MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by yannyu | 2025-09-15 18:27:36+00:00
AT&T routers, for example, ship like this. There's a wifi network and a wifi password printed onto the device.

But that also means then that often anyone with physical access can easily get into the device. The complicated password provides an additional layer of illusion of security, because people then figure "it's not a default admin password, it should be good". The fundamental problem seems to be "many people are bad at passwords and onboarding flows", and so trying variations on shipping passwords seem to result in mostly the same problems.
by int_19h | 2025-09-15 18:27:47+00:00
Self-governance is not lacking in the Culture. Any group of its citizens (down to individuals) can form self-governing societies within it - that's why the boundary of what even is the Culture is so hard to define. It's just that most people are perfectly content to have the Minds run everything because, well, they are good at it, so why wouldn't you?
by ceejayoz | 2025-09-15 18:27:51+00:00
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/5300...

The bill (HR 5300, Section 226) does not actually say that.

> Any individual who, in accordance with this section, is denied issuance of a passport by the Secretary of State, or whose passport is revoked by the Secretary, may request a hearing to appeal such denial or revocation not later than 60 days after receiving notice of such denial or revocation.

That's an administrative hearing, not a court one. One could presumably still sue over this, but the likely end result is SCOTUS saying "nah".
by rimunroe | 2025-09-15 18:28:19+00:00
> Hooks addressed class component pain but introduced new kinds of complexity: dependency arrays, stale closures, and misused effects. Even React’s own docs emphasize restraint: “You Might Not Need an Effect”. Server Components improve time-to-first-byte, but add architectural complexity and new failure modes.

There are a lot of valid criticisms of React, but I don't think this is one of them. These problems are not really new with hooks. They're actually problems which existed in some form in the class component API. Taking them one at a time:

Dependency arrays: I cannot count the number of bugs I encountered which were due to a lifecycle containing some code which was supposed to be called when certain props or bits of state changed, but completely forgot to check one of them.

Stale closures: the second argument to setState allowed this exact bug. Also, people would bind methods in incorrect spots (such as in lifecycle methods) which has the same result.

Misused effects: at varying point, class components had access to the class constructor and the lifecycle methods componentWillMount, componentDidMount, componentWillReceiveProps, shouldComponentUpdate, componentWillUpdate, componentDidUpdate, componentWillUnmount (this is from memory and is definitely only partially complete). Misuse of these was incredibly common. An article like "You Might Not Need an Effect" but titled "You Might Not Need Lifecycle Methods" or "You Might Not Need the Second Parameter to setState" would have been very helpful in the past.

Hooks reduced the number of opportunities for making mistakes, make enumerating those opportunities easier, and, critically, made them easier to detect and warn users about.
by steveklabnik | 2025-09-15 18:28:22+00:00
Note that in the output, there is rand 0.9.0, and two instances of rand_core 0.9.3. You may have thought it selected two versions because you missed the _core there.

> So there's no difference at all between "0", "0.9" and "0.9.3" in cargo.toml

No, there is a difference, in particular, they all specify different minimum bounds.

The trick is that these are using the ^ operator to match, which means that the version "0.9.3" will satisfy all of those constraints, and so Cargo will select 0.9.3 (the latest version at the time I write this comment) as the one version to satisfy all of them.

Cargo will only select multiple versions when it's not compatible, that is, if you had something like "1.0.0" and "0.9.0".

> Surely there's some way to actually require an exact version?

Yes, you'd have to use `=`, like `=0.9.3`. This is heavily discouraged because it would lead to a proliferation of duplication in dependency versions, which aren't necessarily unless you are trying to avoid some sort of specific bugfix. This is sometimes done in applications, but basically should never be done in libraries.
by 827a | 2025-09-15 18:28:33+00:00
Yeah, I guess what I mean is, as a percentage of revenue, the Mac App Store is a rounding error for most developers. There's a small number of bespoke, $5-$15 apps, possibly distributed only through the Mac App Store, strongly reminiscent of the early days of Mac indie development; but this is fractions of a penny relative to the ~11 figures of revenue the iOS App Store drives every year.
by spoiler | 2025-09-15 18:28:34+00:00
I'm working with a large Angular app, and my dev experience has been abysmal. TS language server running out of memory, Angular language server frequently crashes or freezes leaving weird half line diagnostics in its wake. Go to definitions are so slow in the proje too.

I've worked on 2x, if not 3x larger React codebase without these issues. I can't tell a single instance where language tooling was failing me so severely that I've contemplated turning it off because it's creating more uncertainty than its helping.

I'm relatively new to Angular 20 itself—only used Angular 1, and also migrated that project to React. So I'm not yet qualified to make big statements about it (but a preliminary gut feeling is that it often feels complex in the wrong places). C'est la vie though
by wavemode | 2025-09-15 18:29:01+00:00
Without a ticket, the only people who see that you're working on that thing are the engineers reviewing your code. At many companies, this creates a lot less friction.

To put it a different way: it's better to ask forgiveness than permission. Creating a ticket is like asking permission (as the project managers will see the ticket and start asking questions about why time is being spent on low-priority things). Just going ahead and pushing code is asking forgiveness - sure, someone might notice after the fact that you did some work that you weren't assigned to do, but by that point it will be considered irrelevant, as long as your other responsibilities were handled on-time.

If you've never worked at a company where these political games are necessary - count your lucky stars!
by papa_bear | 2025-09-15 18:29:25+00:00
I remember this! Sorry again for the frustration >_< We made our Stripe API requests a little more robust after this happened.

We do get a fair number of disputes like the author where customers will cancel after getting billed, and then dispute it, even though we always give refunds to people who email and ask for one. It also feels like there's been a significant up-tick in recent months of disputes like these, maybe a reflection of the current economic climate. Hard to blame the customer though, for all the reasons listed by the top comment -- sometimes it's just easier to do it through the bank than figure out how to cancel through an app you forgot you even subscribed to.
by leptons | 2025-09-15 18:29:43+00:00
>>The better thing to get annoyed at Apple for is being slow to implement web standards.

>Now that Safari supports the HTML5 date picker (since iOS 14.1 - five years ago), this is more of a meme than fact-based reasoning

Apple forces all browsers on iOS to use the Safari browser engine, which they intentionally hobble by not implementing APIs that other browser engines have had forever so that Apple can force developers to create native apps for iOS which Apple then can extract 30% (or whatever they decide it is today) revenue from, where they can't do that from a web application. This is one of many reasons Apple is being sued by the DOJ for antitrust violations, and one reason they got sued by the EU and lost.

https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl
by bri3d | 2025-09-15 18:29:44+00:00
Overall: yes, but it will get much harder for apps which need attestation, which is sort of the point, for better or for worse. As far as I know you'll still be able to OEM unlock and root phones where it's always been allowed, like Pixels, but then they'll be marked as unlocked so they'll fail Google attestation. You should also be able to still take an app, unpack it, inject Frida, and sideload it using your _own_ developer account (kind of like you can do on iOS today), but it will also fail attestation and is vulnerable to anti-tampering / anti-debugging code at the application level.
by tomhow | 2025-09-15 18:29:46+00:00
You keep the karma you've already received, but the project creator submitted the original post and also included the blog post in the comments (after it was too late to change the post URL) and we always prefer to give precedence to the person who submitted the first post about a topic. It's not personal or unusual, it's the way we've moderated HN for years.
by ok_dad | 2025-09-15 18:29:51+00:00
Most grid-scale batteries that large will have bigger inverters (usually it'll be inverters that can dump that energy in 2-6 hours so 500-150 KW for 1 MWh of battery) and require cooling systems and such, but if you're putting that in your home then cooling will be negligible and the inverter will remain small. The batteries themselves are fairly compact, it's the support systems that get large.
by LeifCarrotson | 2025-09-15 18:30:04+00:00
These and other high-altitude balloons are almost never tethered nor recovered - they're not a kite, that would be completely impractical.

You're nearing the altitudes at which the tensile strength of even supermaterials like Dyneema fibers are unable to lift the weight of their own tail, much less hold up against the tension of the jet stream. You'd need some kind of reverse rocket equation pyramid, where the topmost thousand meters have to lift the entire line, and are therefore made from line 0.6mm in diameter, and the next thousand meters are made of a slightly thinner, slightly less strong, slightly lighter fiber (because they don't have to lift the top thousand meters of line), and so on for the next 50-100km, depending on how much sag you expect the line to have.

"Oops, the balloon popped, excuse me while I do an ultramarathon across town spooling up my thousand-dollar tether from everyone's backyards...please don't cut it or trip over it or drive over it..."

No, it merely trails a 5 meter length of wire that acts as an antenna. You can receive the signals from hundreds of amateur receivers set up across the globe, often receiving transmissions at very long ranges. When the balloon eventually falls, yes, it's litter, but it's only a couple grams - go to your local park and pick up some trash, you can atone for a lifetime of HAB hobby sins with a single black bag full of alcohol bottles, fast food wrappers, and cigarette buts.
by stouset | 2025-09-15 18:30:23+00:00
I'll be honest, I hear this every single time. But I've never delayed upgrading, and I've never regretted it. That's not to say every upgrade has been a strict improvement, but going back to my first Mac at 10.4 (Tiger) I've never wished I had stayed on an older version. We'll see how I feel after going to Tahoe, maybe this will be the one that breaks the trend.

Windows, on the other hand…
by teddyh | 2025-09-15 18:30:31+00:00
The DNS is federated and hierarchical. A domain name (including top-level domains) is controlled by a single entity. If you do not trust that entity, you cannot trust that domain or top-level domain, or anything beneath that in the tree. But given that you trust the root zone, you can still (potentially) trust other subtrees in the DNS, like other top-level domains.

This is not the case with a CA, however; you are forced to trust all of them, and hope that when fradulent certificates are issued (as has happened several times, IIUC), that they will not affect you.
by estimator7292 | 2025-09-15 18:30:38+00:00
I saw someone on here the other day honestly insisting that people just don't know what they want and need to be shown the new options.

No product in our entire history has been so aggressively pushed into everyone's face. If there's a person alive in modern society who hasn't had 4000 AI apps blasted at them... where are they and how do I achieve this nirvana?
by leptons | 2025-09-15 18:30:38+00:00
Apple forces all browsers on iOS to use the Safari browser engine, which they intentionally hobble by not implementing APIs that other browser engines have had forever so that Apple can force developers to create native apps for iOS which Apple then can extract 30% (or whatever they decide it is today) revenue from, where they can't do that from a web application. This is one of many reasons Apple is being sued by the DOJ for antitrust violations, and one reason they got sued by the EU and lost.

https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl
by bri3d | 2025-09-15 18:30:41+00:00
No, if you buy the camera, plug it in, and forget to set it up, then someone can use the default password and key material stored in the app to pretend to be the app and provision it on your behalf.

That's the only real vulnerability here, and it's no big deal, but it is A Thing and there is definitely a better way to do this that doesn't lose the freedom of full-offline.
by zakelfassi | 2025-09-15 18:30:43+00:00
If it feels opaque, you’re in good company. One of the core ideas I work with is that part of what lets us “stay ahead” cognitively is embracing density: not because every idea must be immediately digestible, but because wrestling with dense models (math, theory, abstraction) builds the muscle. You don’t need to grasp every LASSO coefficient to feel the weight of what constraint means. And yes — Pop-Tarts are more than fine (those Hariboesque gummies recently dropped at Trader Joes is that for me.) We all need something simple now & then when the brain’s been stretched.
by darepublic | 2025-09-15 18:30:49+00:00
I remember the space being backbone (+ marionette!), and angular 1. webpack was a cool new confusing thing. enter react (with the mysterious redux). Purists said one should only use redux state and never local component state or context. Don't use refs! Don't you try to touch the dom! also jquery. my beautiful jquery. betrayed by the community, and cast out.
by CharlieDigital | 2025-09-15 18:30:49+00:00
Actually, React's problem is that it's the inverse of how HTML and JavaScript works in terms of how to handle callbacks. Of the major UI frameworks, it is the only one with this quality (Vue, Svelte, Angular, Solid, etc. use signals).

This inverted behavior is the cause of most of the pain and footguns in React and React Hooks because the way state behaves in a React component is not the way state behaves in any other front-end JS one would normally write.

That's why I think for some folks who started with HTML + vanilla JS, React Hooks just feels wrong. It points the reactive callback to the component function whereas every other framework/library uses some sort of signal to point the reactive callback to a handler. Because React points the callback to the component function, then you have to be really cautious about where you put state inside of a component[0][1][2]

Even You wrote this about React's design choice which I think sums it up best:

> The pain and suffer[ing] of hooks all roots from the mismatch between a dogmatic belief in the superiority of immutability and the harsh reality of the host language that is JavaScript

If you want to "feel" this for yourself, here are a series of JSFiddles:

- Vanilla: https://jsfiddle.net/qtmkbdo2/8/

- Vue: https://jsfiddle.net/vys2rmup

- React: https://jsfiddle.net/0gjckrae/1/

It should be obvious that Vanilla and Vue behave like how one would expect callbacks to work. React, because it points the callback to the component function, then requires that you be cognizant of state inside of the component function (placement, memoization, immutability, etc.). All of the pain of React is self-imposed from this design decision.

You can read more about it here: https://chrlschn.dev/blog/2025/01/the-inverted-reactivity-mo...

--

[0] https://adevnadia.medium.com/i-tried-react-compiler-today-an...

[1] https://tkdodo.eu/blog/the-useless-use-callback

[2] https://adevnadia.medium.com/react-re-renders-guide-why-reac...
by Taek | 2025-09-15 18:31:05+00:00
Well, in some cases it's scam, but its genuinely the case that power at different times of the day has different value, and most NEM agreements completely ignore the cost of transmission, which itself is quite hefty.

So it is plenty reasonable that you wouldn't get 1:1, especially if the grid is already able to satisfy all demand during peak sunlight by using just base load + solar. Some power companies turn it into a scam anyway and set grossly disadvantaged prices for consumers, but just because it's not 1:1 doesn't mean that it is a scam.
by wj | 2025-09-15 18:31:20+00:00
Agreed on the sandboxing. I think it is a nut that the LLM providers are going to need to crack in order to allow companies to operate AI safely without keeping users in the loop. Otherwise automated workflow are going to need to be orchestrated elsewhere (and be more limited in what steps they lean on LLMs to solve) in order treat the LLM output as just data.

Where I landed was a bit of a Jupyter notebook concept for a conversation where a user/API can request that certain prompts (cells) be trusted (elevated permissions for tools and file system access) while you do the bulk of the analysis work in the untrusted prompts.

(if anyone is interested in the germ of the idea: https://zero2data.substack.com/p/trusted-prompts)
by username332211 | 2025-09-15 18:31:41+00:00
> All (good) sci fi is political. You should find a different genre if you don't want politics in it.

I think you are reaching one of the limitations of the English language here. Machiaveli's Prince and John Knox's Monstrous Regiment of Women are both "political" books, but in a very different sense. The former is an exercise in trying to understand the nature of power and society in specific circumstances (in particular, the Prince is a study of autocratic power by a committed republican). The latter is just a polemical weapon, designed to advance some political goal. When people complain about politics in literature, it's usually because they don't like reading the second sort of book. That sort of books are seldom good, whatever their genre may be.

(I'm intentionally using Renaissance examples here, to avoid any unproductive discussions on more modern books.)
by alexdanilowicz | 2025-09-15 18:31:43+00:00
co-founder of Magic Patterns here, saw were were mentioned, figured I'd chime in:

We don't use Trigger for marketing at all and I actually never thought of it for that use case.

We're an AI design tool - prompt to create an interactive mockup - and we use Trigger to take screenshots of designs to provide a preview image. Taking a screenshot sounds easy, but it's not because Puppeteer constantly hits OOM errors. So you need a high-end machine, and so it can get expensive. We originally were using a homegrown solution, a microservice, but it would constantly crash (even though were paying $$$$$ for it).

Trigger spinning up jobs was perfect and we migrated in a day and now I never think about it.
by Topfi | 2025-09-15 18:31:47+00:00
One major improvement I have seen today, even before I saw the announcement, was that the model is far more reliable in using the Task Completion interface to communicate what stage of the prompt is being implemented. Previously this was only shown sparingly (especially in the first few weeks) and if, it didn't properly tick tasks, simply jumping from the first to completion at the end. Now this works very reliably and I do like this improvement, but if I didn't know better, would have suspected this was merely the result of a system prompt change, considering GPT-5 adherence being very solid in my experience, this should have been fixable without a tuned model. Nevertheless, I like this improvement (arguably fix of a previously broken feature).

Beyond that, purely anecdotal and subjective, but this model does seem to do extensive refactors with semi precise step-by-step guidance a bit faster (comparing GPT-5 Thinking (Medium) and GPT-5 Codex (Medium)), though adherence to prompts seems roughly equivalent between the two as of now. In any case, I really feel they should consider a more nuanced naming convention.

New Claude Sonnet 3.7 was a bit of a blunder, but overall, Anthropic has their marketing in tight order compared to OpenAI. Claude Code, Sonnet, Opus, those are great, clear differentiating names.

Codex meanwhile can mean anything from a service for code reviews with Github integration to a series of dedicated models going back to 2021.

Also, while I do enjoy the ChatGPT app integration for quick on-the-go work made easier with a Clicks keyboard, I am getting more annoyed by the drift between Codex VSCode, Codex Website and Codex in the ChatGPT mobile app. The Website has a very helpful Ask button, which can also be used to launch subtasks via prompts written by the model, but such a button is not present in the VSCode plugin, despite subtasks being something you can launch from the VSCode plugin if you have used Ask via the website first. Meanwhile, the iOS app has no Ask button and no sub task support and neither the app, nor VSCode plugin show remote work done beyond abbreviations, whereas the web page does show everything. Then there are the differences between local and remote via VSCode and the CLI, ... To people not using Codex, this must sound insane and barely understandable, but it seems that is the outcome of spreading yourself across so many fields. CLI, dedicated models, VSCode plugin, mobile app, code review, web page, some like Anthropic only work on one or two, others like Augment three, but no one else does that much, for better and worse.

I like using Codex, but it is a mess with such massive potential that needs a dedicated team lead whose only focus is to untangle this mess, before adding more features. Alternatively, maybe interview a few power user on their actual day to day experience, those that aren't just in one, but are using multiple or all parts of Codex. There is a lot of insight to be gained from someone who has an overview off the entire product stack, I think. Sending out a questionnaire to top users would be a good start, I'd definitely answer.
by channel_t | 2025-09-15 18:32:21+00:00
I also find them very developer-centric — testers get forced into upfront design work that doesn’t fit how they naturally test, and many struggle with it. I’ve had better results by expressing behavior directly and keeping UI concerns thin, instead of using a wrapper around page structure.

I'm sorry, but if your testers are not comfortable getting involved in the early design stages of your software in a 21st century world, then there's at least a 90% chance that their primary role at your company is perpetuating organizational dysfunction.

Most of my career has been defined by cleaning up the gargantuan messes the culture of "throw tickets over the wall to QA" created, and it has been very, very ugly. It defies common sense how culture around tools and processes for dev and ops roles continues to evolve over time, but for some reason testers are still trying to test software off in a silo, like it's released once or twice a year on CD-ROM.