from the early 90s.

(this may be specific to enforced settings at my workplace, but it feels like this is the same kinda thing)

Linux at home for the last five-odd years and almost daily I'm reminded how good a decision that was.
by Barbing | 2025-08-27 13:53:59+00:00
It might show her for prompts of “show me the world’s best grandma” :)

On free tier, I’d essentially believe that to be the default behavior. In reality they might simply use your feedback and your text prompts instead. Certainly know free Google/OpenAI LLM usage entails prompts being used for research.

Edit: decent chance it would NOT directly integrate grandma into its training, but would try hard to use an offline model for any privacy concerns
by bitshiftfaced | 2025-08-27 13:54:02+00:00
> If you talk about politics and everyone agrees then you know you are working along side aligned people.

Except you don't know this. People depend on their jobs. If they're the only one who holds an alternate view, they may not figure it worth it. Why risk alienating yourself and potentially be seen as less likeable, which might put your means of income at risk?
by extraisland | 2025-08-27 13:54:12+00:00
> That seems like an incredibly selfish way of thinking.

Not at all. Many times you will find yourself wanting to take action but it would be counter productive.

e.g. I had a superior leave a bunch of papers on my desk. I assumed they were for me and starting reading. It had a list of redundancies. Some of these people I knew and was quite friendly with. If I had told them, I could have potentially got myself in a bunch of shit. They would still have been made redundant whether I had warned them or not.

What is the benefit in that situation of warning them? That is your initial instinct right? There is none. I only hurt myself, and they do not benefit. Sometimes your involvement will be counter productive.

Sometimes it is not the right place, the right time, or you might not even be the right person to champion a cause.

BTW, If you have dependants e.g. Most parents prioritise them over their own lives. That is the opposite of being selfish.

> You have everything to lose by _not_ talking about politics.

Nonsense. I have no obligation to engage in political discussion and often engaging in it has a number of negative consequences.

Some families are estranged over divisive political issues. I was estranged from my family (I had substance abuse problems), I have since repaired that relationships. But I won't get that time back.

As previously stated you can talk about it outside of work. Politics is often talked about at length, in bars, clubs, between neighbours and online. Why does it also have to be at the place of work? There is a time and a place for things.
by ecb_penguin | 2025-08-27 13:54:33+00:00
> all the juniors that were hired, now mids or seniors, are going to jump ship to whoever is going to pay them the most

Yeah, that's the point!

> So, the company can either grow talent and then pay them market rate or hire at market rates from other companies that grew them.

It's not a zero sum game. The simple fact you overlooked is not every junior jumps ship.

> Hiring juniors, while good for the industry in the long run, doesn't really benefit an individual company

Things that are good for the industry DO benefit individual companies. Having a large and capable talent pool is good for everyone.
by jojomodding | 2025-08-27 13:54:36+00:00
There are consequences to speech. If you and I are in conversation and you convince me (repeatedly, over months, eventually successfully) to commit suicide then you will be facing a wrongful death lawsuit. If you publicize books claiming known falsehoods about my person, you'll be facing a libel lawsuit. And so on.

If we argue that chatbots are considered constitutionally protected speech of their programmers or whatever, then the programmers should in turn be legally responsible. I guess this is what this lawsuit mentioned in the article is about. The principle behind this is not just about suicide but also about more mundane things like the model hallucinating falsehoods about public figures, damaging their reputation.
by znpy | 2025-08-27 13:54:46+00:00
It's surprising that any serious organization used it at all. It was never a good place to spend your time really.

It's sad that the science community is just moving to another walled garden rather than spawning its own network of federated ActivityPub services (eg: mastodon).

Bluesky seems to be based on an open protocol (AT Protocol), but how actually interoperable is that ? I can't find a list of non-bluesky AT protocol servers that can interoperate with Bluesky.
by MBCook | 2025-08-27 13:55:02+00:00
The article said the plane had become uncontrollable and that’s why the pilot had to eject.

So even if remote control was possible I’m not sure it would’ve done any good.

Of course I also don’t know why the plane would be allowed to think that it’s in ground mode when it’s 100s of feet or more in the air. Or why the hydraulic fluid was 1/3 water.
by ZeroGravitas | 2025-08-27 13:55:07+00:00
> Poland generated 54% of electricity from coal in 2024, down from 70% just 2 years ago

https://ember-energy.org/countries-and-regions/poland/

They keep putting their nuclear switch on date backwards (2040 now I think?) but renewables have been taking big chunks out of the problem and will continue to do so.
by giancarlostoro | 2025-08-27 13:55:10+00:00
The GitHub website reminds me of the first video in the Clean Coders series, where he points out that eventually devs want a total rewrite to "Fix" all the shortcomings, but GitHub from the perspective of most users had nothing UI wise that needed fixing. We all would have been happy with the UI as is.

Clean code argues that instead of total rewrites you should focus on gradual improvements over time, refactor code so that overtime you pay off the dividends, without re-living through all the bugs you lived through 5 years ago that you don't recall the resolution of. Every rewrite project I've ever worked on, we run into bugs we had already fixed years prior, or the team before me has.

There are times when a total rewrite might be the best and only options such as deprecated platforms (think of like Visual Basic 6 apps that will never get threading).

What frustrates me more is that GitHub used to be open to browse, and the search worked, now in their effort to force you to make an account (I HAVE LIKE TEN ALREADY) and force you to login, they include a few "dark patterns" where parts of search don't work at all.
by tsuyoshi_k | 2025-08-27 13:55:38+00:00
In a side project, I visualized different types of user activity as flowers orbiting a planet. Each flower represents one data point — color-coded by count thresholds (blue → red).

Built with Vue + Three.js Flowers are placed procedurally on a sphere Starfields and shooting stars added via CSS and canvas Fully cleaned up with `onUnmounted()` hooks

It was surprisingly lightweight and expressive. Let me know if you’re curious to see more.
by svieira | 2025-08-27 13:55:42+00:00
> But those attempts failed to recenter the nose wheel and resulted in both the left and right main landing gears freezing up and not being able to extend fully to attempt an actual landing.

> At that point, the F-35’s sensors indicated it was on the ground and the jet’s computer systems transitioned to “automated ground-operation mode,” the report said.

And there wasn't a way to override that? I get that "manual mode" may not be a thing for a SaaS product that isn't critical, but there not being an immediate way to turn off the "drive mode" is quite surprising.
by epistasis | 2025-08-27 13:55:53+00:00
Among all the major technical benefits of Bluesky over Twitter listed in the article, I'd add two more:

* links to external web pages (your paper, your blog, your new dataset, etc.) won't cause your posts to be suppressed

* Bluesky discussions are accessible to the open web

These two features are absolutely essential for science, and perhaps if X was more like Twitter on free speech and openness to the web then scientists wouldn't have moved away.
by legacynl | 2025-08-27 13:56:00+00:00
> making the labor market in an give jurisdiction hostile enough that companies opt out entirely.

At some point you'd have to realize that continuing to give companies what they want out fear of them leaving, will only incentivize companies to be scummier and scummier.

Second of all, how would you imagine companies opting out of a jurisdiction? Wouldn't that create an enormous hole in the market for other less-scummier companies to jump in, albeit at perhaps lower margins?
by s-macke | 2025-08-27 13:56:08+00:00
Nice to see another developer who tried to implement Forth in Go (here’s mine: [0]). It’s not easy and usually takes several iterations.

His implementation, while working for his use cases, is actually quite far from the originals. He uses separate Go structures for words, memory, for-loops, etc. Most of the default Forth implementations of words will fail, since they expect the heap and stack to behave in a certain way. Also, every major word is implemented directly in Go, with no bootstrapping.

> However, it's insufficient for the hacker level, because the host language interpreter (the one in Go) has all the control, so it's impossible to implement IF...THEN in Forth

Well, I did it with a ... heap []any ... data structure. Works well enough.

[0] https://github.com/s-macke/Forthly
by 3036e4 | 2025-08-27 13:56:10+00:00
FreePascal, that I believe is supposed to be reasonably Delphi compatible, supports "Intel x86 (16 and 32 bit), AMD64/x86-64, PowerPC, PowerPC64, SPARC, SPARC64, ARM, AArch64, MIPS, Motorola 68k, AVR, and the JVM. Supported operating systems include Windows (16/32/64 bit, CE, and native NT), Linux, Mac OS X/iOS/iPhoneSimulator/Darwin, FreeBSD and other BSD flavors, DOS (16 bit, or 32 bit DPMI), OS/2, AIX, Android, Haiku, Nintendo GBA/DS/Wii, AmigaOS, MorphOS, AROS, Atari TOS, and various embedded platforms. Additionally, support for RISC-V (32/64), Xtensa, and Z80 architectures, and for the LLVM compiler infrastructure is available in the development version. Additionally, the Free Pascal team maintains a transpiler for pascal to Javascript called pas2js."

https://www.freepascal.org/

You do not get that much portability with many other languages. C, perhaps. But FreePascal has a bigger standard library and many other libraries that support many platforms. It is also a much safer language with checked array bounds and while there is support for low level unsafe things you do not have to use those nearly as often as in C. And while the compiler might not be as fast as Turbo Pascal (or Delphi?) it is still amazingly fast compared to any other compiler I have used this century.

What's not to like? Guess the lack of attention from developers and potential risk of there not being enough around to maintain it? I honestly do not know, but you do not hear much about it and not many projects seem to use it.
by ekidd | 2025-08-27 13:56:14+00:00
> Common patterns: Modeling mutual exclusion, consensus algorithms, message passing, etc. Practical examples: From simple counters to complex distributed systems

I don't know how you composed this response. But it reads more like a laundry list of TLA+-related buzzwords than a response based on any kind of actual experience with TLA+.

TLA+ is a weird and obscure niche, easily obscure enough to give most models very serious headaches.
by 0xbadcafebee | 2025-08-27 13:56:18+00:00
Before anyone puts the blame on Nx, or Anthropic, I would like to remind you all what actually caused this exploit. The exploit was caused by an exploit, shipped in a package, that was uploaded using a stolen "token" (a string of characters used as a sort of "usename+password" to access a programming-language package-manager repository).

But that's just the delivery mechanism of the attack. What caused the attack to be successful were:

1. The package manager repository did not require signing of artifacts to verify they were generated by an authorized developer. 2. The package manager repository did not require code signing to verify the code was signed by an authorized developer. 3. (presumably) The package manager repository did not implement any heuristics to detect and prevent unusual activity (such as uploads coming from a new source IP or country). 4. (presumably) The package manager repository did not require MFA for the use of the compromised token. 5. (presumably) The token was not ephemeral. 6. (presumably) The developer whose token was stolen did not store the token in a password manager that requires the developer to manually authorize unsealing of the token by a new requesting application and session.

Now after all those failures, if you were affected and a GitHub repo was created in your account, this is a failure of:

1. You to keep your GitHub tokens/auth in a password manager that requires you to manually authorize unsealing of the token by a new requesting application and session.

So what really caused this exploit, is all completely preventable security mechanisms, that could have been easily added years ago by any competent programmer. The fact that they were not in place and mandatory is a fundamental failure of the entire software industry, because 1) this is not a new attack; it has been going on for years, and 2) we are software developers; there is nothing stopping us from fixing it.

This is why I continue to insist there needs to be building codes for software, with inspections and fines for not following through. This attack could have been used on tens of thousands of institutions to bring down finance, power, telecommunications, hospitals, military, etc. And the scope of the attacks and their impact will only increase with AI. Clearly we are not responsible enough to write software safely and securely. So we must have a building code that forces us to do it safely and securely.
by zackmorris | 2025-08-27 13:56:18+00:00
GitHub moved to a JavaScript rendering mode almost as soon as Microsoft bought it. Previously, I had been able to browse it with JavaScript disabled on my 2011 Mac Mini which Apple stopped allowing upgrades on past macOS 10.13. So even if I enable JavaScript, I can no longer browse GitHub, because they didn't bother to make their build compatible with browser versions as old as mine.

It's hard to know which member of the duopoly is more guilty for breaking GitHub for me, but I find that blaming both often guarantees success.

I could like, buy a new computer and stuff. But you know, the whole Turing complete thing feels like a lie in the age of planned obsolescence. So web standards are too.
by nonethewiser | 2025-08-27 13:56:41+00:00
But why would Taiwan vote to join China if China isn't going to actually attack it? Makes no sense. China could have 10x the military of the US and park it right outside Taiwan everyday for 100 years but if they dont do anything to Taiwan it has no incentive to reunify.

The scenario where Taiwan peacefully reunifies is where they decide they want to be part of China of their own interest.
by ryao | 2025-08-27 13:57:27+00:00
My point is that this pattern is not object oriented programming. As for a default behavior with it, you usually would do that by either always adding the default pointer when creating the structure or calling the default whenever the pointer is NULL.

In the Linux VFS for example, there are optimized functions for reading and writing, but if those are not implemented, a fallback to unoptimized functions is done at the call sites. Both sets are function pointers and you only need to implement one if I recall correctly.