MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by doodlebugging | 2025-09-07 02:34:29+00:00
I've been considering getting a new(er) iPad or iMac. I think it might have a better interface with my iPhone than my current pc. I hate to think about product lifespan, obsoleting, etc since I already have lots of devices that aged out.

Reading this guy's tale just made me appreciate how awesome it is to be sitting here posting on my Dell T5400 from 2008 running Win7Pro. It still runs even though there are 3 blown caps and 3 swollen caps on the mobo, and one RAM slot crapped out several years ago so I lost access to 8 GB of RAM in my 32 GB system. One of the PCie slots is also bad but so far the one with my 1070 GPU works fine driving two monitors. The only real problem is with the hard drive. Every so often I get a hardware error on the Win7Pro installation (I dual-boot Win10 Pro on this machine) and that sends me into a multiple hour reboot fest where I have to run Startup Repair several times, go Command Line in and fix MBR errors, and scannow to fix whatever else is borked.

At one point I spent a week on Win10 Pro (I hate that OS) because after hours of trying to force Win7 Pro to boot normally it looked hopeless. After a week of that I made the huge mistake of clicking the "install updates now" button on Win10 Pro and it proceeded to grab several years worth of updates and install them, rebooting multiple times in the process. It may have finished except that one of those updates left me with a hardware bluescreen related to a driver for the 1070 and I was not able to get that fixed.

After much frustration and the spewing of several one-time use profanity clusters I decided to try to boot into Win7 Pro again and it worked normally.

One day this machine will bork itself and I will have to accept that I can no longer operate in my beloved Win7 and have to fire up this new pc that has been sitting idle for four years now. That day is not today though.
by segfault99 | 2025-09-07 02:35:17+00:00
The world would be a much sadder, drearier place without the 555. That's the nostalgia part out of the way.

Really it's such a useful almost universal lego block of a component that it's hard to imagine it going away anytime soon. Sure microcontrollers are as cheap as chips these days, but you get a lot more with them. Do I need to say that sometimes more is less? Can think of scenarios where you absolutely don't want to see a chip containing firmware/code which needs auditing and locking down.
by miladyincontrol | 2025-09-07 02:35:44+00:00
On an aside, most people def dont even use the right amount for labelled SPF values even when the sunscreens do work as intended.

Insanely so for the relatively light dusting spray sunscreens do even in the best of circumstances https://labmuffin.com/do-sunscreen-sprays-actually-work-the-...
by socalgal2 | 2025-09-07 02:35:51+00:00
I think it's like 50/50. There's been proposals for various things like --perfectly-safe-subset-only (making that up). But there's so much to fix and so much arguing about whether it should actually be fixed or not.

I would personally like a safe (and fast) subset that doesn't require me to be vigilant but catches every thing I could do wrong to the same level as rust. Then, like rust, you could remove that flag for a few low-level parts that for some reason need to be "unsafe" (maybe because they call into the OS).

There was a good talk from the WebKit team about stuff they did to get more safety.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLw13wLM5Ko

Some of it was AST level checks. IIRC, they have a pre-commit check that there is no pointer math being used. They went over how to change code with pointer math into safe code with zero change in performance.

A similar one was Ref usage checking where they could effectively see a ref counted object was being passed to as a raw pointer to a function that might free the ref and then still used in the calling function. They could detect that with an AST based checker.

That said, I have no idea how they (the C++ committee) are going to fix all the issues. --no-undefined-behavior would be a start. Can they get rid of the perf bombs with std::move? Why do I have to remember that shit?
by segfault99 | 2025-09-07 02:38:01+00:00
Back in the day you'd go into an electronics store and there'd be books containing just 555 circuit recipes. Not to mention the magazine articles.

And every EE student back when we tied onions to our belts must have had a lab assignment to spec out a PLL using 555 and bits and bobs and then measure transient responses, temperature stability, etc.
by anonym29 | 2025-09-07 02:38:58+00:00
Not just LPDDR5, but LPDDR5X-8000 on a 256-bit bus. The 40 CU of RDNA 3.5 is nice, but it's less raw compute than e.g. a desktop 4060 Ti dGPU. The memory is fast, 200+ GB/s real-world read and write (the AIDA64 thread about limited read speeds is misleading, this is what the CPU is able to see, the way the memory controller is configured, but GPU tooling reveals full 200+ GB/s read and write). Though you can only allocate 96 GB to the iGPU on Windows or 110 GB on Linux.

The ROCm and Vulkan stacks are okay, but they're definitely not fully optimized yet.

Strix Halo's biggest weakness compared to Mac setups is memory bandwidth. M4 Max gets something like 500+ GB/s, and M3 Ultra gets something like 800 GB/s, if memory serves correctly.

I just ordered a 128 GB Strix Halo system, and while I'm thrilled about it, but in fariness, for people who don't have an adamant insistence against proprietary kernels, refurbished Apple silicon does offer a compelling alternative with superior performance options. AFAIK there's nothing like Apple Care for any of the Strix Halo systems either.
by akerl_ | 2025-09-07 02:39:03+00:00
That seems to depend a lot on the vulnerability, and the company, and the users.

I'm not suggesting in this thread that coordinating with vendors is bad. I'm suggesting that to frame any non-coordinated disclosure as inherently irresponsible is bad, and that is what is implied when we use the label "responsible disclosure" for "coordinated disclosure".
by reactordev | 2025-09-07 02:39:04+00:00
Codesigning is expensive. You have to purchase a $500 cert and renew it every year. Or, you can issue your own CA capable of code signing and sign your own stuff. But the OS won't think it's really signed unless the OS also has the CA in it's trust store.

This is just a case of them wanting to save money on code-signing certificate renewal fees.
by neilv | 2025-09-07 02:39:24+00:00
In such ecosystems, for long-term, evolving production work (when you don't know all your eventual needs upfront), you need to have the institutional capability to build from scratch whatever components you might need. Just in case whatever you need later doesn't yet exist in the ecosystem.

Then you need to retain the personnel who give you that capability. Because they are rare, in a field in which 99%+ of developers only glue together NPM or PyPI packages. (And many use Web search or, now, Claude Code to do the glue part.)

If I founded a startup doing mostly Web-like server backend work, I'd consider doing it in Racket or another Scheme, and then using that as a carrot to be able to hire some of the most capable programmers. (And not having to bother with resume spamming noise from hardly any of the 99%+ developers, who will be pounding the most popular resume tech stack keywords instead, because their primary/sole goal is employability.)
by mitchivin | 2025-09-07 02:39:40+00:00
It was definitely a long fought battle haha

Yeah for sure, I completely get it - I can genuinely understand the large majority of reasons people have for holding that opinion and I don't even necessarily disagree with many of them. I will admit, I do find it wildly entertaining and having the ability to turn an idea into something tangible almost instantly allows me to produce more high quality work.

Aside from personal opinions, I just think that it's pretty clear where the world's going and since money doesn't care about feelings - companies are going to use it. so I feel like it probably helps, or at least will start to help more and more as time goes on having it clear that I can and do use these AI tools they keep hearing about.
by shagie | 2025-09-07 02:39:48+00:00
The number 52! is absurdly large. While the article is behind a paywall and so I can't see its full discussion, I'm reminded of https://czep.net/weblog/52cards.html that has a bit on the "how large is the number"

> Start by picking your favorite spot on the equator. You're going to walk around the world along the equator, but take a very leisurely pace of one step every billion years. The equatorial circumference of the Earth is 40,075,017 meters. Make sure to pack a deck of playing cards, so you can get in a few trillion hands of solitaire between steps. After you complete your round the world trip, remove one drop of water from the Pacific Ocean. Now do the same thing again: walk around the world at one billion years per step, removing one drop of water from the Pacific Ocean each time you circle the globe. The Pacific Ocean contains 707.6 million cubic kilometers of water. Continue until the ocean is empty.

And it goes on.

Numbers like Tree(3) or Loader's number or the various "these are really big mathematical functions" ( relevant xkcd https://xkcd.com/207/ )... we know we can't comprehend them. But 52! - that's something that we think we can get our head around... and it's mind boggling large once you start doing the math and trying to relate it to real things that we can relate to (which are mind bogglingly large).
by InTheArena | 2025-09-07 02:39:48+00:00
Your understanding is incorrect. Even with the atomic bombs and the Soviet entered to the war, the cabinet still split about surrendering.

Before that The Japanese had started to talk about a cease-fire, but that cease-fire was expected to include ongoing control of China, Korea, and some of the islands they had taken in the war. In other words it wasn’t a surrender, but rather a let us keep these last little bit bits and maybe we won’t kill you. It was delusional to the extreme.

The debate in Washington at this point not if Japan would be invaded or not or would surrender.

Operations downfall and Olympus were planned. They were projecting anywhere from hundreds of thousands to 1 million casualties on the US side. No one bothered to do the calculation on the Japanese side, but the Japanese leadership believed that their path of victory was to make it prohibitively expensive in American lives to take the islands and they didn’t care how many Japanese died. You can take a look at the ratios of Japanese dead to American dead on Iwo Jima, the Philippines to get an idea of the bloodbath that that would’ve been.

Of course, some Americans were seeing that the Japanese were far stronger on the islands and they anticipated. And we’re pushing for a total naval blockade instead. Japan’s economy and agricultural harvest had already collapsed. A total net naval blockade would’ve killed millions.
by miladyincontrol | 2025-09-07 02:39:50+00:00
Aside from what others have said, it does matter because few people apply the proper amount. If you're applying only 1/3 the "proper" amount of a 60 SPF product you still at least get 20 SPF of protection as it scales rather linearly.

And as someone paler than most makeup brands go, for many of us it absolutely does make a difference even when using the proper amount.

I ride or die LRP uvmune 400, few protect as well as it does.
by TristanBall | 2025-09-07 02:39:57+00:00
Larping as a dba now, and trust me many of us do know, and its a source of ongoing suffering, but we're often not developers and don't necessarily have the choice of tooling.

Right now the DB I'm paid to babysit provides cli tools that flip between tabular and k/v list output without making that configurable, or a tabular form that doesn't include headers, or a 3rd party tool that will, but has the spectacularly annoying "error on line 1 : multi-line query" issue. Or things that are slow or only talk via generic protocols like odbc etc etc etc

I think you're being a little unfair about the pipe delimited thing though, it's a least worst compromise based on who we're providing the data too - non technical business people, the vast majority of whom use excel or similar tools and couldn't even tell you what "data format" means, let alone configure their systems to parse something else.

Personally I had a bit of an epiphany around the ascii delimiters (us/fs/rs/gs) which work extremely well when the data is ascii/utf-8, and make data interchange between shell cli tools very easy. But they've also invisible and little business software supports them in a friendly way. Telling someone in accounts or market to "use octal 034" helps no one.

And I've resigned myself to using multiple tools, dev with tool 1 with decent error messages, tool 2 for production use because it can actually produce sane output formats.

What I don't have a choice on is which db we use, and it's not modern or cool and honest most things don't even have drivers for it
by aero_code | 2025-09-07 02:40:15+00:00
But sunscreen doesn't stop all damage to skin. I spent weekdays working inside on a computer, then sometimes spent summer weekends outside in the sun. I get sunburned easily, sometimes in like 10 minutes of direct sun. You wouldn't try to deny a light sunburn isn't skin damage? SPF 50 suncreen, blocking 98% of sun, extends the 10 minutes by 50x to 8.3 hours, but that is still not that great. I can still exceed that in two days. And I don't see why having light skin and wanting to spend the weekend outside would be unusual. Blocking 99% of UV and doubling the time over 98% would help quite a bit.
by aurizon | 2025-09-07 02:40:19+00:00
Interesting parallel with computer malware = LOTL where the attacking computer virus uses the embedded code used by the OS as picked up local attack tools. In a cell, time and adaptive advantage would cause competition between the host proteins and the viral coat proteins for whatever cellular task. If the viral ones are better = cell health uses them preferentially, but has the host protein as a less efficient fall back. It would thus tend to want to stay infected with the virus, while the immune system wants it cleared? Would this result in a need for the virus or would the cell grab patterns it wants to prosper with? Of course, we have deep time to contend with. Harkening to the roots of CRISPR as a bacterial immune system where things are tagged to be rejected - is there a similar system where patterns can be marked to prosper?
by ziofill | 2025-09-07 02:40:47+00:00
“In an ideal world, an algorithm would randomly select an arrangement from the 52! possible decks. But no computer has enough memory to evaluate all of these possibilities, and a perfect random number generator doesn’t yet exist. Therefore, developers generally rely on algorithms that simulate card shuffling.”

You’ve got to be kidding me. What’s wrong with sampling each card independently and uniformly (without replacement)?
by InTheArena | 2025-09-07 02:43:20+00:00
I always found this the most interesting aspect of the timing of the bombs. They occurred at the one moment in 20th century where their power could be seen in a way that everybody immediately grasp the outcome of it and that no response was physically possible. They also occurred at the one moment in time in which a multipolar world essentially coalesced to a bipolar world. And the people that use the bomb had every intention of moving towards a true United Nations with use of the bomb governed via the UN. If any of those things change, I think history looks very different
by ranger_danger | 2025-09-07 02:44:06+00:00
> SFC seeks to confirm in the courts that purchasers of devices running Linux and other software with reciprocal licenses like GPLv2 have a legal right to ask for, and receive, the source code for those devices, so they can adapt the software to their needs, and make practical use of those adaptations by being able to install those changes back onto the devices they purchased.

Specifically the last part of that sentence, unfortunately I'm not very hopeful that it will happen, since v2 does not have the same anti-tivoization clause that v3 does, and Linus has personally said that he wants people to be able to lock down their products.

My own personal experience with SFC, EFF and FSF is also that they will only agree to take on a case for you if they happen to want to do it, and if you sign over all copyright ownership to them, which I think a lot of people are not willing to do.
by jauntywundrkind | 2025-09-07 02:45:09+00:00
In principle I strongly agree. But this won't work in all orgs. It's very useful for figuring out yourself, for internally building a plan! But there's lots of orgs out there that work by human influence, that have oral-primary or oral-only systems.

Sometimes there's great good to be had awakening these slumbering cultures, bringing them writing. But it's hard and you need allies that can bring their own enthusiasm for the change, and the old ways die hard.
by JohnBooty | 2025-09-07 02:45:32+00:00
most of the "diary" type posting is very boring to consume (most people are boring)

The "peak Livejournal era" (2001-2010?) was so much fun to me. I had a lot of friends with LJs. These were people I knew so their "boring" stuff was enjoyable to read. I had maybe a dozen or two friends who mutually followed me, plus there were some public figures with LJs I followed as well.

I really enjoyed the coziness and uncommercial-ness of it. People wrote so much more openly and thoughtfully.

I understand the OPSEC issues mentioned by the linked article, but the faux example he posted is kind of an unrealistic caricature. I don't remember people typically doing that kind of OPSEC-nightmare "live blogging" type stuff on noncommercial personal blogs.
by nickm12 | 2025-09-07 02:48:28+00:00
It's still a talking point. Lattner said in this very interview "at some point people will consider it to be a Python superset, and effectively it will feel just like the best way to do Python in general." Note the hedging phrase, "consider it to be".

Even if the goal is to be just "close enough", It seems as pie-in-the-sky (Py-in-the-sky?) now as it did when Mojo was first announced. CPython has a huge surface area and it seems like if Mojo is going to succeed they are going to want to focus on differentiating features in the ML space and not going feature-for-feature with CPython. I don't know what "close enough" is, but closer than Py2 was to Py3, certainly.
by _-_-__-_-_- | 2025-09-07 02:48:47+00:00
This is wonderful. You should be proud. It's a fun recreation and it was fun to use. Back when I was using XP (2004-2010), I had a 19" black CRT monitor. Once I got a laptop, it became a second monitor. I got whatever the family didn't want and the few things I scrounged from used computer stores. In 2010, I jumped to Windows 7. The theming of Windows XP always reminds me of seeing it for the first time, how colourful and inviting it looked.
by jsbisviewtiful | 2025-09-07 02:49:04+00:00
Tesla sales have been plummeting in Europe and the US, recently the US drop was in the double digits. On top of that, the former buyer market for Teslas have started calling them swastikars and slapping “Bought before Elon went crazy” bumper stickers on their Tesla. Resell value for Teslas have tanked. Everyone I talk to is well aware of the drop in Tesla quality and the hidden crash test data. Tesla also just lost a ton of income from the loss of gov subsidies that Must himself helped destroy. The negativity is based in the reality of his “work”. He’s an overpaid hype man that lies about everything and steals the work of others only to crash and burn it - lately through culture war hate mongering and a sad desperation to be liked.
by midnightclubbed | 2025-09-07 02:49:19+00:00
If you’re compressing at load-time it can be a lot. You can do a quick and dirty compress to BC1-3 (assuming you are on PC) in a few tens of milliseconds but quality will be suboptimal, higher quality will likely take a few seconds per texture and going to BC6 takes even longer but will look much better.
by avs733 | 2025-09-07 02:50:17+00:00
We’ll use an influencer for example. A false dmca claim has costs for them. Immediate costs in time, demonetizing, and reputation. It also has longer term risks - e.g., copyright strikes become bans. They are incentivized to pushback but have limited tools to do so.

When dealing with a company whose business is filing dmca complaints using an automated system, the business model isn’t a lawsuit - it’s a settlement where the influencer is made whole and you get paid. The risk to the company is existential if you have enough clients using you to push back and risking them getting a platform ban or an injunction against them filing automated dmca complaints. Say they file a thousand complaints a day against a thousand YouTube channels. If even 50 of those channels file a counter claim it’s going to set off alarm bells.

All that being said the most toxic part of this is the company calling itself a cyber security company and trying to obfuscate seemingly pretty responsible disclosures using dmca.
by Kranar | 2025-09-07 02:51:30+00:00
>For example if you have a nested class that you want to use in an unordered_set in its parent class then you just can’t do it because you can’t put the std::hash specialization anywhere legal.

This is not true. From within your parent class you use an explicit hashing callable, and then from outside of the parent class you can go back to using the default std::hash.

The result looks like this:

struct Foo { struct Bar {}; struct BarHasher { std::size_t operator ()(const Bar&) const noexcept; }; std::unordered_set<Bar, BarHasher> bar_set; }; namespace std { template<> struct hash<Foo::Bar> { std::size_t operator()(const Foo::Bar& b) const noexcept { return Foo::BarHasher()(b); } }; }

The std::hash specialization at the end is legal and allows other users of Foo::Bar to use std::unordered_set<Foo::Bar> without needing the explicit BarHasher.
by InTheArena | 2025-09-07 02:51:47+00:00
It is one of the greatest military, cognitive dissonances of all time that European generals recognized how brilliant Grant was, and failed to understand every single one of the principles by which he eventually overcame the confederacy. It’s mind-boggling. I’ve always thought that it was crazy how much of a straight line there was between the trenches around Richmond and the trenches of World War II.
by jltsiren | 2025-09-07 02:51:51+00:00
The Franco-Prussian War demonstrated the opposite a few years later. Prussia was able to use field artillery effectively to support infantry attacks. The overall scale of fighting was similar to the US Civil War, but the war was much shorter and the individual battles larger.

If there was a war European WWI leaders had ignored, it was the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. By then, technology had advanced enough that the teachings of the Franco-Prussian War were no longer valid, and defense was again stronger than offense.
by missedthecue | 2025-09-07 02:52:20+00:00
Highest casualty rate was actually u-boats. Of 40,000 kriegsmariners trained for u-boats during the war, 75% became casualties. Incredibly, this was even higher than Kamikaze squadrons (on account of the fact that not all flyers were assigned a mission, and not all missions ended up finding a target)
by RainyDayTmrw | 2025-09-07 02:52:40+00:00
If you do it correctly, you've reinvented Fisher-Yates[1]. If you do it wrong, you've reinvented this unnamed, broken algorithm[2], instead.

But the issue in the article isn't application of pseudorandom numbers. It's seeding the generator.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%E2%80%93Yates_shuffle [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%E2%80%93Yates_shuffle#N...