MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by xpatch | 2025-09-01 21:13:22+00:00
SEEKING WORK | EUROPE | REMOTE + travel

Willing to relocate: No, but willing to travel.

website: https://patch.no email: j () lambda ! is

I have been writing high quality software across industries for more than a decade; inventing algorithms, contributing to existing codebases, and writing projects from scratch. My work includes compilers, libraries and language bindings, build systems, bootstrapping and reproducible builds, and a mountain of bugfixes.

Recent work: I added prime path coverage and MC/DC support to GCC.

Send me an email if I can help you realise your idea or fix a problem for you.

Please have a look at the website for résumé, details, blog, etc. at https://patch.no
by tim333 | 2025-09-01 21:13:31+00:00
It's promising how costs are dropping. CATL have recently announced sodium ion batteries with a cost around $40 per kWh and material costs around $10 so there's room for things to drop as production scales. https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2025/08/catl-sodium-ion-batter...

CATL and BYD are both building 30 GWh per year plants or 60 GWh between them so that's enough for 100 Tilbury plants per year just from sodium batteries. And of course lithium batteries are still cranking along.
by triceratops | 2025-09-01 21:13:43+00:00
> The Board members are appointed by the Intel Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee, the chair of the committee is Barbara G. Novick, co-founder of BlackRock. The board is de-facto run by the trio of BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street, smaller investors follow their lead.

Thanks I learned something new today. Is Intel unique or is it common? Does Novick have this position due to pension funds specifically, or index funds in general? AIUI index funds own large stakes in many public companies so if this is true, they are all effectively run by Blackrock and Vanguard (or should be).

> You need actual talents, vision, execution to make things happen, not just interest. Pension funds have no vision beyond "stock go up", no strategy other than "more revenue, less costs".

As opposed to other investors? Outside of founder-owners you've described 99% of retail and institutional investors. Why do you believe pension funds specifically lack "talent"? As long as there is competitive pressure in every market, it doesn't matter. Some of them will be right and actually deliver better products, services, and profits.

> In fact a successful socialist state (if they ever existed) would be indistinguishable from a huge pension fund that swallowed the whole economy.

I've long believed that's the only way to make the welfare state numbers (in any country) work in the long run. Not the whole economy but like substantial proportions of the stock market. You can't tax labor to fund retirees when capital captures most of the returns and there are fewer and fewer workers. And you can't renege on promises already made to people who have been contributing throughout their careers. This can work: sovereign wealth funds are an example. Rising productivity is an updraft that pension funds should capture.
by nickstaggs | 2025-09-01 21:14:28+00:00
Location: Jacksonville, FL Remote: Yes Willing to relocate: No Technologies: Typescript/Javascript, C#, Kotlin, Node, Spring, SQL, Azure, AWS Résumé/CV: https://nickstaggs.com/resume.html Email: nick.c.staggs@gmail.com

Hi! I'm Nick, I am a software engineer with 8+ years of experience mostly in building distributed, cloud-native systems/applications. I work primarily with Kotlin and C# backends paired with React frontends, and have deployed extensively in both AWS and Azure.
by crazygringo | 2025-09-01 21:15:37+00:00
> Property taxes, after all, punish development because they factor in the value of the house or whatever other structure happens to be built on top.6 Instead of abolishing property taxes, shifting to land value taxation (LVT) would constitute an actual improvement.

We need both.

We need land value taxation to reflect that land is a limited resource, and incentivize building tall apartment buildings downtown instead of wasteful parking lots.

On the other hand, we still need to tax houses and buildings because they correlate to usage of local government services. Whether it's the fire department where 20 apartments are 20x more likely to catch fire than a single tiny home, or the police where a large rich mansion is more likely to be targeted by theives than a tiny home, or schools where the larger a building is, the more likely it is to have more kids needing education (or more adults who once benefited from public schooling and are now paying it forwards).

Taxes are for allocating originally public resources efficiently (whether radio spectrum or land), and for paying for mandatory government services which you're not allowed to opt out of.
by Analemma_ | 2025-09-01 21:15:53+00:00
You are very incorrect about NH, it lacks income and sales tax but property taxes are extra-high to make up the difference. The same is true in other states that lack income taxes like Texas and Washington.

(It’s particularly bad in Texas because the largest landed estates like ranches use various tricks to avoid paying most property taxes so the regressive burden ends up falling even harder on the middle class, who now has to pay the entire share of funding state services. I don’t know how Texas keeps up this reputation as a low-tax haven for fleeing California, the reality is that you’ll be paying gobs of property taxes unless you’re either a renter with no land or a baron with tons of land who can schmooze your way out.)
by sfpotter | 2025-09-01 21:15:58+00:00
C++20 concepts are a step in the right direction, but:

- D had this feature long before C++ did.

- It isn't the same thing as "static if". Without "static if", conditionally compiling variables into classes is much more elaborate, basically requiring subclassing to do, which is not really semantically how subclassing should be used (the result is also way more confusing and oblique than the equivalent directly expressed construct you'd have using "static if").
by profsummergig | 2025-09-01 21:16:22+00:00
I drove-by about 5 minutes after an SUV had hit a deer and rolled over (possibly trying to avoid it). There was stuff from the car strewn all over the road, and 2 bodies lying prone in the ditch on the road side. The police were already there, trying to revive them.

Leaves an impression.

By the next day the road had been swept clean. I searched and searched for info on the crash online and in police reports. No info.
by bobmcnamara | 2025-09-01 21:16:30+00:00
> Do LLMs blow the cache?

Sometimes very yes?

If you've got 1GB of weights, those are coming through the caches on their way to execution unit somehow.

Many caches are smart enough to recognize these accesses as a strided, streaming, heavily prefetchable, evictable read, and optimize for that.

Many models are now quantized too to reduce the overall the overall memory bandwidth needed for execution, which also helps with caching.
by kiba | 2025-09-01 21:16:40+00:00
You don't own just the building, but the land. That land cannot be destroyed or created. The increase in land value is probably where the increased tax coming from. Buildings should be depreciating in value.

Given that land is in fixed supply, your city/town should have a vested interest to ensure that it's used efficiently, as is the rest of society.

If your property is worth million of dollars in the middle of a skyscrapper district, then you are in truth a land hoarder.

There's a very famous movement in the 19th century called Georgism that's all about taxing land. You could liken the founder Henry George as to the American "Karl Marx", except he was never really interested in abolishing capitalism.
by yencabulator | 2025-09-01 21:17:28+00:00
I don't understand.

> We really should be thinking of turning off water heating at times when we know for certain it's not being used, and only heat up water anticipating usage. There's a lot of energy to be saved for modern smart homes (or anyone who cares to manually regulate, or simply has to because they're using wood burners and such).

> That is assuming you don't use highly isolated water bodies as thermal batteries.

First paragraph describes a tankless water heater. Second paragraph describes a classic water heater, with a tank. That's practically all houses.
by danunafig | 2025-09-01 21:17:41+00:00
Location: Montreal, Canada

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: No

Technologies: cloud architecture design, distributed systems, microservices, AWS, azure, GCP, kubernetes, terraform, identity and access management, OPA, licensing and consumption billing services, postgresql, mongodb, elk stack, ci/cd.

Résumé/CV: https://storage.googleapis.com/dbystrov/cv_dbystrov_en.pdf

Email: see resume

Site/Portfolio: https://finvoice.ca/
by ry6000 | 2025-09-01 21:18:13+00:00
I can’t help but wonder if kernel devs realize how much this discussion sounds like something you’d expect from Apple. They are talking about obsoleting hardware not because it’s fundamentally broken, but because it no longer fits neatly into a roadmap. Open source has always been about making hardware outlive commercial interest and let it run long after the hardware vendor abandons it.

I'm pretty shocked to see comments like "the RAM for a 32-bit system costs more than the CPU itself", but open source isn’t supposed to be about market pricing or what’s convenient for vendors; it’s about giving users the freedom to decide what’s worth running.

I understand that maintainers don’t want to drag around unmaintained code forever, and that testing on rare hardware is difficult. But if the code already exists and is working, is it really that costly to just not break it? The kernel's history is full of examples where obscure architectures and configs were kept alive for decades with minimal intervention. Removing them feels like a philosophical shift, especially when modern hardware is more locked down and has a variety of black box systems running behind it like Intel ME and AMD PSP.
by zb3 | 2025-09-01 21:20:27+00:00
> Law, not technology, is the true battlefield in the War on General Purpose Computing

I'd say it's law AND technology. Because even if it was technically possible to break some protections, it wouldn't mean it'd always be economically viable to do that. It really gets harder because the security is being improved (albeit this "security" is for the device manufacturer, not me).

While it isn't legal to break these protections and make a product around that, it is legal to try to break them and get a reward if a company offers such program. I guess both Google and Apple offer them, but of course governments indirectly pay more for these exploits.
by Aurornis | 2025-09-01 21:20:33+00:00
The organizational function you describe where departments become self-serving, empire building, and forget that they need to produce something with ROI for the company, felt rampant during the 2010s.

Then the easy money stopped and those companies were forced to look at the ROI of different departments. Entire initiatives or departments were getting cut as soon as budgets stopped growing and executives had to check the reality of what was working for the company and what had become a jobs program.

It’s really frustrating that layoffs are the corrective action. I know a lot of people who were good employees doing arguable good work, but who got hired into departments doing dumb things.

As for junior PMs: I’d be ecstatic if they arrived with a pure profit motive. Lately they arrive full of ideas from Reddit, Twitter, podcasts, and books where they think the only product that matters is building their resume to get the next job. Half of them are min-maxing their effort to resume appeal ratio with every decision. Possibly anecdotally but the junior PMs I’ve had to work with lately are also very obviously doing variations of overemployment where they’re either working on their friends’ startup or just blatantly taking multiple remote jobs and being unavailable half the time. I don’t know why PM roles attract the worst of this, but’s it seems to be the target role for people who want to abuse our remote openings. I should note that great PMs are a massive boost to a team, it’s just getting harder to find them.
by tialaramex | 2025-09-01 21:21:23+00:00
Edited to inject: Actually on second thoughts maybe none of these even do what you thought they did, they're even sillier than I'd assumed.

So funny thing, your C++ 26 solution doesn't do what my Rust function does.

Actually even the first one doesn't, but you likely don't really care about a std::unique_ptr, so it doesn't feel like a difference, and the negligence only really bites when it's not "just" that pointer type.

You see that Rust function destroyed the T. It's gone, no more T. But your C++ function makes a new T, then destroys the old one, so there's still a T, it's not gone after all.
by sunshowers | 2025-09-01 21:22:29+00:00
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPlugins

> When is a program and its plug-ins considered a single combined program?

> It depends on how the main program invokes its plug-ins. If the main program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, and they establish intimate communication by sharing complex data structures, or shipping complex data structures back and forth, that can make them one single combined program. A main program that uses simple fork and exec to invoke plug-ins and does not establish intimate communication between them results in the plug-ins being a separate program.

JSON data sent over the wire, particularly data with nested arrays and maps, and especially a bidirectional communication protocol, can reasonably count as "intimate communication" with "complex data structures" shipped "back and forth".

This is nonbinding guidance, but it is from the FSF, and it is legally untested afaik (not a lawyer). There's sufficient legal risk here that I'd be wary of using rich communication protocols with GPL programs, particularly if there isn't an explicit exception for that protocol.
by _g0wg | 2025-09-01 21:22:31+00:00
I love it. The world needs more magical things and less legalese.

I also added "you can't use this to make money" in my license [1] but I was a bit more specific, and I don't think I'm quite finished with the language yet. It feels a bit too specific but also not specific at all, weird mix. Also mine is in a purposefully-unenforceable version of legalese. I really like your magical approach. I've been describing myself as a metamagical artificer for a while now. You might just inspired me to rewrite mine.

Mine goes a bit more extreme than yours though. Not only does mine disallow parasites from using my software, it also disallows abusers of every kind. Bigots too. And the state. In fact lawyers and governments are explicitly disallowed from interpreting or enforcing my license.

- [1]: [url-redacted]
by jraph | 2025-09-01 21:22:38+00:00
Sorry, but this yes-answered AI slop subtly makes no sense, it just reads comfortable to you. You should not delegate writing your opinion to the llm and even less use it to shape your opinion, this is my main takeaway from your screenshot. The AI answered your biased question in a way that pleases you, it's well known that they do this. This stuff is actually scary, and that clever people like you rely on this and don't notice the glaring issues is even more.

The agpl is ambiguous because users may choose not to fully use the freedom they were given? Sorry but this is bullshit. I'm glad I haven't started using this stuff yet (for other reasons). I'm sure I wouldn't notice such issues in topics I'm not at ease with and I can see how easy one can be seduced by this stuff.

Now, I'm convinced AGPL can be misused. What's more, I'm certainly quite happy that a side effect of the AGPL is that Google won't touch it, to mirror the comment you point to (whose author is wrong by the way, the intent behind the AGPL was not to exclude big tech, but to promote/protect user software freedom). All the fud around the AGPL actually comes from companies like Google, so respectfully fuck them all. Nobody could possibly have weaponised the AGPL against them had they not started spreading all the fud in the first place.

But even considering that picking the AGPL to scare big tech away is bad and weaponizes it (which I can hear, and let's assume), I believe you are wrong that nobody chooses the AGPL for the user freedom genuinely. There are a lot of examples of software under AGPL in good faith seemingly to me. Examples: Nextcloud, Joplin, CryptPad, Overleaf, Passbolt, Univention...

I doubt any of these commercial projects from friendly (?) companies choose the AGPL to fuck the world. I don't know the numbers, maybe it's a minority. You may not have numbers as well. Are you against the AGPL when used in good faith? If so, what to you suggest as an alternative?

I'm with you with the wish people were altruistic. But the system we live in doesn't exactly help being altruistic. Not being altruistic is certainly not a trait of people using AGPL, it's virtually everyone in a commercial setting (although some of us try to do their best to be good humans and virtuous). If anything, the AGPL was born from a ideal and that was certainly driven by something like altruism. All this blame towards the AGPL because people are out there to make money really feels weird to me.

Anyway, I don't think we'll reach an agreement here and that's OK. Thanks for the discussion, despite the strong disagreement it is/was stimulating.
by Nihilartikel | 2025-09-01 21:22:45+00:00
Dyes, glyphosate, seed oils... Yeah. I like olive oil, and don't want to eat glyphosate, but you're fixating on the tenuous unfalsifiable presumed linkage of their toxicity to population level health problems.

I would still put my money on a person eating a commodity, non-organic, seed oil rich diet that is sanely balanced and appropriate for their activity level being healthier on average than an overeating gluten free organic-everything only touched by hemp fiber vegan who never exercises.
by atombender | 2025-09-01 21:22:48+00:00
> You can have clusters with many servers in them

Sorry, what I meant that each stream (which forms a Raft group) doesn't scale to more. I thought it was 3, but thanks for the correction.

Everything else you wrote confirms what I wrote, no? As for batch direct gets, that's great, but I'm not sure why you didn't go all the way and offered a Kafka-type consumer API that is strictly ordered and persists the offset natively. I've indeed written an application that uses ordered consumers and persists the offset, but it is cumbersome.

Every time I've used Jetstream, what I've actually wanted was the Kafka model: Fetch a batch, process the batch, commit the batch. Having to ack individual messages and worry about AckWait timeouts is contrary to that model. It's a great programming model for core NATS, but for streams I think you guys made a design mistake there. A stream shouldn't act like pub/sub. I also suspect (but can't prove) that this leads to worse performance and higher load on the cluster, because every message has to go through the ack/nack roundtrips.

I'd also like to point out that Jetstream's maximum message size of 1MB is a showstopper. Yes, you can write big messages somewhere else and reference them. But that's more work and more complexity. With Kafka/Redpanda, huge messages just work, and are not particularly a technical liability.
by pessimizer | 2025-09-01 21:22:57+00:00
> defamation is usually required to be intentional

Is it? Or can it be just reckless, without any regard for the truth?

Can I create a slander AI that simply makes up stories about random individuals and publicizes them, not because I'm trying to hurt people (I don't know them), but because I think it's funny and I don't care about people?

Is the only thing that determines my guilt or innocence when I hurt someone my private, unverifiable mental state? If so, doesn't that give carte blanche to selective enforcement?

I know for a fact this is true in some places, especially the UK (at least since the last time I checked), where the truth is not a defense. If you intend to hurt a quack doctor in the UK by publicizing the evidence that he is a quack doctor, you can be convicted for consciously intending to destroy his fraudulent career, and owe him compensation.
by georgeecollins | 2025-09-01 21:23:24+00:00
That's a theoretical argument that is extremely rare in practice (at least in California). If you want to base your "ideas" of taxes (Do you own real estate?) on edge cases why not worry about eminent domain or property seizures without a warrant or charges being filed?

Why do people who have more income pay more taxes? Why do people with huge capital gains often pay very little? I think a good place to start thinking about these things is reading about why they had to call the Estates General in 1789.
by 01HNNWZ0MV43FF | 2025-09-01 21:23:35+00:00
I don't understand how slivers of stock is supposed to incentivize anyone to do anything.

Amazon has 1.5 million employees. Say that it's a completely fair co-op and I have a 1-in-1.5-millionth share of the whole company. Their market cap is about 2.5T, so this is about 1.6 million USD in stock that I own. (By amazing coincidence, their market cap in USD is about the square of the employee headcount)

But if I'm a rank-and-file employee with nobody under me, then doubling my production could only be equivalent to adding one more 1-in-1.5-millionth to the company's value, right? Equivalent to hiring one more employee at my level.

For that impossible extraordinary 80-hours-per-week double effort, my stock would go up... a dollar, right? Roughly 1-in-1.5-millionth of my 1.6 million dollars of stock.

I think it's a joke. I think "stock incentivizes people to work harder" is a little joke that people tell each other so that labor will be pacified with company stock and leftists will bicker about co-ops instead of saying the quiet part which is that people just want more money

I just don't see any math in which stock isn't basically a tragedy of the commons for boots-on-the-ground workers. If I was paid for exactly the labor I do, doubling my effort doubles my paycheck. If I have stock, some of that revenue is spread to everyone else who has stock. Giving everyone stock doesn't incentivize anyone any more, right? What am I overlooking?
by sixo | 2025-09-01 21:24:51+00:00
It seems like you could straightforwardly unbundle the property tax into a bunch of specific fees and insurances. We're comfortable requiring car insurance, why not fire and police?

This would probably make it more palatable to MAGA, but also I think to most other people too. It would probably destabilize municipalities: I have to imagine that most properties are dramatically over- or under-priced at present; on net I'd guess overpriced wins.

School districts are particularly tricky, though, for all the usual reasons.
by triceratops | 2025-09-01 21:25:07+00:00
> New Hampshire replaces this tax by selling hard alcohol

You want the government to pay for children's books out of the pockets of alcoholics? I know that's an uncharitable reading of what you said, but that's what it boils down to. If people drink less alcohol, generally considered a good thing for society (I say this as someone with a well-stocked liquor cabinet), then the kids get fewer textbooks.
by some_guy_nobel | 2025-09-01 21:25:10+00:00
Anyone taking these leadership principles serious is fooling themselves.

Internally, the curtain fell apart in about 2022, when the lay-offs occurred, and people realized the "Strive to be the Earth's Best Employer" was absolute bullshit.

Same happened again with mandated RTO.

And that's just for corporate employees! Enough has been written about how awful things are for those working in the warehouses/deliveries.

Why would any other leadership princples be different?