MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by AdieuToLogic | 2025-09-01 05:13:22+00:00
> Has anyone here had a life-changing moment and actually managed to stay changed?

A life-changing moment changes one's life by definition. Each time a person experiences one, they are changed in a way where who they were before they can remember, perhaps even look fondly upon, but know they are not that person anymore.

> Powerful story. But let's be real: after the "survivor's euphoria" fades, how do you actually keep that level of consciousness?

By living in the moment and remembering how you got there.
by tonyhart7 | 2025-09-01 05:13:28+00:00
well no one to force you to do banking from smartphones

You can do manually like the old days, EXPLICTLY ALLOWING NON GOOGLE/APPLE to do banking in their own mobile phone meaning THERE ARE MILLIONS OF USERS that can fall victim to scammer+cracker

how cant you see all of that???? ITS JUST NOT ABOUT YOU

edit: please educate first, y'all need to know differences between mobile banking and internet banking

You can downvote me all you want, but I don't want to hear lecture from non-security compliant engineer about what to do about security
by shmerl | 2025-09-01 05:15:19+00:00
Trying to guess what that chain is and putting printf's all around that path feels like doing a poor simulation of what debugger can do out of the box and unlike us - precisely. So I'd say it's exactly the opposite.

If you only care about some specific spot, then sure - printf is enough, but you also need to recompile things every time you add a new one or change debug related details, while debugger can do it re-running things without recompilation. So if anything, printf method can take more time.

Also, in debugger you can reproduce printf using REPL.
by matheusmoreira | 2025-09-01 05:15:31+00:00
> Everything from banks to Netflix and others are slowly edging out anything where they can't fully verify the chain of control to an entity they can have a legal or contractual relationship with.

We need to make that illegal. Classify it as discrimination. They should be obligated to treat any client that tries to connect the same as they would treat their own software. Anything else is illegal discrimination against users, a crime comparable to racial discrimination.

Anything short of this means they've won. Everything the word "hacker" ever stood for will be destroyed. Throw all FOSS into the trash. None of it matters anymore. What's the point of free software that we can't run? That can't actually do anything useful because it fails remote attestation? Completely useless.
by p0w3n3d | 2025-09-01 05:16:27+00:00
First thought that came into my mind, when I read this article header, was regarding the Chat Control and the Telegram IM. Then I saw the history.stackexchange...

And the revolution is: It's really nice that nowadays we have telegrams that are more safe that they were during WW2 for example even with the military infrastructure available back then...

Or maybe we did have?
GPT-5 Doesn't Vibe?
by anupshinde | 2025-09-01 05:16:45+00:00
TL;DR - I have been struggling with GPT-5 to get it to 'vibe' reliably.

I don't know what's wrong with GPT-5 (on ChatGPT.com). On the surface, everything looks hunky-dory until you get into the details.

Sometimes it is too smart, and sometimes it is stupid. All this within the same chat-session. Sometimes it makes mistakes, other times it does not. Sometimes it remembers the context, sometimes it forgets and has to be reminded multiple times. With code - it writes easier code or complex code - buggy code or working code - and it is hard to predict when it would do what.

Problems often have multiple solutions. And GPT-5 seems to adhere to that philosophy. Given it the same problem twice, it will come up with different solutions. But not reliably do so every time.

It has become quite difficult to use it (or 'vibe' with it) - compared to Claude models or GPT-4o.

The GPT-4o model was not better - but at least it was reliable. There was a subtle pattern to its behavior. I knew when it would work, what mistake it would make, and how to get it to work, and when it would not work. And when writing, GPT-4o would usually sound like a philosophical poet.

First, GPT-5 disappointed after the hyped launch. And now this.

This experience is mostly based on ChatGPT, and a bit on GitHub Copilot. With Copilot, I stick to Claude Sonnet 4.

The Canvas also feels buggy. When you ask it to edit a part of the text, it sometimes deletes other sections as well. Albeit, I do not use Canvas as much.

I thought it may be due to auto-routing. And tried to fix it by selecting the GPT-5 type, no luck.

Has anybody else faced the same problem? And how did you resolve it?
by JustExAWS | 2025-09-01 05:16:59+00:00
At 51, no one hires me because of my coding ability. They hire me because I know how to talk to the “business” and lead (larger projects) or implement (smaller projects) and to help sales close deals.

Don’t get me wrong, I care very deeply about the organization and maintainability of my code and I don’t use “agents”. I carefully build my code (and my infrastructure as code based architecture) piece by piece through prompting.

And I do have enough paranoia about losing my coding ability - and I have lost some because of LLMs - that I keep a year in savings to have time to practice coding for three months while looking for a job.
by adlpz | 2025-09-01 05:17:35+00:00
Very cool concept and PoC of both Spotify and vscode integration to learn from.

It has opened my mind to a bunch of cool things to do now that I know that the /v1/me/player/currently-playing API endpoint exists.

But I'm having enough trouble concentrating as it is, this seems like a terrible idea :D.

Maybe for the more chill vibe codng sessions...

Edit: Also, cool to learn about https://lrclib.net/, will come in handy if the music industry paradigm shifts and we need to yet again sail the high seas.
by slau | 2025-09-01 05:18:12+00:00
I believe that this is where someone like Supertab [1] could really pop off. I don’t honestly don’t think having this as a country-specific service would be useful/beneficial. Not affiliated with ST, just have a friend who works there. I’m yet to encounter a website that offers them, though.

[1]: https://www.supertab.co/
by wtallis | 2025-09-01 05:18:48+00:00
In the case of five disks of the same capacity, RAID6 or RAIDZ2 only gets you 20% more capacity than btrfs RAID1. That's not exactly a huge disparity, usually not enough to be a show-stopper on its own. There are plenty of scenarios where the features ZFS has which btrfs lacks are more important than the features that btrfs has which ZFS lacks. My point is simply that btrfs RAID1 has its uses and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
by AaronFriel | 2025-09-01 05:20:54+00:00
I think any discussion of btrfs needs to acknowledge that raid5/6 support was promised in the early years, shipped in the kernel in 2013 and, until 2021's btrfs-progs 5.11 release, did not warn users that they risked data loss when creating volumes.

For near a decade btrfs raid5/6 was "unsafe at any speed" and many people lost data to it, including myself.
by kneelinghorse | 2025-09-01 05:21:00+00:00
Built this because I got tired of manually mapping data to UI components. It's a simple pattern matcher (~300 lines, no dependencies) that figures out what your data semantically represents.

Published to npm as @kneelinghorse/semantic-protocol if anyone wants to use it. Also made a Prisma generator that automatically analyzes your schemas.

The core insight: instead of maintaining huge component catalogs, just let data describe what it is and let the UI figure out how to display it.
by manquer | 2025-09-01 05:21:37+00:00
It does not look like CMSA is planning any human orbital missions or a human lander(lanyue) return flight test before attempting to land with humans in 2030 just two missions from now, that is very ambitious.

Perhaps milestones are being set to be competing with Artemis. When NASA gets delayed or reduced in scope, CNSA might reset to more achievable date.

That is just engineering risk on dates, there are other class of risks in geopolitics or economics etc.

Bottom line I am skeptical that a successful landing and return can be attempted in 2030. 2035 is a more realistic target I think.
by fr4nkr | 2025-09-01 05:21:38+00:00
No, we have convenient online services in spite of the endless security theater that permeates consumer tech. All it's done is gradually increase maintenance burden and technical complexity until useful features are slowly stripped out to create a more "streamlined" experience. The mobile app for my credit union has become so shitty that I'm not even sure if losing access to it is a deal-breaker for rooting my phone - I already prefer to do my online banking and shopping on my laptop.

There is no "just works" technical solution for a problem caused mainly by naivete and gullibility. Governments and the private sector know this, of course; as others have said, the real purpose is to control users, not to protect them.
by zozbot234 | 2025-09-01 05:22:36+00:00
The feeling of blinking out and suddenly being "back" is far from exclusive to comas or general anesthesia; it has been replicated via deep meditation. Specifically, it seems to be the core feature of what's technically known as nirodha samapatti (lit. "attainment of ceasing").

An easy way of intuiting what it might feel like (if imperfectly, of course) is just keeping a high state of lucidity and mental focus whilst you're naturally drifting in and out of light sleep; this might seem challenging at first but it's actually quite doable.
by keepamovin | 2025-09-01 05:22:46+00:00
The context of "ownership" is more nuanced when it comes to hardware devices - and even software.

What do you think when you say ownership?

I think - "this is totally mine. Nobody else's. I can do with this what I want. It is entirely up to me."

Do you own your passport? In fact, you probably do not. Most passports have a page stating to the effect that "this passport remains the property of <relevant authority>".

DO you own your device? I feel like I own my devices. I will defend them from theft, or loss. Because they are "mine". But ownership in a broader or legal context implies more rights that I don't think I have. I don't own the IP to the hardware and software on the device. These components have licenses to which I agree and am bound simply because I possess and use the device. These contracts restrict the things I am allowed to do. So my "ownership" also comes with certain "responsibilities" - which I personally don't believe I ever think about. But they exist.

For instance, probably somewhere in these contracts something is said to the effect that I cannot reverse engineer, reproduce and resell components or plans for these components. And myriad other things. Designed to protect the business and investment and people who invented and built them.

"Ownership" in the age of complex "finished products" that result from trillions dollar global supply changes of incomprehensible complexity is more nuanced than the idea that I found a log in the forest, and now the log is mine.
by weego | 2025-09-01 05:23:05+00:00
Also in my 40s and above senior level. Theres not many mental workouts in day to day coding because the world is just not a new challenge every day. What I consider 'boilerplate' just expands to include things I've written a dozen times before in a different context. AI can write that to my taste and I can tackle the few actual challenges.
by yuiegi | 2025-09-01 05:23:10+00:00
Back in COVID times, when I had all the time in the world, my Switch got bricked after I charged it using my laptop charger. Nintendo refused to honor its warranty, citing some mumbo jumbo about proprietary USB-C hardware. Fortunately, we have pretty good consumer protection laws here in Australia By the end of an entire two month saga, they sent me a brand new Switch.

I always did think it was odd that a USB-C cable that wasnt Nintendo could break my Switch.
by richardfeynman | 2025-09-01 05:24:07+00:00
The sources I provided show that there are severe problems with the Gaza Health Ministry list. You may find particular sentences that show the top-line number is correct, and indeed that may be true. I provided those sources not to show that 60k is the wrong number of dead--a figure I myself used in my initial comment--but rather to show that the list itself has issues and that arguments can be made that it's an overestimate rather than an underestimate. I agree the actual figure is difficult to pin down. There's no need for snarkiness ("Maybe you're right and your sources are wrong.") in a discussion like this, where the goal is to discover truth on a complex, emotional issue.

The bottom line is that whether you believe 60k people died or 100k people died, and whether you believe 60k people were born or 100k people were born, there has been nothing close to a population collapse in Gaza. Indeed, the population appears to have risen. Therefore, if you're going to make the argument that there is an ongoing genocide, you're going to have to also admit (as it appears you now do) that Gaza's population has either risen during this alleged genocide, or decreased by a small amount.

There are additional hurdles for those claming a genocide: (1) why has Israel dropped millions of leaflets to warn of impending attacks?; (2) why has israel sent millions of text messages warning of impending attacks?; (3) why has israel ordered evacuations of combat zones prior to attacking; (4) why has israel set up refugee camps/ safe zones; (5) why has Israel supplied so much aid to a civilian population you claim it's trying to kill; (6) why has its genocide been so incompetent and long-lasting if it could accomplish its alleged genocidal goal in a week; (7) what % of those killed are terrorists?; (8) why is the civilian:combatant death ratio so low; and I can go on forever. You may have respones to some of these questions, and we can debate these, but perhaps it's not necessary. The argument for genocide is one of those "emperor has no clothes" issues. People say it with such confidence, as though it's common knowledge (and indeed it is widely believed), but that doesn't mean it's true, or that the emperor has clothing.

Finally, by the end of 1942, the Nazis had killed 30% of european jewry, 3 million innocent civilians. There was already a clear genocide, which the world ignored. The inverse is true today: there is no clear genocide, but most of the world maintains it is.
by sfink | 2025-09-01 05:24:27+00:00
> Complicated workflows requiring deep understanding might be harder to learn because of a higher abstraction.

That's a fair complaint, and where other git porcelains have failed in the past.

I think the trick is that jj isn't raising the level of abstraction. Well, maybe in one place: there are change IDs in addition to commit IDs, and most of the time you'll want to be working with the change IDs. But even then, you could just use commit IDs, you'd just need to be looking them up all the time.

jj adds on a minimum of new functionality. It just turns out that if you make the already-existing git graph the object of your CLI commands, you can actually expose all of the operations you need with a much smaller set of primitives, even those for constructing your complicated workflows. git has accreted commands and flags to handle everything you need because it restricts its focus to a single commit or ref. Sometimes a command will use that commit to imply a whole branch, sometimes not. It avoids mutating things because that'd make you lose track of the holy commit, but then it has to provide lots of tools for when you want to mutate things. It has a staging area so that you can delay creating a commit until it's stable enough -- but now you have another concept. Stashes are similar.

(This actually undersells jj a bit. The op log and deferrable conflicts, for example, are bizarrely useful in practice even though they aren't fundamentally "needed". Nor do they raise the abstraction level. But going into that would dilute the message.)
by altairprime | 2025-09-01 05:24:44+00:00
There’s a scenario where this does work: you can install any operating system on the hardware you own, if you complete a “erase all content and settings” dire scary confirmation screen.

- If you want to run something other than iPadOS or Google TV, go for it. (Smart TVs are just tablets with a don’t-touch screen.)

- If you want to install spyware on someone’s phone, you can’t; the HSM keys held by their OS are lost when you try to install a patched version and restore from a backup, and their backup doesn’t restore properly because half of it depends on the HSM or the cloud and everything is tagged with the old OS’s signature.

- If you want to patch macOS and then deploy it to your fleet, you can; it won’t be Signed By Apple but you’re an enterprise and don’t care about the small losses of functionality from that.

- If you want to dual boot, go ahead; the issues with the HSMs not permitting you to host two OSes worth of partitioned keystones can be resolved by regulatory pressure.

This satisfies all the terms of “let me install whatever I want”, while allowing the OG App Store to continue operating in Safe Mode for everyday users in a way that can’t be entrapped without the scammer on the phone telling them to delete everything, which destroys the data the scammer wants.

My car already allows me to do this. My phone should too.
by AdieuToLogic | 2025-09-01 05:25:14+00:00
> The piece was deeply thought-provoking, but I struggled to get through it sensing how much AI was used to write it.

> I’ve been drafting a manuscript for a novel lately, trying to see how well llms can help.

> I recognize this prose immediately as OpenAI gpt 5.

Is it possible you are experiencing confirmation bias[0]?

In other words, by your own admission, you have been "trying to see how well llms can help" as it pertains to writing. With that degree of LLM intimacy, is it possible "the cadence and rhythm and word choices I’ve seen writing my manuscript" is a pattern you are predisposed to identify in other works?

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
by wkat4242 | 2025-09-01 05:25:15+00:00
> Does Google want to have Android and Chrome stripped from their control?

That would be amazing but it's not going to happen.

And the EU will back their sideloading validation because they want to spy on all of us anyway. This will be done with a backdoor in each chat app, meaning they want to be able to block unsanctioned apps.
by onion2k | 2025-09-01 05:25:43+00:00
Locking down a website to only be available to users on Apple and Windows doesn't make it safer. It just reduces the cost of building it because you don't have to bother testing it on any other platforms. Rather than tell users "Danger, we haven't tested your choice of OS" companies prefer to lock it down.

Users on Apple and Windows are not safer because a bank has chosen to block Linux.
by Borealid | 2025-09-01 05:25:49+00:00
You can't sell a Harry Potter book, but you can sell any number of Magical School for Wizards books. They can use similar themes to Harry Potter, similar pacing, even similar artwork styles.

They just can't copy the characters, significant chunks of text, or images.

That's the difference between a copyright and a patent in a nutshell: you copyright an implementation of an idea, while you patent the idea itself.
by fluoridation | 2025-09-01 05:27:04+00:00
>I don't understand why mobile systems do not attract OS builders.

My guess would be that it's a continuously moving target. There's no point in spending years working to support some weird integrated wifi adapter+battery controller when by the time you're done the hardware is already obsolete and no longer being manufactured. Repeat that for every device on the phone. The only ones who can keep up with that pace are the manufacturers themselves. It'd be different if there was some kind of standardization that would make the effort worthwhile, though.
by MrJohz | 2025-09-01 05:27:07+00:00
Bookmarks are similar to branches (and I believe implemented as branches?) but aren't quite the same thing. In particular, you can't check out a bookmark, you can only check out commits. If you do something like `jj edit <bookmark>`, it'll resolve <bookmark> to figure out which commit it points to, and then check out that commit. If you create a new commit now, the bookmark won't automatically be moved along, because jj doesn't know if you want to add a new commit to the <bookmark> branch, or if you're trying to create a new branch that forks off <bookmark>.

Whereas `git checkout <bookmark>` puts you in a state where you've checked out the _branch_ and not the commit, which means if you create more commits, they'll automatically be added to <bookmark>. To create a branch forking off from <bookmark>, you need to first create a new named branch, then start adding commits to it. (There are other ways as well, but this is the most standard approach.)

The tradeoff with Jujutsu's approach is that it's very easy to create lots of lightweight spin-off branches (just `jj new <fork point>`, no need to come up with names first). But it's slightly harder to do the traditional linear approach where you're consistently committing in a straight line on a single branch, and then syncing that branch with another remote. This is because for each new commit you create, you also need to update the bookmark manually.

In the parent poster's case, it's probably complicated further by them working on the same branch as someone else. Assuming there's no rebasing going on, this shouldn't be too complicated, but it's another case where in git you would check out a branch, and `git pull` will automatically forward you to the head of the branch, whereas `jj git fetch` will just move the bookmark without moving you.

It sounds like the workflow that this person is using doesn't fit that well with how jj "wants" to be used. I believe there's been some talk in jj of a way to automatically update branches when creating a new commit, which would help somewhat, but I think it's also a natural effect of having built their workflow around git, and that flow just not quite working so well in jj.
by dzikibaz | 2025-09-01 05:29:50+00:00
Open-weights models are catching up and are now viable for many tasks.

Keep in mind that closed, proprietary models:

1) Use your data internally for training, analytics, and more - because "the data is the moat"

2) Are out of your control - one day something might work, another day it might fail because of a model update, a new "internal" system prompt, or a new guardrail that just simply blocks your task

4) Are built on the "biggest intellectual property theft" of this century, so they should be open and free ;-)
by gsf_emergency_2 | 2025-09-01 05:30:00+00:00
Japanese relationship with foreign ideologies has been uh science fictional?

Communism: popular with whitest collar workers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanbetsu#:~:text=organization%...

Buddhism: "violent nonviolence" (creed of the Jedi, but also lay popularity of relevant koans from the Mumonkan, e.g. Case 14)
by 2rsf | 2025-09-01 05:30:33+00:00
I mentioned that in another thread, but banks have a legal obligation to to assess and mitigate risks in the service they give to you- you, personally, might be tech savvy enough to understand what you are doing but most people are not and the bank is held accountable when something bad happens.

This is why they limit service to certain devices or OS versions, even when it comes at the expense of convenience.
by fastball | 2025-09-01 05:31:48+00:00
You're being a conspiracy theorist. You can in fact replace the battery with a non-Apple battery without issue. The things that break when you replace them without a properly signed version are in fact related to the security of the device. It's not a "guise". I don't want someone with physical access to my phone to be able to access anything on the phone. If I can do this, so can anyone else.