MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by tzs | 2025-09-07 16:31:50+00:00
> I'm sure we all know the benefits of private networks, so I don't need to reiterate it

That is I think the key. Private networks have sufficient benefit that most places will need one.

The computers and devices on our private network will fall into 3 groups: (1) those that should only communicate within our private network, (2) those that sometimes need to initiate communication with something outside our network but should otherwise have no outside contact, and (3) those that need to respond to communication initiated from something outside our network.

We could run our private network on something other than IP, but then dealing with cases #2 and #3 is likely going to be at least as complicated as the current private IP range approach.

We could use IP but not have private ranges. If we have actual assigned addresses that work from the outside for each device we are then going to have to do something at the router/firewall to keep unwanted outside traffic from reaching the #1 and #2 types of devices.

If we use IP but do not have assigned addresses for each device and did not have the private ranges I'd expect most places would just use someone else's assigned addresses, and use router/firewall rules to block them off from the outside. Most places can probably find someone else's IP range that they are sure contains nothing they will ever need to reach so should be safe to use (e.g., North Korea's ranges would probably work for most US companies). That covers #1, but for #2 and #3 we are going to need NAT.

I think nearly everyone would go for IP over using something other than IP. Nobody misses the days when the printer you wanted to buy only spoke AppleTalk and you were using DECnet.

At some point, when we are in the world where IP is what we have on both the internet and our private networks but we do not have IP ranges reserved for private networks, someone will notice that this would be a lot simpler if we did have such ranges. Routers can then default to blocking those ranges and using NAT to allow outgoing connections. Upstream routers can drop those ranges so even if we misconfigure ours it won't cause problems outside. Home routers can default to one of the private ranges so non-tech people trying to set up a simple home network don't have to deal with all this.

If for some reason IANA didn't step in and assign such ranges my guess is that ISPs would. They would take some range within their allocation, configure their routers to drop traffic using those address, and tell customers to use those on their private networks.
by iLemming | 2025-09-07 16:31:51+00:00
Fennel already "works". There's a small community of devs around it and in my opinion and practice, it remains a better choice to use instead of Lua directly. I don't even hesitate - whenever I need to tap into Lua-based engines, I would try to bootstrap Fennel on top - I use it with Hammerspoon, with Neovim, with mpv, and if I at some point I finally decide to switch to Wez terminal, I will for sure use Fennel.

That being said, Fennel is nice but ain't ideal, it's rather weird. It tries to imitate Clojure syntactically, without actually posing as a Clojure dialect. Fennel is extremely thin layer over Lua - you're essentially writing Lua with s-expressions. In Fennel, you constantly feel Lua's presence (1-indexed arrays, table semantics, nil behavior), while Clojure abstracts over Java/JS/Dart/etc., much more heavily with its own semantics. I constantly feel like I'm missing good CLJ ergonomics - no built-in immutable data structures; no rich standard library; limited REPL experience;

The difference in philosophy is that Fennel prioritizes being "just a syntax" for Lua and Clojure prioritizes being a "better language" that happens to run on JVM/JS/.NET/Dart/etc. Makes Fennel feel more like a transpiler - remember the days of Coffeescript?

I guess, maybe all that actually makes Fennel more appealing to some - abstraction layer thickness sometimes does matter. I personally, wish for an actual Clojure dialect on top of Lua, rather than something "like Clojure".
by techpineapple | 2025-09-07 16:32:30+00:00
Is this that masculine energy Zuck was hoping to bring to Facebook? For serious though, this seems like the kind of political awkwardness detailed in careless people.

It makes me wonder, some people do seem to rise to prominence by being serious principled people, but it seems fewer and farther between recently, and it’s amazing to think the extent to which values I was dissuaded from as a kid are the key to success.

It’s also - maybe this is part of the lifecycle of all businesses, but it’s wild when thinking of why capitalism is “good” that people have envisioned self-interest in this way which causes people to pull apart in a productively competitive tension, and not self interest as being “manipulate the government until you win” in this morass of toxic re-inforcement.
by xyzal | 2025-09-07 16:32:32+00:00
This paragraph should be emphasized.

> The government now requires platforms to register for a license and to appoint a representative who can address grievances. “We requested them to enlist with us five times. What to do when they don’t listen to us?” said Gajendra Kumar Thakur, a spokesman for the ministry.

I wonder what were the platforms expecting, ignoring local government.

You have to play by the rules society agrees on. Or do the companies think they are too big for consequence?
by haswell | 2025-09-07 16:32:35+00:00
When the agency enforcing those labor laws is also blatantly violating the law while carrying out other highly publicized enforcement actions, they will be scrutinized for everything they do, including actions that were likely legal/necessary. That's part of the problem with the government breaking the law - legitimate actions are no longer seen as legitimate, because they have undermined themselves in the public eye.

I also don't think people are "going to bat for a company abusing labor laws" so much as they are highly suspicious of these enforcement actions given the complete lawlessness displayed elsewhere and imagine the possibility that there were more diplomatic solutions that still address the problem appropriately.
by mschuster91 | 2025-09-07 16:33:03+00:00
> The issue is, what else do you expect people to do?

At the very least, vote for politicians actually taking the myriad of issues seriously. Millions of Americans couldn't be bothered to do even that bare minimum in 2024, despite knowing what shitshow the first Trump term was. And no, voter suppression isn't an excuse, the Democrats lost more votes from 2020-2024 than Trump gained.

And it's not just the federal elections where votes and engagement can and do make a difference. The book bans? Passed by school boards (crazy enough these are a thing in the first place, most other countries run that through regular civilian administration). That nutjob sheriff Arpaio? Voted and confirmed by locals. You get the point - the far-right has done local legwork and voting for decades.

And finally: stay informed about what is going on, so when Uncle John goes off on his usual tirades at family gatherings after a few beers, you can recognize what the lies are and call the lies out.
by rayiner | 2025-09-07 16:33:04+00:00
The difference is more about the appetite for aggressive enforcement than the underlying policy. There is little appetite in either party for increasing the volume of legal immigration.

Also, you can’t lump non-voters in with the immigration proponents. Multiple studies have found that Trump would’ve won by an even larger margin if everyone would have voted: https://www.npr.org/2025/06/26/nx-s1-5447450/trump-2024-elec... https://data.blueroseresearch.org/hubfs/2024%20Blue%20Rose%2...
by amelius | 2025-09-07 16:33:16+00:00
I got really disappointed in Apple's hardware when my mom bought an Apple Watch.

The software is entirely user-unfriendly. For one example: she wanted to use a photo as the standard background image. However, the clock digits could only be positioned such that they appeared over the faces in the photo. I cannot believe that Apple created such bad UX. This is really amateur level.
by jacquesm | 2025-09-07 16:33:33+00:00
When I was much younger I was sent 'onsite' regularly to set up machinery that had been made by the company I worked for. This is still pretty common in anything related to industry because you're just simply not going to be able to train a local to troubleshoot/install a machine that they have no clue about. Some of this stuff takes years to become familiar with.
by Zagreus2142 | 2025-09-07 16:33:34+00:00
It feels like there is a different search use case that AI accels in while it destroys another.

- When I know so little about a subject that the concepts are all vague and I'm intellectually grasping in the dark. LLMs are good at taking my imprecise wording and orienting me towards the paths/gradients others have taken.

VS

- I know this subject well enough and instead of fumbling around I want to be able to run grep over a massive amount of open text data.

While the former mode is useful, the act of training without asking has led to the repopularization of walled gardens. Early Google felt like being able to grep every library book in existence and a 3 paragraph summary in response to very poorly worded questions is a terrible trade.

I know Simon is smart and he included his search terms with their warts to be open so I don't want to elicit shame over this. But cmon, just type out bought ("Anthropic but lots of physical books..."). Complete anecdote but I have noticed my LLM reliant friends have become way worse at texting and it feels like it's worth taking 5 seconds to try to structure your thoughts, simply for the practice
by jauntywundrkind | 2025-09-07 16:33:41+00:00
The legal ground can debate itself however it wants by ignoring the obvious & massive moral standing it seeks to embrace or shirk.

I for one think this is an insult to life itself, to summarily execute whomever you vaguely suspect, while they are out in international waters.

Calling these people non-state combatants maybe legally entitles you to just fucking blowing them away with incredibly super fantastically expensive military equipment & ammunition. But you're already accepting hook line & sinker every bit of the administration's long chain of self-granted rights: that Designating Cartels and Other Organizations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Specially Designated Global Terrorists is a legit emergency tantamount to war, the classification of folks as combatants, and the verdict that these particular people are all indeed in this clasificstion & deserving of death, for the base essential security of this nation. Not a single one of those steps in any way seems essential and every link there deeply denigrates in my view the law & majesty of the US, seems a preposterous assertion beyond the pale & massive weak baby no-backbone loser move, showing all the bravery of people afraid to ride the NYC metro, and insulting to the essence of law.

Maybe the law allows this, maybe the executive grants it. But the disproportionality is insane and insulting. These acts lower this nation, and it feels like there are so many more direct ways to take on global terrorism and cartels, that don't resort to morally if not legally lawless murder in international waters.
by pfdietz | 2025-09-07 16:33:44+00:00
Yes, by all means allow the "culturally significant artifacts" to sit unused, taking up space, until your estate sale where they will be purchased for their scrap value.

The attachment to these things is a distant echo of when they were signs of social status, when maybe 1% of households, the rich ones, would have silver flatware (and the servants to keep it polished.) Now? They are superfluous matter than serves to weight down our lives.
by renewiltord | 2025-09-07 16:35:15+00:00
Amusingly the part of the story that refers to the partially solved problem is also on its own just as evergreen.

"All you have to do is" is such a common phrase online. "why didn't they just". If one is a solo builder, yes, by all means. But why didn't the SFMTA "just build side bike lanes instead of center running bike lanes in the first place?"

Betrays a fundamental lack of knowledge of how democracies make decisions: it is the center of gravity of an object with varying mass distribution.
by iroddis | 2025-09-07 16:35:40+00:00
I wasn’t aware of effects until I read the article, but I like the idea. The example you have is just an interface. Effects work a bit like boundary hooks. A pure function only works on things internal to its scope, and so it has no effects. An impure function might affect things outside of its scope, and may want to allow the caller to hook when those effects occur. Think a function that uses the gpu. That’s a side effect, and the function should be decorated to reflect that.

I’m guessing some languages would allow for checking to ensure that any induced effects are correctly noted and advertised so that the system as a whole can be more easily reasoned about.
by johnisgood | 2025-09-07 16:35:42+00:00
What kind of compilation caches, something like ccache[1]? Do you use it, or would you? It is for C and C++. Check out the features, they are pretty neat, IMO!

The documentation may come in handy:

1. https://ccache.dev/manual/4.11.3.html#_how_ccache_works

2. https://ccache.dev/manual/4.11.3.html#_cache_statistics

and so forth.

[1] https://ccache.dev (ccache - a fast C/C++ compiler cache)
by wkat4242 | 2025-09-07 16:36:27+00:00
Sorry that was indeed uncalled for. It's just the "kids need to be tough again" narrative I have an issue with. That's especially coming from conservative Americans right now. We have so much wealth in the western world, it doesn't have to be survival of the fittest.

I personally feel we should be way more in touch with our emotions especially when it comes to men.
by angarg12 | 2025-09-07 16:36:35+00:00
The argument that the article uses to critique AI coding is that coding is not the bottleneck, instead the testing and validation of ideas is.

This is a first-degree smart argument. It presents a seemingly non-obvious idea that makes sense in retrospect.

However I happen to work at the experimentation team of a hyperscaler so I have a different perspective.

First, we aren't always saturating all of the potential experiments we could be running. The reasons are different, but essentially it takes time and effort to build those experimental features. If that cost trended to 0, we could make sure to have a queue of experiments deep enough.

Also in our side we need to do development work to support new features and products. We have a backlog long enough to keep us perpetually busy. If dev cost trended to 0, we could always be ready to provide our customers what they need.

Speaking of new products, each one our company comes up with comes with extra effort to support in our side, and yet more effort to produce dozens of AB test to validate new functionality.

This is not talking about ongoing maintenance effort. Bugfixes, upgrades etc. take a non-trivial amount of effort to keep up.

And this is only inside our little experimentation team. What about security, reliability, scalability, efficiency... it makes me wonder if OP has experience running products at scale.

Instead I'd like to think that dropping the cost of development by orders of magnitude changes the equation of how we create products.
by JdeBP | 2025-09-07 16:36:48+00:00
In fairness, there have been a lot of versions of this over the past 15 centuries, not always with the same moral.

The Wikipedia writers here have not plumbed the full depths of this, and have not yet reached Paul Franklin Baum.

* https://www.jstor.org/stable/2915573

Nor have they incorporated that one Piers Plowman text had a proposal to kill the cat, not to bell it.

* https://www.jstor.org/stable/4172513
by petralithic | 2025-09-07 16:37:09+00:00
> It was a low effort attempt to make something interesting and it wasn’t.

Maybe to you, but others in this thread found it interesting.

> Lowers the bar for what good software really is.

Software is a means to some end, not the end in itself. I can make the best coded software that does nothing [0], there is no point to that other than to practice one's skills, but again, those skills are to achieve something in the end.

[0] https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...
by avianlyric | 2025-09-07 16:37:37+00:00
The info probably does come for free. The laptops don’t use the magnets along the top edge of the screen for detecting if the screen is closed, those magnets are just there to provide the latching effect when the screen is closed, so it doesn’t open accidentally.

The sensor used for detecting if the lid is closed is an “angle” sensor, although really it’s an Hall effect sensor and a magnet in the hinge. If you have a Hall effect sensor, getting angle data from it is pretty much free, because the Hall effect produces a continuously varying signal, you need thresholding logic to turn it into a binary output.

Given Hall effect ICs are so cheap and plentiful there no reason to use anything else. Also given they mass-produced ICs it’s probably cheaper to buy a fully featured Hall Effect IC, because the manufacturing cost between a basic IC and an advanced IC is almost certainly zero these days.

In short, modern IC manufacturing has just made magnetic angle sensors as cheap, if not cheaper, than dump non-angle sensing Hall sensors. After all you can always use an angle sensing Hall sensor as binary switch if you want, but the reverse isn’t true, so if the ICs basically cost the same, you can expect the less capable ICs to be completely outcompeted by the more capable ICs.
by jauntywundrkind | 2025-09-07 16:37:55+00:00
Not acting like ISIS or the Taliban is something I wish I saw more of from the US government. The way we portray and carry ourselves, how we treat others should reflect a higher standard. But antagonism, griefing, and courseness, the infinite low grievance machine, all while increasingly repressing our own people, invading our own lands, forcing our moral doctrine atop th natural liberty of our citizens all seem to be the sad low age we are in.
by abeppu | 2025-09-07 16:37:57+00:00
I _think_ the distinction is that the interface tells you what MovieAPI _does_, but this system also tracks what are contextual requirements to do that thing. So when they write their version of the MovieAPI that calls out to an existing web api, they have to write `\ {Net, IO}` on the main method that uses them. When they write their test that uses a canned recommendation, they can just write `\ {IO}`, and they have a complicated pile of test logic and confirm just at a glance at the top-level signature that no network calls are made when the test runs.

So in java, you could write two distinct classes implementing the MovieApi interface as you defined it, one of which calls out to the web and one which doesn't, and nothing about the type indicates that difference. If you accidentally used the wrong class, your tests could make a network call and you might never notice, because you would not have tracked that effect.

For someone with a java background, it's really helpful to make the analogy to Checked Exceptions, which let us propagate information about what kind of handler must be required contextually.
by seabass-labrax | 2025-09-07 16:38:43+00:00
Maybe the Americans were still remembering the first World War, in which the Germans already had low morale by the time the USA joined the conflict. The USA joined in the thick of WWII when the Germans/Axis were doing considerably better. A prevailing (but ahistorical) view among Germans after WWI was that they had surrendered prematurely in 1918, so that might have also led to a cultural disdain towards surrender.
by jappgar | 2025-09-07 16:38:58+00:00
In python or typescript, the most popular languages in the world, it offers no runtime safety.

Even in languages like Haskell, "safety" is an illusion. You might create a NumberGreaterThanFive type with smart constructors but that doesn't stop another dev from exporting and abusing the plain constructor somewhere else.

For the most part it's fine to assume the names of types are accurate, but for safety critical operations it absolutely makes sense to revalidate inputs.
by mgkimsal | 2025-09-07 16:39:04+00:00
> But, I don’t think the idea of just stopping charging works.

You don't stop CHARGING. You stop providing the service that is accumulating charges in excess of what limit I set. And you give some short period of time to settle the bill, modify the service, etc. You can keep charging me, but provide a way to stop the unlimited accrual of charges beyond limits I want to set.

> No, I think cloud billing is just inherently complicated.

You're making it more complicated than it needs to be.

> The only reasonable interpretation of “emergency stop on all charges completely” would be to delete those images.

It's by far certainly not the 'only reasonable interpretation'.

"Stop all charges" is a red herring. No one is asking for a stop on charges. They want an option to stop/limit/cap the stuff that causes the charges.
by realA12l | 2025-09-07 16:40:48+00:00
Björn's writing style is intentional. He tries to make it understandable for people that have deeper understanding of the subject, but to keep out the people that doesn't know enough. It's primarily to convey what Arcan is to the people that can do something with Arcan, but to avoid attention that will ultimately lead to flame wars.

Ståhl _hates_ attention, both from being a quite private individual to having problem with weirdos showing up at his apartment when some of his videos have gone viral here on HN. (Everyone's home addresses are public here in Sweden)
by jacquesm | 2025-09-07 16:41:29+00:00
Yes, I know we have detention centers. Believe me I'm not happy about them.

> The U.S. is an outlier in allowing deportable people to remain free pending their deportation proceedings.

The US is an outlier in relying wholesale on an illegal workforce without representation and without healthcare or access to the legal system to keep their economy afloat.

> For deportation the only "due process" is checking that someone is not in the country legally.

Sorry, and given that this is a point of law, you are utterly wrong on this, which makes me wonder what else you are wrong about where you are so confident.

https://www.vera.org/news/what-does-due-process-mean-for-imm...

Have a read, and maybe adjust your priors a bit.

> Many European countries use the military for policing, including your own.

You keep saying that, here and elsewhere. But it just isn't true.

> As a lawyer, what horrifies me is six decades of non-enforcement of our immigration laws.

That is very much not true and you know it. The biggest problem with US immigration law is that it is (1) ridiculously complex (2) dealt with by understaffed entities (3) kept in place because industry and agriculture more or less depend on it and (4) effectively makes the country a vast amount of money.

If you're so horrified by it then you can blame your parents for picking a country to emigrate to that was soft on emigration. You can't pin this on the emigrants, many of whom were in the USA well before you were even born.

Meanwhile, you're on the record as a lawyer that argues incessantly on behalf of a government that is doing their level best to destroy the justice system that you've grown up in and that you - ostensibly - support. An extrajudicial assassination or two - let alone 11 - doesn't even cause a raised eyebrow, and mass deportations without so much as a chance of legal review doesn't either.