MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by HaroldCindy | 2025-09-20 16:21:18+00:00
>How do you plan on migrating data from Mono's VM to Luau?

It helps a lot that you're only dealing with LSL that was compiled to .NET CIL by a single compiler and transformed into a state machine via an internal tool that predates `async` / `await` in .NET. Luckily you don't need a strategy that works for arbitrary .NET assemblies.

We can inspect those assemblies and the saved script state is stored in an LL-defined serialization format that includes everything on the stack / reachable via the heap. That could be converted to the script state serialization scheme we created for Luau.

The biggest complication would be that .NET CIL presents a stack-based bytecode whereas Lua(u) bytecode is register-based. There's prior art there, IIRC Android's Dalvik bytecode format is register-based and isn't generally compiled directly, you compile stack-based Java bytecode and the Android devkit has tools that convert it to stack-based Dalvik. We could use a similar scheme to convert the limited subset of CIL we need into Luau bytecode, possibly with some Dalvik-like extensions that allow use of "extended" registers for cases where we'd run into Luau's 255 register limit.

I'd like to eventually open-source SL's existing internal tooling for Mono so that people can get a better sense of the problem space and how that conversion would work. It really should have been public from the outset, and I believe the original author of SL's Mono integration wanted it to be.

Migrating existing Mono scripts onto Luau is a bit far out though, since we're still working on the core VM stuff.
by dghlsakjg | 2025-09-20 16:21:25+00:00
Unequivocally, yes. They are absolutely dangerous.

Anything that takes attention away from driving increases danger.

Are they more dangerous than older interfaces? My feeling is overwhelmingly yes, but I would be willing to see a study or hear arguments that some touchscreens are an improvement. A touch interface is fine (not great) as long as it never changes. As soon as you have to search for a control or menu you are dividing your attention away from driving.
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-09-20 16:21:40+00:00
> I still need to buy a phone case with my new phone?

…you don’t. I don’t. My phone is scratched here and there, but not in a way that I notice. I used to defend this with my purchasing of insurance, but frankly, I crack the screen now maybe once every 2+ years.

> Apple is assuming the average person will have a case on their phone

I think it is fair to assume that irrespective of the design, most people will case their phones. Leaning into that is fine as long as the phone is still functional without a case. (Which, again, every iPhone in the last decade has been.)
by pizlonator | 2025-09-20 16:21:55+00:00
They are so extremely and utterly different.

CPS is an AST form with first class functions that don’t return. CPS is highly opinionated about how control flow is represented and not very opinionated about how data flow is represented (maybe it’s just variable names you resolve, maybe it’s data flow).

SSA is a data flow graph with a way to express looping. SSA isn’t very opinionated about control flow and different SSA implementations do it differently.

That paper is just saying that you can transform between the two. So what. Of course you can; you can transform between any Turing complete languages and that doesn’t make them “not that different” and definitely not the same.
by lkey | 2025-09-20 16:22:22+00:00
Christ, you are so correct.

> I’m about 50% of the way through the formalization plan > I think formalizing using AI was way slower than if I’d done it by hand.

combined with their aversion to learning something hard alone:

> I found learning Lean annoying and difficult. So I started looking for shortcuts.

The author failed utterly according to their own definition of success. Moreover, how will they know they have completed the task if they don't want to fully understand what they've 'written'?

The paper presents a false trichotomy:

(1) go to grad school and learn to do it yourself (2) hope one of the few theorem proving experts got interested in your problem (3) give up. and the magical fourth: (4) Look Just Try Claude Code (at just $100 per month!)

"got interested" is so utterly passive, I've got a fifth option. (5) Meet other people who share your interests on discord and forums and chat about the problems you are trying to solve. Make them interested! Nerd snipe them! Make friends, meet colleagues and learn new things while having a genuine human experience, for free!
by esseph | 2025-09-20 16:23:45+00:00
Not an Apple user.

A quick Google search says that for iOS 15+:

>To change per-app settings for any application, including Discord, on an iPhone or iPad, go to the Settings app > Accessibility > Per-App Settings. Tap Add App, select Discord from the list, and then customize settings like Display & Text Size to alter the app's appearance or behavior without affecting other applications.
by delusional | 2025-09-20 16:23:51+00:00
The nature considering the future is that our actions _now_ affect the answer _then_. If we tie our foundational tools to LLVM, then it's very unlikely a new platform can exists without support for it. If we don't tie ourselves to it, then it's more likely we can exist without it. It's not a matter of if LLVM will be supported. We ensure that by making it impossible not to be the case. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.

I prefer to ask another question: "Is this useful". Would it be useful, if we were to spin up a different platform in the future, to be able to do so without LLVM. I think the answer to that is a resounding yes.

That doesn't leave rust stranded. A _useful_ path for rust to pursue would be to defined a minimal subset of the compiler that you'd need to implement to compile all valid programs. The type checker, borrow checker, unused variable tracker, and all other safety features should be optional extensions to a core of a minimal portable compiler. This way, the rust compiler could feasibly be as simple as the simplest C compiler while still supporting all the complicated validation on platforms with deep support.
by nine_k | 2025-09-20 16:24:25+00:00
Un-paywalled: https://archive.is/u1OqX

In short: various studies show that touchscreens draw attention of the driver for longer, so they are more dangerous at speed.

European agencies noticed and started requiring physical dedicated switches for certain most important functions to get a full safety rating.

Car makers also gradually revert to physical switches, and also push voice control for certain functions.
by aDyslecticCrow | 2025-09-20 16:24:40+00:00
It's not that the article did or didn't address something. It's the way the article addresses is makes be roll my eyes. I don't disagree with the premise itself, nor necessarily the conclusion. But some of the statistics brought up are irrelevant (as i mentioned), and the article reads more like a preach than a essay.

To me it read like a rant monologue about the youth, saying about 4 things but repeated over and over with different words. It's an essay written in bad faith to essay writing.
by jameshart | 2025-09-20 16:24:47+00:00
This reflects that there are just less openings overall. In a shrinking job market layoffs have already disproportionately gone to H1B holders; future layoffs, if this policy is implemented, will further erode H1B numbers, but it won’t magic up more domestic engineering job openings.

You know what would provide job growth in high tech? Economic growth and expanding prosperity in the economy overall.
by roughly | 2025-09-20 16:25:09+00:00
Microorganisms get interesting because they’re simple enough that we can see all the parts involved, but complex enough that we can see what looks like intentionality in their actions. We consider them Alive, but we also know all the mechanisms making them seem that way - there’s nowhere for the ghost to hide. They’re a fascinating case for ethics, especially since there’s effectively no way we could operate in this world without both relying on them and killing them in droves, because they’re also parts of the mechanism almost anywhere we look at biology. Hell, human cells are outnumbered 10:1 - by number, we’re outvoted.
by serbuvlad | 2025-09-20 16:25:20+00:00
> One of the traditional rites of passage for Linux system administrators is having a daemon not work in the normal system configuration (eg, when you boot the system) but work when you manually run it as root.

I've don't remember the last time I run a daemon by hand (that I wasn't developed it myself). I always just run the systemd unit via systemctl and debug that.

> A standard thing I do when troubleshooting a chain of programs executing programs executing programs is to shim in diagnostics that dump information to /tmp.

This seems like a very esoteric case in the days of structured logging and log levels.

> A mailer usually can't really tell the difference between 'no one has .forward files' and 'I'm mysteriously not able to see people's home directories to find .forward files in them'

Obviously a daemon that should access files in people's home directories shouldn't have ProtectHome=true. It's the responsibility of the daemon developer or the package maintainer to set appropriate flags based on what the daemon does. Someone had to explicitly write "ProtectHome=true". It's not the default, and it doesn't just appear in the service file.

When in doubt don't set security options at all, instead of shipping a broken daemon that you don't understand why it doesn't work.

Note: please base your daemon on D-Bus or a socket in /run and not on reading arbitrary files from my home directory.

I also don't understand the larger perspective? Should we not make our daemon run in more secure environments?
by azernik | 2025-09-20 16:25:27+00:00
First it was "we're only against illegal immigration, we want people to do it the right way".

Now it's "we need to limit the volume" and "don't want to get rid of the truly exceptional immigration".

Forgive me if I am skeptical, especially in a world where ICE is rounding up classic "exceptional" immigrants like biology researchers, or South Korean experts setting up a factory.
by huloopaloo | 2025-09-20 16:25:41+00:00
> What I did hear was some "facts" that did not seem to line up with things I heard in the news.

Perhaps this should encourage you to look inward and acknowledge the “news” you listen to is interested in something other than facts.

Everything Kimmel said was factually true.

If you would like to quote the part you are struggling with, and include an explanation about why you feel his statement lacks truth, I can point you to supporting sources.
by ndriscoll | 2025-09-20 16:25:49+00:00
nixos kind of does that except better. Usually just set services.foo.enabled to true along with any other config you want. It's also super easy to wrap services in a container if you want, and doing so is kept conceptually separate from dependency management. If you want to make your own systemd service, then referencing a package in `ExecStart` or whatever will make it automatically get pulled in as a dependency.
by nickysielicki | 2025-09-20 16:25:58+00:00
I linked it elsewhere in this thread, but you should really watch this talk, particularly 12:45 through 16:20: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_AIw9bGogo

tl;dr: systemd isn't meant to be an init system, it's meant to manage services, and the alternative world where you don't have a unified system for managing services and events actually sucks.
by 0manrho | 2025-09-20 16:26:29+00:00
Also worth noting, as this is a common point for the homelabbers out there, fans in surplus enterprise hardware can actually be a significant source of not just noise, but power usage, even at idle.

I remember back in the R710 days (circa 2008 and Nehalem/Westmere cpu's) that under like 30% cpu load, most of your power draw came from fans that you couldn't spin down below a certain threshold without an firmware/idrac script, as well as what you mentioned about those PSU's being optimized for high sustained loads and thus being inefficient at near idle and low usage.

IIRC System Idle power profile on those was only like 15% CPU (that's combined for both CPUs), with the rest being fans, ram and the various other vendor stuff (iDrac, PERC etc) and low-load PSU inefficiencies.

Newer hardware has gotten better, but servers are still generally engineered for above 50% sustained loads rather than under, and those fans still can easily pull a dozen plus watts even at very low usage each in those servers (of course, depends on exact model), so, point being, splitting hairs over a dozen watts or so between CPU's is a bit silly when your power floor from fans and PSU inefficiencies alone puts you at 80W+ draw anyway, not to mention the other components (NIC, Drives, Storage controller, OoB, RAM etc). Also, this is primarily relevant for surplus servers, but lot of people building systems at home for the usecase relevant to this discussion often turn to or are recommended these servers, so just wanted to add this food for thought.
by amluto | 2025-09-20 16:26:50+00:00
The problem is the “more”. SELinux is extremely flexible and does what the configuration tells it to do. And it does not compose well. Want to point whateverd at /var/lib/whatever? Probably works if the distro packages are correct. Want to make /var/lib/whatever be a symlink? Probably does not do what you expect. Want to run a different daemon that accesses /var/lib/whatever or mount it into a container? Good luck. Want to run a second copy of the distro’s whateverd and point it at a different directory? The result depends on how the policy works.

And worst: want to understand what the actual security properties of your policy are? The answer is buried very, very deep.
by swframe2 | 2025-09-20 16:26:57+00:00
I think those of us who want youtube without the distractions should start a campaign to convince google to make https://www.youtube.com/learning better. I think even tweeting about it so that our efforts are reported by large news outlets would work. If there aren't enough users asking for this feature, we will be ignored. Someone needs to build a website that coordinates our efforts.
by noselasd | 2025-09-20 16:27:07+00:00
Yes, in some areas - but not e.g. on Sicily. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-O4_AwWpfI gives perhaps a better overview

M. Ibericus produces 4 kinds of offsprings.

1. M. Ibericus queen + no male (unfertilized egg) -> M. Ibericus male. 2. M. Ibericus queen + M. Ibericus male -> M. Ibericus queen 3. M. Ibericus queen + M. Structor male -> M. Structor male, no genes from the mother 4. M. Ibericus queen + M. Structor male -> M. Structor/Ibericus hybrid female, (worker ant, infertile)
by shakes_mcjunkie | 2025-09-20 16:27:18+00:00
> Immigration is as pro-capital and anti-labor as you can get, yet somehow the left has been convinced to support it.

"Immigration" as such is a made up concept. The legal and physical barriers created by immigration policy are pro-capital and anti-labor. If people could freely move around the world, you can bet there'd be much more focus on pro-labor policies.
by crazygringo | 2025-09-20 16:27:19+00:00
> An analysis published in 2020 by the Transport Research Laboratory, a British organisation, found that touchscreens impaired a driver’s reaction time more than driving over the legal alcohol limit.

The question isn't whether they're dangerous, anymore.

The question is, when is safety legislation going to be passed that prevents them from being used for any routine adjustments while driving. I.e. windshield wipers, AC, change volume, skip to next track, etc.

Like it's fine if you still use them to input a GPS destination, change long-term car settings, connect a Bluetooth device, etc.

But we need to separate out the actions routinely used during driving and legislate physical controls. Why is there not legislation for this already?
by rsynnott | 2025-09-20 16:27:28+00:00
In that case, tho, no-one’s saying “let’s be sloppy with production and make up for it in the QA” (which really used to be a US car industry strategy until the Japanese wiped the floor with them); the process is as good as it reasonably can be, there are just physical limits. Chip manufacturers spend vast amounts on reducing the error rate.
by arp242 | 2025-09-20 16:27:46+00:00
You're comparing a full-time salaried employee with a "few months" to spare vs. a bunch of people spending their spare time. Obviously not the same at all. There is a difference between "able to do the task, given enough time" vs. "wanting to invest the time". In a volunteer context "I don't have the (time|skill)" usually means "I don't want to invest the time".

In addition, making a WM in libX11 is surprisingly easy, almost trivial. With Wayland: not so much. Maybe the protocol is simpler for some meaning of "simpler", but actually doing stuff with it is often more complex, certainly if you want to write a WM (or compositor in Wayland-speak). I managed to write my own X11 WM without any real experience doing this sort of thing that has served me quite well for the last ten years. I also tried duplicating that in Wayland because I've been told that's the future, but I found that a lot harder to the point where I kind of just gave up. While I'm sure I could figure it out given enough time, I also don't really want to as I have other stuff to do, and also have a perfectly working X11 WM already.
by toomuchtodo | 2025-09-20 16:28:26+00:00
The fact of the matter is, there is nowhere else for them to go. You would never see the same gains building a startup in Europe that you would in the US. Similar to India and China. Africa is a nonstarter. So, where are you going to go?

Almost every YC startup has underperformed once public. China has BYD to Tesla. What startups and innovation would you hold as an example that can’t be done elsewhere? Or is innovation vs some sort of grift or pyramid scheme (crypto)?

I’ve helped people leave for Canada, Europe, and Australia. There will always be developed countries for people to flee to for safe lives. But this idea that the US has robust macroeconomic competition from the world in the near term does not hold up. It’s messaging and a narrative to get favorable labor immigration treatment for self serving reasons, no more.
by jrowen | 2025-09-20 16:29:31+00:00
Why have none of the major players tried integrating a case? Making a ruggedized version? They could probably do a lot better and find ways to innovate with something integrated.

Why do they ignore the fact that so many people use cases (and the market opportunity)? It's almost a defect at this point. Some people like the personalization but I think a lot of people just want something that won't break when you drop it...
by altairprime | 2025-09-20 16:29:48+00:00
If they’re running the project with a Linus-type approach, they won’t consider backlash to be interesting or relevant, unless it is accompanied by specific statements of impact. Generic examples for any language to explain why:

> How dare you! I’m going to boycott git!!

Self-identified as irrelevant (objector will not be using git); no reply necessary, expect a permaban.

> I don’t want to install language X to build and run git.

Most users do not build git from source. Since no case is made why this is relevant beyond personal preference, it will likely be ignored.

> Adopting language X might inhibit community participation.

This argument has almost certainly already been considered. Without a specific reason beyond the possibility, such unsupported objections will not lead to new considerations, especially if raised by someone who is not a regular contributor.

> Language X isn’t fully-featured on platform Y.

Response will depend on whether the Git project decides to support platform Y or not, whether the missing features are likely to affect Git uses, etc. Since no case is provided about platform Y’s usage, it’ll be up to the Git team to investigate (or not) before deciding

> Language X will prevent Git from being deployed on platform Z, which affects W installations based on telemetry and recent package downloads, due to incompatibility Y.

This would be guaranteed to be evaluated, but the outcome could be anywhere from “X will be dropped” to “Y will be patched” to “Z will not be supported”.
by delusional | 2025-09-20 16:30:31+00:00
That's a one time gain though. There's no reason for every platform to check the validity of some hash table implementation when that implementation is identical on all of them.

In my opinion, the verification of the implementation should be separate from the task of translating that implementation to bytecode. This leaves you with a simple compiler that is easy to implement but still with a strong verifier that is harder to implement, but optional.
by n4r9 | 2025-09-20 16:30:38+00:00
I can understand that that's a possible (even literal) interpretation of the phrase cultural Marxism. However the Wikipedia page for cultural Marxism is heavily referenced and suggests a scholarly consensus that the term is used differently. Now, it could be that the scholarly consensus is wrong; but that's not the fault of Wikipedia. It could be that Wikipedia is cherry-picking or misrepresenting articles or scholarly sources; after an admittedly brief look, I don't think it's misrepresenting them, and after some searching I couldn't see very many scholarly articles with the opposing view. I did find some articles on websites with a right-wing slant which attack the Wikipedia entry, but that's to be expected even if the scholarly consensus were correct.
by Imustaskforhelp | 2025-09-20 16:31:41+00:00
Hey, now I am interested in more of such softwares overall.

Like imagine a list where we can create a form where people can give them and give reasonings or just something.

What if I can create a github repo and issues regarding this so that we can discuss about them and I can create a website later if it interests but its a really nice thought experiment.

Are we talking more about uh every software including proprietory too?

Are we talking about lets say websites too or services (what if we extend it to services like websites or even products outside of software niche into things beyond too, that's interesting too)

Another interesting point that comes to my mind might be that cryptocoins might be the lowest inverse to this software project in the sense that I believe that there was very little net positive done to all humanity in general, sure the privacy aspects are nice but still, its not worth having people invest their life savings into it thinking that its going to 100x y'know, I have created a whole article about it being frustated by this idea people think regarding crypto as an investment when it could very well be a crypto"currency" but that's a yap for another day.

I really nerded over this and I think I loved it, we need a really good discussion about it :>
by cj | 2025-09-20 16:31:46+00:00
> functional without a case. (Which, again, every iPhone in the last decade has been.

Agreed they're functional without a case.

Whether it's functional after dropping it face down on the glass onto cement/marble is another question!

I'm not too concerned with cosmetic scratches. The main issue is the screen shattering. And the back of the phone shattering in older models where the back was glass.
by codegeek | 2025-09-20 16:31:56+00:00
The point is that when you have 100 Resumes to sort through for 1 role, you will have to use process of elimination. In 2025, with AI/scams/bots/moonlighters, Linkedin Profile is a good way to sort through. I am not saying having Linkedin is the only thing that matters but when there is so much noise, you need to stand out especially as a real human.