MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by boris | 2025-08-14 19:09:19+00:00
> It also has 6 seconds of inactivity before starting any useful work. For comparison, ninja takes 0.4 seconds to start compiling the 2,468,083 line llvm project. Ninja is not a 100% fair comparison to other tools, because it benefits from some “baked in” build logic by the tool that created the ninja file, but I think it’s a reasonable “speed of light” performance benchmark for build systems.

This is an important observation that is often overlooked. What’s more, the changes to the information on which this “baked in” build logic is based is not tracked very precisely.

How close can we get to this “speed of light” without such “baking in”? I ran a little benchmark (not 100% accurate for various reasons but good enough as a general indication) which builds the same project (Xerces-C++) both with ninja as configured by CMake and with build2, which doesn’t require a separate step and does configuration management as part of the build (and with precise change tracking). Ninja builds this project from scratch in 3.23s while build2 builds it in 3.54s. If we omit some of the steps done by CMake (like generating config.h) by not cleaning the corresponding files, then the time goes down to 3.28s. For reference, the CMake step takes 4.83s. So a fully from-scratch CMake+ninja build actually takes 8s, which is what you would normally pay if you were using this project as a dependency.
by cyberax | 2025-08-14 19:09:36+00:00
I think that you can get course following to work with Bluetooth? The phone can just send a notification when it approaches the fork.

Though if you want to use your watch as a primary navigation device, you likely need to use LCD/OLED. eInk is not great for interactive map use, not a great use-case for Pebble.

For backup, I like carrying a Garmin satellite communicator. It has its own offline maps and a way to call for rescue in a pinch.
by nucleardog | 2025-08-14 19:09:46+00:00
Bodies are generally pretty amazing in that sense. As long as things go out of spec _slowly_, we will often adapt quite well. In the short term, we will tend to balance even fairly extreme changes out through various chemical processes and in the long term people can even develop heritable genetic changes. (E.g., how people acclimatize and have in some cases adapted to living at higher altitudes[0])

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_high_altitude_on_hu...
by bagacrap | 2025-08-14 19:10:00+00:00
So LLMs are always phoning it in, on a bad day, etc. Great.

I recently tried to get AI to refactor some tests, which it proceeded to break. Then it iterated a bit till it had gotten the pass rate back up to 75%. At this point it declared victory. So yes, it does really seem like a human who really doesn't want to be there.
by stouset | 2025-08-14 19:10:05+00:00
As far as I know right now, no editors have great built-in support. As a heavy CLI user of (previously) git and now jj, selecting changes graphically is genuinely the one thing I’m envious of. The TUI that jj uses for interactive changes, `scm-record`, is fine but not great. It gets the job done but it could be so much more.

Getting really good diff and conflict editor support into VS Code, Zed, et al is going to be a huge win when it comes.
by _swfb | 2025-08-14 19:10:11+00:00
I feel defeated now primarily because I really thought that I was going to get an offer on this job, so it kind of felt like a punch in the stomach when I got rejected this morning.

I think I was feeling confident enough during the interview, but it's entirely possible that some of my cynicism bled through in my intonations in the Zoom call.

I do tend to be long winded when I speak, so maybe that is working against me. I'll actually take that in mind.
by pstuart | 2025-08-14 19:10:45+00:00
Jobs was not a good person but we wouldn't be talking about Woz today if they had not paired up.

He was a visionary and "got" tech -- Apple's success with him (both times) and the floundering in between demonstrate his value to their story.

Again, not a nice man and not worthy of worship but definitely of respect for what he delivered.
by dekhn | 2025-08-14 19:11:11+00:00
You can search for it here: https://alphafold.ebi.ac.uk/search/sequence/KSSEPASVSAAERRAE... and in principle get the AlphaFold predicted structure (I couldn't find an experimentally determined one). However, like nearly all EBI resources, the web server timed out before I could get a link to the prediction.
by walterbell | 2025-08-14 19:11:27+00:00
> Use Copilot to max out the character limit you can reply with. Hit them with walls of text related to your issue. Eventually they (human) get tired of reading the walls of text and will start to help or move you up a tier.. I think [support reps] are using it to buy time because they are working multiple tickets at once so they are copy pasting your reply into AI. When they have to scroll to copy each reply they eventually give up.

bot-vs-bot
by leptons | 2025-08-14 19:11:38+00:00
> probably have to read 200+ LLM generated messages a day and reply back in great detail about 5 times a day (think of an email instead of chat message).

I can think of nothing more tiresome than having to read 200 emails a day, or LLM chat messages. And then respond in detail 5 of those times. It wouldn't lead to "3x to 4x" performance gain after tallying up all the time reading messages and replying. I'm not sure people that use LLMs this way are really tracking their time enough to say with any confidence that "3x to 4x" is anywhere close to reality.
by olddustytrail | 2025-08-14 19:11:38+00:00
> It is reported in the Supplement of the Council of Nicaea that the Fathers, when they had no idea how to determine which were the questionable or apocryphal books of the Old and New Testament, piled all of them disorderly on an altar; and the books to be rejected fell to the ground. It’s a pity this nice method has fallen into disuse nowadays.

Nice to see this ancient practice reinstated in recruitment with resumés.
by lotsofpulp | 2025-08-14 19:11:42+00:00
That page is getting into the weeds, but none of that says a merchant cannot state that cash and debit cards receive an x% or $x discount.

The federal regulations specifically allow discounts, and presumably some lawyers will argue that a surcharge is different from a discount.

Amex is trying to do all it can, but still can’t tell a merchant they cannot advertise a discount for cash/debit.
by Sesse__ | 2025-08-14 19:12:03+00:00
Yes, since the inner nodes duplicate information, it uses more space (roughly twice as much). I've found them generally most effective for things like merging 256 streams or doing Dijkstra with not super-many nodes (e.g. Contraction Hierarchies). If you have millions or billions of entries, then cache considerations start becoming more important than branch mispredictions and you want something like a B-heap.
by prerok | 2025-08-14 19:13:01+00:00
Ok, so I have to admit I started skimming soon, because after explanation of `jj new`, I thought this is just `git commit --allow-empty`. Oh, and you can specify the message! Add `-m` and you are done.

Then it's a series of either git ammends or `git checkout -b` etc.

Now, since there is so much high praise in this comment and sibling comments, what am I really missing? From the post it just seems like the person hates branches for an unspecified reason.

Here's my workflow, of the past 15 years:

- git checkout main - git pull

Do some changes. Do some more changes. Now:

- git checkout -b <feature-name> - git status - gvim into every file and then :Gvdiffsplit, select what I want to stage for each file - git push # open PR if I think it's ready

For the remaining changes not in the commit, I either create a separate commit, or discard.

An honest question of curiosity, how does jj improve this workflow?
by throwaway1004 | 2025-08-14 19:13:12+00:00
>Have you read Uncle Bob?

Yes, I have read Uncle Bob. I could agree that the examples in the book leave room for improvement.

Meanwhile, the real-world application of these principles and trial-and-error, collectively within my industry, yields a more accurate picture of it's usefulness.

Even the most click-bait'y criticisms (such as the author I referenced above) involve zooming in on it's most-controversial aspects, in a vacuum, without addressing the core principles and how they're completely necessary for delivering software at scale, warranting it's status as a seminal work.

"...for the obedience of fools, and the guidance of wise men", indeed!

edit - it's the same arc as Agile has endured:

1. a good-faith argument for a better way of doing things is recognised and popularised.

2. It's abused and misused by bad actors/incompetents for years (who would not have done better using a different process)

3. Jaded/opportunistic talking heads tell us it's all garbage while simultaneously explaining that "well, it would be great if it wasn't applied poorly..."
by yjftsjthsd-h | 2025-08-14 19:13:25+00:00
> I don't care, I'm saying it. Fuck your fragmentation whining. USERS WANT THEIR SHIT TO WORK.

...You understand that this is the strongest pro-X11 argument, right? As a user, I don't care that the backend is messy, I care that my stuff works on Xorg and doesn't work on Wayland.
by unsignedint | 2025-08-14 19:13:49+00:00
I believe that in most networks, there’s at least some level of moderation to prevent the worst behavior. But beyond that, moderation becomes a much trickier issue.

When you have hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people in the same “park,” what kind of “ground rules” can we all truly agree on? It’s not like we’re gathered around the same dinner table, where a single moderator can keep things civil enough to avoid a brawl. Even then, heated arguments aren’t uncommon.

In an environment where one person’s truth can be another’s misinformation, I’m not sure moderation can ever be applied in a way that satisfies everyone involved.
by 9rx | 2025-08-14 19:13:50+00:00
> Why all companies need to be on the same half a dozen places?

Because that's where the customer places them. "If you build it, they will come" is for the movies. In reality, successful companies emerge where the people are already raring to go.

If you look hard enough you will likely find out that someone in Monowi, Nebraska also built something like Amazon, but it didn't go anywhere because, well, who wants to buy books from someone in Monowi, Nebraska?

You are welcome to start buying from, and encouraging others to as well, things from the guy in Monowi to break the cycle. He will be thrilled, I'm sure! But are you going to? No, probably not. Why bother when you can get the same thing from a guy in Seattle? Seattle no doubt sounds far more trustworthy, and certainly more impressive, than Monowi.
Show HN: I Built a Clay Alternative but 10x cheaper
by xnoyzi | 2025-08-14 19:13:54+00:00
Had a really interesting call last week with someone who runs a high-volume cold email operation. He walked me through his workflow — how he scrapes, enriches, and personalizes at scale. But when we got to the tooling part, he paused and said:

“I love Clay, but I’m paying over $300/month just to use custom APIs. It feels crazy.”

That stuck with me.

As someone who’s been building tools for solo founders, that kind of friction hits a nerve. When a great workflow becomes too expensive or limiting, it kills momentum.

So I started experimenting. Nothing fancy, just trying to see if I could replicate the functionality he actually needed, without all the fluff.

Now there’s a scrappy little version up and running. It’s definitely not Clay. But it solves that one pain point, using your own APIs, easily.

If you’re into cold outreach and deal with this kind of stuff, happy to share access and hear what you think.
by gpm | 2025-08-14 19:14:05+00:00
> The TUI that jj uses for interactive changes, `scm-record`, is fine but not great.

The change selection TUI is one of the things that I'm happiest with in jj over the equivalent in git. It's a huge quality of life improvement over git's version.

Could it be even better? Probably... but compared to `git add -p`... it is already way better.
by jacob2161 | 2025-08-14 19:15:29+00:00
I agree there's a lot of room for improvement in making it easier.

But certain things like full-network relays/app views just have inherent bandwidth/storage/compute costs associated with them but it's definitely something a non-profit (like Internet Archive) could easily afford to do.

The PLC service could likely be hosted for ~$40/mo.
by Seattle3503 | 2025-08-14 19:15:34+00:00
To me it seems like Cory Doctorow is demanding perfection, and saying that because we can't achieve perfection in age verification, we can't do age verification at all. That isn't going to stop people from trying, and we will end up with a worse system overall. IMO this is a common pitfall of techno-idealists.

Technologies like the mdl standard [1] can attest to age without revealing the users identity.

As Cory points out, its still possible for kids to swipe someones ID and use that. There are probably practical solutions that are good enough. Android, iOS, and parents could work together to deal with the problem of stolen IDs. If mdl is implemented on devices such that they are managed by the device OS, that would lead to auditability. Parents can ask their child to see their phones ID app, which will show full roster of IDs on the child's device. If a parent sees an ID that shouldn't be there, they can have a conversation about it. In this way the law would be about empowering parents to shape their child's online experience. This is just a straw-man example solution, but there may be better ones.

The other objections I saw could be worked through in a similarly pragmatic fashion.

This is probably going to be good enough for most folks, and its probably a good thing to keep children away from pornography and such. And IMO coming up with a "good enough" solution will flush out all the bad actors who are hiding behind the excuse of "save the children" when really they want to build up an record of everyone's browsing history. But by denying any solution to a real problem, we let the bad actors hide amongst the well-intentioned folks who are trying to do the right thing.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_driver%27s_license
by teraflop | 2025-08-14 19:15:50+00:00
Yeah, but if it has in its context window:

> List in order the tallest mountains on earth from 1 to 5

> 1. Mount Everest 2. Mount K2 3. Mount Sahel 4. Mount Fuji 5. Mount McKinley

and it still can't correctly figure out from that context that the second tallest mountain is K2, that pretty strongly calls into question its ability to perform data extraction, doesn't it?
by Vegenoid | 2025-08-14 19:15:59+00:00
While I largely agree with you, more abstract judgements must be made as the capabilities (and therefore tasks being completed) become increasingly general. Attempts to boil human intellectual capability down to "X performance on Y task according to Z eval" can be useful, but are famously incomplete and insufficient on their own for making good decisions about which humans (a.k.a. which general intelligences) are useful and how to utilize and improve them. Boiling down highly complex behavior into a small number of metrics loses a lot of detail.

There is also the desire to discover why a model that outperforms others does so, so that the successful technique can be refined and applied elsewhere. This too usually requires more approaches than metric comparison.
by abathologist | 2025-08-14 19:16:10+00:00
I am not a Haskell expert, nor an expert in effect systems, but, AFAIU, what mrkeen has provided is an analogous pattern in Haskell -- where effects are represented via the free monad with an interpreter -- and not an account of what is described in the article.

In OCaml we can (and do) also manage effects via monadic style. However, we don't have ad hoc polymorphism (e.g., no typeclasses), so that aspect of the dependency injection must go thru the more verbose (but more explicit, and IMO, easier to reason about) route of parametric modules.

The point in the article is that effect handlers allow direct-style code with custom effects, which enable a kind of "dependency injection" which actually looks and feels much more like just specifying different contexts within which to run the same program. If you are very used to doing everything in Haskell's monadic style, you may not really notice the difference, until you try to compose the handlers.

Here is an example I've put together to show what the author is talking about in practice: https://gist.github.com/shonfeder/a87d7d92626be06d17d2e795c6...
by namrog84 | 2025-08-14 19:16:11+00:00
it's a bit of work and effort to give a talk. And he is rich enough to not need to do it for the money. Time is important. If he'd be doing it for free he'd probably get too many requests. Adding a high $ can simply help filter down to a reasonable thing.to only the largest locations and highest number of people.

I dont want to do contract work but people ask so I just quote an unreasonably high number and on occasion someone bites. I dont need the money so I need an easy filter.
by ggreer | 2025-08-14 19:16:30+00:00
How is that an example of Apple driving a company into bankruptcy to acquire their assets? Judging from the Wikipedia article, it looks like Exponential Technologies made a good PowerPC CPU, but Motorola promised they'd be able to catch up, and it's safer to bet on a big company that you've been doing business with than to rely on a startup for a critical component.

Licensed Mac clones were only available for two years (1995-1997), and discontinuing the program drove many other companies out of business, so it's hard to see how the change was a ploy to acquire a single company's assets. It seems more likely that Jobs discontinued licensing because it caused Apple to lose money.

And it looks like much of the Exponential Technologies team continued under a different name, then was bought by Apple in 2010 for $121 million.[1]

If there are other examples, can you provide one that is more recent and/or more blatant?

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/technology/28apple.html
by dathinab | 2025-08-14 19:16:34+00:00
> "Privacy preserving age verification" is bullshit

it is possible if you accept that it only needs to be good enough

- it's fully okay if it can be deceived in all kinds of ways

- verifying only once per account is okay, if a adult passes their verified account to a child that their responsibility

- legally not just forbid but criminalize (with required prison sentence) the storing of any data except is adult yes/no from a age verification process

- allow a OS accounts to just tell applications (including websites) that "is 18", if a age verification was done in the account, also no singing or anything cryptographically, because again it's good enough no need to protect it against hacking, the main responsibility still lies with the parents

so then you can do a single age verification per OS account, once, and be done with

furthermore this verification could e.g. go through a process which might identify you identity but a) isn't allowed to pass anything but adult yes/no to anyone else b) isn't allowed to store that info c) on a storing it is a "criminal liability" level where a CTO ordering data collection would go to prison

through if you live in a country where everyone has a passport with NFC chips (e.g. all of EU) just adding a "adult yes/no" function(1) to it + a transparent (open source, non profit) app per country to bridge it to accounts which need verification would do the job without needing the extra strict criminalize abuse part.

Which brings us to the main problem:

- requiring politicians to accept a "good enough" solution, accept that the main responsibility still lies with the parent

- politicians not abusing it to spy on their population

- make laws to prevent companies from ab-using "age verification" to collect private data

and that seems indeed impossible

---

(1): Technically I think it does exist, somewhat in many passes already. But practically it not viable as it (I think) discloses too much information and has too much issues wrt. integrating it (wrt. certificate nonsense)
by FireBeyond | 2025-08-14 19:16:49+00:00
So if Apple came to your company, promising licensing, collaboration and other things, when all along their intention was to "take" "your" employees, you'd be cool with that deception?

The employees made out better - good for them. That's a lot easier to do when you have a market cap 400 times higher than that of the company you made all these promises to, and then left holding the bag.
by ghssds | 2025-08-14 19:17:22+00:00
Slashdot refused to moderate comments in an effective manner. Comment section was always full of bad memes that became stale:

* Lot of rickrolling. but replace Rick Astley by Goatse, Tubgirl, or LemonParty.

* Frist post

* BSD is dying

* GNAA

* Nathalie Portman

* Robotic Overlord

* In Soviet Russia

* Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these memes

* etc.

Then it becames fixated on SCO and basically became Darl McBride News, for years...

However, what was interresting was their qualified upvote system. You did not simply upvote or downvote, but needed to add a qualifier to it: +1 Informative, +1 Insightful, +1 Interesting, +1 Funny, -1 Troll, -1 Offtopic, -1 Flamebeat. I never seen such a system elsewhere.
by 1659447091 | 2025-08-14 19:18:26+00:00
>> you need to understand the root causes for the desires of your opponents. That's empathy.

> Um, what we used to call that in the Marines, was "intel". Not "empathy". And that designation of the information you outlined made us surprisingly effective at combating opponents.

This is the important part. Understanding "the root causes for the desires of your opponents" is not empathy. It's understanding something.

Empathy is a relating to anothers plight. If you only understand it then there is nothing to cause pause before using that understanding to your advantage. It's a core part manipulation and deception. If the only thing that happened with that understanding is seeing what you can get from it or that there is nothing you want there or have use for, then that doesn't really help bring two sides together.

Having the ability to relate to this understanding of another is when empathy happens. It's the empathy that gives one pause long enough to see there are other options that are not zero-sum.

> No need to have empathy for anyone who doesn't have empathy for others.

Disagree. Just because someone else can not relate -- now -- does not mean they can not later. I personally don't care for tit-for-tat games, thats simply a race to the bottom. Boundaries are the things missing here; one can have empathy for another that does not have it for them, that doesn't mean you also have to have a bleeding heart for them and let them walk all over you.
by mvdtnz | 2025-08-14 19:18:45+00:00
I don't know why you're being downvoted because you're absolutely right. I'd say for me Netflix movies have less than a 5% hit rate. They're an excellent place to start if you desire a suitably (and needlessly) racially and sexually diverse cast, the most bland cinematography and grading possible, and scripts explicitly designed for viewers who are paying more attention to their phones than the show[1].

[1] https://comicbook.com/movies/news/netflix-reportedly-has-biz...
by skybrian | 2025-08-14 19:18:59+00:00
Yeah, that’s more of a hope about the future. It’s up to other people to build it.

I’ve seen posts about some poorly-publicized, proof-of-concept alternative implementations that would probably fall over if they got real attention, but I think that shows that it’s not a problem with the protocol itself.

Good enough, as far as I’m concerned. It’s just about posting comments on the Internet, not bank accounts. If something went fatally wrong, we would move again, just like we moved off previous social networks.