MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by francisduvivier | 2025-09-01 06:17:52+00:00
Yes true :D, I kind of just want to blame gpt-5 mini for it and that's one of the bad things about the bad coding, I immediately loose part of the sense of ownership and responsibility. I don't feel like I made it, I just managed it.

Now to be honest I saw this bug, but I decided to just release it anyways because I also already had the v2 in the works which incidentally already had this issue fixed.
by safety1st | 2025-09-01 06:18:56+00:00
I'm going to get wild-eyed now but you can blame Google for that as they're the ones who just announced they'll retroactively ban me from installing software on the computer I bought and own.

I don't think you can really solve this problem as long as there's an operating system monopoly, or even duopoly/triopoly. The lure of total control is just too great. Every operating system vendor, hell every intellectual property vendor will always dream of it. A company that becomes powerful enough to put chains on its users will do so.

From the British Raj to Standard Oil to IBM and Microsoft, monopolies are some of the most powerful forces in history. There is a case to be made that we were on a similar path with Microsoft until a combination of the Internet and a half-assed but not completely ineffective anti-trust campaign made them hit the brakes, for a while.

I think that the solution is to highlight the abuses perpetrated by the biggest tech giants specifically, and advocate for radical government action on multiple levels. #1 to break up these companies. #2, to shackle them and anyone who gets as large as them so that they can't do anything like this again. #3, publicly fund the development of competing, open operating systems.

If you are a US citizen then #1 and #2 are the more realistic paths and you should be watching the various anti-trust cases against Big Tech like a hawk, the celebrity du jour is really Amit Mehta who is scheduled to release his Google remedies any day now. You need to make it clear to your representatives that this is your top issue at the ballot box. We need a second American Progressive Era that's seasoned with digital rights and anti-megacorp sentiment and with "doomscroll" and "Luigi" having entered the vernacular I think we could be closer than many here believe.

If you are an EU or Chinese citizen you should support the development and adoption in those polities of alternative, Linux-based operating systems. In the way the South Korean government specifically encouraged the growth of Samsung into a company with a global footprint, you should do that for local companies which develop OSes that compete with Apple and Google's. These geographies fundamentally can't do much to influence the American legal system so they should instead lean into public sentiment around nationalism and sovereignty and tie these to software freedom because that is likely the only elemental, emotional force that will capture enough public attention and support. Use state-scale resources to create competition for the American tech giants and establish a balance of power, because they are assuredly your enemies at this point.

And lastly for the ten millionth time I'll say it - Stallman predicted this. He saw it all coming. He warned us. He told us what would happen and what we needed to do. It's time to listen and to think big.
by Eduard | 2025-09-01 06:19:46+00:00
this isn't solely about the aspect you're hinting at: plenty of smart appliances are effectively useless/inoperarive if not interacted with with their accompanying proprietary (shitty) smartphone app. Developing an alternative app requires reverse engineering; that's when you realize the current state of the art is obfuscating and encrypting each and every network layer even for gadgets as mundane as an RGB mood light.
by josephg | 2025-09-01 06:20:00+00:00
> It's for you as well. You think they're going to stop?

No! Which is why I don't want every npm package I install to have unfettered access to my internet connection and to access all my files. If this is being exploited now, I might not even know! How sloppy is that!

> You're giving up freedom for safety.

At the limit, sure, maybe there are tradeoffs between freedom and security. But there's lots of technical solutions that we could build right now that give a lot more safety without losing any freedom at all.

Like sandboxing applications by default. Applications should by default run on my computer with the same permissions as a browser tab. Occasionally applications need more access than that. But that should require explicit privilege escalation rather than being granted to all programs by default. (Why do I need to trust that spotify and davinci resolve won't install keyloggers on my computer? Our computers are so insecure!)

Personally I'd like to see all access to the OS happen through a capability model. This would require changes in the OS and in programming languages. But the upside is it would mean we could fearlessly install software. And if you do it right, even `npm install` could be entirely safe. Here's how we do it: First, all syscalls need to pass unforgable capability tokens. (Eg SeL4). No more "stringy" syscalls. For safe 3rd party dependencies, inside processes we first make an "application capability" that is passed to main(). 3rd party libraries don't get access to any OS objects at all by default. But - if you want to use a 3rd party library to do something (like talk to redis), your program crafts a capability token with access to that specific thing and then passes it to the library as an argument.

Bad:

// Stringy API. Redis client can do anything. redisClient.connect("127.0.0.1", 6379)

Good:

redisConnCap = systemCap.narrow(TCPConnect, "127.0.0.1", 6379) redisClient.connect(redisConnCap)

This way, the redis library can only make outgoing connections on the specified TCP port. Everything else - including the filesystem - is off limits to this library.

This would require some PL level changes too. Like, it wouldn't be secure if libraries can access arbitrary memory within your process. In a language like rust we'd need to limit unsafe code. (And maybe other stuff?). In GC languages like C# and javascript its easier - though we might need to tweak the standard libraries. And ban (or sandbox) native modules like napi and cgo.
by blackoil | 2025-09-01 06:20:06+00:00
I think it has to do with mental model. If you already know what to write and it is reasonably complex you'll have a mental model ready and can quickly write it down (now even faster as LLMs autocomplete 3-4 lines at a time). While reading someone else code you'll have to constantly map the code in your mind with code written and have to then compare quality, security and other issues.
by AdieuToLogic | 2025-09-01 06:20:10+00:00
> There's no such thing as an individual conscious self that persists over time - it is always a misconception and an illusion.

If individual consciousness does not persist over time, how does one explain existence from one day to the next? Or learning from one situation to the next?

And how is consciousness "a misconception and an illusion?"

> Consciousness is just something that living beings do, not something that they "are".

This implies a lack of awareness of self, which is fundamental to the definition of consciousness. And if a being is aware of itself, then they "are".

> It's an impersonal phenomenon ... not a state of being.

If individual consciousness does not qualify as "a state of being", then whatever could?
by FranzFerdiNaN | 2025-09-01 06:21:13+00:00
If the Christians offered to the emperor and participated in state rituals they wouldn’t have been persecuted and executed. There were plenty of cults and religions and most were absolutely fine. The problem was that the Christians placed themselves outside of the normal structures. That was a Big Deal.

The rest, I dunno what happened but you seem to have some chip on your shoulder about the Romans. Nothing they did was out of the ordinary considering the times, or even compared to very recent times.
Help Hacked Facebook – All Meta Accounts Disabled
by ericacarr | 2025-09-01 06:21:41+00:00
Yesterday morning, my Facebook account was hacked. The hackers posted content that violated Community Guidelines (child porn——phy), and as a result, my account was permanently disabled despite my appeal. My Facebook right now, doesn’t exist anymore. Since my Instagram was linked to the same email, it was also disabled - and unfortunately, the hackers changed the email address, so I can't recover it myself or save my account history.

I’m an artist, and have been using instagram for a decade now to get work and keep in touch in with the industry… so I NEED to recover my account.

If anyone has experience with this, or knows/is someone at Meta Facebook Instagram who could help me escalate my case, I would be incredibly grateful.
by gyomu | 2025-09-01 06:21:51+00:00
Yes, this is a key thing to clarify anytime these conversations take place.

The reason we want to preserve the environment, biodiversity, all that jazz is FOR US. It’s for our own comfort and survival that we should care about not polluting, stopping climate change, etc.

The planet and life on it will be just fine, it made it through many extinction events and will make it through many more.
by wakawaka28 | 2025-09-01 06:22:09+00:00
ccache speeds up compilation of single files by quite a lot, by effectively avoiding unnecessary recompilation. There are distributed caches that work like ccache too. Compiling a file for a second or fiftieth time with no changes because of doing a clean build is the absolute most common case. Maybe zapcc does additional caching of compiler internal state, but I would have to look into it to see if it's actually good enough. Also, ccache works with many compilers, whereas zapcc is its own compiler. That is a huge advantage.
by zozbot234 | 2025-09-01 06:22:32+00:00
Sure, but do you really want people flying a plane when their performance might depend on how they happen to react to that kind of medication? It's just one more thing that can go wrong in so many ways. And it's not like flying airline routes is a job that would even appeal to the typical ADHD-diagnosed person - like GP said, its "bread and butter" is sticking to boring checklists. There might be some silly glamorous aspect to it but that's not a good reason why one should want to be a pilot in the first place.
by socalgal2 | 2025-09-01 06:23:23+00:00
git stash is not that simple. you'd need to remember what branch that stash applies to to get back to where you were.

I'm new to jj. I'm still mixed on if I like it not. I think it's mostly familiarity. For example, switching to a commit puts things in the state before the files were committed. All my projects have a presumit step that says "hey! commit your files!" so they are all incompatible with jj at the moment or at leas the default. I end up having to do temp stuff like `jj new` (ok, now they're committed). Now run my presubmit scripts. Then `jj undo` so I don't have this unneeded commit. That said, I'm sure there's a better way, I just haven't gotten used jj yet.

Others have said this, `jj undo` and `jj op restore` have been lifesavers though. No matter what I do I can get back to where I was before I messed up.
by notepad0x90 | 2025-09-01 06:24:28+00:00
They have one of the largest Linux user base out there in Azure. They have their own distro. My favorite Linux memory forensics tool (AVML) is made by them. Sysmon for Linux uses eBPF which makes it a tad-bit more powerful than auditd,etc..

If you can't beat'em join'em!
by Cthulhu_ | 2025-09-01 06:24:31+00:00
> A rebase may unintentionally overwrite someone's work

Since you're rebasing, you're intending stuff; nothing is lost until you force-push.

> A force-push to trunk breaks every other developer's working copy.

Which is why you avoid it and set the remote main branch to protected. You can't force push by accident, you intend to forcibly overwrite the remote branch.
by raylu | 2025-09-01 06:24:49+00:00
I'm having a hard time understanding your question. are you asking how people who are unfamiliar with git and jj should mentally model a stack of PRs? and that this is a problem because it's intimidating for them when an expert (in git? in the codebase?) is reviewing their code?

if yes:

while jj does make stacked PRs quite easy, I think this tutorial is mostly aimed at people who are still getting their feet wet and not making stacks of PRs. and if the expert is intimidating, tell them to be helpful or fuck off

if no:

well I don't understand your question, but probably don't `jj edit` the commit at the bottom of a stack; `jj new` and, when you're ready, either `jj squash` it down or `jj rebase -s @ -A @-` your change into the stack instead
by FranzFerdiNaN | 2025-09-01 06:25:11+00:00
> Those who wrote the prophesy understood that freedom of belief was key to the existence of the empire

No. Don’t project American ideals on the past.

There was no freedom of belief like we would consider it. You were mostly free to belief what you wanted, but certain rituals and offers were a huge deal that had to be done. If you didn’t do that or participated in it you were considered a danger to the stability of society. It’s what the Christians found out.
by spacedcowboy | 2025-09-01 06:25:29+00:00
If the laws in different jurisdictions are incompatible (for example with end-to-end encryption, which is either “end-to-end” or “not-end-to-end”) then the product offering that service will simply have to be different in the two jurisdictions.

I know that Apple, for example, has iCloud and iCloud-in-china. Seems like a pain to manage, but they could presumably offer iCloud-in-Europe and iCloud-in-UK (though the UK seem to have backed off with their demands now).

Where it becomes interesting is for interaction, if an EU person tries to (for example) use e2e-iMessage to a US person or vice-versa. With this decision, does the service simply disallow the message if the jurisdictions disagree on the definition of E2E ?

What about things like Gmail’s escrowed private keys in email ? Where the Gmail server owns the private keys (so the server can provide search etc. on encrypted email). This isn’t E2E by a strict definition, it’s only “almost” E2E and “almost: doesn’t cut it, but if the server can’t read the email, you lose a lot of Gmail functionality…
by bubblebeard | 2025-09-01 06:25:46+00:00
The author makes a good point but for the wrong reason I think. The fact that companies lock down their software, and hardware (looking at you Apple), is their choice just like it is yours to give them the finger.

However, at least in Sweden, a smart phone is practically mandatory since it has become a means of identification used by banks, police, our IRS counterpart etc. Even our physical mail is slowly being digitalised, and these services practically require you to own a smart phone. You can get by without one, but it’s a real struggle.

Therefore there should be laws requiring more transparency of these devices, in my opinion.
by snuxoll | 2025-09-01 06:26:10+00:00
Assuming you're lucky in a couple of different ways, as regulations around stimulants in many countries really screws people with the executive functioning issues caused by ADHD.

Running out? Your physician needs to write a new prescription, since they can't write one with multiple refills. Maybe your physician will write multiple with "don't fill before" dates on them, but overzealous regulators make many uncomfortable writing more than your next 28-30 days of medication.

Called your physician and got them to send your new script in? Hope your pharmacist isn't an ass, because some will straight up refuse to fill until the exact day you run out. Oh, and hope they have it in stock - because limits regulators and/or distributors put on ordering make the lives of retail pharmacies just buying these medications a special kind of hell.

I've been extremely lucky, my physician wisely writes me 28 day scripts so I can consistently time my requests for a new prescription be written, so every fourth Monday I send him a message and no later than Wednesday I get a text saying it's been sent to my pharmacy. The pharmacy I get my medication filled at doesn't treat me like I'm scum that's going to be selling my medication, so I can easily pick up my next 28-day supply a few days before I would run out if it works better for my schedule. But more than once I've had to play the game of figuring out which store actually has my medication in stock, and have the script pulled and resent to a different location....
by zozbot234 | 2025-09-01 06:26:38+00:00
> If individual consciousness does not persist over time, how does one explain existence from one day to the next? Or learning from one situation to the next?

That's easy: consciousness piggybacks on memory, which is what really creates persistence over time. But an amnesiac can be conscious in the moment and not "learn from one situation to the next". Plenty of philosophers (including Western philosophers such as David Hume) have looked into this, and the account of individual persisting consciousness as a kind of misconception or illusion (or at least, a very rough "folk" theory of personal identity) is one that elegantly explains the data. That's before you get into the kind of deep inquiry into phenomenology that Eastern meditation practitioners would be deeply familiar with.
by FacelessJim | 2025-09-01 06:26:44+00:00
This reminds me of a little project [1] I had fun with to try and compute the sharpness of a position and/or evaluate whole lines. Indeed, the notion of sharpness (which I believe it’s different from complexity) although easy to intuit I’ve never found a satisfactory implementation.

[1] https://github.com/ghyatzo/stockfish-line-sharpness
by suddenlybananas | 2025-09-01 06:26:59+00:00
They voted 3 times to stay with France. At a certain point, you have to admit independence is a minoritarian position.

This is also a vote where people who had recently moved (e.g. in the last 30 years) to New Caledonia were ineligible to vote (including people born on New Caledonia if their parents couldn't vote). If Quebec had had similar restrictions on the franchise, they would have easily become independent from Canada.
by sdeframond | 2025-09-01 06:27:57+00:00
Yes that's correct, we can't just expect people to lead that struggle alone.

How about some regulation in the F&B industry? Reducing screen time at school? Those can be done now and don't really cost much.

And then make our cities pedestrian and bicycle friendly. More difficult but definitely a win.

Or would you rather pour billions hoping for a magic pill that solves it all? This is not realistic.
by jjaksic | 2025-09-01 06:28:39+00:00
Linus is not your boss in the sense that he pays you and can tell you what you do day o day, but he is your "boss" in the sense that he's the one who ultimately approves your work (which includes both your code and your conduct).

It's a "two-way street" (you can walk away as much as he), but you need to understand that this is not an equal relationship. It might have been if Linux did not yet have a file system and you were the only person who could build one. If that was the case, Linus might have swallowed his pride for the good of the project. But as it stands, Linux has existed for some 35 years without Bcachefs and can continue to do so. So the key stakeholders have simply decided that with this amount of friction, despite the technical advantages, it's not worth the trouble (yes, it is sad).

Very realistically and bluntly, you have 3 options: a) Learn to work Linus and other kernel maintainers in ways that are comparable with their work and processes. Remember, you're on their territory, and when in Rome, do as the Romans do. b) Keep and develop Bcachefs out of kernel. That way you can stay on your own turf and work on your terms, but Bcachefs is going to be a much less attractive and viable option, leave alone become the default fs. c) Have someone else do the integration work and collaboration with the kernel team.

These are your options, but a combination is also an option. I would probably recommend starting with option b first and finish the bulk of the work out of tree. Then once it's all done and ready to ship, try to get it into the kernel as politely and timely as possible (you shouldn't need any late commits this time). Continue developing new and experimental functionality out of tree to keep the number of PRs (and thus possible causes of friction) low. I don't know if at any point you'd want to ask someone else to interface with the kernel team. I think it's far preferable if you can learn to do it yourself. Knowing how to work with people (including difficult people) is an incredibly important and useful skill in almost anyone's career. Maybe find a communication/diplomacy mentor? I've never heard anyone complain about your engineering skills, but this is really holding you back.

Again and as always, thank you for your hard work. I wish you all the best and hope that some day we can all use Bcachefs by default.
by kelnos | 2025-09-01 06:30:01+00:00
> I cant imagine nation have enough power that can keep these thing for years just for historical standpoint

.su is one such domain. The Soviet Union of course no longer exists, but .su continues on. ICANN has told Russia they want to phase it out by 2030 (after Russia more or less refused to shut it down in the 90s), but who knows if that will happen.

.su even still accepts new domain registrations!

I think you can predict the average kind of people who wants a .su domain, though...
by josephg | 2025-09-01 06:30:07+00:00
Sure; but technical features can certainly make security better.

Like, iOS makes most unsafe actions incredibly clear. Apple pay always requires the user to double tap the power button. The OS makes it impossible for an application to charge you money through apple pay without an explicit user action.

Phone apps also can't take control of my entire device, or steal my cookies or cryptolocker my hard drive. Any program you download and run from the internet on a desktop computer can do all of this stuff and more. We shouldn't allow that stuff by default on desktop computers either.

Phones have the right idea. I just don't want Apple and Google to be the only ones who can modify the system at the OS level.
by tern | 2025-09-01 06:30:40+00:00
> It should be possible to run Android on an iPhone and manufacturers should be required by law to provide enough technical support and documentation to make the development of new operating systems possible

I was writing in reference to this quote ^

It would have been more accurate for me to say "support the development of arbitrary software stacks," but where do you draw the line between "supporting the development of" and "supporting"?