MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by roscas | 2025-09-28 09:26:56+00:00
Maybe you can explain why it connects to google because it makes no sense at all.

iceServers: [ { urls: "stun:stun.l.google.com:19302" }, { urls: "stun:stun1.l.google.com:19302" }, { urls: "stun:stun2.l.google.com:19302" }, { urls: "stun:stun3.l.google.com:19302" }, { urls: "stun:stun4.l.google.com:19302" }
by kstenerud | 2025-09-28 09:28:51+00:00
Actually, it's not missing the point. Sometimes you really do want duck typing, in which case you allow Any. It's not all-or-nothing.

What the reddit post is demonstrating is that the Python type system is still too naive in many respects (and that there are implementation divergences in behavior). In other languages, this is a solved problem - and very ergonomic and safe.
by torginus | 2025-09-28 09:29:37+00:00
Laughable garbage. Notice the article fails to state at what range the system engaged the drones or the size of the system itself. I suspect this is a container sized system that costs tens of millions of dollars, and has an engagement range of maybe a couple miles against non-hardened targets.

Drone swarms also only exist as a flight of fancy not a real threat. We know how drones are actually utilized, and the 'swarm' you are talking about constists of a dozen drones spread out maybe over 10 square miles.

If you're so confident in your system, then send it to Ukraine (or considering the current admin, Russia might be more your speed).

I wish the day would come when Americans would look at R&D as a valuable and meaningful activity in of itself, not as some sort of long con designed to allow investors and VCs to magic money out of nowhere.
by m000 | 2025-09-28 09:31:02+00:00
It's sprayed all over TFA: CAD

Mind that this was early Windows XP era. The Windows "workstation" would probably have something like a RIVA TNT with 16MB of graphics memory. Meanwhile the Intellistation had way more powerful options (e.g. 128MB on a single card, or exotic 4 cards x 16MB configurations).

But even if you could beef your PC hardware to similar specs, the CAD software was probably just not there (yet). Not to mention that pre-SP2 Windows XP were pretty terrible on their own.
by nick49488171 | 2025-09-28 09:32:23+00:00
Lest anyone misinterpret your statement, shotguns are still dangerous at long range: No. 7 1/2 shot carries, and is dangerous to humans, for 125 yards; No. 6 shot is dangerous for 250 yards; 3 and 4 shot are dangerous for 300 yards and BB shot is dangerous for 450 yards. The heavy shot used for geese is dangerous for 1,400 yards -- almost a mile.

The spread will mean you likely won't hit what you are aiming at, but it is still dangerous.
by varjag | 2025-09-28 09:33:03+00:00
You'd have to make sure the linkages are not conductive and there is not even a 1mm clearance on their ports in the enclosure. Non-metal axles are possible but it's hard to find material that would withstand the torque.

You also need to think through your cooling solution. Enclosed batteries, converters and motors will generate a lot of heat over typical mission, and you don't have the benefit of direct air cooling anymore.
by KaiserPro | 2025-09-28 09:33:49+00:00
> counter components by Intel and AMD that are documented to death

can you show me the GPIO library and documentation for a beelink n100?

where are the i2c pins on the motherboard, do they come with headers, or do we need to solder them in?

> Even the cheaper 500 isn't such a great value, unlike for instance, the foundation's (and mine) beloved ZX Spectrum.

the non plus 500 is £84. The Zxspectrum would be £500 adjusted for inflation.

a decent n100 (ie one that isn't a gamble) is £250, and again is for a different purpose.
by MrJohz | 2025-09-28 09:34:03+00:00
Doesn't that go both ways? If we're "really engineers", we don't need to use hyperbole to communicate simple ideas like "this isn't on time, nor is it up to the right quality standards, and I'm tired of having to say this so often".

In practice, how we communicate with each other matters, even in fields like engineering. That doesn't mean perfect objectivity all the time (that's not how anyone speaks to each other), but it does mean taking the time to understand how our words are going to be received by the person we're talking to.

Think of it this way: if I wanted to ask you to go to the shop, but instead of saying "shop", I kept on using a gibberish word instead, we'd say that was bad communication. I know you won't understand the gibberish word, so you won't understand what I'm trying to say to you.

The same is true of tone. Tone is part of communication, so when I use a tone of voice that is too aggressive, or too polite and careful, then you can't understand what I'm actually trying to say. Finding the right tone is necessary for good communication. What that tone is will depend on who I'm talking to - with my friends I'll use one tone and with strangers another; with British people I'll phrase things one way, with Germans in a different way.

Fwiw, I understand the communication style on the a Linux mailing list to generally be fairly combative, so if that's the culture Linus has built up, then fair enough if he chooses to communicate that way. Although the danger there of course is that if you only communicate like that and someone new appears who is not used to that culture, then there are going to be translation difficulties that may put newcomers off.
by cardanome | 2025-09-28 09:34:29+00:00
> slowly become statically typed

They don't. They become gradually typed which is a thing of it's own.

You can keep the advantages of dynamic languages, the ease of prototyping but also lock down stuff when you need to.

It is not a perfect union, generally the trade-off is that you can either not achieve the same safety level as in a purely statically typed language because you need to provide same escape hatches or you need a extremely complex type system to catch the expressiveness of the dynamic side. Most of the time it is a mixture of both.

Still, I think this is the way to go. Not dynamic typing won or static typing won but both a useful and having a language support both is a huge productivity boost.
by Akronymus | 2025-09-28 09:35:27+00:00
> It isn't that it's not correct. It is correct, it's just also stupid. I found that the fundamental anchor of it is that people do not directly observe reality - they interpret it through their senses, so nothing can be truly known. So far, fairly uncontroversial, if a little philosophical [0].

It also fundamentally rejects there being an objective reality, which also rejects the possibility of disagreeing on something but still believing common ground to be possible to be found. Which I personally see as one of the biggest reasons why people become less and less willing to allow differing opinions to exist at all.

And in regards to everything being political: Politics certainly informs a lot of stuff in how you perceive the world. But most things aren't political statements, unless you make it so. And I really don't enjoy interacting with people who make any one thing their whole personality, and that includes politics.
by anal_reactor | 2025-09-28 09:37:12+00:00
The whole discussion about the sentience of AI on this website is funny to me because people seem to desperately want to somehow be better than AI. The fact that human brain is just a complex web of neurons firing there and back for some reason won't stick to them, because apparently the electric signals between biological neurons are somehow inherently different from silicon neurons, even if observed output is the same. It's like all those old scientists trying to categorize black people as different species because not doing so would hurt their ego.

Not to mention that most people pointing out "See! Here's why AI is just repeating training data!" or other nonsense miss the fact that exactly the same behavior is observed in humans.

Is AI actually sentient? Not yet. But it definitely passes the mark for intuitive understanding of intelligence, and trying to dismiss that is absurd.
by guiriduro | 2025-09-28 09:38:01+00:00
The Landrover side is clearly doing work, even if the Jaguar part was doing poorly before this. There are a lot of suppliers also that end up having to furlough if their main client shuts down. And there are second order effects on local economies when that happens, and therefore on HMRC. And you also don't want to lose engineering skills that might be needed for e.g. military crossgrades/upscales. Ultimately its better to have that continue than not, but I also believe the consequences should be significant on the mismanaging equity holders, esp. Tata, and potentially beneficial for taxpayers longer term, which reduces the moral hazard aspect for a better overall solution.
by mhitza | 2025-09-28 09:38:21+00:00
I think you're ignoring how for some of us, gradual typing, is a far better experience than languages with static types.

For example what I like about PHPStan (tacked on static analysis through comments), that it offers so much flexibility when defining type constraints. Can even specify the literal values a function accepts besides the base type. And subtyping of nested array structures (basically support for comfortably typing out the nested structure of a json the moment I decode it).
by willywanker | 2025-09-28 09:38:35+00:00
They always could be local. Thunderbird, MS Outlook and other email clients have supported it for years. Plus there's dedicated desktop feed readers like the Qt based QuiteRSS, which I use.

On Android there's the open source Feeder from F-droid.

There's no rule that says a feed reader HAS to be a webapp.
by muro | 2025-09-28 09:39:36+00:00
That's a very pessimistic take. I recently sold a Sonos connect - about 15 years old if not older and working as well as when it was new. I have a Google home max speaker, 8 years old, works flawlessly. We have a pair of B&W speakers from 2001 or so - got the speaker insulation replaced, otherwise everything great. And a 5.1 set from Logitech from 2005 also works without issues - the difficult part is to only make sure the PC has the right outputs, but even that is moot with USB sound cards. We also have some cheap monitor speakers, they work fine after 7 years.
by Mond_ | 2025-09-28 09:40:00+00:00
> * Types are expensive and dont tend to pay off on spikey/experimental/MVP code, most of which gets thrown away.

This is what people say, but I don't think it's correct. What is correct is that say, ten to twenty years ago, all the statically typed languages had other unacceptable drawbacks and "types bad" became a shorthand for these issues.

I'm talking about C (nonstarter for obvious reasons), C++ (a huge mess, footguns, very difficult, presumably requires a cmake guy), Java (very restrictive, slow iteration and startups, etc.). Compared to those just using Python sounds decent.

Nowadays we have Go and Rust, both of which are pretty easy to iterate in (for different reasons).
by alex989 | 2025-09-28 09:40:02+00:00
The limit is artificial. That's the entire point. There is no laws or bible verse telling apple it's illigal to let you use the cpu on your phone for workstation workloads. Wouldn't it be nice if you could hook up your phone to a usb dock, boot Linux/windows/macos and get a workstation that's faster than a 2000$ laptop? Sure you can buy a Mac mini, but iphone owners already have one in their pocket.
by torginus | 2025-09-28 09:40:40+00:00
Because this is all what they have - a fictional dramatization meant to impress layman decision makers into buying a tremendously expensive system that'll never be viable.

This would've worked in a world with no major conflict where the main enemy was a fictional one dreamed up by them to be especially vulnerable to the sort of system they make but we don't live in that world.
by FergusArgyll | 2025-09-28 09:41:36+00:00
This sounds cool, is there a way to do this with ssh?

Similarly to your secret Google Drive documents, your SSH3 server can be hidden behind a secret link and only answer to authentication attempts that made an HTTP request to this specific link, like the following: ssh3-server -bind 192.0.2.0:443 -url-path <my-long-secret>
by ashvardanian | 2025-09-28 09:41:54+00:00
I was asked this a few months back but don’t have the measurements fresh anymore. In general, I think TBB is one of the more thorough and feature-rich parallelism libraries out there. That said, I just found a comparable usage example in my benchmarks, and it doesn’t look like TBB will have the same low-latency profile as Fork Union: https://github.com/ashvardanian/ParallelReductionsBenchmark/...
by xandrius | 2025-09-28 09:42:20+00:00
Happy it worked for you but a whetstone with an angle guide and you'd be done in a similar time.

I think I can refresh a lightly dull blade in 10min or so, and speaking as a non-pro.

The long-term benefits of a whetstone is that you can get much more feedback on what's happening, while most "systems" work for a bit and then it's hard to see what part is over-worked or not performing as well as it used to.

Just putting it out here because I think people might either not be using an angle guide or just be somewhat misguided, since using a whetstone is really not much slower.
by claudex | 2025-09-28 09:42:43+00:00
From the link:

> At that point Windows XP 32-bit was the most commonly used variant, and while you could run XP 64-bit (and IBM did have native support for it on the IntelliStation 9228), XP 64-bit had so many problems so most users were stuck with 3.9 GB of RAM. Therefore if we were to assume that UNIX and said UNIX hardware offered way more memory, it starts to make sense
by T-A | 2025-09-28 09:43:37+00:00
You are moving the goalpost.

Title of the article you're commenting: Why Today’s Humanoids Won’t Learn Dexterity

Thesis the article is contradicting: The idea is that humanoid robots will share the same body plan as humans, and will work like humans in our built for human environment. This belief requires that instead of building different special purpose robots we will have humanoid robots that do everything humans can do.

You are now arguing that a specialized robot lacking dexterity would still be immensely useful. Nobody is disputing that. It's just not what the article is about.
by surgical_fire | 2025-09-28 09:43:48+00:00
My point of them being orthogonal is that both ends of the seesaw can come down together. The logical conclusion is that they can come up together. In other words, it is not a seesaw.

Counter example - the usage of a password manager so that you have strong passwords on every service. It is extremely convenient (I don't have to remember passwords anymore, just the one for the password manager). It is also inherently more secure, as I can now use a different strong password for every service.
by seec | 2025-09-28 09:44:00+00:00
I think the idea of shared libraries is also linked to a problem of the past: expensive storage (especially fast storage).

Nowadays SSDs with decent random IO are quite cheap to the point where even low-end hosting has them, and getting spinning disks is a choice reserved for large media files. On the consumer side, we are below a hundred dollars for one TB, so the storage savings are not very relevant.

But if you go back to when Linux was designed, storage was painfully expensive, and potentially saving even a few hundred megabytes was pretty good.

But I do agree that shared libraries are generally a bad idea and something that will most likely create problems at some point. Self-contained software makes a lot more sense generally speaking. And I definitely think that Docker is a dumb "solution" for software distribution but the problem really starts with devs using way too many dependencies.
by visarga | 2025-09-28 09:44:41+00:00
> The child and the wolf try to enjoy a picnic by the river but there's a sheep. The boat needs to connect nine dots over the river without leaving the water but gets into an accident and dies. The surgeon says "I can't operate on this child!" why?

Just tested it and it actually fools Claude on first try! LOL, so much for reasoning models.
by TeMPOraL | 2025-09-28 09:45:43+00:00
2024 Bell Riots were the tipping point[0], but there was still World War 3 a few decades later. A global nuclear exchange probably helped a lot in kicking human civilization off the dystopian but locally optimal path it found itself stuck on[1]. Meeting a technologically superior alien race a decade later also helped solidify a different perspective :).

But yeah, I too was disappointed when 2024 came and gone without the Bell Riots - Star Trek came this close to accidentally turning prophetic, as in the months prior things really felt like the Riots are going to happen on the date.

--

[0] - In that timeline, at least. We've already past several important world events that originally happened in Trek timeline, so the show keeps shifting the dates to keep with the overall premise of being imagined future of real humanity.

IIRC the writers now settled on "Romulan temporal agents meddling with timeline, desperate to stop the Federation from forming, and failing because apparently the cosmos really wants UFP to be a thing" as a convenient explanation to push WW3, Eugenics Wars, etc. forward every once in a while.

[1] - How humanity bounced back from that so quickly is something of a mystery to me.
by baobun | 2025-09-28 09:45:52+00:00
I don't believe Typescript (nor Idris) type systems work like you describe, though? Types aren't programmable with code like that (in the same universe, as you say) and TS is structurally typed, with type erasure (ie types are not available at runtime).

I am not that deeply familiar with Python typings development but it sounds fundamentally different to the languages you compare to.
by Dr_Birdbrain | 2025-09-28 09:47:07+00:00
I actually don’t like python type hints!

At my work we have a jit compiler that requires type hints under some conditions.

Aside from that, I avoid them as much as possible. The reason is that they are not really a part of the language, they violate the spirit of the language, and in high-usage parts of code they quickly become a complete mess.

For example a common failure mode in my work’s codebase is that some function will take something that is indexable by ints. The type could be anything, it could be List, Tuple, Dict[int, Any], torch.Size, torch.Tensor, nn.Sequential, np.ndarray, or a huge host of custom types! And you better believe that every single admissible type will eventually be fed to this function. Sometimes people will try to keep up, annotating it with a Union of the (growing) list of admissible types, but eventually the list will become silly and the function will earn a # pyre-ignore annotation. This defeats the whole point of the pointless exercise.

So, if the jit compiler needs the annotation I am happy to provide it, but otherwise I will proactively not provide any, and I will sometimes even delete existing annotations when they are devolving into silliness.
by NathanFlurry | 2025-09-28 09:47:10+00:00
I’ve been building an open-source alternative at https://github.com/rivet-dev-engine

It’s the only bit of the Cloudflare stack (afaik) that did not have an open-source alternative for the JS ecosystem. I built heavily with DO on another OSS project, but realized it was incredibly problematic that our customers couldn’t truly self-host.
by gethly | 2025-09-28 09:49:11+00:00
They never left. But SPA is now more in demand than the old school server-side rendering where you return HTML in your response and let the web browser render it as is.

Decoupling back-end logic from front-end logic has just too much positivise and advantages that doing SSR is just so 2000s. JS brought dynamicity into web page rendering a long time ago. With SPA, or maybe even PWA(who really uses these?), you get also decoupling from the server - a data dynamicity, so to speak.

In short, SPA turns a dumb web page into a dynamic and responsive application that can have the look and feel of a desktop program. Web is no longer static and slow but fast and lively.

Nowadays, static HTML is a niche use case for serving web pages. Like a personal blog or corporate website that is static in nature(information there change sparsely) and can be manually typed or compiled via static website builder, like Hugo.
by chrysoprace | 2025-09-28 09:50:04+00:00
TypeScript is kind of all or nothing.

It's not quite all or nothing, but it's annoying to work with it if you only use it for some things and not for others. I find that if you have a mixture of TS and JS in various files I would rather just go all in on TypeScript so I don't have to manually annotate.

With Python you're still just working with Python files.
by thr0w4w4y1337 | 2025-09-28 09:52:39+00:00
from typing import Protocol, TypeVar

T_co = TypeVar("T_co", covariant=True)

class Indexable(Protocol[T_co]): def __getitem__(self, i: int) -> T_co: ...

def f(x: Indexable[str]) -> None: print(x[0])

I am failing to format it proprely here, but you get the idea.
by john01dav | 2025-09-28 09:52:57+00:00
In this case I've had success explaining the problem to people, stating my proposed solution that they won't like, and asking if they have a better idea. If they have a better idea, then the problem is solved. If not, then they've thought of it from my perspective and it is shifted from me imposing something unpleasant to there being something unpleasant that none of us know how to get rid of.
by ChrisMarshallNY | 2025-09-28 09:56:21+00:00
I have never experienced it, myself, but have seen several close friends deal with it.

They always come back wiped out, and sick.

Usually, it’s a temporary thing; meant to keep you going, until a full cure (like a transplant) can be effected.

My friend made his decision, because a transplant was not an option. He would need to live like that, for the rest of his life. I have a couple of other acquaintances, that got transplants, and were able to go past dialysis.
by dvfjsdhgfv | 2025-09-28 09:56:53+00:00
Yeah I agree it was the original plan from the beginning: use Saudi money to strangle competition and then get the prices back to taxi level (or higher). I believe they partly succeeded by making a compromise here: they both cut the payments to drivers and increased prices.

The original plan worked because in the switch-and-bait phase they were visibly cheaper so in the last year people's mental and speech model changed from "call me a taxi" to "call me an uber". But at least in my local market, the price difference between a taxi an and uber in 2025 is negligible.
by 9dev | 2025-09-28 09:57:58+00:00
That's the same complaints people had about TypeScript in the beginning, when libraries such as Express used to accept a wide range of input options that would be a pain to express in types properly. If you look at where the ecosystem is now, though, you'll see proper type stubs, and most libraries get written in TS in the first place anyway. When editing TS code, you get auto-completion out of the box, even for deeply nested properties or conditional types. You can rely on types being what the compiler says they are, and runtime errors are a rarity now (in properly maintained code bases).

> The reason is that they are not really a part of the language, they violate the spirit of the language, and in high-usage parts of code they quickly become a complete mess.

I'll admit that this is what I hate Python, and it's probably this spirit of the language as you call it. I never really know what parameters a function takes. Library documentation often shows a few use cases, but doesn't really provide a reference; so I end up having to dig into the source code to figure it out on my own. Untyped and undocumented kwargs? Everywhere. I don't understand how someone could embrace so much flexibility that it becomes entirely undiscoverable for anyone but maintainers.