MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
Ask HN: Private Discords – Invite Only
by kaicianflone | 2025-09-25 20:58:06+00:00
Hello I am looking for Private Discord servers with KYC for founders and engineers.

Kind of tired of the enshitified social media apps with people hiding behind anonymous usernames. I am looking for deeper connection to my beliefs and the role I work in. Also good conversation never gets old.

Best

Kai
by bratsche | 2025-09-25 20:58:13+00:00
I play viola, and usually it's only the cello suites that are played on viola. But I fell in love with the sonatas and partitas. They're just incredible. The only one that I ever learned fully and performed was the second partita. Of course, on viola you have to play them down a 5th but they still work beautifully and sound great.
by DangitBobby | 2025-09-25 20:58:21+00:00
It seems you're implying that since being a billionaire is not 100% heritable, it must be a result of individual merit (leap 1) which is purely synonymous with skillfully allocating resources (leap 2) more than any other type of person (leap 3) rather than any other explanation for how they got there, say, sociopathy, right place right time, etc.
by anon7000 | 2025-09-25 20:58:25+00:00
This is essentially just how capitalism works. Money is the only priority. So in ANY market where the financial incentive opposes human well-being, humans will suffer. That’s true in healthcare, where we’re often getting a worse product which is more expensive. While in other industries like consumer electronics, the incentives are aligned and humans are getting better products for cheaper.

The PE firm is a great representation of why monopolies eradicate the positive incentives in capitalism.

And this only happens after a long time and companies have had a chance to centralize vast amounts of money and power. Since there is no point that’s “good enough,” these massive companies are forced to continue growing by cutting costs (worse services, lower salary, fewer employees, closing locations) or doing absurd tricks like stock buy-backs to make their shareholders and executives very wealthy.

It’s literally impossible to avoid this situation without strong consumer protection and anti-trust regulation because the incentives for massive companies are so deeply unaligned with human well-being and society’s best interests.

We can either take strong action against massive companies or accept that this trend will inevitably get worse. It’s called late stage capitalism for a good reason
by palata | 2025-09-25 20:58:26+00:00
> Unless you want to scan all chat messages for potential signs of adults engaging in grooming of children too?

Well, the point is to scan all messages, period.

And then to detect those that come from predators, not adults. How often do parents convince their children to send... revealing pictures? Or to meet them somewhere? How often do parents introduce themselves to their children in messages?

You can't seriously believe that a conversation between parents and children always looks like a conversation between a predator and children, can you?
by daveguy | 2025-09-25 20:58:34+00:00
> The largest component of "mandatory" spending is health spending (e.g. Medicare), and it certainly isn't the case that Medicare is fully optimized. For example, is it overpaying for anything?

Yeah, it's over paying for private equity vultures who overcharge to extra maximum profit from healthcare. But that's reform that sorely needs to happen by the government reigning in those private companies not to the government. By trying to "drown [the government] in the bathtub" like Norquist advocated, project 2025 asshats are damaging our country.

Some things are mandatory only if you love your neighbor.
by alex77456 | 2025-09-25 20:58:59+00:00
I disagree with a lot here.

- I don't know anyone understanding Hell literally. Besides, while body decays, mind is what perceives pain (of various kinds). If anything, mental pain has potential to be much worse than physical.

> So what do people fear?

They fear to lose what they have, their life - all they know.

> The opposite of fearing death is to love life

I think the opposite is to not fear death.
by josephg | 2025-09-25 20:59:01+00:00
Yep I second this. I have a K1 (I think) with blue switches. The switches are the most important choice - since that controls the entire feel of using the keyboard. When I first got mine, I got red switches. But red switches don’t give you any tactile feedback when it passes the threshold to be considered “pressed”. I swapped to blues and I love them. Very satisfyingly clicky. They’re a bit loud though. Swapping switches is easy - I think the replacement set of blues just set me back $20 or something.

If there are any computer shops you can go in person to try them out, I highly recommend it. They make a lot of different switches and the feel is a very tactile, personal thing. (Though I think I’d also be happy with yellow or brown switches after some time with them!)
by Capricorn2481 | 2025-09-25 20:59:12+00:00
The problem with conspiracy theorists is they thrive on the truth being just out of reach. Blatant corruption is not interesting to them, it has to be something slightly unknowable.

So when the richest person in the world, who is part of a party that controls all three branches of government and the military, tells you "Oopsie, we actually can't cut the important stuff because we might get in trouble," you guys actually eat it up.
by conradludgate | 2025-09-25 20:59:35+00:00
Hard disagree. I've found this way of working benefits both me and my colleagues.

I'm able to work on long lived branches without getting into conflict hell because when I rebase, I'm only dealing with small conflicts.

I'm able to slim down initially large changes into smaller total diffs because I realised one change wasn't actually necessary, but only because I took the time to reflect on the code and separate the concerns

Being able to separate your code into smaller units is a really great tool, and helps you really understand your own code changes in a new light. Amusingly despite me often rewriting the same code 3 times, I feel like I've never been more productive (and no, I don't use any LLMs)
by blaze33 | 2025-09-25 20:59:40+00:00
I regularly see similar articles with similar comments here, but there's one thing I still don't understand:

From the European Convention on Human Rights[1]:

ARTICLE 8 Right to respect for private and family life 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

So I wonder, what is the legal argument solid enough to justify interfering with everybody's right to privacy?

My layman understanding of the usual process is like, we want surveillance over those people and if it seems reasonable a judge might say ok but for a limited time. Watching everyone's communications also seems at odds with the principle of proportionality[2].

[1]https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Convention_ENG

[2]https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12...
by ssl-3 | 2025-09-25 21:00:00+00:00
"For that price, you can just use an old laptop" has been true ever since the OG Raspberry Pi showed up ~13 years ago.

And that's great, and stuff, if what a person wants is the most compute they can get for the fewest dollars possible.

But when someone instead wants a quite small computer that is actually friendly to hardware tinkering, and they want to buy it new, then a used Thinkpad will not scratch that itch -- but a new Raspberry Pi will.

(It's a bad comparison. It always has been a bad comparison.)
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-09-25 21:00:09+00:00
> What puzzles me about the SV venture capital crowd, though, is that they're usually a somewhat socially liberal crowd

Silicon Valley has had a monarchist element for at least a decade now. I've been commenting on it for a while. It masked itself in the language of libertarianism. (Note: not all libertarians are monarchists.) But 2024 outed them (Andreessen, Musk, the All In crowd, et cetera) for the bastards that they are.
by Kranar | 2025-09-25 21:00:16+00:00
Rules changed in 2003, but until then medical residency programs routinely had doctors working 100+ hours a week or longer. In 2003 a cap of 80 hours a week was instituted along with a maximum of 24 hours in any given period, but programs found various loopholes around that cap which still had doctors working close to 100 hours a week. So further restrictions were placed so that over any 4 week period there's a hard cap of 320 hours, no exceptions.

At any rate, for most of the HN crowd who work a fairly routine IT or an office job, 80+ hours sustained for months and months might seem impossible, but join the military, work on a ship, work on a farm, work the oil fields, work in investment banking, work in a film crew which threatened to go on strike in 2021 for having 98 hour work weeks for months on end... and you find that while it's not common, it certainly happens in various fields.
by pcrh | 2025-09-25 21:00:37+00:00
You are correct.

Inflation affects the value of all assets whose value is frequently traded using currency (which is most of stock markets, property, etc). To argue otherwise would be to deny the seriously negative impact high inflation can have on all aspects of the economy.

There are assets whose value is mostly not financial, e.g. physical, social, intellectual, or otherwise. These retain their value despite inflation.

Nevertheless, I aimed to show that a modest 1% tax is not onerous compared to other impacts on accumulated wealth.
by wicket | 2025-09-25 21:00:46+00:00
A couple of details missing from the article:

- Intel quietly introduced their implementation of amd64 under the name "EM64T". It was only later that they used the name "Intel64".

- Early Itanium processors included hardware features, microcode and software that implemented an IA‑32 Execution Layer (dynamic binary translation plus microcode assists) to run 32‑bit x86 code; while the EL often ran faster than direct software emulation, it typically lagged native x86 performance and could be worse than highly‑optimised emulators for some workloads or early processor steppings.
by drnick1 | 2025-09-25 21:00:59+00:00
What's the point of this? Most of us here on HN probably already own good to god tier mechanical keyboards. If I really wanted a Pi (I don't), I would get a VESA mount for it. But you have to keep it mind that Pi's can't even play 4k videos at 60fps reliably and are kind of a terrible choice for general desktop use against N100 (or later) mini-PCs, or even used thin clients like ThinkCenters with laptop CPUs that are far more capable.
by nine_k | 2025-09-25 21:01:00+00:00
The editor does not seem to allow to move nodes, nor does it allow to delete a node, or at least to delete the last node of a chain. This makes the editing process more like a puzzle + skill game. One wrong click, and you have to redo from start. Or put every segment on a separate map, and be good at mentally combining them.

But well, it is an addictive game! :)
by dotancohen | 2025-09-25 21:01:25+00:00
> You're right, Gaza was not occupied. It was an open-air prison where people are not allowed to enter or leave, aid was severely restricted,

You can pin that as much on Egypt, an Arab and Muslim state, as you can on Israel.

> and the IDF adopted a policy of "mowing the grass" which was to cull the population periodically. That's worse, but I'm not sure that's the point you were trying to make.

I've heard the phrase mowing the grass. It clearly referred to the Hamas leadership. You can make up interpretations all you want, but I read the sources in both Hebrew (כן, אני מדבר עברית) and Arabic (وانا بحكي عربي كمان). I know exactly what was said, and what was meant. It's usually very clear.

> And if you're only other point is to accuse me of something I never said about an event that was debunked several times, whereas the actual kidnapping and burning of Palestinian babies, women, children, and men is well documented and still ongoing, I think that's all we need to know.

Israel does not deliberately target Palestinian children - there is no benefit to that. Do you know who does benefit when Palestinian children die? Hamas does. They say it clearly. If you really cared about children - Palestinian and Israeli - then you would not perpetuate the blood libel against the side that until recently went out of its way to protect children.
by JdeBP | 2025-09-25 21:01:39+00:00
It's even more complex than that. Legally, on paper and in court, Musk was not the DOGE Administrator (the officer that the Executive Order actually named) in the first place. There was a whole "Who is the head of DOGE?" question raised back in February 2025.

* https://youtube.com/watch?v=0ziKJQC32qk

* https://lawfaremedia.org/article/who-is-running-the-u.s.-dog...

* https://lawfaremedia.org/article/lawfare-daily--witaod

Wikipedia writers, for one, currently accept that Amy Gleason was and is actually in charge.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Gleason
by kibwen | 2025-09-25 21:02:10+00:00
> In C I wouldn't use such a fluffy high-level approach in the first place.

Sure, though that's because C has abstraction like Mars has a breathable atmosphere.

> This approach leads to straightforward, efficient architecture and bug-free code. It's also much better for concurrency/parallelism.

This claim is wild considering that Rust code is more bug-free than C code while being just as efficient, while keeping in mind that Rust makes parallelism so much easier than C that it's stops being funny and starts being tragic.
by 1718627440 | 2025-09-25 21:02:13+00:00
> Huh, don't think I've heard that commitment before. Do you mean that the GCC devs intend for -fanalyzer to (eventually?) guarantee catching all exploitable UB (which would be... ambitious, to say the least), or that -fanalyzer is a best-effort analysis? The docs currently state the latter more or less ("It is neither sound nor complete: it can have false positives and false negatives.")

Both actually. Any UB exploits not catched by -fanalyzer would need to be disabled. However I can't find a reference to this, so maybe my memory is deceiving me.

When writing Frama-C what I was thinking of was actually PVS-Studio (https://pvs-studio.com/), as this can also be used by students. It's also more of a standalone linter.

>> It is up to the programmer to ensure that the lifetime of a `dependent` reference is contained within the lifetime of the corresponding `owned` reference.

Yes, this is an escape hatch, when the pointer shenanigans can't be fully described. But I heard Rust also has those. If you want your program to be described by ownership semantics, you will make use of this less and less.

> named lifetimes support

I don't know enough Rust, but from what I read at https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch10-03-lifetime-syntax.html, yes it does. Specifying that the 'lifetime' of the return value corresponds to a parameter happens with the `returned` annotation. The cool thing in SPlint is that you can describe the lifetime of param1.foo.bar[0..42] . It also has several types of 'lifetimes': allocated, readable and writable which is useful to represent uninitialized memory, meaning after a function call some stuff is newly uninitialized, that before the call wasn't. You also can combine this with parameters, so you can say that param1.baz[0..param2] is writable and param1.baz[0..param3] is readable and also that readable param1.baz[0..X] and writable param1.baz[0..Y] always means that X > Y.

It doesn't use the term 'lifetime', but talks about owned, allocated, initialized, readable and writable memory. In addition it also supports adding other properties, so much more then 'lifetimes' can be tracked. The manual shows as an example how it can be used to track variables that are tainted by user input (10.1). What I think is missing though, are conditionals on the return value.

How much of these features can be written in Rust? (Honest question)

> view struct support

I don't know really what these are. Maybe I already described that above?
by lproven | 2025-09-25 21:02:14+00:00
You are mixing up several different computers here.

> Maybe they meant the ZX Spectrum II

No. There was never never a "Spectrum II".

The second model after the original 16K and 48K was the ZX Spectrum Plus, in a keyboard derived from the 1984 Sinclair QL design.

http://www.retro8bitcomputers.co.uk/Sinclair/ZXSpectrumPlus

Then the 3rd model was the ZX Spectrum 128, in the same keyboard, but with more ports and a large external heatsink.

https://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/2584/sinclair-zx-spe...

> known to some as “The Toaster” for some reason.

Nope. The 128 was known as the "toastrack" for the heatsink.

> Rubber keyboard, I heard it referred to as dead-flesh.

Not since the Plus model, no.

After the 128, Amstrad bought the brand. It launched the ZX Spectrum +2 and +3.

https://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/3648/Sinclair-ZX-Spe...

https://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/509/Sinclair-ZX-Spec...

Those are the closest to the nonexistent model number "II" but they do not have the QL-derived keyboard.
by Gormo | 2025-09-25 21:02:16+00:00
No such thing as "democratic constraints" or "democratic society" at the level you're discussing. Democracy is an imperfect safeguard against certain types of extreme dysfunction of the political system -- a necessary one for sure, but not nearly sufficient to make the institutions it applies to trustworthy with monopolistic control over other aspects of society.

Everything reduces to specific people acting on their a priori motivations in bounded contexts, and any system of centralized control is guaranteed to enable expressions of the worst motivations of the people involved. The distinctions you're making -- "private" vs. "public", "corporations" vs. "governments", etc. -- are fundamentally meaningless.

There are no "democratic norms", just norms adhered to by specific people and the factions they form, contesting against each other for power over others. Performative "democracy" is often just cover to allow the currently dominant factions to function as "dictatorships".

Decentralization and individual autonomy are the only solution to the problems you rightly care about, but what you're proposing is literally the opposite of that.
by d3n14ld15k | 2025-09-25 21:02:17+00:00
TL;DR:

– Discovered a dev config JSON on nasa endpoint revealing open S3 bucket

– Bucket contained app.zip with JS source + hardcoded API key

– Triaged Informational by NASA via Bugcrowd; data intended to be public

– Lessons: never leave secrets in client code, secure S3 permissions, audit staging assets

Full write-up: https://medium.com/@d3n14ld15k/exposing-sensitive-data-on-na...
by joe_the_user | 2025-09-25 21:02:23+00:00
If you are not aware yet, if you think you need to go to the ER think about what you NEED, is your arm broken?

Just noticed this comment. Wow, free ideology seems to turn people into monsters. "No you" (in kids voice). You diagnose your own heart-attack/kidney-failure/etc. I'll take a professional.
by troupo | 2025-09-25 21:02:33+00:00
> Not this again. That study had serious problems.

The problem is, there are very few if any other studies.

All the hype around LLMs we are supposed to just believe. Any criticism is "this study has serious problems".

> It’s like, a robot vacuum might take way longer

> Coding work that I used to procrastinate

Note how your answer to "the study had serious problems" is totally problem-free analogies and personal anecdotes.
by catigula | 2025-09-25 21:02:35+00:00
I'm glad you realize how silly that word has become. In reality, groups of people via culture or whatever other mechanism do generate certain things that are undeserving or deserving of censure. For example, due to cultural reasons, 1930-1940s Germany produced a high preponderance of Nazis, so we destroyed them.

I'm not suggesting cultural destruction is possible or desireable (maybe it is, but it's not my purview), but if a culture is producing a large preponderance of murderous ethnic supremacists it's time to sound the alarm bells. This entire thing wouldn't have been possible if that community didn't make it so.

This is especially compounded given that this group feels above critique from outsiders. That is a dangerous concoction and unfortunately the end result is wanton murder and redirection of resources to abet it. I think we're all about sick of the killing now. With great power comes great responsibility to be a moral agent.
by mateo411 | 2025-09-25 21:02:59+00:00
I agree.

When you have a large PR like this, here's how I like to get it reviewed.

1. Give reviewers sometime to become familiar with the PR. They might not understand all parts of it, but they should have at least a cursory understanding of the PR.

2. Have a meeting where the PR is explained in front of the group of reviewers. The reviewers will understand the PR better and they can ask questions in realtime.

3. Let folks review the PR after the meeting in case they spot anything else, or think of additional questions.

Most of the time PR review is done asynchronously, but doing most of the review in the meeting can also be a decent team building exercise.
by epcoa | 2025-09-25 21:03:03+00:00
"can competently treat cancer, they can certainly treat the overwhelming majority of reasons"

No this claim, just because, is not weight-bearing. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And I don't understand the motivation to make such a tenuous link when at a bare minimum one can look up direct data like joint commision and MPSMS safety data and related publications. There is tremendous variability in serious hospital safety events inter-institution for bread and butter admissions. One can further just examine CMS and NHS data for mortality and readmission for "mundane" MI, HF, sepsis, pneumonia, respiratory failure. OB/GYN outcomes are their own thing.

The flaw in reasoning here is that quality of care and outcomes is strongly related to the simplicity of diagnosis. A further flaw is the belief that care is "commoditized". Treatment protocols vary widely across institutions and health systems, often times based on cost factors. Certain basic things can not be done at night, or even the day for fully accredited hospitals. There's a big difference somewhere with 24 hour anesthesia airway and in-house surgery and not just an intensivist "on call" 600 miles away and staff that can't even do RSI. Transfer is not always an option, there's a reason critically ill people die more frequently in the sticks. If one is admitted to a regional hospital, they are unlikely to be accepted for transfer to a safer hospital unless they truly need an intervention that absolutely cannot be provided where they are, not simply because there is better backup provider support and a higher standard of safety. They will still remain at that higher risk for sepsis, or outdated care because the community physician group doesn't keep up with guidelines, or that hospital only offers the inferior treatment (or a limited formulary) for cost-cutting reasons.

Breast cancer and most cancers are not even typical inpatient encounters. Breast cancer is generally not managed on an inpatient basis, in fact one may never even have to visit an inpatient hospital campus for breast cancer. Upgrades for cancer are usually different than acute inpatient care. Breast cancer does not usually involve abdominal, intrathoracic or orthopedic surgery. Breast cancer does not usually involve advanced interventions like endarterectomy, ECMO. Cancer is a special case. Regardless of complexity, extrapolating cancer treatment to even the most "mundane" acute inpatient or surgical care really is beyond ridiculous.

This is a complex subject and this is a silly hot take.