MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by toast0 | 2025-09-22 12:48:17+00:00
Equal territory exchange seems reasonable to me, borders needed to be negotiated; moving borders may be easier than moving population. Ensuring equal territory is equal is a hard problem, and perceived unfairness could lead to future conflicts, but any chosen border could be perceived as unfair.

In my mind, if both sides are equally opposed to it, it's probably fair... But that poll also offers hope; it said there were steps each side could take unilaterally or paired that would get to majority support. I didn't see list of those steps, except the two paired options which they said could individually make a big difference (anti-incitement, especially in textbooks and mutual employment authorization).
The Parable of the Chair Machine
by alnewkirkcom | 2025-09-22 12:48:27+00:00
The chairmaker was once known for his skill, every curve and joint a testament to patience and mastery. When given a machine that could produce any chair at the press of a button, he hesitated. The villagers saw abundance and profit, but he saw the loss of struggle, craft, and the quiet joy of making. The machine offered speed, but it threatened to strip the soul from the work.

So the chairmaker stood torn: embrace the machine and flood the market with flawless chairs, or resist and risk being left behind. In the end, he chose balance. He used the machine for what was ordinary, but he kept his hands for what was meant to endure, preserving his craft even as he welcomed the future.

The moral: adopting A.I. is much the same. If we let it, the machine will do everything for us — but in doing so, it risks eroding the skills, discernment, and meaning we bring to the work. The wisdom lies not in rejecting A.I. outright, nor in surrendering to it blindly, but in using it with intention: letting it handle the ordinary so we can preserve the extraordinary.
by unwind | 2025-09-22 12:48:45+00:00
This passes Betteridge's law [1] just fine, since I guess the answer from those of us who actually have to carry the laptop any distance is a big "no". A backpack or messenger back is way more comfortable, right?

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
by ACCount37 | 2025-09-22 12:50:15+00:00
Yeah! Just add more sensors! We're only 992 more sensors away from full self-driving! It totally works that way!

The debris? The very visible piece of debris? The piece of debris that a third party camera inside the car did in fact see? Adding 2 radars and 5 LIDARs would totally solve that!

For fuck's sake, I am tired of this worn out argument. The bottleneck of self-driving isn't sensors. It was never sensors. The bottleneck of self-drivng always was, and still is: AI.

Every time a self-driving car crashes due to a self-driving fault, you pull the blackbox, and what do you see? The sensors received all the data they needed to make the right call. The system had enough time to make the right call. The system did not make the right call. The issue is always AI.
by billy99k | 2025-09-22 12:50:45+00:00
"You think the kids today can’t afford houses and families because they’re buying too much fiber internet.. and bragging about it?"

Small things add up. When you buy the latest phone, best Internet connection, booze, weed, latest video game, and online subscriptions, You certainly can't save for a house. Many of the younger generation are really in an extended state of childhood.

I'm not even close to a boomer, and sacrificed all of these things to save for a house/my future. While I was doing this, friends I knew had the latest phone, went partying every weekend, and spent money on their hobbies.

Guess who can't afford a house now?

"You just sound horribly out of touch and given your anecdotes don’t know what poverty or hardship was back in the day or is today."

It sounds like you don't either.
by heelix | 2025-09-22 12:51:26+00:00
We did something similar with 'prod' code reviews. We started including a couple of the more junior folks in a pre-release review that was mandated. Intent was to say fine, id tech debt, or pull the andon cord if something was missed that would impact prod. What came out of it were their questions - which almost always was translated into an ask for documentation for that bit of code. The secondary bonus was they learned the questions that would be asked of the people who were merging.
by its-kostya | 2025-09-22 12:51:50+00:00
While reading your comment it occured to me that people code at different abstraction levels. I do systems programming in golang and rust and I - like you - enjoy seeing my ideas come to life not so much the typing. The final result (how performant, how correct, how elegant and not complex) is in my control instead of an agent's; I enjoy having the creativity in the implementation. I can imagine other flavors of the profession working at higher abstraction layers and using more frameworks, where their result is dependant on how the framework executes. At that point, you might just want to connect all the frameworks/systems and get the feature out the door. And it is definitely a spectrum of languages, tools, frameworks that are more or less involved.

The creativity in implementing (e.g an indexed array that, when it grows to large, gets reformated to a less performance hashmap) is what I imagine being lost and bring people satisfaction. Pulling that off in a clean and not in a complex way... well there is a certain reward in that. I don't have any long term proof but I also hypothesize it helps with maintainability.

But I also see your point, sometimes I need a tool that does a function and I don't care to write it and giving the agent requirements and having it implemented is enough. But typically these tools are used and discarded.
by LordHeini | 2025-09-22 12:52:59+00:00
FiDA is a planned initiative that forces first party financial services like banks to provide other services like insurances or investment companies and maybe third parties with their customers data.

From what i understand it is required that this works via a unified API across all of Europe.

Data transfer explicitly requires the customers consent.

My guess is that this would be useful if you change the bank or some insurance to allow easy switchovers and of course tax avoidance and money laundering might be harder.

IMHO insurance companies should not have access to any of their customers banking data (they want to of course, to do price gauging and price discrimination).

And obviously there is no reason why any of those vile datahogs like Google, Facebook, Apple and so on, should have even the slightest access to this.
by agildehaus | 2025-09-22 12:53:07+00:00
It's because anecdotal experience means very little. In ~2021, these vehicles could almost never make it from A to B without a safety-critical intervention.

That they can today doesn't mean they can do the same route 10,000 times without a safety-critical intervention. In fact, public tracking indicates Tesla's numbers are MUCH lower than that.
by divan | 2025-09-22 12:53:36+00:00
Some people in comments jump to the conclusion that Go allows conflicting names in embedded structs. It doesn't not – for the embedded structs of the same depth.

These won't compile:

type Bad struct { Name string Name string } type A struct{ Name string } type B struct{ Name string } type C struct { A B } bad.Name() // compile error: other declaration of Name c.Name() // compile error: ambiguous selector c.Name

The case in article is about field names of the different depth. Spec is very clear about this behavior, and it was intentional.

One of the reasons why handling same field names is different at different nesting levels is to protect against changes in structs coming from external libraries. Or, better phrased, external structs should not dictate what names you're allowed to use in your own structs (so they have priority).

I.e. when you create a struct with another embedded struct (possibly from other package):

type Foo struct { somepackage.Bar URL string }

you don't want to depend on whether Bar already has URL. Your depth level has higher priority.

Even more, imagine in the future authors of `somepackage` decided to add URL to their struct and it suddendly started to break your code from being compiled.

I agree that behavior in the OP article example is confusing (and so is the code - do you want URL of Foo service or Bar service?). Yet, this behavior is intentional and documented.

As usual, it's a subtle tradeoff here. If this feature would be implemented differently (say, compile time error for all depth levels), we would see an article with rant on how external structure changes breaks compilation.
by raxxorraxor | 2025-09-22 12:53:52+00:00
> Modern Israel was created through the Balfour declaration.

False. Israel was established on its own by winning its war for independence and you are part of the remnants that still have a problem with that.

I don't know if that is to your own detriment, in most case it is just the usual inferiority complex towards Jews, which basically forms the foundation of the phenomenon of antisemitism. But it certainly is to the detriment of Palestinians.
by sethammons | 2025-09-22 12:53:54+00:00
I am not a "data or it didn't happen" person. I am sure I have magical beliefs that don't play out in reality.

I'm not convinced by the argument that this falls apart for your categories. Logic and reasoning still exists. Philosophy can be argued and principals agreed upon. Historical things leave traces. And I am appalled by blind faith.

At some point, our society and ways of doing things boils down to trust or faith. I trust that people thinking about things, trying to validate those things, and who employ a way to change their minds will move towards "more correct" understandings. People knew not to hang around people with the plague before germ theory.
by dspillett | 2025-09-22 12:55:28+00:00
There are various common malware payloads that include data transfer tools (http proxies, bittorrent clients, etc.) - it isn't just password scanners, keyboard monitors, and crypto miners. These tools can be used for the transfer of further malware payloads, to create a mesh network so more directed hacking attempts are much more difficult to track, to host illegal or immoral content, or for the speedy exfiltration of data after a successful directed hack (perhaps a spear-phish).

Your use of the stuff might not be at all malware like, but in a corporate environment if it isn't needed it gets flagged as something to be checked up on in case it is not there for good reason. I've been flagged for some of the tools I've played with, and this is fine: I have legitimate use for that sort of thing in my dealings with infrastructure, there are flags ticked that say “Dave has good reason to have these tools installed, don't bother us about it again unless he fails to install security updates that are released for them”, and this is fine: I want those things flagged in case people who won't be doing the things I do end up with such stuff installed without there knowledge, so it can be dealt with (and they can be given more compulsory “don't just thoughtlessly click on every link in any email you receive, and carelessly type your credentials into resulting forms” training!).
by ekidd | 2025-09-22 12:56:13+00:00
> You don't need a monad abstraction to have things with monadic properties, and indeed often reality isn't quite perfectly shaped to theory, so forcing your object to fit the abstraction can be costly.

Please note that I was trying to explain what a monad is, to somebody who wanted to understand. I also suggested that people writing typical code shouldn't actually need to know this in order to do their jobs:

> Should you need to know this in most production code? Probably not! But if you're trying to implement something fancy that "works a bit like promises, or a bit like Python comprehensions, or maybe a bit like Rust error handling", then "weird containers with flatMap" is a very powerful starting point.

Monads are an incredibly stripped-down mathematical structure ("container-like things that support flatMap"). And as such, people who design certain types of programming languages or libraries may benefit from being aware of monads. At least for languages with closures. Surprisingly few languages can actually support monads as a first-class abstraction in the language, because to make first-class monads nice you need a certain kind of type system. Which often isn't worth it.

Where I probably differ from your opinion is that I think implementing "almost monads" like JavaScript promises is very often a mistake. The few places where JavaScript promises break the monad laws are almost all nasty edge cases and obscure traps for the unwary. Similarly, if you implement list comprehensions that break the monad laws, most likely you just get awful list comprehensions.

There are exceptions. Rust has a lot a "almost monads", but this is mostly because Rust function types are a mess thanks to the zoo of Fn, FnOnce and FnMut. Rust would be a simpler and easier-to-learn language if Future<...> actually followed the monad laws. But in this case, it sadly wasn't possible, and I would argue that Rust is worse for having so many "almost monads."

This may all make more sense if you knew my tastes in programming languages, which is "languages where all the parts fit together cleanly with no surprising edge cases that prevent 'obvious' things from working." One way you can accomplish this is to have some kind of simple mathematical structure underlying your language, and to avoid adding dozens of features that almost follow clean rules. C++ never took this approach, and so C++ library designers need to be aware of all sorts of interactions between weird corner cases.

So another way of summarizing my argument is "If you have list comprehensions that somehow don't follow the monad laws, then you're going to confuse users and permanently add technical debt to your language. Make sure it's actually worth it."
by im3w1l | 2025-09-22 12:56:25+00:00
People don't scale mount everest because there is an macguffin to be found there. They scale it to scale it. Because you can. For the adventure. To assert dominance over the universe.

We can talk about economical benefits or the survival of the species and those do matter. But it's also because colonizing another planet would be fucking epic and go down in history.

With the decline in religion we do need some kind of higher purpose and meaning to rally behind, and going off planet could fit that bill. In a time of increasing divisions it could foster brotherhood.
by j_seigh | 2025-09-22 12:57:06+00:00
Only using way more bits. The original IBM lock-free stack algorithm assumed 32 bits was safe because it would take 100 years for a 32 bit counter to wrap at the time. Now it's less than 1 second.

There's some Bugblatter Beast logic here. They assume that if they can't imagine a counter/pointer value reuse ever reoccurring then malicious actors won't be able to imagine it either.

Here's an idea. How about fixing the buffer overflows and lack of data sanitation that allow code injection to occur in the first place.
by delfinom | 2025-09-22 12:57:10+00:00
I would counterpoint my little cheap Civic has hit things like that and hasn't broken a thing. HEH.

The best time was a very badly designed speed bump that I didn't even hit at high speed but one side was ridiculously inclinded vs. the other so the entire civic's frontend just smashed right into the pavement and dragged for 3 feet. I wouldn't be surprised if I went into a body shop and find the frontend tilted upwards by a few centimeters. lol
by billy99k | 2025-09-22 12:57:19+00:00
"L6+ engineer at booming tech company to pull it off,"

You sound like you live in California. Many that live here voted for the strict regulations on everything and social programs that have no led to insane taxes and minimum home costs of $1,000,000.

This starts to look like socialism where you end up with two economic classes: rich and poor.

"Many people now look at the decisions of their parents during whatever time it was, including with houses, and think "well this is what mom and dad did, and they're both broke and divorced now, so maybe lets not do that this time""

I suppose when two parents make bad life decisions, this is what your model is in life.
by tedggh | 2025-09-22 12:57:24+00:00
It depends where in the US you drive. It’s a big country with independent state governments. It’s like saying I was driving in Romania and I was shocked by how bad European highways are. I lived in Texas and the stuff I saw on the highway was crazy, vacuum cleaners, decorated Christmas trees and refrigerators. Most parts of the country interstate and highway systems are pretty clean.
by angiolillo | 2025-09-22 12:57:27+00:00
> Do not speak to them, certainly do not help, just watch.

Sounds simple, right?

I ran usability tests at a past company and have seen people who were incapable of blurting out explanations, pointing at the screen, even audibly grunting or whining to themselves when the participant made an incorrect guess about what something meant. One even grabbed the mouse.

Having a neutral moderator can help as it allows the people who made the UI/docs to stay on mute or on the other side of one-way mirror.

But I'd still suggest learning the "just watch" technique. If you master that and wish to take the next step, look up "think-aloud protocol".
by chauhanbk1551 | 2025-09-22 12:57:35+00:00
I’m a data engineering student who recently decided to shift from a non-tech role into tech, and honestly, it’s been a bit overwhelming at times. This guide I found really helped me bridge the gap between all the “bookish” theory I’m studying and how things actually work in the real world. For example, earlier this semester I was learning about the classic three-tier architecture (moving data from source systems → staging area → warehouse). Sounds neat in theory, but when you actually start looking into modern setups with data lakes, real-time streaming, and hybrid cloud environments, it gets messy real quick.

I’ve tried YouTube and random online courses before, but the problem is they’re often either too shallow or too scattered. Having a sort of one-stop resource that explains concepts while aligning with what I’m studying and what I see at work makes it so much easier to connect the dots.

Sharing here in case it helps someone else who’s just starting their data journey and wants to understand data architecture in a simpler, practical way.
Show HN: Lazy Ninja – Make Django API Endpoints and Client SDKs in Seconds
by AghastyGD | 2025-09-22 12:57:38+00:00
Hi HN

I wanted to share a project I’ve been working on called Lazy Ninja. It’s a small Django library that tries to make life easier for developers like me who want to skip boilerplate and get straight to building.

With Lazy Ninja, you can: - Instantly create API endpoints from Django models. - Auto-generate Pydantic schemas and interactive OpenAPI docs (Swagger UI / ReDoc). - Generate frontend or backend SDKs in multiple languages: TypeScript, Dart, Python, Java, Go, and more. - Work async by default, but you can switch to sync if needed. - Use UUIDs or traditional integer IDs seamlessly. - Enjoy filtering, sorting, and pagination automatically.

I built it originally to save time in my own projects, and along the way it’s been tested with real Django apps, including projects using UUID primary keys. It’s already getting some attention in the Python community, and I’d love to hear what you all think.

If you try it and like it, a on GitHub would mean a lot!

GitHub: https://github.com/AghastyGD/lazy-ninja
by lotsofpulp | 2025-09-22 12:58:07+00:00
Thanks, I see now from:

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

I was thinking along the lines of the ancient Sumerians arbitrarily deciding to divide 1 day into 24 hours, and 24 hours into 60 minutes, and 60 minutes into 60 seconds, and how that doesn't have anything to do with how humans came up with the concept of 1 year (the Earth rotating around the sun).
by keiferski | 2025-09-22 12:58:12+00:00
I really like the idea of making everyday objects into computing devices/holders for computing devices. For example, I have a set of 5 vintage American Tourister suitcases [1] lying around, and I think they would make for awesome suitcase computers.

For this movie bag, it would be cool to see some more modifications. Maybe sew in a laptop sleeve and accessories pouch to make everything fit better?

1. Like this: https://i.etsystatic.com/42664500/r/il/709f97/5624109170/il_...
by thomascountz | 2025-09-22 12:59:49+00:00
This is a great resource and running in the browser is great for fast feedback. Thanks for sharing!

I just started learning Forth a month or so ago, and I found this video from Andreas Wagner[1] fun to watch.

If anyone goes through OP's book and find yourself wanting to see Forth in action, I recommend the video.

[1]: https://youtu.be/mvrE2ZGe-rs
by rocketvole | 2025-09-22 13:00:18+00:00
I agree. I've been trying to use linux as my daily driver for months but aside from using it for incredibly basic things (like web browsing and watching videos) its been a genuine chore. I've settled on fedora gnome as most likely to be the one I'll stick with but it still feels less polished than windows. Funnily enough I'm having compatibility issues- there are a bunch of extensions that promise to use to fix my experience with gnome but they're only compatible with previous versions.
by bilbo0s | 2025-09-22 13:00:49+00:00
I'm sorry. Could you repeat that? I couldn't make out what you said clearly?

All I heard was "taxes".

/s

On a more serious note, in the US we generally go in the direction of fewer services rather than more services. It, of course, leads to massive inefficiencies, like police removing shredded tires. But it's very difficult here, politically speaking, to get Americans to agree to add government services.
by gloosx | 2025-09-22 13:01:18+00:00
I don't think comparing it to something like camera surveillance inside your home is a good idea.

You kind of own your home – if someone places camera in your property, you can just remove it / obstruct vision / sound etc. If doing that will send you to jail then the level of dystopia around is so big it's irrelevant anyway – you're a slave with no rights and you will do that the shocking stick tells you to do.

Phones are different - you kind of don't own them by default because bootloader is locked so you are not free to execute the code you want on the device, as well as app store exists which it tells you what you can install and what you cannot install. The only leverage they have is to make Apple/Google remove certain apps from the EU stores.
by ParacelsusOfEgg | 2025-09-22 13:01:20+00:00
In the first quote the video presenter is referring to the tariff percentages from 2024 to now, not prices. He never presents any data to back up his price claims, just a couple of news articles about automakers announcemens.

Everything in the video up until 20:30 is making supporting the claim that tariffs are higher now than they were in 2024 which I'd be surprised if anyone disagrees with.

After 20:30 is where I think the real meat of the video is:

"Um, now I know some people will say you can't win in a trade war. So even though Trump has gotten, you know, these good uh better levels than he had a year ago, it's basically attacks. It's going to lead to less efficiency and it's going to cause growth to fall and nobody wins a trade war. Now, if that's your argument, I tend to agree with you. But that's a different subject, right? If you want to say that nobody wins in a war and that's going to hurt everybody, fine. I'll go down that road. I think it's a relative game and if everybody falls but the United States falls the least, then on a relative basis, the United States has maintained its hegemony."