MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by tsimionescu | 2025-09-01 11:33:38+00:00
> That's because "branches" in git are an imaginary concept, they are simply a label you give to a certain commit, nothing else, nothing more.

They're really not. The whole Git ecosystem makes a very clear distinction between branches and tags, even though they are virtually the same thing in the underlying data model.

For example, if you checked out a branch and then do a git commit, the branch name tag will be automatically moved to the new commit. Conversely, if you checked out a tag (or a random commit that is not the head of a branch) and then run git commit, the new commit will not get any tag.

Another example is `git rebase`, whose semantics only make sense if you consider that branch names refer to branches, not just to their latest commits, since they often modify many children of those branches.

> Moreover, in git this is further complicated by the fact that you may have branches with the same identical name on different environments (your local and remotes).

This is presented as more complicated than it is. If you are working with multiple remotes, you may end up in these complex situations, true. But Git is pretty clear about the names and identities of each of these. You have the local branch, `feat/foo`, which typically has as a default upstream the remote branch named `feat/foo` on a remote called `origin`; the local copy of that branch is the tracking branch called `origin/feat/foo`. If you have other remotes `remote1` and `remote2`, the tracking branches of those are called `remote1/feat/foo` and `remote2/feat/foo`. You will never want to commit directly to any of these tracking branches - instead, you'll create either separate local branches with each as an upstream(`feat/foo-remote1`, `feat/foo-remote2` - if you want different commits for each remote), or directly push from `feat/foo` to all of them if the intent is to keep them in sync (`git push feat/foo:remote1/feat/foo` or similar).
by safety1st | 2025-09-01 11:34:08+00:00
For your convenience, I've accessed a summarizer technology which you can try out any time you need it. You'll find it at https://chat.openai.com/ .

Here are the big, recent U.S. antitrust rulings against Google, with what each court actually decided and where things stand:

#1 Search monopoly (DOJ v. Google – “Search” case) — liability found (Sept 2024) A federal judge found Google illegally maintained monopolies in general search services and general search text ads, violating Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Remedies are being handled separately.

#2 Open-web ad tech (DOJ & states v. Google – E.D. Va.) — liability found (Apr 17, 2025) The court ruled Google monopolized multiple digital advertising technology markets (tools used by publishers and advertisers), harming publishers, competition, and consumers. Remedies proceedings are underway.

#3 Android app distribution & in-app billing (Epic Games v. Google) — jury verdict + injunction affirmed on appeal (Dec 2023 → Oct 2024 → Jul 31, 2025) A jury found Google violated antitrust laws through exclusionary Play Store practices and tying Google Play Billing. The trial judge issued a nationwide permanent injunction (Oct 2024) requiring Google to open the Play Store to rival stores and payment options; the Ninth Circuit unanimously affirmed (Jul 31, 2025).

Case #3 is the direct answer to your question, but I want to again point out that the really serious problem is how Google has abused its market power in MANY US technology markets, and found guilty of these abuses independently by multiple judges in a short span of time, a feat of criminality even Standard Oil failed to achieve. This is why a historic level of action against Google, probably greater than that taken against Standard Oil, needs to be taken.

It's all in the court cases and it's all available publicly online for the interested public to read.

Edit: also, this comment is already too long, but in case it doesn't stand out as obviously to everyone else as it does to me, Google now introducing an additional layer of Google approvals above the multiple app stores that the court is forcing them to accept in case #3 is so amazingly, obviously a telegraphed case of malicious compliance, they are not even trying to hide it. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I'm saying passing more laws is part of the solution but not nearly enough on its own.
by MangoToupe | 2025-09-01 11:34:23+00:00
I think you mean "nimble", "versatile", or "agile". None of these imply efficiency in the same sense economy of scale does (ie cost to produce a single deliverable unit).

There are good examples, though—you can produce a single gold ring a lot cheaper than you can produce a one-of-a-trillion of them, cuz at some point you simply run out of gold. Another example is running into a cap in demand. Classic sigmoid vs exponential patterns.
by 47282847 | 2025-09-01 11:34:31+00:00
> All those hypothetical stories we build in our heads about what might happen after we die are just wasted time

My observation is that whatever story people believe will happen after their death will deeply influence their current life in this reality, so I disagree that it is “just wasted time“. For most, it’s not simply a mind exercise but defines their values and existence.

It’s arrogance and ignorance of the “West“ to assume everyone wants to “live a long life“. You very distinctively have other priorities if you believe in reincarnation and karma. Belief in rebirth strengthens dynasties and collectivism in very real ways, the belief in no afterlife or one that is not influenced by your current behavior strengthens individualism.
by GistNoesis | 2025-09-01 11:34:53+00:00
>"just train it until it is perfect"

Yes that's exactly the problem with current approach based on a "valuation" function.

They are not trying to aim for perfection, and therefore cannot make progress anymore.

To progress you must precisely define what is the frontier : an evaluation of 0.1 is not resolved to one of "white win", "draw", "white lose" which they theoretically must be. They are not "committing" to anything.

To train such a network to perfection you must avoid training your neural network for the "average" game state, but rather also train for "hard mining samples", game states which define the frontier.

Find a candidate, find a violation, add to dataset of training examples, Retrain to perfection on a growing dataset, (or a generator of hard positions) to find a new candidate and Loop.
by DebtDeflation | 2025-09-01 11:35:20+00:00
The article claims that 15 was done without precompilation (in the 2015 experiment but not the 2001 experiment), but only because 15 is a very unique number (after decomposition, only the last multiplication has to be performed because all the previous multiplications involve multiplying by 1).

That said, we are REALLY far off from having a useful quantum computer. Jensen was probably being conservative when he said 20-30 years away, hence the immediate pressure he received form the investor community to reverse his statement followed by the flood of ridiculous press releases from the usual companies claiming to be 2-3 years away.
by lazide | 2025-09-01 11:35:31+00:00
It doesn’t work that way today because citizens in states would freak out - and the federal gov’t just went ‘we don’t care’.

Passport photos were way lower resolution than the high res digital photo I last took for my drivers license. My US passport has a photo on it a decade+ old. Still worked fine.

There are plenty of options states could take if they want - and now that the fed is doing what it’s doing, I bet it won’t take long.
by ViewTrick1002 | 2025-09-01 11:36:33+00:00
Generally LFP with cycles in the at least 5000 range.

They are pure arbiters of the market. Filling up when it makes sense and delivering when it makes sense. Which sometimes means buying expensive fossil gas powered electricity to sell it even higher priced later.

But what this means is that at that ”later” the peaking plant that originally has been used did not have to start and consumers enjoy cheaper electricity.

But what they do is extend the time renewables deliver. In for example California storage has reduced fossil gas usage by 40% in recent years.
by Cthulhu_ | 2025-09-01 11:36:34+00:00
Radiation shielding is always an option, but the challenge is weight and launch capacity. Given enough time, money and launches I'm sure they can put a radiation proof / resistant module in a spaceship. And a big enough spaceship that can keep the crew healthy and happy for the years-long mission.

But either way, it would be one of the biggest endeavours of people ever. Not unlike the sea voyages of back when, but people could breathe the air at least.
Show HN: this thing writes and maintains scrapers for you
by satuke | 2025-09-01 11:37:44+00:00
I've recently been playing around with llms and it turns out it writes amazing scrapers and keeps them updated with the website for you, given the right tools.

try it out at: https://underhive.ai/

ps: it's free to use with soft limits

if you have any issues using it, feel free to hop onto our discord and tag me (@satuke). I'll be more than happy to discuss your issue over a vc or on the channel, whatever works for you.

discord: https://discord.gg/b279rgvTpd
by rcxdude | 2025-09-01 11:38:09+00:00
Most of the ones in the UK, if you access them via the website, require a security code from their app. They often have a backup via the terribly-insecure method of phoning or texting you a code.

You keep calling this 'hostile' and we should choose something else, but the whole reason we're complaining is because the choices are going away! Should we wait until we have literally zero choice (as opposed to limited choices with bad tradeoffs) before complaining?
by inigoalonso | 2025-09-01 11:38:16+00:00
At least the OP excerpt focuses only on Ford’s efficiency engine: precision machining, interchangeable parts, and the moving assembly line combined with extreme production volumes to make the Model T nearly impossible to compete with on cost and reliability. But there’s a deeper lesson than just “Ford was rigid, GM was flexible.”

The real dynamic was that efficiency and scale compound improvements but also compound lock-in. The more Ford optimized his system around one product, the higher the switching cost to change anything fundamental. Every special-purpose machine tool, every supplier contract, every material flow was tuned to one car. At small scale, that’s agility. At massive scale, it’s a straitjacket.

Tesla faces a version of this trap. Its efficiency engine is vertical integration and battery/powertrain mastery. But the stronger that engine gets, the more risk that its identity collapses into “this is what we make, as efficiently as possible,” rather than “this is what the market wants, however we must adapt.” GM in the 1920s wasn’t just adding variety for fun, it was creating a systematic upgrade ladder (“a car for every purse and purpose” as Sloan said at the time) that turned consumer churn into a growth engine (allowing customers to start with basic models like Chevrolet and progressively upgrade to more luxurious brands such as Oldsmobile, Buick, or Cadillac). I agree that Tesla hasn’t yet built an equivalent mechanism to capture customers once they’ve “had enough of the Model T.”

The irony is that efficiency-driven firms almost never stumble because they stop improving; they stumble because all their improvements are local optimizations. Ford’s engineers in 1925 were still making operations faster, parts cheaper, and tolerances tighter, but all within the cage of the Model T. Tesla today is in danger of repeating this exact logic trap: world-class at batteries and drivetrains, but perhaps blind to the fact that consumer perception, design novelty, and product line evolution can erode even the strongest cost advantage.
by 0rdinal | 2025-09-01 11:38:57+00:00
Some suppliers (e.g., Octopus Energy) offer half-hourly tariffs whose rates track the day-ahead wholesale market and are published daily. Prices usually fall when supply is abundant (e.g., windy/sunny periods)

Day ahead pricing: https://agileprices.co.uk/ National grid supply/demand and energy mix: https://grid.iamkate.com/
by elric | 2025-09-01 11:39:17+00:00
> As someone who enjoyed Linux phones like the Nokia N900/950 and would love to see those hacker-spirited devices again

Why haven't we seen a spiritual successor to the N900? It's a little strange to me that it's cheaper than ever to produce hardware, even in relatively small quantities, but no one (AFAIK) is producing any geek-oriented phones like the N900. Linux hardware support gets better every year. It shouldn't be terribly hard to have a factory produce a small number of open phones that can run Linux. They wouldn't be any good without significant investment in phone-specific usability, but still.
by cocire | 2025-09-01 11:40:11+00:00
I never have really tried to measure my own peripheral visual field - no! I am not sure how I would track it - how did you?

I mostly notice bumping into things on my left side. While generally people "walk to the right" on sidewalks and such, I prefer to stay as left as I can on a path. For example, walking home through downtown, I like to try to keep my left shoulder as close to buildings as I can, to avoid people coming up behind me on my left side, since I always risk bumping into them. I always choose seating in venues that is very left of center as well.

While I generally do not have serious seizures resulting in falls, it's funny that the fall detection on my Apple Watch has only ever gone off when I accidentally bang my left wrist against a door frame because of my poor peripheral vision.
by gregoriol | 2025-09-01 11:40:19+00:00
This is really sad, because the replacement, Swift Package Manager, is really crap: it lacks some useful features (an "outdated" command, meaningful commandline output, ...), is buggy as hell in xcode (most of the time xcode just crashes when you add/removed a dependency, error messages while getting a repository are not understandable and even often not visible entirely, many repositories have some old Package.swift that current developer tools won't read, ...), and worst of all, it stores the full repositories of all the dependencies with their full history on your machine and downloads them every time when you do CI properly, which often means GBs of data.
by Cthulhu_ | 2025-09-01 11:40:30+00:00
A first moon base will be much like the ISS; dependent on earth for most supplies, primarily used for R&D, maybe eventually for some tourism.

But whether there's anything after that will... probably depend on the outcome of the experiments on that base, including the viability of extracting and converting resources. If it turns out that e.g. producing He3 is prohibitively expensive or unfeasible, it may be the first and last one. The ISS doesn't have a successor and it's going to be decommissioned at some point in the future. Only China has another inhabited space station. I don't believe there's any serious plans for another space station at the moment.
by kace91 | 2025-09-01 11:41:15+00:00
On Claude you specifically accept any attempt to use a terminal command (optionally whitelisting) so there’s no risk that it will push force something or whatever. You can also whitelist with granularity, for example to enable it to use git to view git logs but not commit.

You can just let it work, see what’s uncommitted after it’s over, and get rid of the result if you don’t like it.
by mytailorisrich | 2025-09-01 11:41:37+00:00
It is policy to encourage lower usage, like it is policy to keep prices up (both production and the grid are a shamble, not to mention climate commitments on top). Maybe the policy isn't publicly stated but actions speak louder than words. Of course this isn't popular so, at the same time, the governments takes measures to appear to try to keep prices lower. It is a political balancing act and subsidies are not incompatible with a policy of encouraging lower usage.

It's the same as they are doing on immigration: They say they want to lower it but the actual policy is to keep it high. People have understood that now, which explains in big part the Conservative wipe out. Labour is now on the same path.
by stavros | 2025-09-01 11:41:58+00:00
I use Claude Code with the Max plan, and the experience isn't far off from what you describe. You still need to understand the system and review the implementation, because it makes many mistakes.

That's not the part it saves me time in, it saves me time in looking up the documentation. Other than that, it might be slower, because the larger the code change is, the more time I need to spend reviewing, and past a point I just can't be bothered.

The best way I've found is to have it write small functions, and then I tell it to compose them together. That way, I know exactly what's happening in the code, and I can trust that it works correctly. Cursor is probably a better way to do that than Claude Code, though.
by the_other | 2025-09-01 11:42:21+00:00
Weirdly, when the market was smaller, when there was less money available, developers DID support multiple platforms.

Today, when we have significantly fast tools, more standards, more shared knowledge, and MUCH more noney moving through the ecosystem, yet somehow it’s harder to support more platforms.

There’s a problem either at the level we’re talking about (the mono/duo-polies), or perhaps one level higher (national economies). My hunch is that it’s the same problems that are widening wealth gaps the world over (not just in the tech industry), but I’m open to other ideas.
by BiteCode_dev | 2025-09-01 11:43:03+00:00
But if they were, they would never have become what they are in the first place, including the good things.

States are neither good at innovation nor dynamism.

But they are very good at telling you what you should and should not do.

The latter part has some wonderful consequences for consumer or worker protections, but it has some terrible ones for creating new stuff or improving the old.
by Aachen | 2025-09-01 11:43:21+00:00
Thanks for providing a concrete example where this is indeed the case! You're right, and I'm aware of this, but the scenario is quite constrained. This matters when:

1. The attacker either captures the OTPs on the real website, or on a phishing page. They do not have access to either the website's store of 2FA tokens, nor your password vault.

and

2a. Having you enter one or two OTPs on the login page is not enough. The phishing page can claim "wrong OTP, you can try again in 30 seconds" to get at least two codes. The attacker can open a login session and go to down immediately when you enter it, but if there is a protocol where there's a delay of e.g. 24 hours, they would need to phish you again after 24 hours and that's unusual for them to bother with (beyond opportunistically) as far as I know

or

2b. The attack isn't automated and the attacker is also not laying in wait for someone to fall for the phishing (like when having sent 10 phishing emails and waiting for one employee to bite such that they can get into an organisation). In that case, the OTP almost certainly has expired and can't be used anymore

While #1 is common, #2 is rare as far as I'm aware. Once you're into an account, you usually can navigate to e.g. a transaction page within a few seconds and then enter the same OTP¹ again (because the time window hasn't expired yet) or ask the user for a new one a few seconds later as described

A great protection against this would be a device that displays what it is that you're authorising, such as these old bank card readers that show on a little screen like "login" or "transaction of 1337€ to NL00RABO0123456789", but these go well beyond the standard 2FA seeds that you can store in a vault

Either way, you're right, there is this benefit of having 2FA even if you store them together. If this is within one's threat model, but theft of your vault is not as big a concern, it's a valid solution

¹Yes, OTP can never be the "same" by definition. But this works in 9 out of 10 customer sites that we see (security consultancy firm; thoughts are my own yada yada)
by tome | 2025-09-01 11:43:49+00:00
Have you seen my effect system Bluefin? It sounds like exactly what you're describing:

https://hackage-content.haskell.org/package/bluefin-0.0.16.0...

Happy to answer any questions about it, either here, or if you open an issue: https://github.com/tomjaguarpaw/bluefin/issues/new
by theshrike79 | 2025-09-01 11:44:13+00:00
But if my goal is to ride Downhill[0] me exhausting myself riding up the hill isn't bringing any extra enjoyment for me.

With electric assist, I can get up faster and to the business of coming down the hill really fast.

We have ski-lifts for the exact same reason. People doing downhill skiing would make their legs, heart and lungs stronger in the process of walking up the hill with their skis. But who wants to do that, that's not the fun part.

And to step back from analogy-land.

I'm paid to solve problems, I'm good at architecture, I can design services, I can also write the code to do so. But in most cases the majority of the code I write is just boilerplate crap with minor differences.

With LLMs I can have them write the Terraform deployment code, write the C# CRUD Controller classes and data models and apply the Entity Framework migrations. It'll do all that and add all the fancy Swagger annotation while it's at it. It'll even whip up a Github build action for me.

Now I've saved a few days of mindless typing and I can get into solving the actual problem at hand, the one I'm paid to do. In reality I'm doing it _while_ I'm instructing the LLM to do the menial crap + reviewing the code it produced so I'm moving at twice the speed I would be normally.

"But can't you just..." nope, if every project was _exactly_ the same, I'd have a template already, there are just enough differences to not make it worth my time[1]. If I had infinite time and money, I could build a DSL to do this, but again, referring to [1] - there's no point =)

It's more cost efficient to pay the LLM tax to OpenAI, Anthropic or whatever and use it as a bespoke bootstrapping system for projects.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downhill_mountain_biking

[1] https://xkcd.com/1319/
The module consumer-pgmq to consume messages from Supabase/Postgres queue
by tiagorosadacost | 2025-09-01 11:44:42+00:00
Hi everyone!

I’m here today to show you the node.js module consumer-pgmq I created. The module took the responsibility of polling the messages and passing the messages to a handler function to process.

Why I created it?

Recently I discovered a feature queue on Supabase where I can implement a messaging queue using Postgresql database.

Spoiler if you have a Postgresql running out of Supabase you can use the queue feature too, you need only install the extension named pgmq. Link of instructions: https://lnkd.in/dii-Q7Wv

But I noticed something missing on my opinion I didn’t find a package on Npm to make the polling from the message and passing to a function I defined to execute something, so as result of it I created the npm package named consumer-pgmq where integrate with Supabase and Postgresql

What did I learned?

- Github actions + semantic-release to update the release and generate the versions of my module based on the git commits. PS: the version generated is based on the semantic version. - Github actions to automate the process to build and publish the module on Npm. - Use the AbortController class on Node.js to stop the asynchronous(Promise) processes if it takes a long time to execute. - I reviewed the EventEmitter

Link of module on Npm: https://www.npmjs.com/package/consumer-pgmq Link of Github repository: https://github.com/tiago123456789/consumer-pgmq