MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by baranul | 2025-08-31 03:32:05+00:00
That isn't a real reviewer, but a person that had a clear grudge and who was engaged in hostilities against the V community. The persons involved in those series of blog attacks don't review other programming languages, usually have a history of continual hostilities, and are specifically targeting V.

Things are also being purposely distorted. Because we can easily check that competing languages have thousands of open issues. Zig, for example, has over 3,000 issues and 3X more than V. Anybody can take several open issues from any language, then pretend the sky is falling, even though the language is still in alpha or beta.

Real reviewers, have reviewed multiple other languages and are widely known for doing so. Below are examples of fair and real reviewers:

[1] Is V Lang Better Than Go And Rust? Let's Find Out

(Anthony GG - Go programmer that likes V)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puy77WfM1Tg

[2] V - Best Programming Language to Learn in 2023?

(Code to the Moon - reviewed multiple languages)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jr1EBaLkjfc

[3] First Impression - V programming language

(Mike Shah (PhD) D programmer that likes V)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmVKerNY-fQ
by SamPatt | 2025-08-31 03:32:43+00:00
IQ is age-adjusted. Without the adjustment, it drops quite a bit.

Some cognitive abilities diminish more slowly with age (so-called crystallized intelligence), but unfortunately, fluid intelligence drops noticeably much earlier in life than most people would care to realize.

You just need to lean into what you know instead of solving novel problems. Or be comfortable knowing that it'll take longer than it used to. Typically, you can still arrive at a solution if you could have before, but you'll need to put more work into it. Sometimes, a lot more work.

- A homeschooling father helping with SAT prep
by Telemakhos | 2025-08-31 03:35:04+00:00
The Latin quoted is wrong ("de nomine deferundo iduibusque legundeis" should be "de nomine deferundo iudicibusque legundeis") and the Greek "kephalaia" is plural while the Latin terms with it are singular. "Titlos" is the Greek way of writing the Latin "titulus," which is a weird thing to have in a list like that; the only place I can remember seeing it is the Bible.

This comes across as sloppy work from someone in an English department who didn't have the language skills to work outside English but decided to try anyway.
by ttul | 2025-08-31 03:36:06+00:00
The Roku example perfectly illustrates the deeper issue here - we're seeing a systemic breakdown in capital allocation that goes beyond the passive/active debate.

The real problem is a feedback loop: large companies get cheaper capital → they can afford to hoard cash and make defensive acquisitions → this reduces competition and innovation → which paradoxically makes them even "safer" investments → reinforcing their cost-of-capital advantage.

Meanwhile, the "missing middle" gets squeezed from both ends. Small companies can access some capital through VC/growth equity, but medium enterprises ($10M-$1B revenue) face a brutal gap. They're too big for most VCs, too small for institutional debt markets, and banks are increasingly consolidated and risk-averse.

(I am so personally familiar with the missing middle in my day job)

This isn't just about market efficiency - it's about market structure. When a streaming company parks $500M in bank accounts instead of investing in content or technology, that's not rational capital allocation. It's defensive positioning enabled by cheap capital and regulatory capture. There are many many lazy companies sitting on a cash machine structure with no decent ideas on how to grow.

Some potential fixes: - Tax policy that penalizes excessive cash hoarding; eliminating the tax deduction on interest would encourage companies to hold less cash by making cash more expansive

- Regulatory limits on horizontal acquisitions above certain market share thresholds

- Public development banks focused on the missing middle (like Germany's KfW)

- Capital gains tax advantages for investments held in companies under certain size thresholds

The irony is that this concentration might ultimately hurt passive investors too - less competition means less innovation and slower long-term growth across the entire economy.
by echelon | 2025-08-31 03:36:08+00:00
An invasive species (ie. Google, Amazon, and Apple) can out-compete and starve out an entire ecosystem.

Like invasive lionfish, which have no natural enemies in the Florida Keys.

Big tech has destroyed the open web.

Big tech killed the bookstore.

Big tech is now destroying Hollywood.

Big tech is becoming your grocery store and primary care.

They're guardians that keep small companies from growing big. They can buy them out or threaten to pour billions into out-competing.

They're growing into markets they never should have been in, then snuffing out the incumbents.

They're making it impossible for new businesses to enter after them. (You try to build a smartphone. There can be only two.)

Now they're putting price pressure on employees. They're limiting the upside for entrepreneurs and VC firms. They have all the cards, and they tax us and behave like capricious gods.

I'm a capitalist. I think competition is good. But what we have right now isn't a fair playing field.

Big tech needs to be broken up to restore the forest to growth. Thankfully YC and a16z are starting to feel the same way and are issuing statements about this rampant, wanton monopolization.
by jryio | 2025-08-31 03:37:19+00:00
A trend I have noticed as well. I consider this pattern to ultimately be the forcing function of free market capitalism itself.

Once a brand accumulates sufficient reputational capital through genuine quality, the profit-maximizing imperative inevitably drives extraction over quality. (I would extend this argument briefly outside of the domain of economic theory and into physics: we do not observe low entropy being temporally consistent anywhere in the universe.)

The market doesn’t reward maintaining expensive quality standards when cheaper alternatives can temporarily coast on accumulated goodwill - shareholders demand margin expansion, private equity needs returns, and the competitive landscape punishes companies that leave money on the table by over-investing in product integrity.

Less of a moral failure by individual companies and more structural incentive alignment: capitalism systematically rewards converting hard won brand trust into extractable rents until the reputation is depleted, at which point capital simply moves to the next target.

The pattern you’re observing isn’t a bug but the logical endpoint of a system that treats reputation as just another asset to be optimized for shareholder value rather than a covenant with customers.
by alecst | 2025-08-31 03:37:29+00:00
I think you might have been a little harsh on Walter. Perhaps the answer is more of a "yes and no" depending on your point of view. It does seem like inflation/deflation kind of canceled each other out before moving off the gold standard.

https://www.businessinsider.com/chart-inflation-since-1775-2...

> It is probable that in 1913, while financial panics were not uncommon, high inflation was still largely seen by the founders of the Fed as a relatively rare phenomenon associated with wars and their immediate aftermath. Figure 1 plots the US price level from 1775 (set equal to one) until 2012. In 1913 prices were only about 20 percent higher than in 1775 and around 40 percent lower than in 1813, during the War of 1812. Whatever the mandates of the Federal Reserve, it is clear that the evolution of the price level in the United States is dominated by the abandonment of the gold standard in 1933 and the adoption of fiat money subsequently. One hundred years after its creation, consumer prices are about 30 times higher than what they were in 1913. This pattern, in varying orders of magnitudes, repeats itself across nearly all countries.

Not my area of expertise and no skin in the game, just wanted to point this out.
by hirvi74 | 2025-08-31 03:38:01+00:00
> The rate of technological progress we can make as a species is largely dictated by the area under the +2 sigma -> infinity region of the IQ curve

That was precisely my point. If little Johnny or Sally need a special education program to properly challenge and educate them, then I hate to break the news to their families, but whatever "it" is, those children don't have "it."

I also find it interesting how "gifted" programs and the like are predominately a Western intervention. To my knowledge, countries like Japan and China do not have "gifted" programs. I am not saying there are not academic and social discrepancies between highly intelligent and the normies, but Western culture does tend to be less community driven than cultures of the two countries I previously mentioned.

> You can chalk that up to coincidence if you want.

I cannot comment about modern times, but I know a certain group of people that I am half descendant from were commonly denied entry into the US during the 1920s - 1950s. However, those same people allegedly had the highest IQ scores on average. At least, historically.
by qgin | 2025-08-31 03:38:16+00:00
When you have general anesthesia, you experience nothing, not even the vague sense of time passing like when sleeping, it's just an edit in time. You basically don't exist when you're under general anesthesia.

If a little propofol in my brain can make me not exist, I'm pretty sure when I don't even have a brain I will definitely not exist.
by roncesvalles | 2025-08-31 03:38:22+00:00
Usually those active managers stay in business by saying they get "superior risk-adjusted returns" even though they didn't outright get better returns.

This is, of course, changing the goal post because a portfolio with 90% S&P 500 and 10% cash will also appear "superior risk-adjusted" than 100% S&P 500. Sharpe ratio is the most misunderstood metric invented by humanity.
by mook | 2025-08-31 03:40:22+00:00
I think he's too exposed to users reports, because anybody that shows up is in a potential data loss situation. So he's very focused on making everything as bug free as possible, and getting frustrated that people with different focus are not propagating the fixes as fast as possible.

Almost makes me think the distros light-forking it to just change the name (IceWeasel style) so the support requests don't get to him will help… probably not, though, because people will still go there because they want to recover their data.
by dcreater | 2025-08-31 03:40:56+00:00
I appreciate that and honestly I never doubt the employees, or perhaps even the founders. When looking into the future, Its the investors that are not to be trusted and they call the shots commensurate to their ownership stake - which is again opaque to us in the case of pydantic.

And taking this 1 step further, its not that investors are evil people who want to bad things, but its their explicit job to make returns on their investment - its the basic mechanisms of idiom "show me an incentive and i'll show you the outcome"
by jmyeet | 2025-08-31 03:41:06+00:00
If you listen to any oil and gas experts and ask them which president was the best for the oil and gas industry, do you know who they'll say? Trump? Absolutely not. Bush? No. It's Obama.

Why? Because policy was stable during Obama. Whatever the policy is, if it's predictable, businesses can work around that. This was a real problem during the Biden term when there was constant policy shifts.

We're seeing that now with the tariffs. The problem isn't the tariffs so much as it is the uncertainty. They change from day to day.

One might be tempted to think the administration is intentionally trying to crash the economy. No, they just have absolutely no idea what they're doing and there's a dementia patient in charge nobody can so no to.
by noduerme | 2025-08-31 03:41:09+00:00
It's a race against time on that one. I'm not sure how I'll feel about it if most new indie films written and rendered via AI. On the other hand, maybe there'll be a rebellion against that, too.

Regardless of who's making them ot how, films have lost the qualities of contemplation and of making the audience draw their own conclusions. That's an even bigger marker of cultural and educational decline than the fact that franchises have been cannibalizing themselves for at least 30 years since our golden age ended.

Attempts to capture truth mutate into displays of pathos (and bigger explosions) when civilizations are on their way out.
by riehwvfbk | 2025-08-31 03:42:51+00:00
Yes, do this. No unit tests, integration only. Your competitors will thank you for this blunder.

Why is it a blunder? Well, you just slowed down your edit-compile-run cycle by about 10x, and debugging when things go wrong (and it's when, not if) by 100-1000 times depending on the complexity of your environment.

Perhaps the answer is "AI will fix it", but we aren't there yet.
by slt2021 | 2025-08-31 03:42:59+00:00
I think what China and India are doing is The right approach.

Gainthe knowledge, experience from capitalists, accumulate initial capital, then go back and build your own country once you have a name and expertise, connections, little bit of capital.

It doesn’t make sense for a Romanian to continue working for a capitalist and paying taxes that fund the genocide and oppression overseas. You are only making Zuckerbergs of this world a little bit more rich, instead of uplifting Romanian youth who are craving for someone like you to come and share expertise, knowledge, skills, jobs, etc.

Just bounce and lift up your own nation and be a hero for your own people, because for a global capitalist you are nobody - just another cost center and a line item in Excel spreadsheet, a potential for future cost cutting and offshoring.

A capitalist will forget about your existence after another round of layoff, but your own people will praise you forever

I think people who benefitted from elite-tier education in Romania, should feel some sense of civic duty to give something back to the country and to the education system, that sacrificed tens lf thousands of school students, and instead focused on providing You an elite olympic tier knowledge
by xethos | 2025-08-31 03:43:47+00:00
> None of the cutting edge nodes are, or will be, produced in the US by TSMC. They are all produced in Asia, and the fabs in US will be X years behind.

I don't doubt you, and I think you'll be right for some time.

I also think it's foolish to count out Intel. They're down, but so was AMD. More pointedly, this is not Intel's first time playing "This works or we go under"
by creatonez | 2025-08-31 03:43:49+00:00
The National Hurricane Center has figured out pretty well how to depict hurricane danger to the public, but a lot of people don't bother to pay attention to it and go for noisy sources instead. I think it's a good example for how to prioritize important information in general. Every few hours, they put out a selection of graphics:

- A "Key messages" graphic with 2-4 bullet points about what is going on, what is predicted to happen, and specific dangers to look out for. The tone of the text is carefully adjusted for how life-threatening the situation is. This graphic also includes a copy of the two most important visualizations on the right. (Example: https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2024/HELENE_graphics.php?pr...)

- A peak storm surge graphic showing predicted coastal inundation and destructive wave action (Example: https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2024/HELENE_graphics.php?pr...)

- A cone to depict the range of predictions for where the hurricane could go, ideally without a confusing line drawn in the center prediction (Example: https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2024/HELENE_graphics.php?pr...) Arguably this could be replaced with a spaghetti model map, but these can be just as confusing for those unaware of how predictions are depicted.

- A map of the most likely arrival time for hurricane force winds (Example: https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2024/HELENE_graphics.php?pr...)

- After the main risks are over, a map of continued flash flood and river flooding risk (Example: https://www.usatoday.com/gcdn/authoring/authoring-images/202...)

- A no-frills ad-free weather report livestreamed to social media, so you can gauge how much the pros at the very top level of hurricane meteorology are freaking out about it (Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFL-nbFs2Xs)

- A few other graphics and data dumps primarily intended for meteorologists, local officials, and nerds
by js8 | 2025-08-31 03:44:00+00:00
I think many replies understood my comment as "every incumbent-friendly policy is laissez-faire", and argued that. What I really meant was the opposite implication, "laissez-faire policies are incumbent-friendly". (The "another name" quip came from how it's sold to the public.)

Re fitness - if you define it in terms of survival, you get a circular argument. Is a brainworm that controls the host (e.g. to get some subsidies) the fittest? Based on your example, you think it's not. So how do you define fitness?

What I am saying is different - incumbent has an advantage, it already adapted at least once to it's environment. That gives it an edge over something that is adapting for the first time. Of course that doesn't mean incumbent cannot fail at readaptation or the new thing cannot win. The favor from gods has limits.

(Incumbent also has a way to mobilize resources in a way that can be difficult for a newcomer. As was also pointed out, applying biological theories to businesses can be tricky, so this is perhaps more relevant.)
by lll-o-lll | 2025-08-31 03:44:21+00:00
Humans have a very limited amount of working memory. 3-5 items on average. A savant might be at something like 12. It is trivially easy to blow that with code. OO with code inheritance is a prime example of combinatorial explosion that can lead to more possibilities than atoms in the universe, let alone one persons ability to reason.

Watch ‘Simple made Easy’ by Rich Hickey; a classic from our industry. The battle against complexity is ever ongoing. https://youtu.be/SxdOUGdseq4?feature=shared
by araes | 2025-08-31 03:44:31+00:00
Made a site to try out the framework. Mostly just testing that it works and actually produces something.

Swapped over to having birds instead. Little bit confusing how to actually implement some of the functionality and how some of the functions work. Otherwise, relatively easy to set up and have working.

https://araesmojo-eng.github.io/trystero_test/
by hedora | 2025-08-31 03:44:39+00:00
You might want to read up on recent changes to FEMA.

It’s now substantially (and intentionally) weaker than it was pre-Katrina. Trump more than rolled back all of the reforms that happened since then.

Heck, in public statements, they patted themselves on the back for “job well done” when they were asked why they didn’t pick up the phone during or after the recent mass casualty event in Texas.

I’m sure there’d be major federal responses and a special allocation of reconstruction funds if either of the Trump properties you mentioned got hit, but it wouldn’t happen via FEMA (and probably wouldn’t even go through congress).
by righthand | 2025-08-31 03:45:30+00:00
Mamdani advocating that the state gov tax millionaires 2% more is not the same as having the power to tax millionaires. You should look up what a mayor actually does (hint: balance budgets with city council and strike new initiatives and work with the police department).

2% is hardly worth fleeing.

And Mamdani hasn’t even been elected yet.
by kazinator | 2025-08-31 03:45:44+00:00
There needs to be a way to forcibly run the thread destructors for a library that is going away.

Since the library is going away, it means it's not used any more. Not being used means that no thread that is currently running will call into that library any more.

If no thread that is currently running will use the code of that library, it has no business hanging on to the data belonging to the library; that data should only be manipulable via that code. Therefore, it should be forcibly taken away.

The reason they flunk on this issue is that there isn't a nice way to enumerate through all the threads and snipe away a particular class of thread local storage from each. The architecture is oriented around the POSIX-induced brain-damaged idea that a thread must clean up all thread-specific storage after itself.

Fight me!
by qgin | 2025-08-31 03:45:56+00:00
Social shaming is a big way humans deal with unchangeable things. They impose a cost for anyone expressing a desire for that thing to be different.

And it makes sense, really. You can't have a functioning society if everyone is running around freaking out about death all the time.

But we're entering a weird time where we might actually be able to add more good years to our lives. One of the steps towards getting there is being a little more okay with people seriously exploring these ideas.
by ksec | 2025-08-31 03:46:43+00:00
>maybe Microsoft should just stop using React for the Start menu, that might be a good start.

Agree but again worth pointing out the obvious. I don't think anyone is actually against React per se, as long as M$ could ensure React render all their screens at 120fps with No Jank, 1-2% CPU resources usage, minimal GPU resources, and little memory usage. All that at least 99.99% of the time. Right now it isn't obvious to me this is possible without significant investment.
by safety1st | 2025-08-31 03:47:01+00:00
The approach that I am trialing with my team now, so far to good results, is as follows.

* Our coding standards require that functions have a fairly low cyclomatic complexity. The goal is to ensure that we never have a a function which is really hard to understand.

* We also require a properly descriptive header comment for each function and one of the main emphases in our code reviews is to evaluate the legibility and sensibility of each function signature very carefully. My thinking is the comment sort of describes "developer's intent" whereas the naming of everything in the signature should give you a strong indication of what the function really does.

Now is this going to buy you good architecture for free, of course not.

But what it does seem to do is keep the cognitive load manageable, pretty much all of the time these rules are followed. Understanding a particular bit of the codebase means reading one simple function, and perhaps 1-2 that are related to it.

Granted we are building websites and web applications which are at most medium fancy, not solving NASA problems, but I can say from working with certain parts of the codebase before and after these standards, it's like night and day.

One "sin" this set of rules encourages is that when the logic is unavoidably complex, people are forced to write a function which calls several other functions that are not used anywhere else; it's basically do_thing_a(); do_thing_b(); do_thing_c();. I actually find this to be great because it's easy to notice and tells us what parts of the code are sufficiently complex or awkward as to merit more careful review. Plus, I don't really care that people will say "that's not the right purpose for functions," the reality is that with proper signatures it reads like an easy "cliffs notes" in fairly plain English of exactly what's about to happen, making the code even easier to understand.
by kazinator | 2025-08-31 03:48:07+00:00
The DLL consists of code and static data. If nothing needs the code or the static data, it can be blown away. If that library allocated something which it is responsible for freeing, but that something still exists even though that library's very code is no longer referenced (nobody will call into it), it almost certainly means there is a memory leak.

A memory leak caused by a library isn't necessarily something that should prevent it from being unloaded. Unless it is the leaked objects that are holding a reference! (Then we need a full blown GC system to detect cycles.)