MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by stronglikedan | 2025-09-04 14:23:14+00:00
I got lasik at 40, and started needing reading glasses at 45. From 40 to 45, the lasik reverted in my right eye. I needed to either wear glasses full time for that, or deal with monovision. I just said fuck it and went back to regular glasses (progressives) all day long. My eyes are too valuable to keep fucking around with, so another round of lasik wasn't an option for me.
by prmoustache | 2025-09-04 14:23:45+00:00
> Your app is living off the work of artists and making it in a way that gives them a way to profit from it costs you nothing, so it is the right thing to do.

The app just find the music on free sources, probably published by the artists themselves or their agents. How is that living off their work and where do the nuclear developer receive money from the nuclear app users in the process?
by deltarholamda | 2025-09-04 14:23:56+00:00
There's a lot of "oh well" in the tech space. I was watching something on Pick OS yesterday, which I hadn't even heard of, which was a kind of filesystem/database/OS all together that was, if the comments on the video mean anything, quite loved.

But like BeOS (also loved) and other things just never got traction for various reasons.

I used Windowmaker for a lot of years as it was lightweight and I liked the UI, and always wondered "why not this? why ape Windows of all things?" The answer is usually something along the lines of "that's what people know," and I get it, but still.

I guess I miss the times when computers were cool.
by echelon | 2025-09-04 14:24:10+00:00
Aren't there a billion Lovable clones now that do the exact same thing?

I could never get anything useful out of Lovable and was frustrated with the long editing and waiting process.

I'd prefer a site builder template with dropdowns. Lovable feels like that type of product, just with an LLM facade.

I don't hate AI, I just wasn't getting into the groove with Lovable.
by gruez | 2025-09-04 14:24:11+00:00
This video is unconvincing. The thesis of the video basically boils down to "AI companies are using electricity, driving up prices, and residential consumers are paying for it". However it neglects that most of the power usage is caused by the same residential users, who are getting something out of it. 80–90% of AI energy usage is estimated for inference (eg. generating responses on chatgpt), not training[1]. Moreover despite AI companies being unprofitable as a whole, they're making fat margins on inference[2]. Therefore it's reasonable to assume that most of AI electricity consumption that the video complains about is as a result of ordinary people using AI. Taking this into account, blaming AI companies for jacking up electricity prices in this context makes as much sense as blaming airlines for jacking up oil prices. They're only doing so because people are buying their services, and presumably deriving some sort of utility from it.

[1] https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/05/20/1116327/ai-energ...

[2] https://martinalderson.com/posts/are-openai-and-anthropic-re...
by ksec | 2025-09-04 14:24:23+00:00
Hi Andrew - From an PR perspective, I think now that zig have enough attention it may be better to stop doing comparison with or even mentioning Rust.

Rust was hated not because of Zig or any other languages, but their Rust Evangelism Strike Force. Some day these comparison may back fire. Zig can stand on its own now, and already quite widely known. May be best to have peace rather than war.

Just my ( may be useless ) 2 cents.
by hbn | 2025-09-04 14:24:27+00:00
I'm giving it a shot on my work machine. Device management doesn't give me any options other than Chrome, Edge, Firefox, and Safari anyway. I do like and use Safari for non-work tasks (mainly HN scrolling) but it has some issues that prevent it from being a main browser for me.

So I'll see if I can make FF work but it's mostly cause it's the best option at this point.
by taeric | 2025-09-04 14:25:09+00:00
This feels misleading to me.

I accept that data centers generate more load for a system. Which will make the overall system need more maintenance, which is something that others paying into the system will also have to support. But, I'm not clear on why this is a hidden cost.

Consider, if people get the new housing developments that they want, that would also add load to the system. This larger energy system will be more expensive to run, which will lead to higher costs. Adding houses would probably be even more expensive in the transmission maintenance costs associated.

Any model you do that tries to prevent this is essentially rent stabilization for early members. And that has a pretty good track record of not being a good idea.
by Workaccount2 | 2025-09-04 14:25:19+00:00
Here is the thing about hardware vs software.

For the same mental effort, you get orders of magnitude more "end product" from software than hardware, with greatly less overhead and greatly more flexibility.

Hardware is extremely punishing and "complexity friction" kicks in almost immediately. A multi-feature door alarm on a microcontroller is a one hour affair that a newbie could finagle. With a pure hardware implementation its a multi-day effort, plus another day of reworking the board to dial it in. And if you aren't copying a design, you likely need a degree as well.

There is also the fact that software pays much more than hardware, can be done remotely from just about anywhere, doesn't involve working in labs full of lead and solvents, and like the author noted, has a much higher "wow!" factor from people in general. Software makes you feel very powerful, hardware will humble you into the ground.
by rkozik1989 | 2025-09-04 14:25:19+00:00
The reason LLMs suck in plenty of brownfield projects is because those codebases likely either implemented frameworks in a proprietary way, maybe did not rely on any public framework at all, or were in general done in an esoteric way and therefor few (if any) similar codebases exist within the LLMs training data. Which is problematic because LLMs aren't capable of reasoning or learning they're literally just predicting the next most likely token in a chain similarly to how autocomplete works. Without you supplying additional context and explicitly defining guardrails for preforming common tasks the LLM has no frame of reference for working with your codebase.
by lioeters | 2025-09-04 14:25:44+00:00
That's a helpful summary of what's necessary to make JSON safe to embed in script tags.

I agree the "why" is too long of a story, an accumulation of supposedly logical decisions that led up to the ball of quirks. It's too much to remember. Exactly the kind of thing that should be delegated to a specialized function made and maintained by experts.
by flkiwi | 2025-09-04 14:25:53+00:00
I know it's not fashionable to blame founders, but I genuinely don't understand this. What has he done to deserve "lots of respect" in the context of this conversation? TBC got to a difficult place because of their choices. Rugpulling users by creating a product nobody asked for, squandering investor money, cashing out by selling to a company antithetical to all the marketing copy TBC had produced to that point.

If you live by the rule that you only judge leaders by their actions and not by their words, TBC was a failure as soon as they abandoned Arc, and arguably when they couldn't provide a business case for Arc in the first place.
by MarsIronPI | 2025-09-04 14:26:32+00:00
> I'm not sure if that's what you meant; the ML approach is quite different. There is a difference in approach because in Common Lisp each method is a separate function definition (though macros can alleviate this), but my point is that both CL and ML are more function-oriented, if you will; i.e. "methods" (or whatever you want to call ML pattern-matched functions) aren't defined in a class body and are just ordinary functions.

I think this more function-focused approach is more elegant, but also more extensible and possibly less verbose when dealing with multiple classes that share the same interface.

> the same as in Python except that you also have to define the generic function itself before you can define the methods. As a side note, though it's not terribly important, the "defgeneric" can be omitted if you don't care to specify docstring or any special behavior.
by dinan | 2025-09-04 14:26:49+00:00
I got fed up with trying to guess car sizes from useless dealer sites, so I spent way too much time building a visualizer.

You can throw two cars on top of each other to see the real size difference, or check a truck's turning radius to see if you'll need to do a 5-point turn just to turn around in your driveway. Visualization stuff you can't tell from a spec sheet.

I went a little to deep and ended up with specs for over 70k vehicles. But I used it to prove to myself a rivian won't fit in my garage, so I'm calling it a win.

Anyway, hope you enjoy my side project as much as i did making it. Let me know what you think or if there are any big improvements I can make.
by OscarCunningham | 2025-09-04 14:26:49+00:00
I don't agree (I'm the author).

The difference is that Monty knows which of the doors the car is behind and deliberately avoids it, thereby giving away information about where the car is.

Whereas in Minesweeper we've just blindly stumbled across a situation where we have to guess.

It would be like if every show Monty always revealed a random door. Sometimes he would reveal the car and the game would end immediately. In the cases when he didn't reveal the car it really would be 50/50 between the remaining two doors.
by ratrocket | 2025-09-04 14:27:12+00:00
If your update is the simplest version, a "git pull" -- then you're incorporating commits that have not "stewed" long enough for anyone to be burned. You might win the lucky ticket! (Saying this as someone who rarely updates nvim plugins, out of forgetfulness, not principle, and when they are updated I believe it IS a simple "git pull"...)
by dduplex | 2025-09-04 14:27:33+00:00
Aw, sorry to hear that. I remember encountering that bug a while back and was happy when I figured out a way to squash it. Admittedly I tested this app in browsers on Linux, Mac, and on an iPhone, but not Android. So I'll get a hold of an Android device and figure out a way to re-squash the backwards bug. Thanks for the heads up.
by abvdasker | 2025-09-04 14:27:37+00:00
In scenario 1, a corporation externalizes some of its costs. Those costs are then paid by people who may or may not actually use the corporation's product — people who never chose to be part of any transaction. This is coercive because the people paying for the corporation's externalities are forced to: they may not use the product, or do so to different degrees not proportional to the price they pay for the externality.

In scenario 2, the corporation does not externalize costs and raises their prices, offsetting costs by passing them on to their customers. The people paying the additional cost are those who know the price of what they are buying and willingly engage in the transaction for the good or service.

Do you understand why scenario 2 is bad and scenario 1 is less bad?
by bee_rider | 2025-09-04 14:27:46+00:00
This seems unlikely to me. Most of these machines are laptops nowadays. While my Linux system idles at 4W, the plug is only capable of going up to 60W. So even if Windows brought it to the point of nearly overheating the power brick (I’m no Windows fan, but I’m pretty skeptical there!), it would only be 1/10’th of a typical 600W window air conditioner.

The untapped energy savings is, IMO, getting people to run their climate control less. We should toughen up a bit, tell our brains that 50F-80F is the comfortable range. (Depending on humidity and your workload).
by jimbokun | 2025-09-04 14:28:00+00:00
That's a strange definition of capitalism you're using.

Most people use capitalism to describe a system where people trade goods and services with as little interference from government as possible.

In this case, the government has written laws in a way that indirectly transfers wealth from consumers to large corporations.

Saying that such laws are "inevitable" in any conceivable capitalist system is unfalsifiable and adds little to the discussion.

I think calling it "crony capitalism" to make it clear that it's the undue influence of capital on government specifically causing the problem here lends more clarity to the discussion.
by prmoustache | 2025-09-04 14:28:17+00:00
> Typically they start with something like: by using this $SERVICE you AGREE to blah-blah-blah ($X)

>

> If you agree to $X but then don't do it: you're a liar.

You have never been presented any TOS nor agreed to anything if you don't have an account.

If artists and youtube don't want us to use their 1 and 0 the way we want, they can pretty easily lock them under registration and payment. The thing is they don't care to do that, so they cannot complain.
by nashashmi | 2025-09-04 14:28:41+00:00
> this one-off comment did not amount to gross misconduct or misconduct so serious to justify summary dismissal.

So full lack of professionalism is still a ground for termination. Nothing to see here. Headline is clickbait.

Spontaneous burst of anger is a small incident. Multiple small incidents can still establish a pattern of lacking professionalism.

My hopes were nearly up for a second.
by ninetyninenine | 2025-09-04 14:29:03+00:00
That’s your twisted opinion. I don’t know your situation. The Wii is really old and obsolete. Perhaps you have lots of kids and you don’t have any kids at the moment. The rules here even say it, you need to be charitable and assume the most positive meaning of a phrase.

You need to learn to talk with basic courtesy. It’s not an assumption when I say this: you have issues.
by legitster | 2025-09-04 14:29:10+00:00
EVs are having their own little dotcom bust right now. You can't say the companies didn't try. Every automaker came out with a near identical EV that was too expensive. And some even made some pretty bold steps to stop ICE production on some models.

EVs are still inevitable in the not too distant future so long as batteries keep improving, but the jump is not going to happen overnight.
by kgwgk | 2025-09-04 14:29:16+00:00
> many formulations one finds (including the one in her column)

As far as I’ve been able to find the text below would be the original question (“the host, who knows what’s behind the doors, opens”) and answer (“the host, who knows what’s behind the doors and will always avoid the one with the prize, opens”).

Are you referring to that?

https://web.archive.org/web/20130121183432/http://marilynvos...

Suppose you’re on a game show, and you’re given the choice of three doors. Behind one door is a car, behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say #1, and the host, who knows what’s behind the doors, opens another door, say #3, which has a goat. He says to you, "Do you want to pick door #2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice of doors? [Craig F. Whitaker - Columbia, Maryland]

Yes; you should switch. The first door has a 1/3 chance of winning, but the second door has a 2/3 chance. Here’s a good way to visualize what happened. Suppose there are a million doors, and you pick door #1. Then the host, who knows what’s behind the doors and will always avoid the one with the prize, opens them all except door #777,777. You’d switch to that door pretty fast, wouldn’t you?
by morpheuskafka | 2025-09-04 14:29:18+00:00
> Plenty of cutting-edge science needs hobbyist-level EE, it's just not work in EE

But aren't there a lot of actual hardware products that are "simple circuit blocks connected to a microcontroller"? Like a toaster, shaver, keyboard, etc. If that's not "work in EE" then what is it classified under? It's not CS either.
by cosmic_cheese | 2025-09-04 14:29:49+00:00
The collapse of American 2D animation is so sad. 3D animation has its place and charms too, I’m not knocking it, but 2D animation has a certain magic that’s incredibly difficult to replicate in 3D. It’s a beautiful art form that deserves better.

One worry of mine is that it won’t make a comeback before the masters who worked at Disney, WB, Cartoon Network, etc all pass away and all of that knowledge and expertise will be lost.
by bobson381 | 2025-09-04 14:30:03+00:00
Philosophize this has been on such a cool track out of western canon and through more mystic/nondual flavored stuff, in a way that builds off of itself. I got Deleuze-pilled a few years ago, and have had fun listening to the whole progression lately. Interesting dovetails with the Alan Watts marathon I did for like a year or two haha
by mrweasel | 2025-09-04 14:30:16+00:00
Movies always part business, and part art, but I think that for Hollywood studios the business part has grown, and the art bit has been pushed aside.

Hollywood doesn't really do small movies, be it hand drawn or not. The article mentions that Nobody is done at a $10 million budget, I don't think that's really interesting for corporate Hollywood. Sure if it becomes massively successful, it's great, if not it was a lot of work for very little or no profit. That's fine for smaller studios, but if you expect all your movies to gross $1 billion, then trying to do it with a $10 million budget seems unrealistic.

The smaller studios and independent movie makers can have their little project, and if they happen to make something good, Hollywood can just buy them and have them make a squeal at 10x the budget and milk the fans.
by dahart | 2025-09-04 14:30:26+00:00
This is an interesting argument. I’m not convinced but I’m open to hearing more. Don’t we only know about Socrates because he was written about? What evidence do we have that writing reduces memory at all? Don’t studies of students show taking notes increases retention? Anecdotally, the writers I know tend to demonstrate the opposite of what you’re saying, they seem to read, think, converse, and remember more than people who aren’t writing regularly. What exactly have we given up to attain more learning? We still have people who can memorize long things today, is it any fewer than in Socrates’ day? How do we know? Do you subscribe to the idea that the printing press accelerated collective memory, which is far more important for technology and industrial development and general information keeping than personal memory? Most people in Socrates’ day, and before, and since, all forgot their family trees, but thankfully some people wrote them down so we still have some of it. Future generations won’t have the gaps in history we have today.
by drej | 2025-09-04 14:30:36+00:00
Read my posts again, I'm not complaining it's not for the masses, I know it isn't. I'm complaining that it's being forced upon people when there are simpler alternatives that help people focus on business problems rather than setting up virtual environments.

So I'm very much advocating for people to "[u]se whatever tools work best".

(That is - now I'm doing this. In the past I taught a course on pandas data analytics and spoke at a few PyData conferences and meetups, partly about dataframes and how useful they are. So I'm very much guilty of what all of the above.)
by 1718627440 | 2025-09-04 14:30:49+00:00
Even if the term master where about that, I don't get, what's the problem. Having slaves is wrong, because these are human beings. Having other things like machines as slaves is not immoral. We also treat animals way worse then slaves and these are animate objects. And nobody objects to robot, which is just the word slave in czech.

The relation between a human and a computer is very much that of a master and a slave. I provide the resources, you do what I say, including self-destruction.
by Spooky23 | 2025-09-04 14:31:02+00:00
I think it’s coming soon. The data center demand is just one aspect. In New York, a combination of half baked policy to go carbon free by 2030, and 100% EV a few years later, combined with insane political decisions (Gov Cuomo decommissioning the nuclear plant that supplied 20% of NYC), and the black swan event of Trump starting a trade war with Canada (Quebec is the best source of electricity) is making electric delivery rates alone increase 30%.

On the gas side, we’re both forcing ratepayers to spend billions on conversion from low to high pressure gas mains AND prohibiting new gas service.

The environmental lobby is so dumb and ineffective - the public will be demanding that coal come back.
by hylaride | 2025-09-04 14:31:11+00:00
TL;DR is that good storytelling (via plot and character development) is what matters.

Pixar was successful because they mastered that via a culture that wanted to make the best of a new technology for movies. It’s the same for Studio Ghibli with traditional animation.

The issue with “Hollywood” (and American business in general) is that accountants seem to eventually take over and they don’t see the forest for the trees.
by bityard | 2025-09-04 14:31:27+00:00
You are perfectly describing another extremely common advertising tactic: fear of missing out (FOMO). The reality is that 3/4 of these are things you did not actually need or want, which is exactly why advertising exists. There are many more products and services available for purchase than any of us can afford, and all of them are actively trying to convince you that _theirs_ should be the one you agree to part with your money for.

Think of it this way: If you ACTUALLY wanted to go to that concert, you would have looked up the tour dates for the band six months ago. If you ACTUALLY needed the cheap item on sale, you would have already been looking for it at the time. If the food at that restaurant was ACTUALLY that good, you would have not forgotten about it.

There are probably hundreds of tools for "easily finding a time for a meeting" that you can buy online, so if you are looking solely at advertising to make your decision, you are likely paying more because the one you picked has an advertising budget that must be recouped. (I personally would have just asked my friends and colleagues what they use.)

These examples are firmly classified as "impulse purchases" which can be fine if your finances are in good enough shape that you have disposable income. Pretty common in the tech industry I guess, but vanishingly rare everywhere else in the world.

Most middle class households in the US pretend they have lots of disposable income, but they are setting themselves up for working their entire lives by saving/investing nothing in their most productive years. These are VICTIMS of advertising because they are constantly told by television, radio, and social media that they need to spend their money on all these wonderful advertised products that will solve all their problems or else they are not _really_ living life. Which is of course total horseshit.
by yardie | 2025-09-04 14:31:51+00:00
I had the background for EE. Grew up around a bunch of HAMs and Motorola engineers, competed in FIRST, CS Olympiads, etc. Went to a great engineering school and then had my ass handed to me end of sophomore year. So I did the reasonable thing any 20yo would do and listened to my academic advisor. Who told me that "maybe EE, just isn't for you." Seeing the economic bottom fall out for engineers and CS graduates didn't help. So, in a state of panic I transferred to the CS program. I had to extend my graduation another year.

Career wise and financially, its worked out great. Even most of my EE friends didn't do much in EE after the first 5 years. Everyone just migrated to where the jobs were: Software development, IT, and Cybersecurity.
by penguin_booze | 2025-09-04 14:32:09+00:00
> how well moderated a discussion among experts can be

I've been listening to the podcast for years. I don't think the format counts as a 'discussion among experts'. It's more like Melvin asks prepared questions individually to each expert--a hub and spoke model. The experts rarely talk to or debate each other, although they often agree which each other. Melvin largely controls the narrative and direction, which I think works better. Guests do get to free-wheel at the end of the podcast, however.