MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by t-writescode | 2025-09-25 15:31:50+00:00
This sounds like a real and valid incompatibility with a high frequency commit cadence.

If you’re interested in trying these strategies anyway, does your editor of choice have an inline “git blame”? In IntelliJ, I can see who and when committed the most recent change in the line around the one I’m working on.

It doesn’t resolve the “which files have I worked on” issue; but it might help the others? Not as nice as a different colored line like uncommitted code would otherwise be highlighted, but it could be enough of a step in that direction?
by ModernMech | 2025-09-25 15:31:52+00:00
The further you get from a perfect market, the less free market dynamics work. And even if they did, there's nothing in the theory that would minimize for patient deaths. The theory says that as patients die, people who are living would go to hospitals with better outcomes. But to achieve this outcome

1. patients need to be able to actually choose where to go. If they are incapacitated they have no choice in where they are taken.

2. we have to endure an unknown number of deaths for an undetermined period of time while we wait for the market to reach equilibrium.

So it's pretty clear free market dynamics are not the way to go when it comes to the healthcare marketplace.
by pjdesno | 2025-09-25 15:31:57+00:00
I didn’t check the article.

When I was reviewing it for publication I ran a couple of tests and found more like 18 on the devices I tested, but I’m sure there are some that do 15. 25 is probably on the slow end. (although I’ve never tested a HAMR drive - their head assemblies are probably heavier and more delicate)

Old SCSI 10K drives could hand a huge queue and reach 500 random read IOPS, sounding like a buzzsaw while they did it. Modern capacity drives treat their internals much more gently, and don’t get as much queuing gain. Note also that for larger objects the chunk size is probably 1+ rotations to amortize the seek overhead.
by nxobject | 2025-09-25 15:31:57+00:00
> they're also indirectly paying for it through inflation caused by government borrowing beyond their actual tax income.

Don't worry – unless we stop giving out tax cuts as well, we'll still be running deficits until Social Security and Medicare become insolvent. For the average taxpayer, it's about fiscal sustainability - "smaller government" may as well be a feel-good abstraction compared to that.
by thegrimmest | 2025-09-25 15:32:12+00:00
I'm perfectly happy for some folks to have trillion dollar net worth. I'm glad to negotiate with these folks and their organizations to provide value in exchange for a comfortable living.

> just buy the government they want

The idea of a constitution and separation of powers is to constrain the types of government that can legitimately exist. This does work to some degree. No matter how wealthy you are, you can't kill people in public. Money is to buy goods and services in a free exchange. When government agents acting in their official capacity accept money or the promise thereof in exchange for official action, this is called corruption. All human systems are corrupt, and no solution to corruption is perfect, but ours is pretty good compared to others.
by troupo | 2025-09-25 15:32:26+00:00
> A common pattern in Apple platforms has been for APIs to be private initially, then made public 2-4 major versions after introduction, once the bulk of the design churn is over with and it can remain relatively stable.

I think DMA is what it is partly because Apple has stopped doing that for signifiant chunks of functionality, and started removing features available to third-party developers. See "Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones" https://ericmigi.com/blog/apple-restricts-pebble-from-being-...
by arduanika | 2025-09-25 15:32:32+00:00
Interesting. Added a * to my comment.

I think it's still accurate to say that you'll lag the total market during the run-up, right? So anyone buying value should be prepared for that feeling of FOMO, in exchange for long-term peace of mind.

Then again, the beta on your small cap portfolio is 1.04 (higher than your mid/large cap portfolio .93). This matches my intuition: going for value means lower beta, but going small means higher beta. So for small cap value, these effects sort of cancel out and you end up slightly above 1.

Altogether, small cap value is an interesting choice. Not bad.
by ksenzee | 2025-09-25 15:33:09+00:00
If you’re an outlier, I’m out there with you: I’ve also been writing software professionally for 20 years, I have no CS degree, and I’m not fool enough to reimplement algorithms like quicksort that are sitting right there in stdlib. I similarly found this explanation a lot more useful than anything else I have read about quicksort, and I’m confident I could implement it now, but couldn’t have before I read this.
by mschuster91 | 2025-09-25 15:33:10+00:00
We more-so need Old Web with actual consequences for bad actors. You know, the days when you could email an ISP's abuse mailbox with evidence of someone running portscans and they'd get at least told to clean up shop or else, and the or else went as far as getting their contract cancelled entirely.

These days it seems like abuse@ is routed straight to /dev/null, and that's not even addressing enemy nation states that willingly shield and host bad actors.
by leetrout | 2025-09-25 15:33:11+00:00
My simple suggestion to my teams:

PRs are emails to your team and to your future self.

Framed in that context it's easier to carry the correct tone and think about scoping / what's important.

---

> pedantically apply DRY to every situation

I swear DRY has done more damage to the software industry from the developer side than it has done good because it has manifested into this big stick with which to bludgeon people without taking context into account.
by ChocolateGod | 2025-09-25 15:33:54+00:00
People are having a tough period where they think their government doesn't care about them, to see so much wastage ignites the hard feelings that the "elite" has prioritised others than their own people.

I believe that is the reason why DOGE was supported by Trump, but I do think something like DOGE is needed but perhaps for better and less egotistical reasons.
by mallowdram | 2025-09-25 15:34:16+00:00
I don't disclose affiliations here, that's the beauty of HN. I get to keep my anonymity to explore.

A start-up that replaces the symbolic engages with specifics in signals in the record (animals, entoptics, onomatopoeia, calendrical signs, action-syntax externals, cinematic action-glyphs) and figures out what representations veer referential and offers concatenation.

The idea that language refutes itself is as old as the pre-socratics. I won't go into the detailed history here, but there are 1000s of reference for this statement. I'll use Cassirer's, which is pretty succinct.

..at some point a direct contact must occur between knowledge and reality. If we succeed in freeing ourselves from all these interpretations – if we above all succeed in removing the veil of words, which conceals the true essence of things, then at one stroke we shall find ourselves face to face with the original perceptions..

Ernst Cassirer The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms

Freeing ourselves from the veil of words is theoretically equivalent to language's ultimate function is to refute itself.

CS is computer science.

btw it's clear the drive to encapsulate in plain English was and is the achilles heel to CS, coders are forced to finger point using characterizations of "word salad" at scientifically complex theories and analytic ideas.
by bArray | 2025-09-25 15:34:17+00:00
> Looks like this is just an empty excuse to justify their margins at the expense of people:

All tech companies are doing layoffs [1], Accenture are just trying to sell it as a good thing.

> They’re citing internal data to prop-up this AI narrative, too, and claim - like everyone else doing layoffs - that headcount is expected to grow in the coming year.

As everybody who has tested this stuff knows, the AI does not lead to massive gains in productivity. They may regret getting rid of safety critical engineers, or testing engineers.

[1] https://www.trueup.io/layoffs
by pbiggar | 2025-09-25 15:34:33+00:00
There was an interesting point in the earlier article on this, where Microsoft tried to push their Israeli employees under a bus. They claimed their Israeli employees had lied to them about the use of Azure for war and civilian harm because they held more allegiance to their army than to Microsoft.

Now obviously, this was a lie, but the implication is staggering: Microsoft can't trust it's own employees in Israel, and believes they're lying to the mothership! And if microsoft can't trust them, surely no one else should either!
by waltbosz | 2025-09-25 15:34:42+00:00
> Juniors are getting fired if they don't have a project for 3 months

When I worked for Accenture, I got benched for an entire summer. It was great. At the time the only resource to find a new project was this spreadsheet uploaded to Sharepoint, and there was 0 pressure from my HR rep to actually look for a new role.

I eventually found a new job and quit, but I always wondered what would have happened if I just stayed on the bench while working at the 2nd job.
by mercutio2 | 2025-09-25 15:35:25+00:00
People assert all sorts of nonsense in response to questions like this, usually not at all backed up by the data. The drivers of high US healthcare costs are:

1. Doctors, nurses, and hospital admins make dramatically, *dramatically* more money in the US than anywhere except Switzerland. Every time a discussion of healthcare costs comes up, everyone tries to point their fingers at middlemen, but the middlemen extract tiny fractions of the revenue stream. Most of it goes to actual humans that are high status, and no one wants to imply they’re lobbying to lower the pay of these folks 2. The US pays for drug development for the entire world. You can call this the US “overpaying”, or the rest of the world “free-loading”, but the US is a very rich country that has decided to incentivize drug development by allowing drug companies to profit from their massive investments by setting high prices 3. Americans are fatter than the rest of the rich world (although the rest of the rich world is rapidly catching up) and chronic metabolic-disease is very expensive to treat (everywhere)

All the other factors are noise. Insurance companies extract a few percent, bureaucratic overhead extracts a few more percent. But to get to 100% more, these just don’t matter.
by t-writescode | 2025-09-25 15:35:29+00:00
To add, when I’m breaking my changes down into multiple parts for review, I tend to:

* squash everything I’ve done into one commit * create a new branch off main/master that will be the “first commit” * cherry-pick changes (easy from some git guis) that represent a modular change. * push and make an MR from the new branch * rebase “the big commit” on top of the partial change. * wash, rinse and repeat for each change, building each MR off its requisite branch.

The squashing part is vital because otherwise you enter merge conflict hell with the rebase.
by roguecoder | 2025-09-25 15:35:47+00:00
If you are the only developer who ever going to work on something, maybe. Even then, I will argue you are more likely to deliver successfully if you are cutting your work into smaller pieces instead of not delivering anything at all for weeks at a time.

But for the company, having two people capable of working on a system is better than one, and usually you want a team. Which means the code needs to be something your coworkers understand, can read and agree with. Those changes they ask for aren't frivolous: they are an important part of building software collaboratively. And it shouldn't be that much feedback forever: after you have the conversation and you understand and agree with their feedback, the next time you can take that consideration into account when you are first writing the code.

If you want to speed that process up, you can start by pair programming and hashing out disagreements in real time, until you get confident you are mostly on the same page.

Professional programming isn't about closing tickets as fast as possible. It is about delivering business value as a team.
by ants_everywhere | 2025-09-25 15:35:49+00:00
Similary idea: I used to be a TA and every week I would sort ~50 papers or exams alphabetically to make it easier to verify accuracy in the grading spreadsheet. Sorting this many papers regularly forces you to find a good way to do it, and it's hard to avoid recursion.

Even better: sort something physically large like several bookshelves of books or a record collection. You can't hold the collection in your hand and you're forced to use piles. You may even decide to work bookshelf by bookshelf first.

These are all good ways to develop intuition for sorting algorithms. Personally I always just use quicksort until I've come to a part of the alphabet where I can immediately recall which letter precedes every other then I do insertion sort. You might decide to use another hybrid sort like timsort.
by scuff3d | 2025-09-25 15:36:00+00:00
That makes sense. Reading your comment got me thinking some of the issue might be that I have always worked on somewhat immature projects. Either R&D or greenfield projects. Which is super nice in a whole lot of ways, but a lot of times I don't know what the final shape of the changes to the rest of the system are going to be, because that part of the system itself isn't well established yet. So it evolves throughout whatever I'm doing. Which would make it difficult to break them off and work them in a different branch.

Maybe there's a partial solution if I can keep those commits clean and separate in the tree. And then when I'm done reorder things such that those all happen as a block of contiguous commits.
by MoreQARespect | 2025-09-25 15:36:15+00:00
The "mid levels who consider themselves senior" are the exact type of people who I see saying what you're saying, i.e.

* Yes, TDD on production code is nice in theory, but it doesnt work in my case.

* Yes, short PRs are nice in theory, but it doesnt work in my case.

In every case, as far as I can see, it meant "It does work, I just dont know how to do it".

When I say "if you dont think it works in your case, come to me, Ill show you" they often demur and I end up with a huge PR anyway.

In practice I dont think ive ever seen a long PR that wouldnt have benefitted from being strategically broken up, but every other day I see another one that should have been.
by ferguess_k | 2025-09-25 15:36:22+00:00
But not with Israel, though. US has been an ardent ally of Israel, up to the point of joining the bombing of Iran and providing a significant amount of THAAD and SM-3, plus a lot more.

BTW back to the original point. The reason of my suspect is:

- The whole area has heavy US military existence

- UK is doing some military exercise in the same area

I can't imagine Israel just bomb Qatar without messaging these two. The twist is, they messaged to someone, but did not necessarily message the whole US/UK government, and that someone might as well keep the information for himself anyway.
by 1121redblackgo | 2025-09-25 15:36:43+00:00
I think the self-dealing and getting rid of oversight was a very welcome bonus, but I think they genuinely thought they were the good guys coming to clean up government. Their methods were tragically ineffective as every serious person predicted.

We have fiscal issues, clearly, and they thought they were doing good work, but it was an absolute failure and many of the issues still remain, and were exacerbated by what DOGE did.

That’s what C- brains bring to a project.
by pjdesno | 2025-09-25 15:36:57+00:00
IT’S NOT 4 MS.

That’s a bogus number from an ancient slide deck for a class in 2001 or so, that’s misled generations of folks googling for the answer.

Note also that the outer tracks are longer (google ZCAV) and hold more data, so seeks across uniformly distributed block numbers do not generate uniformly distributed track numbers.
by lloydatkinson | 2025-09-25 15:37:00+00:00
Interesting development. Not really sure I trust Cloudflare on this one, the last time they tried this with "MailChannels" they got a bunch of people to use it and then killed it off a few months later. Still, their blog post was never updated to say the feature was removed: https://blog.cloudflare.com/sending-email-from-workers-with-...
by ewoodrich | 2025-09-25 15:37:21+00:00
I've used VS Code on ChromeOS with the GPU acceleration flag for many, many years without any issues on a couple different devices (x64 and more recently, arm64). It can even hide the window chrome so looks 1:1 with VS Code on any other platform. And many other GUI Linux apps where the Android version feels too much like a toy in comparison, it's an incredibly versatile feature for dev work.
by PaulHoule | 2025-09-25 15:37:39+00:00
Outrage politics and culture wars privilege the right. You can press harder on that accelerator all you want it will get Republicans elected.

I talked to quite a few family members in NY whose vote didn't count who saw that they did have a choice between Trump and Harris and did not feel like they had to vote to support their tribe. The election was rather close and you're going to win it by getting these people to change their mind, not by motivating the most motivated Democrats or demotivating the most motivated Republicans.

To people like that a demonstration of competence or at least that you have a pulse or that you support something rather than you got selected and nobody should vote for the madman because.... that just doesn't work.

There are just many things about the American experience with the public sphere that turn people away from it. It's not a matter of safe or unsafe but rather pleasant vs unpleasant and a lack of recognition that pleasant vs unpleasant matters. Go to China and the subways don't screech the way the NY subway does. You drive over the same pothole for five years because it doesn't get fixed until they can get a federal grant to fix it. Stuff like that.

Believe it or not there were people who voted: Obama - Trump - Biden - Trump and had the D’s managed to reach that person we would not be in this nightmare.
by eigencoder | 2025-09-25 15:38:23+00:00
I think approval time would take much longer. The issue is that while actual time spent in review may be shorter, there's a lot of context-switching time costs that increase with the number of PRs submitted.

No one on the team is just sitting there refreshing the list of PRs, ready to pick one up immediately. There's a delay between when the PR is marked as ready and when someone can actually get to it. Everyone is trying to get work done and have some time daily in flow state.

Imagine you have a change; you could do it as one PR that takes 1 hour to review, or 3 small PRs that each take 15 mins to review. The time spent in review may even be shorter for the small PRs, but if each PR has a delay of 1 hour before a reviewer can get to it, then the 3 PRs will take almost 4 hours before they're done, as opposed to just 2 hours for one big PR.
by arnorhs | 2025-09-25 15:38:52+00:00
This idea of every PR being a small chunk that you can review in 5-10 minutes is completely ridiculous. It is reasonable for bug fixes or small improvements, but the review time you should expect for a PR should reflect the size and impact of a feature, not some arbitrary number.

Yes, everybody would love it if every PR was small enough. In reality that is not a good way to build substantial features.

Often, fully building out a substantial feature, causes you to change your mind and completely changing your approach the further along you are. You don't want to be muddying up the PR pipeline with a bunch of half-assed changes.

Doing that just makes reviewers less inclined to give good feedback on a PR, because they "know it's going to change so much anyways".

If you are building a substantial feature, it is reasonable that the PR is large and reviewers will have to dedicate substantial time to reviewing it. Reviewing it is work on its own and hopefully your engineers have dedicated time to review substantial features.

Of course, you should make sure your substantial feature is as minimal as possible, for whatever is needed to ship the feaure - but not any less than that.
by mikeg8 | 2025-09-25 15:38:54+00:00
This splitting of hairs between the legal entities and the work of their paid teams/employees isn’t adding strength to your argument. Companies are run by people and those people get to make decisions on the allocation of resources. If they decided to put substantial resources into OSS, the company does get to claim credit there.

> there are plenty of open source communities that exist without the direct funding of work.

Great! Maybe the Ruby community can strive for this in the future but it does not reflect the OPs point that these companies and their outsized contributions via time and money are still core to the existing community we have today.
by keiferski | 2025-09-25 15:39:09+00:00
I wouldn't use either of those labels, more like...it is becoming / is already tied into the institutional definition of success. 15 years ago, it was still kind of unorthodox to turn down a BigTech job and start a company instead. Nowadays it's starting to feel like another credential or routine path that smart tech-adjacent people take.

IMO if you're trying to decide between a well-paid job and starting a company...you probably aren't cut out to start a company. But...the infrastructure for choosing the latter option is becoming developed and safe enough that realistically speaking, it may actually be the optimal non-entrepreneurial career choice.
by trenning | 2025-09-25 15:39:29+00:00
I can echo this statement. My mother is in a nursing home facility for the last 8 years.

She is located in the facility she worked in as a poor laborer before becoming a resident. The facility is over an hour from the nearest metro area.

The care she receives there is pretty good. The staff are mostly locals in the rural town and are comfortable being poor and living that life.

We considered moving her into the city to be close to family who have to drive almost 3 hours to see her but the care is so bad in the city it isn’t worth it.

We have had family members in city nursing homes and they’re abysmal. Which to some level I get. The people there like you stated are underpaid and overworked. They live in bad neighborhoods because of systemic poverty. They bring all the stress of being poor in a metro city with them to work. Quality of care plummets but there’s nothing that can be done because no one is going to pay more than bare minimum to reach mandatory staff minimums.
by danparsonson | 2025-09-25 15:39:29+00:00
I seem to remember in the original thread (I am that old) that another poster identified this as a mistranslation of 'try, catch, finally' and the post overall was talking about throwing (vomiting) exceptions. I don't have a reference for that though sadly!

(edit: never mind, I see the original is linked there already. Please apologise for your stupidity!)
by roguecoder | 2025-09-25 15:39:39+00:00
Why do you see feedback as "purity test"ing?

Newspaper reporters are professionals and they still have editors. We've all seen the disaster that results when an author gets too famous to edit. And we don't have to go in and work with their prose later.

Code reviews are where "my" code becomes "our" code: I want my coworkers to feel comfortable with and fully understand and be happy to support the changes I am proposing to our software.