MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by ACow_Adonis | 2025-08-30 21:05:16+00:00
Honestly, imo clinically in aggregate the actually score itself provides very little information beyond what a 5 minute conversation would achieve, and the result could be better thought as bordering on 5-6 level categorical variable rather than a gradient due to their biases and inherent individual patient variance on performance and test taking context.

The sub-sections of things like the WAIS can be of some value for identifying specific abnormalities or deficiencies, but as you said, is probably of more value clinically to split them out into separate tests/activities rather than to group them all together into an aggregate score. It's a bit like judging athletic ability and skill by BMI and fat percentage rather than just playing an opponent in tennis to find out if they're a good tennis player.
by matthewaveryusa | 2025-08-30 21:06:36+00:00
The 100 you payed was subsidized which distorted the market to the point where all US manufacturing of your components is not only gone, but the expertise is as well. The first step to re-establishing normal market dynamics is to remove the distortions. It started in 2019 with the removal of ridiculous UPU international postage rates and this is the next step. Slap on a small tariff less than the VAT in europe to give a little competitive incentive for all the harm done and just maybe the US can start making stuff here again.

Look, I'm all about the race to the bottom but the market needs to be fair
by godelski | 2025-08-30 21:06:41+00:00
> Which, unfortunately, cannot be measured

This is such a subtle but important thing that so many people do not understand about data analysis. It's even at the heart of things like survivor bias[0]. Your measure is always a proxy and this proxy has varying degrees of alignment with what you want to measure.

I know everyone knows the cliche "The devil is in the details" but everyone seems to continually make these mistakes because nuance is hard. But then again what is a cliche if not words of wisdom that everyone can recite but fail to follow?

> Its all fun and games until you cut quality over and over so much your customers just leave.

The alternative is you develop a Lemon Market. Which is a terrible situation for all parties involved. Short term profits might be up but these are at the loss of much higher long term rewards.

[0] You infer where the downed planes were shot through the measures you can make on recovered planes. But that is very different than measuring where downed planes were shot. You can't just take the inverse of the returned planes and know where to add plating from there.
by hallole | 2025-08-30 21:06:59+00:00
Fully agree! I don't think life is much more than a sort of chemical engineering, "designed" with the "purpose" of self-replication. Our engineer, natural selection, didn't have "healthspan" in mind; insofar as we are human-making machines, we're pretty well built. I fail to see any reason that necessarily precludes a retooling of our internal machinery to accomplish our desires, not nature's.
by dakiol | 2025-08-30 21:07:04+00:00
3 months ago. Again, I do deep research for every company I apply for (e.g., search for employees in linkedin, check glassdoor reviews, check for potential code tasks in github, read the company/employee blogs, etc.). The research could take me several days up to a max. of one week (because more is just too much info too). I tailor (to a degree) the cv for the job (I try that at least I do have experience with 50% of what they ask, but let's say they ask for Python and I have mainly Ruby experience, well, I dedicate a week or so to brush up on Python and then I swap Ruby for Python on my cv. This doesn't work with every tech stack, of course, but works for the mainstream ones).

Another "trick" (common sense from my point of view) is to schedule if possible the first interview in the middle of the week. Typically I would schedule for a Wednesday/Thursday so that the second interview can land on the next Monday or Tuesday, that gives me at least 4-5 days to prepare for it. I try to avoid first interviews on Mondays because then it's more difficult to schedule something for the following week. I also notice that interviews with engineers scheduled in the afternoon (between 2 and 4pm) are rather "softer" than those in the mornings (I don't know why, perhaps everyone is just a bit sleepy after lunch perhaps?). I wear a white t-shirt to avoid any kind of subconscious prejudices on the side of the interviewers (you never know what kind of people are on the other side of the screen). And many more "tricks". I know that the core of the matter is to pass the challenges, but I do care about every single detail. I write down exactly how I'm gonna introduce myself, I prepare in advance potential questions like "tell me a project you've worked recently" to the point that I feel super confident talking about them. I don't leave anything to chance, but of course I may fuck it up sometimes (and I did 4 months ago in the systems design interview).

In any case, I could easily submit my cv dozens of times, but I find that preparing exhaustively for a couple of weeks for 1 or 2 jobs works best for me (based on previous experience. I have worked for around 5 companies so far in my entire career).
by hollowturtle | 2025-08-30 21:07:05+00:00
Baseline is totally useless, you can have an idea but then still need to go on the detailed browser table to learn more(on mdn). I decided to cherry pick my learning I prefer reading a math book than wasting my time learn by heart what fit-content formula is(total madness):

> Represents the formula max(minimum, min(limit, max-content)), where minimum represents an auto minimum (which is often, but not always, equal to a min-content minimum), and limit is the track sizing function passed as an argument to fit-content(). This is essentially calculated as the smaller of minmax(auto, max-content) and minmax(auto, limit).
by klaussilveira | 2025-08-30 21:07:11+00:00
Pasir is like frankenphp, but in Rust. Very promising, but still early in development:

https://github.com/el7cosmos/pasir

Which uses the following Zend API bindings for Rust:

https://github.com/davidcole1340/ext-php-rs

There's also all sorts of interesting experiments, like ngx-php, which basically embeds PHP via Zend API inside an nginx binary: https://github.com/rryqszq4/ngx-php

And workerman, which has a hybrid backend of asio libraries, so you can get pretty fast runtimes: https://github.com/walkor/workerman
by dghlsakjg | 2025-08-30 21:07:39+00:00
That is exactly what I'm arguing. "Everyday consumers" have had access to production electric vehicles since the 1800s.

Tesla provably weren't "first to market" as I pointed out. Anyone could have bought an EV in 1900, more than a full century before Tesla existed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_Vehicle_Company).

Anyone could have bought one in the 1990s too.

Tesla was not first to market in any way. They became so popular that they have come to define the market in many people's minds, but there were mass market electric vehicles before Tesla made them. The Nissan Leaf was available for years before the Model S. Nissan had the first lithium battery vehicles in the 1990s.

I don't know why you are trying to martyr yourself on this hill. Being first to market rarely matters, despite what tech circles believe. The iPod, iPhone, Facebook, and Tesla were all followers in their respective markets, but have since become defining products.

At this point, even if we - for some reason - accept that Tesla was first to market with the Roadster, it isn't proving to be a lasting advantage. BYD is selling more electric cars than them starting last year, a trend that has gone into hyperdrive this year as Tesla sales go negative for the 2nd year in a row while BYD continues to dominate.
by jtotheh | 2025-08-30 21:07:42+00:00
https://web.archive.org/web/20160503170006/http://www.paters... this may be a later-in-life snapshot of Tim Paterson's work as of 2016 which is very impressive. He has/had a blog you can see here: https://web.archive.org/web/20180711012545/http://dosmandriv... (entry is from 2011). I would put a lot of credence into his account of the days of 86-DOS, the IBM PC and so on.
by dspillett | 2025-08-30 21:07:44+00:00
This is rather old and there are better ways of doing most of these things now. For instance the counting example would usually be much more efficient performed using the ROW_NUMBER() window function instead of a Cartesian product. When you can remove a cross product from your process it is almost always beneficial to do so. That will often involve introducing a CTE⁰¹ which might put off some beginners²³, but it shouldn't as this sort of example is pretty simple (you aren't worrying about any recursive case).

----

[0] Because you want the ordinal of the row in the input table/view, not your output.

[1] You could also use a sub-query, in most cases a good query planner will see the equivalence and do the same thing for either. The CTE option is easier to read and maintain IMO.

[2] In databases, like sports, CTEs can result in headaches!

[3] Or veterans of postgres, where until a few years ago CTEs were an optimisation gate, blocking predicate push-down and making some filtered queries a lot more expensive (though often no more so than the naive Cartesian product method).
by wahnfrieden | 2025-08-30 21:07:47+00:00
Why do you support lawlessness when it's done by a business?

Is your position really that if there is a selfish motive, it justifies the crime - or only as long as it is done by elite businesses?

Why are you against calling it out such that we can protect ourselves from it? Meta immediately stopped this behavior once it was disclosed.

Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM is not a conspiracy theory
by IX-103 | 2025-08-30 21:09:38+00:00
There was a time when everybody did arithmetic by hand and "calculator" was a profession. There was a time when spreadsheets were made with ink and paper. There was a time when all programs were written in assembly.

Now, most arithmetic is done by computers, spreadsheets are done by computers, and almost all assembly language is written by computers. People have moved on to higher level programming languages for communicating ideas to computers. Would it really be that surprising to learn that in the future people use natural language to speak with computers?

The company I work for went through a big AI push about a month ago. Before then, almost no code was written by AI. Now, it's the majority of code. I'm not saying that AI coders will be able to replace people, because the AI honestly is just not as capable - if it were interviewing for my company, I would not hire it. But the thing is that I can go from design doc to prototype using less than a day and $10 of tokens. Sure I have to make corrections and rewrite some of the more fiddly bits, but it saves me a ton of typing.

And LLMs are not limited to programming. Any computer-based task that you would allow an unpaid intern to complete for you would be a reasonable fit for AI.
by gary_0 | 2025-08-30 21:09:39+00:00
I meant "quick buck" like flooding the place with ads, tracking, dark patterns, closing the API/protocol, or doing some sort of crypto scam, with no regard for the platform's long-term health. It's been funded for a few years? That's not really that long for such a small team. But I have no idea how their investors think it might make "Facebook money", and isn't that always the goal?
by firsprompt | 2025-08-30 21:10:06+00:00
Just launched https://firstprompt.dev — a tool where you can connect your Salesforce/Snowflake data, type a question in plain English, and get full dashboards instantly.

Example:

"Show average revenue by account type"

And you'll get:

Bar chart of revenue by account

Pie chart of industry breakdown

Contact count by account

No code. No SQL. No BI tools. Just prompt → insight.

Would love feedback or ideas!
by klaussilveira | 2025-08-30 21:10:08+00:00
There are well documented and production-ready libraries that you can use to run your own servers with PHP alone, no need for fpm or mod_php. PHP's JIT is pretty impressive and you would be blown away by the results.

https://reactphp.org/

https://www.php.net/manual/en/book.ev.php

https://bitbucket.org/osmanov/pecl-event

https://www.workerman.net/
by yakshaving_jgt | 2025-08-30 21:10:25+00:00
I have been doing TDD for over a decade, and I don’t know why you’re trying to explain the basics to me.

Yes, you can exercise the same code paths with integrated tests as you might with unit tests. There are multiple approaches to driving integrated tests, from the relatively inexpensive approach of emulating a HTTP env, to something more expensive and brittle like Selenium. You could also just test everything with manual QA. Literally pay some humans to click through your application following a defined path and asserting outcomes. Every time you make a change.

Obviously all of these have different costs. And obviously, testing a pure function with unit tests (whether example based or property based) is going to be cheaper than testing the behaviour of that same function while incidentally testing how it integrates with its collaborators.
by Terretta | 2025-08-30 21:10:32+00:00
One can sort of get there today combining something like attribute based access control, signed bearer tokens with attributes, and some sort of a degrees-of-delegability limiter that a bearer can pass along like a packet TTL.

Did you want it in rust?

- https://github.com/eclipse-biscuit/biscuit-rust

- https://www.biscuitsec.org/
by torginus | 2025-08-30 21:10:36+00:00
'China only succeeds for evil reasons'

Besides, the statement's completely nonsensical - there were multiple OSes developed by for-profit corporations in the West (Microsoft, Apple, Nintendo, QNX, Be, etc.).

It's kind of an extraordinary statement that an OS couldn't be developed by a for-profit organization, especially if the hardware's somewhat fixed and you don't need to support every piece of equipment under the sun.
by bri3d | 2025-08-30 21:11:10+00:00
> we've had decades of compiler development since itanium "proved" this

Sure, but until someone doesn't do "The assumption that the latency of a load will be a l1 hit," they're in trouble for most of what we think of as "general purpose" computing.

I think you get it, but there's this overall trope that the issue with Itanium was purely compiler-related: that we didn't have the algorithms or compute resource to parallelize enough of a single program's control flow to correctly fill the dispatch slots in a bundle. I really disagree with this notion: this might have been _a_ problem, but it wasn't _the_ problem.

Even an amazing compiler which can successfully resolve all data dependencies inside of a single program and produce a binary containing ideal instruction bundling has no idea what's in dcache in the case of an interrupt/context switch, and therefore every load and all of its dependencies risks a stall (or in this case, replay) for a statically scheduled architecture, while a modern out-of-order architecture can happily keep going, even speculatively taking both sides of branches.

The modern approach to optimize datacenter computing is to aggressively pack in context switches, with many execution contexts (processes, user groups/containers, whatever) per guest domain and many guest domains per hypervisor.

Basically: I have yet to see someone successfully use the floor plan they took back from not doing out-of-order to effectively fill in for memory latency in a "general purpose" datacenter computing scenario. Most designers just add more cores, which only makes the problem worse (even adding more cache would be better than more cores!).

VLIW and this kind of design have a place: I could see a design like this being useful in place of Cortex-A or even Cortex-X in a lot of edge compute use cases, and of course GPUs and DSPs already rely almost exclusively on some variety of "static" scheduling already. But as a stated competitor to something like Neoverse/Graviton/Veyron in the datacenter space, the "load-bearing load" (I like your description!) seems like it's going to be a huge problem.
by troupo | 2025-08-30 21:11:39+00:00
You don't have to.

Unit tests work well for well-defined, contained units and library-like code.

E.g. you have code that calculates royalties based on criteria. You can and should test code like that with unit tests (better still, with property-based testing if possible)

Such code is in a tiny minority.

What you really want to do, is test that your system behaves as advertised. E.g. that if your API is called with param=1 it returns { a: "hello" }, and when with param=-1, it returns HTTP 401 or something.

The best way to do that is, of course E2E tests, but those are often quite difficult to set up (you need databases, external services, file systems etc.)

So you go for the middle ground: integration tests. Mock/stub unavailable external services. Test your full code flow. With one test you're likely to hit code paths that would require multiple unit tests to test, for a single scenario. You'll quickly find that easily 99%+ of your unit tests are absolutely redundant.

---

Offtop/rant/sidetrack.

This is especially egregious in "by the book" Java code. You'd have your controller that hits a service that collects data from facades that each hit external services via some modules. Each of those are tested in unit tests mocking the living daylight out of everything.

So for param=1 you'd have a unit test for controller (service mocked), service (facades mocked), each of the facades (if there are more than one, external services modules mocked), each of the external service modules (actual external services mocked).

Replace that with a single integration test where just the external service is mocked, and boom, you've covered all of those tests, and can trivially expand it to test external service being unavailable, timing out, returning invalid data etc.
by pan69 | 2025-08-30 21:11:42+00:00
I work in a large enterprise where they are jumping on the product manager bandwagon as well. Personally I don't mind the idea of this role but, similar to the product owner role, it seems to be an invention of consultancies as a way to place high-energy high-billable resources at cash rich companies. So, now we're getting all these "hustlers" being onboarded who eventually don't do much other than parading around and shouting orders at the people doing the actual work.

The way I see it, product management is not a role, is a discipline. There needs to be more partnering in software. E.g. pair a project manager with a tech-lead, together they do product management.
by webdoodle | 2025-08-30 21:12:49+00:00
You might not want to give them your personal data. That's run by the same Cambridge that housed the Facebook scraping mechanism that was used by Cambridge Analytica to create personality profiles that got Trump elected in 2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Kogan_(scientist)
by danabramov | 2025-08-30 21:13:00+00:00
This is true but it's worth noting that (1) the entire point of this node is to be globally agreed on since it's the root of the identity mechanism, (2) it is auditable (https://github.com/did-method-plc/did-method-plc?tab=readme-...) and operations themselves are self-certifying (https://github.com/did-method-plc/did-method-plc?tab=readme-...). There are some potential issues (like PLC could choose to deny some operations), and the plan is to upstream PLC into an independent entity so that it isn't tied to Bluesky the company.
by seltzered_ | 2025-08-30 21:13:17+00:00
Hi Keith, i met you 13-14 years ago in the austin startup weekend / coworking space.

I'm happy if there's an environmental improvement from this (never bought from the stores you mentioned), but a counterpoint may be in how all this impacts those trying to operate repair shops, labs, and teach science. Bunnie Huang had some arguments on tariffs back in 2018: https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/2018/new-us-tariffs-are-a...

There were some arguments from repair youtuber Louis Rossmann also from a few months ago: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xR2_eqNL604&pp=ygUWbG91aXMgcm9...
by 1oooqooq | 2025-08-30 21:13:36+00:00
mastodon is the equivalent of bsd code, but for user generated content.

Microsoft and apple would just reach for bsd tcp stack etc. today bluesky just "federate" to mastodon and instantly had millions of active users, until they don't need to federate anymore, when they will blame the other instances to not migrating to some crazy protocol or something, never they will just "shut the door".
by unabirra | 2025-08-30 21:14:01+00:00
Thinking that these kids would be solving meaningful societal problems if they were not working on HFT is delusional at best. To be able to tackle hard problems and make any meaningful impact you have to be very passionate about the problem that you are researching/trying-to-solve, and no amount of money is going to make this passion materialize when it's just not some of it inside you already. Now don't get me wrong I'm sure these people are really smart and I would be even willing to bet that the distribution of IQ at Jane Street is tighter than many top research labs even when the latter group produces more tech and accolades than the former; raw intelligence is not the only ingredient of world changing minds.

At the end of the day I believe that if CS/finance was not "cool" and paid the way it does (specially at the level of HFT) most of those kids currently there would go back to the good old law/medicine...
by alphazard | 2025-08-30 21:14:10+00:00
The bit about "smart developer quirks" looks suspiciously like the author only understands code that they have written, or is in a specific style that they recognize. That's not the biggest driver behind cognitive load.

Reducing cognitive load comes from the code that you don't have to read. Boundaries between components with strong guarantees let you reason about a large amount of code without ever reading it. Making a change (which the article uses as a benchmark) is done in terms of these clear APIs instead of with all the degrees of freedom available in the codebase.

If you are using small crisp API boundaries to break up the system, "smart developer quirks" don't really matter very much. They are visible in the volume, but not in the surface area.
by hinkley | 2025-08-30 21:15:29+00:00
Cognitive load may be the dominant form of stress but it is not the only one. I feel like this is very close to correct but subtlety and critically broken.

In particular, when the shit hits the fan, your max cognitive load tanks. Something people who grumble at the amount of foolproofing I prefer often only discover in a crisis. Because they’re used to looking at something the way they look at it while sipping their second coffee of the day. Not when the servers are down and customers are calling angry.

You’ll note that we only see how the control room at NASA functions in movies and TV when there’s a massive crisis going on, or intrigue. Because the rest of the time it’s so fucking boring nobody would watch it.
by shagie | 2025-08-30 21:16:43+00:00
There are parts of your car that you are not legally allowed to remove or disable (for example, the muffler or catalytic converter https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files... ).

There are times when it is necessary to limit the rights that a individual has so that the system that the individual lives within can work.

You can buy a radio transmitter, but you're not allowed to operate it without a license. You can likewise buy a car, but you aren't allowed to operate that either without a license.

You do not have the right to modify your phone so that it acts as a radio frequency jammer.

Possession of a device does not give an individual unrestricted rights to what can be done with it.