MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by tracker1 | 2025-09-17 14:13:16+00:00
My main point is, you can be working with people that are pretty smart and well educated, with a pretty good baseline understanding of theory but that doesn't always mean they have the actual experience and/or thorough enough understanding of a given set of tooling and environment to implement correctly.

I say this as someone who is autodidactic (self-taught) with regards to software engineering. I never stop learning, reading, experimenting and just gaining as much understanding over everything I touch as I can. My mind doesn't always work like most people. And my statements are not meant to be insulting, just my point of view from the outside...

In that, I feel that a lot of FAANG (whatever the correct/current conflation is) tend to rely on a lot of focus that tends to favor those with a formal education, and those closer to that education (less experienced outside school). In practice, my experience is that this will lead to an excess in "Enterprise Pattern" usage as well as unnecessary complexity which leads to an increased risk of error.
by rich_sasha | 2025-09-17 14:13:50+00:00
I think my question made it clear I'm not simply assuming China is somehow cheating here - either in the specs of their current product, or in stealing IP.

No, I just struggle to reconcile (but many answers here go some way to clarifying) Nvidia being the pinnacle of the R&D-driven tech industry - not according to me but to global investors - and China catching up seemingly easily.
by carlosjobim | 2025-09-17 14:14:26+00:00
How can that be unreasonable? To work at least half a week for a decision which will cost the company hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even millions of dollars in the long run. What else is the manager doing which is more important monetary wise? And if managers are really too busy with raking in the millions to the company, then it's a fine time to hire somebody who's only job will be to hire more people (not a HR person of course).
by rdm_blackhole | 2025-09-17 14:14:55+00:00
No EU means that this law would have to passed in 27 different countries whihc would make it much harder to put this many people under surveillance.

So, in this particular case no EU would be a clear benefit because it would give us time to see the effect on this law on the neighboring countries first, just like we saw with the UK and the OSA.

I am becoming more anti-EU by the day and this is just one more nail in the coffin.
by vFunct | 2025-09-17 14:15:16+00:00
Please tell your commanders at the IDF that under no definition of genocide is "number of deaths" a consideration.

Genocide is defined by intent, and the European Jews have intended to remove or kill all Palestinians since they began the Zionist project last century, culminating in their decision to start a war by attacking and invading Palestine in 1947/1948, with Palestine being occupied by a foreign invasion force ever since.

Israelis are guilty of genocide.
by velcrohn | 2025-09-17 14:15:21+00:00
Just to address one of your points: 2 in every 10,000 people are dying daily. With a population of 2.1 million, that fraction is 420 people a day. Can you provide a source for that claim? Your link to the Guardian has roughly 20% of that number, which was provided by Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health

There is certainly hunger. It is an active war zone. But your numbers are grossly exaggerated.

When you mention the relatively small amount food entering between March and June, you neglect to mention the 6 months supply of food that was provided in January. That seems to be an important factor.

Also of note - there have been warnings of imminent mass starvation in Gaza since October 2023, and none of those warnings came about until recently, at which point Israel increased the amount of food entering Gaza.
by TonyPeakman | 2025-09-17 14:15:45+00:00
Aurelia is a great framework — I really like the way it ties template, JS, and CSS together into one unit. That convention makes it very natural to organize components and reduces boilerplate.

You’re right that dagger.js takes a different approach: it treats HTML, JS, and CSS as independent modules that you explicitly wire together. The reason is to keep everything buildless and decoupled — you can serve each piece directly from a CDN, mix and match across projects, and avoid any assumptions about file structure or bundling.

The trade-off is exactly as you noticed: dagger.js doesn’t auto-bind a .js class to a .html and .css file. It gives up that convenience in exchange for transparency and flexibility in how modules are loaded.

That said, I think your idea of a convention layer on top of dagger.js (similar to Aurelia’s “unit” model) is interesting — it could make sense as an optional helper for people who want stronger coupling between files.
by ColinWright | 2025-09-17 14:16:48+00:00
The text of the post where I saw this has this take:

> "So, they're going to make AI generated (and hosted) podcasts because they only need 20 people to listen to it in order to turn a profit from the ads. Who would listen to such content? Well I can think of one way to get listens - to spoof existing content and get listeners through the subsequent confusion. Great"
by TonyPeakman | 2025-09-17 14:17:14+00:00
Really glad to hear that — thanks for the kind words! dagger.js is meant for exactly that use case: if you normally avoid heavy JS but occasionally need a bit of interactivity, you can drop in a <script> and use just what you need without a build step or big framework overhead.

If you give it a try, I’d love to hear how it works out for you. Feedback from people who prefer “as little JS as possible” is especially valuable.
by piltdownman | 2025-09-17 14:17:30+00:00
Why can't food flow through Egypt? Before the war started, Israel restricted all access to and from Gaza by sea and air and had land crossings under tight control. It had two functional crossings with the enclave: Erez, which was for the movement of people, and Kerem Shalom, for goods. Gaza has a single crossing with Egypt, at Rafah, which was run by Egyptian authorities. As of July 2025 it is 'managed' by the Gaza Division of the IDF

Aid delivery via Rafah is hampered by the fact that the Rafah crossing is designed as an entry point for people, not goods, making it difficult for large convoys to pass through.

The Rafah crossing has been repeatedly bombed, causing disruptions in aid - not to mention deliberate bombing attacks as Israel forces Palestinians to flee via Rafah, and then bombs the crossing.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-said-to-bomb-rafah-cros...

The war has prompted Israel to conduct more stringent checks on aid as it seeks to prevent the entry of what it calls “dual-use equipment,” products it says are “intended for civilian use but liable to serve military needs for the strengthening of Hamas.”

Trucks carrying aid must pass through three layers of inspection before they can enter the enclave, Griffiths, the UN under-secretary-general, has said.

This is further compounded by Israel's draconian 'dual-use' inspections which create intentional bottlenecks at the Rafah crossing, supposedly prevent the entry of what it calls “dual-use equipment,” products it says are “intended for civilian use but liable to serve military needs for the strengthening of Hamas.”

Among items deemed “dual use” by Israel are power generators, crutches, field hospital kits, inflatable water tanks, wooden boxes of children’s toys and, “perhaps most depressingly, 600 oxygen tanks.”

https://www.wfp.org/stories/hungers-border-why-aid-trucks-ta...

Provocation or any other citable action may explain, but in no way excuses, the war crime of collective punishment. No one other than Zionists have endorsed war crimes as the way to 'deal with Gazans'.

Israel are 'taking the blame' because they are committing war crimes with impunity, including the murder and subsequent coverup of journalists and aid workers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/04/10/how-palestin...

As for the unwillingness to take refugees, that is simply facilitating the endgame of Israel - the depopulation of Palestine and contested territories.
by ValentineC | 2025-09-17 14:17:48+00:00
> Not sure if related but importing images via image capture on mac to the disk of the mac gives you correct time when the photo was taken in the file (kind of important if it’s family photos).

Something related: exporting originals from Photos used to give the current timestamp back in Ventura, which annoyed me to no end.

They fixed that bug in either Sonoma or Sequoia (I jumped straight from Ventura to Sequoia).
by nikkwong | 2025-09-17 14:18:06+00:00
Sacks has always been absolutely disingenuous and interested in pedaling his own interests over the interests of the common good. As a total Trump shill he talks out of both sides of his mouth at the same time & accuses the left of things that he has no problem with when he or his own party does it.

Anyone who's listened to him (even those who align with him politically) for an extended period of time can't help but to notice so obviously so self interested to the point of total hypocrisy—the examples of which are too many to begin to even wanting to enumerate. Like—take the Trump/Epstein stuff, or the Elon/Trump fallout—topics he would absolutely lose his sh*t over if these were characters on the left. I find it hard to believe anyone actually ever took him seriously. Branding myself as a fan of his would just be a completely self-humiliating insult to my intelligence and my conscience IMO.
by jayd16 | 2025-09-17 14:18:32+00:00
C++ as a language is truly a mess. But as far as a niche it has a pretty unique offering, even today.

My background is games and I've been heavily in Unreal lately. The language feels modern enough with smart pointers and such. Their standard library equivalent is solid.

The macros still feel very hacky and, ironically, Unreal actually does its own prepass over the source to parse for certain macros.... kind of shows that it's not a good language feature if that's needed. BUT the syntax used fits right into the language, so it feels idiomatic enough.

Templates are as powerful as they are just a mess to read.

Does anything come close to the speed and flexibility of the language? I think the biggest reason C++ sticks around is momentum but beyond that nothing _really_ replaces the messy but performance critical nature of it.
by justsomehnguy | 2025-09-17 14:19:20+00:00
== /dev/sda 177 Wear_Leveling_Count PO--C- 059 059 000 - 406 0x07 0x008 1 42 N-- Percentage Used Endurance Indicator == /dev/sdb 177 Wear_Leveling_Count PO--C- 060 060 000 - 402 0x07 0x008 1 42 N-- Percentage Used Endurance Indicator == /dev/sdc 177 Wear_Leveling_Count PO--C- 059 059 000 - 409 0x07 0x008 1 43 N-- Percentage Used Endurance Indicator == /dev/sdd 177 Wear_Leveling_Count PO--C- 060 060 000 - 403 0x07 0x008 1 42 N-- Percentage Used Endurance Indicator == /dev/sde 177 Wear_Leveling_Count PO--C- 059 059 000 - 408 0x07 0x008 1 42 N-- Percentage Used Endurance Indicator

Yeah, it's better for sure. I did 'smartctl -x | grep Percent', it's easier.

I said about 177 because it's the same numbers what PVE gives in the webui and I didn't found the obvious 'wearout/lifeleft' I'm accustomed to see in the SMART attributes.
by llogiq | 2025-09-17 14:19:39+00:00
The problem with C++ vs. unsafety is that there is really no boundary: All code is by default unsafe. You will need to go to great lengths to make it all somewhat safe, and then to even greater lengths to ensure any libraries you use won't undermine your safety.

In Rust, if you have unsafe code, the onus is on you to ensure its soundness at the module level. And yes, that's harder than writing the corresponding C++, but it makes the safe code using that abstraction a lot easier to reason about. And if you don't have unsafe code (which is possible for a lot of problems), you won't need to worry about UB at all. Imagine never needing to keep all the object lifetimes in your head because the compiler does it for you.
by HarHarVeryFunny | 2025-09-17 14:19:41+00:00
I define intelligence as prediction (degree of ability to use past experience to correctly predict future action outcomes), and reasoning/planning as multi-step what-if prediction.

Certainly if a human (or some AI) has learned to predict/reason over some domain, then what they will be doing is pattern matching to determine the generalizations and exceptions that apply in a given context (including a hypothetical context in a what-if reasoning chain), in order to be able to select a next step that worked before.

However, I think what we're really talking about here isn't the mechanics of applying learnt reasoning (context pattern matching), but rather the ability to reason in the general case, which requires the ability to LEARN to solve novel problems, which is what is missing from LLMs.

A system that has a fixed set of (reasoning/prediction) rules, but can't learn new ones for itself, seems better regarded as an expert system. We need to make the distinction between a system that can only apply rules, and one that can actually figure out the rules in the first place.

In terms of my definitions of intelligence and reasoning, based around ability to use past experience to learn to predict, then any system that can't learn from fresh experience doesn't meet that definition.

Of course in humans and other intelligent animals the distinction between past and ongoing experience doesn't apply since they can learn continually and incrementally (something that is lacking from LLMs), so for AI we need to use a different vocabulary, and "expert system" seems the obvious label for something that can use rules, but not discover them for itself.
by turnsout | 2025-09-17 14:19:49+00:00
This is what I always do. Rather than go directly from the card reader or camera into Photos or Lightroom, I copy the files onto an SSD, and then bring them in from the SSD. The entire process goes faster.

I also want to point out that I've seen similar corruption in the past, only in Lightroom. The culprit ended up being hardware, not software. Specifically, the card reader's USB cable. I've actually had two of these cables fail on different readers. On the most recent one, I replaced it with a nicer Micro B to USB C cable, and haven't had an issue.
by nextaccountic | 2025-09-17 14:20:02+00:00
> But when you engage your brain, you realize that this is a war, started by terrorists, that would end the instant they released the hostages and lay down their arms.

It would not. What's happening in Gaza is the end result of decades of systematic policy.

If Israel ever intended to some day have peace, they would recognize that Palestine is a country (like the majority of the countries in the world does).
by gwd | 2025-09-17 14:20:05+00:00
> I think the answer is pretty obvious given that LLM's can't learn at runtime - can't try out some reasoning generalization they may have arrived at, find that it doesn't work in a specific case, then explore the problem and figure it out for next time.

This is just a problem of memory. Supposing that an LLM did generate a genuinely novel insight, it could in theory they could write a note for itself so that next time they come online, they can read through a summary of the things they learned. And it could also write synthetic training data for itself so that the next time they're trained, that gets incorporated into its general knowledge.

OpenAI allows you to fine-tune GPT models, I believe. You could imagine a GPT system working for 8 hours in a day, then spending a bunch of time looking over all its conversation looking for patterns or insights or things to learn, and then modifying its own fine-tuning data (adding, removing, or modifying as appropriate), which it then used to train itself overnight, waking up the next morning having synthesized the previous day's experience.
by hu3 | 2025-09-17 14:20:08+00:00
You usually can. You just gotta be a bit adventurous.

https://github.com/lukeed/uvu is a testing library with almost no dependency.

https://github.com/biomejs/biome is a linter written in Rust which in theory has a smaller attack surface.

And as long as you stay some versions behind bleeding edge, you can use time in your favor to catch supply chain attacks before they reach your codebase.
by fidotron | 2025-09-17 14:20:41+00:00
> I always think just open sourcing the whole software stack for graphics cards would be an excellent thing for hardware manufacturers,

> Maybe I'm just naive

Yep.

There are things hidden in the design of very widely used hardware that would make people's heads explode from how out there they are. They are trade secrets, and used to maintain a moat in which people can make money. (As opposed to patents which require publishing publicly).

If you live in open source land you cannot make money from selling software. If there is no special sauce in the hardware you won't be able to make money from that either. Then we can all act surprised that the entire tech landscape is taken over by ads and fails to meaningfully advance.
by schoen | 2025-09-17 14:20:50+00:00
I was also excited about those projects and ran DESchall as well as distributed.net clients. Later on I was running the EFF Cooperative Computing Award (https://www.eff.org/awards/coop), as in administering the contest, not as in running software to search for solutions!

The original cryptographic challenges like the DES challenge and the RSA challenges had a goal to demonstrate something about the strength of cryptosystems (roughly, that DES and, a fortiori, 40-bit "export" ciphers were pretty bad, and that RSA-1024 or RSA-2048 were pretty good). The EFF Cooperative Computing Award had a further goal -- from the 1990s -- to show that Internet collaboration is powerful and useful.

Today I would say that all of these things have outlived their original goals, because the strength of DES, 40-bit ciphers, or RSA moduli are now relatively apparent; we can get better data about the cost of brute-force cryptanalytic attacks from the Bitcoin network hashrate (which obviously didn't exist at all in the 1990s), and the power and effectiveness of Internet collaboration, including among people who don't know each other offline and don't have any prior affiliation, has, um, been demonstrated very strongly over and over and over again. (It might be hard to appreciate nowadays how at one time some people dismissed the Internet as potentially not that important.)

This Busy Beaver collaboration and Terence Tao's equational theories project (also cited in this paper) show that Internet collaboration among far-flung strangers for substantive mathematics research, not just brute force computation, is also a reality (specifically now including formalized, machine-checked proofs).

There's still a phenomenon of "grid computing" (often with volunteer resources), working on a whole bunch of computational tasks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grid_computing_project...

It's really just the specific "establish the empirical strength of cryptosystems" and "show that the Internet is useful and important" 1990s goals that are kind of done by this point. :-)
by mionhe | 2025-09-17 14:20:53+00:00
Hiring doesn't work like that. It's not like you glance at resumes then hire someone because what the paper says matches your job description. You spend a lot of time, if you're doing it right. Some resumes have everything you want, but aren't honest. Some resumes don't have everything, but they're pretty close, and worth the conversation. Some people seem perfect on paper but once you talk with them you realize (for whatever reason) that they don't fit. Even just a few applicants can take many hours of work before you can pick the one that fits best what you're looking for.

If you're a team of 5, handling 1,200 resumes, how much money are you expected to invest in this process? Does everyone take a week off billable work so you can find someone? Can you afford that? With only a team of 5, probably not.

We all want to feel like we're being treated well, but scolding someone because they were overwhelmed by the massive amount of adversarial spam they received for their job posting is a failure to put yourself in their shoes. Let's all be better people, here.
by NalNezumi | 2025-09-17 14:20:57+00:00
Several years ago I made a bare metal notion to obsidian conversion scripts. At the time there wasn't any Bases available so databases was just turned in to csv table. It was relatively simple, no dependency python script and just export your notion notes as a zips of markdowns and then check every file to fix linking and the weird naming (with some caveat that not all links are properly exported to markdown links by notion)

Today I learned that obsidian have an API towards it. Still I wonder why it's not just easier to use notions "download your pages as markdown". Notion would very dislike an API that allows users to migrate away from it and probably actively would sabotage it. "download notes as markdown" is however a user service, which they probably don't want to break. (maybe now that they added an offline mode too late, I don't know)
by sriharis | 2025-09-17 14:21:13+00:00
Hey, thanks for reading and commenting!

1. I agree, numbers are important, and these intuitions and feelings should be backed by numbers. In the post too, I suggest looking at dashboards during such discussions.

2. My definition of simplicity is largely based on Rich Hickey's talk, I would recommend it if you haven't seen it. I think it's possible to be somewhat objective about simplicity. If something is overwhelmingly complex to a junior, ideally a senior engineer is able to appreciate that complexity.

3. Yeah, the loudest voice problem exists, like with any in-person discussion ig. Keeping discussions on slack / notion helps side-step it. Discussion rules with timers, going around the room, anonymous comments, etc can also help.

4. A complex legacy codebase will and should fail the simplicity test, at least wrt a new engineer's experience. And it would serve the team well to accept it, and try to solve for it. Ruminating on any problem without moving towards a solution is frustrating, and can be demoralising, yes. And providing direction and creating momentum in that direction is a leader's job. In this blog post, I only offer questions, not answers :p.
by aw1621107 | 2025-09-17 14:21:38+00:00
> It's important to remember Rust's borrow checker was computationally infeasible 15 years ago.

IIRC borrow checking usually doesn't consume that much compilation time for most crates - maybe a few percent or thereabouts. Monomorphization can be significantly more expensive and that's been much more widely used for much longer.
by cestith | 2025-09-17 14:22:04+00:00
A friend of mine gets new headphones/headsets every six to eighteen months, and hasn’t bought a pair entirely out of pocket in years. For him it’s all down to buying the Microcenter protection plan every time they’re replaced. They fail, he takes them back, he gets store credit for the purchase price, and he buys a new set and a new plan. He doesn’t even care about the manufacturer’s warranty anymore.

Personally, most of my headphones I look for metal mechanical connections instead of plastic and I buy refurbished when I can. I think I pay about as much as he does or less, but we haven’t really hashed out the numbers together. I’m typing this while wearing a HyperX gaming headset I bought refurbished that’s old enough that I’ve replaced the earpads while everything else continues to work.

Computers and computer parts often have, in my experience, a better reliability record competently refurbished than when they first leave the factory too. I wonder if sous vide cookers would.