MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by charcircuit | 2025-09-22 03:35:30+00:00
>“Without a currency swap, if we were to withdraw $350 billion in the manner that the U.S. is demanding and to invest this all in cash in the U.S., South Korea would face a situation as it had in the 1997 financial crisis,” he said through a translator.

So do a currency swap? South Korea isn't failing, do surely there would people to offer liquidity or financing to make it possible.
by onion2k | 2025-09-22 03:36:48+00:00
One of the things I've tried to teach people I've mentored over the past few decades is the principle of "Sharing is better than assuming." If you know something, share it with other people. Don't assume that they know something. If they do know, and you tell them, then you've only really confirmed what they already knew. If they don't know whatever it is you've helped them immensely and made whatever it is much more accessible.

Occasionally people will complain that you're being verbose and adding detail that they didn't need but in those cases you can usually just say "oh, that's just in case a [junior|manager|customer] sees it." People don't mind if you flatter them that the explanation was for other people.

It applies as much to development as it does to investment reporting, people management, delivery management, etc,
by adgjlsfhk1 | 2025-09-22 03:37:28+00:00
> AD guarantees analytically correct logic (in infinite precision, for example) if you use it right

The entire point of the video is that this isn't true. It is true for static algorithms, but for algorithms that iterate to convergence, the AD will ensure that the primal has converged, but will not ensure the dual has converged.
by cjohnson318 | 2025-09-22 03:37:29+00:00
The thing about language is that words have a weird distribution. The most common 100 words show up in every single sentence, but then tons of "common" words show up statistically almost never. Like, "octopus" is a common word that is only going to be useful if you're talking to a marine biologist, or a three year old that's obsessed with octopuses, otherwise you're hardly ever going to use that word. There's a lot of words like that. "Spine" of a book? It's probably not "spine" in your target language.
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-09-22 03:39:07+00:00
> That's obviously the point I was making

It obviously isn't given you followed up with "if we evolved on Venus."

> I said my _suspicion_ is that you cannot

Which you followed up by dismissing the work for suspecting it did not consider [insert random armchair complication].

> you're being a hypocrite

Nope. I actually read and thought about your comment, initially in good faith.
by red369 | 2025-09-22 03:39:43+00:00
Hmm - I've just seen that postage is $1.55, so >15% of the amount. I'm not sure that is a reasonable fee. I'm deducting $2 from what I'm sending! Lucky there are $2 notes here.

Of course, if not stated I suppose it would be reasonable to assume international bets are are in USD, but it's close enough, and this feels like it's only just holding up anyway.

And most importantly, I think sending $8 is funnier than sending $10.
by neilv | 2025-09-22 03:40:07+00:00
> If I see an interesting post/take on social media I hold the link and write an idea for my own spin/take (takes 30 seconds) - log it

Not quite the same thing, but a perspective to be aware of...

For example, I used to be on a semi-private forum, where some people would lurk without participating, and then seemed to "arbitrage" ideas from there, to blog and social media posts, to promote their brand.

Ideas generally should be shared, and I wouldn't say that this "arbitrage" behavior is wrong, but it can sometimes seem a bit like leeching off a group without contributing.

I suppose this is more noticeable in smaller groups that are closer to "communities". Maybe no one would care if it's just more conventional social media posts where there's no community, and most people are just playing their own promotion games.

(For example, probably no one cares if someone else also forwards around the same LinkedIn inspirational leadership image post, which they themselves took from someone else. Because usually no one at all cares about those, not even the sender.)
by reactordev | 2025-09-22 03:41:21+00:00
If you’re employed, you’re in a bucket. It’s a cell on a spreadsheet somewhere.

I’ve yet to find a junior dev that had more skills than a junior dev. I’ve seen them try… but they are still a junior dev. If you aren’t a junior dev, then you aren’t. Mentorship has nothing to do with what bucket you’re in.

However, there are specific job duties of senior and higher that are beyond just writing code. One of them is making more seniors. There’s only one way to do that efficiently. Learning. And while you can go read a manual on how to put a Ferrari together, wouldn’t you want to work with a mechanic who has already made dozens of them?

Why do we reject help?
by shdhsjaha | 2025-09-22 03:41:32+00:00
The F1 guys are probably as fit as a top footballer. They're dealing with black out levels of lateral G forces whilst slamming on the brakes within a fraction of a second of loser times or crashing out.

The MotoGP guys are far more fit - they have to use their bodies as counter ballast to make the curves. That's why MotoGP races are so short, they're at the limit of human endurance.

Look up any of these guys' gym routines
by Animats | 2025-09-22 03:41:34+00:00
The condition for program exit in EXEC 8 was that all threads had terminated, or all threads were in a waiting state. The latter produced the error message "AWAIT/DEACT AMBIGUITY". There was no "main thread".

By the time UNIX/Linux got threads, nobody knew that it had been done twenty years previous, and we had to go through a large number of design mistakes, mostly involving signals.
by mmaunder | 2025-09-22 03:41:58+00:00
“Interact with the command-line interface to execute commands and view output”

A command line interface has not been implemented. It just prints a bootup message.

“Some basic examples of usage include: Running a simple "Hello World" program Viewing system information such as memory usage and process list”

None of this has been implemented.

Was this vibe coded? Asking because the README disconnect with the code is weird.

Seems to be written in Zig 0.13. That’s about a year old. 0.15 has breaking changes so it’ll need to be ported if you’re going to do anything with this.
by FireBeyond | 2025-09-22 03:42:10+00:00
Basketball is another one where there is stupidity.

I live in what my TV provider called a "dead zone".

I live in the NBA's "broadcast zone" for the Portland Trail Blazers. That means even with League Pass, I cannot watch their home games, because I am meant to watch them on my local TV provider.

But guess what, I don't live in the Seattle TV zone. So I don't have a local/any station that broadcasts Blazers game.

And the NBA doesn't care either. "Sure, you can only watch half of your team games, sucks to be you."
by AdieuToLogic | 2025-09-22 03:42:10+00:00
> I felt similar with lenses. The problem lens solve is horrible. You don’t even want that problem.

Lenses abstract properties in a composable manner. How is this problem horrible?

> FP can be the pragmatic as well. You’re going to glue up monad transformers, use lenses like there’s no runtime cost, and compute whatever you need in days but at least you know it works. Maybe there’s accidentally quadratic behavior in lifting or lenses but that’s by design. The goal is to just throw software at things as fast as possible as correctly as possible.

Any abstraction can be used inappropriately. Slavish adherence to an approach in spite of empirical evidence is a statement about those making decisions, not the approach itself.

In other words:

A poor craftsman blames his tools.
by strken | 2025-09-22 03:42:25+00:00
Multiple nights, and often in less-travelled areas of Australia where there's no guarantee other people will find us if something goes wrong. It would be a bit insane carrying 10kg base weight on a day walk unless you had kids.

That weight is the maximum and (in addition to everything above) includes a 70L pack, tent, sleeping gear, poles, rain gear (the weather is treacherous here), a stove, thermals/scarf/beanie for the cold (some places in the Victorian Alps like to dump snow on you in the middle of summer), a hat and sunscreen, spare socks, a toothbrush that I haven't cut in half and toothpaste that hasn't been dried out, light source and batteries, water filter, battery pack on longer trips, dry bag if we're doing a deep river crossing, etc.

I take out what I won't need, swap in less rugged gear when there's lower risk, and usually end up somewhere between 6kg and 9kg base weight. I could probably shave off another kg or even two, but at some point I'd be sleeping under a tarp in Victoria's famously horizontal rain or ditching safety gear.
by bsder | 2025-09-22 03:42:29+00:00
> I find the IO changes to be strange

Perhaps you just feel that way because of 10+ years of accreted expectations?

To me, it feels like a reinvention of an interesting idea: Fastbufs

https://www.ucw.cz/libucw/doc/ucw/fastbuf.html

I will concede that the ergonomics of Io in Zig right now are pretty rough sledding.
by saurik | 2025-09-22 03:42:35+00:00
When I was at the head of the jailbroken iPhone ecosystem, I put together a tutorial for how to get an SSH daemon set up on their phones. I put a lot of effort into making it something that anyone could follow, step by step, and achieve the result, making sure to skip no steps, assume no knowledge, and with screenshots showing the interface.

I soon thereafter received an e-mail from someone saying that they had excitedly followed my tutorial and found it very easy to follow; but, they had now gotten to the end of the instructions, were staring at some text that said "mobile@iPhone ~$ " (or whatever the default bash prompt was; I do not remember) and they did not know how to proceed.

I had similar experiences over the years, and I had a realization at some point: if you provide someone detailed step-by-step instructions for how to find the dragon, part of the UI/UX of the tutorial should be that you don't actually feel comfortable following it if you should not be doing so: the difficulty of the path must scale with the goal.

This is similar to real-world affordances, FWIW: if a user should not be opening a panel unless they are ready to do maintenance, yes, don't go out of your way to make it hard to service without permanently damaging it (that's evil), but, maybe, screwing the panel shut is more appropriate than providing a pull tab, due to what the latter implies.

A lot of users find this annoying, because they think they want to do X, and they just need better step-by-step instructions... but, that's just not how the world works: a lot of times, what you need to do to do the task is, in fact, a basic knowledge of the entire system, sufficient that you will need a fraction of the instructions (if any).

On the other side it causes another problem, BTW: if you make instructions that anyone can follow--including people who probably aren't at the level where they should do so yet--you also end up with instructions that are more difficult to follow for the people who should be doing so, as they are extremely verbose and often narrow in their scope.

It also sets up perverse incentives to try to make the instructions even easier to follow, well past the level of easiness the task should actually be at, which, again, causes problems for the people you actually want following the tutorial: if you find yourself creating little docker containers to avoid saying "install a compiler"... no.
by avh02 | 2025-09-22 03:45:39+00:00
And then there's all the pretend injuries and exaggerating little scratches for the camera and ref. I don't watch sports but seeing that crappy behavior vs what rugby players go through is embarrassing to the footballers.

I was also surprised to hear the ref's conversation with the players (mic) in a rugby game on TV. Made it so much better to all the miming that goes on in football.

Also don't enjoy the ref slowly trotting across the field dramatically to go look at the video replay... Just get another ref to do it and report back or give the lead ref a damn phone to view it on.
by red369 | 2025-09-22 03:45:50+00:00
I think I agree with the hacker new hivemind, but I think I formed the opinion separately. I did a few small transactions with bitcoin ages ago, and it was a huge pain. Buying the bitcoin was painful, and then I couldn't send an exact amount, it's better to receive change to a different address, and the fees weren't as cheap as I expected for small amounts.

I often hear this has been solved with additional layers, and I see that you mentioned Ethereum instead of bitcoin. Is that significantly easier? $0.25 is not bad for $10, so the fee seems fine. I'm accepting money in an envelope as a solution, and that costs more, but I'm keen to hear whether this would have been easier.
by drnick1 | 2025-09-22 03:46:46+00:00
Intellectual property should be abolished or greatly limited. It rarely serves its intended purpose (rewarding authors/creators) and instead creates rents and dangerous monopolies.

A related issue that suggests that the copyright system is broken is that it isn't equally enforced everywhere. The rest of the world freely copies books, drugs, and tech in any way they please, so all it does in the end is inflate prices for U.S. consumers, who effectively subsidize the rest of the world.
by brailsafe | 2025-09-22 03:47:18+00:00
I'm being invited to these sorts of weddings (albeit probably much lower key) for the first time as an adult (in 30s, since that's when it's happening these days), and it's actually seeming like an excessive cost just as a guest to put something formal together to wear. I've literally never had the occasion to wear any kind of proper suit or even anything close to formal wear until now, and it'll probably be a sudden non-trivial investment since there are a few of these lining up in the year. It's not helped by the fact that I'm not just an off-the-shelf build physically, and so while I'm grateful for the invites, it's money and stuff that I really could spend in other ways. The economy in Canada is shit rn, and if I wasn't lucky enough to have a job, I'd probably just consider declining on that basis. That plus a short domestic flight, accomodation, bachelor/bachelorette parties, etc.. it's crazy.

Earlier in the year, my lady and I were invited to the destination wedding of one of her close relatives, and simply told them no because it would have been a laughably expensive commitment that would have compromised our financial security. I get that people want to feel special or rationalize a big event, but I agree that if your family isn't shitting money or something to the point of making it trivial, it seems like kind of a silly idea.
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-09-22 03:47:42+00:00
> and rats will become super adapted to space

That would be great! It would strongly imply humans, over cycles of reproducing in space, would too. I suspect, unfortunately, we'd have to iron out some kinks first [1].

[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8675004/
by acuozzo | 2025-09-22 03:48:17+00:00
> If they do know, and you tell them, then you've only really confirmed what they already knew.

Not necessarily. This opens you up to accusations of engaging in "mansplaining" which has broadened in definition over the years.

In addition to this, it opens you up to being thought of as a "know it all".

It's far safer, as far as office politics are concerned, to put on your coworkers the burden of asking you to clarify/explain/teach.
by gonzo41 | 2025-09-22 03:48:33+00:00
It's impatience and tiredness.

Taking an idea, and converting it into code is a lot of work. Taking that same idea and then taking the code and turning the both into words that can communicate the original idea is just another complex task. I'd wager that the dopamine hit of getting stuff working has worn off and most people are writing doco when they're exhausted from their recent work.
by badlibrarian | 2025-09-22 03:48:56+00:00
> 1. We provide the highest level of service to all library users through appropriate and usefully organized resources; equitable service policies; equitable access; and accurate, unbiased, and courteous responses to all requests.

Whether its people suing them, people begging to have personal information removed, or people letting them know credentials have been sitting in the open on Gitlab for over two years, they often do not respond at all. As for "usefully organized resources" well they've overwhelmed. But digitizing 400,000 old records and starting a bank shouldn't be a priority until they get the basics sorted. Like serving torrents that aren't corrupt and missing files.

> 3. We protect each library user's right to privacy and confidentiality...

They leaked 30 million messages from patrons, including driver's licenses and passports.

> 6. We do not advance private interests at the expense of library users, colleagues, or our employing institutions.

They've always played favorites with access. Not only read access but also write access (!) to their databases. They run an entirely separate version of the site for paying institutional clients. Conflict of interest that borders on grifting by employees is not hard to spot.
by mindslight | 2025-09-22 03:50:51+00:00
What I recall from looking into this is that under half of the states had stay at home orders with the force of law. My own perspective was similar to yours - governor issued a "stay at home order" that when you read the details it was really just a strongly worded suggestion. Of course my state was still often listed in national summaries as if the order was mandatory.

But there does seem to be states where such orders were legally mandatory. Were they enforced? Would they survive court scrutiny if someone was arrested for say walking down the sidewalk in open air? Did they have massive escape hatches (eg caring for family members) ? No idea.
by cyphar | 2025-09-22 03:50:57+00:00
I think there are a handful of cases where it is a nice-to-have and would be sad if it was removed in a hypothetical Go 2. Making a utility wrapper struct that overrides a method or adds new helper methods while keeping the rest of the interface is the most common example, though there are also some JSON spec type examples which are a little more esoteric. However, you need to be mentally prepared to switch to the boilerplate version as soon as things start getting hairy.

But yes, for anything more complicated I have generally regretted trying to embed structs. I think requiring "unsafe" is a bit too strong, but I think the syntax should've been uglier / more in-your-face to discourage its use.

(Fellow 10+ years Go user.)
by rbanffy | 2025-09-22 03:52:13+00:00
At these time scales, major terraforming projects become viable, from building large sunshades in orbit to one near Earth-Sun L1 (balancing light pressure and gravity, it would be closer to the Sun than L1), to even raising Earth’s orbit through a fleet of gravity tugs. Venus would be an excellent case for a planet-sized sunshade, btw, as well as a solar wind magnetic lens to replace lost hydrogen and make liquid water as the planet cools. The latter could be useful for Mars.
by lowmagnet | 2025-09-22 03:52:32+00:00
I have code that wouldn't work without embedding. Basically, I have a type that annotates any AWS paginate and is capable of streaming all the results as a sequence. It embeds the original client so you get all the functionality of the client, but it also wraps the functions that support a pagination. I can't think of an easier or clearer way to do it.
by csallen | 2025-09-22 03:53:13+00:00
Most technical writers (and communicators in general) have an insufficient appreciation for the curse of knowledge.

This takes me back to running a World of WarCraft guild as a teenager.

We would organize "raids" maybe 3 to 4 times a week. It involved getting 40 of our guild members from all over the world to sign on at the same time, and spend hours facing off against dragons and other monsters inside dungeons. It was the most fun I'd ever had in a game, but it was also instructive. The battles were famously difficult and required a ton of coordination and strategy, and even a small mistake could get everyone killed. So our policy was that everyone in the raid had to sign onto our Teamspeak server, which was basically an audio-only Zoom call where my appointed officers and I could give orders and dictate strategy.

I very quickly learned an important lesson in communication: assume the worst. Surprisingly (to me at the time), most people who don't understand what you're saying won't stop you to tell you they didn't understand. And so I came to live by two rules:

1. If it's worth saying once, it's worth repeating. Assume people are only half listening, that they're distracted, that they're not paying attention.

2. Don't assume people know what you know. In fact, while talking, keep a second thread running where you explicitly ask yourself, "What am I saying that my listener might not know?" Then explain it.

The more I followed these rules, the better we did on our raids.

But even long after I stopped playing WoW, both of these rules have been helpful. Especially the second one, which helps overcome the curse of knowledge -- the phenomenon that occurs when a person who has specialized knowledge incorrectly assumes that others share in that knowledge.

Thinking about the curse of knowledge when communicating basically becomes second nature after a while. And then it becomes obvious when you observe other communicators who don't care about the curse of knowledge. They confidently launch into stories using obscure terminology and acronyms that nobody understands, without a care in the world for their listeners' understanding, they don't notice at all that nobody understands.
by scuff3d | 2025-09-22 03:53:27+00:00
I agree, and I try to ignore that stuff, but there are a few things that I think are a little more fundamental then that.

This one is fairly minor, but the overly granular namespacing drives me nuts. I shouldn't have to go four or five layers deep to get fairly common functionality. The pattern of returning structs from within structs from within structs just gets old. Maybe that has to do with the way the language handles generics, I don't know.

The attitude to interfaces is also grating. I get that Kelly and the Zig team want to discourage there use, but with the changes to Io it feels a bit like they want to have their cake and eat it to. Before it was mainly just allocators, but now readers, writers, and it sounds like async are all going to be handled through interfaces. But yet the community writ large is still expected to not really use them. Seems like they should have sorted their attitude and approach to interfaces before making these most recent changes.
by bastawhiz | 2025-09-22 03:53:37+00:00
> The Rust Binder driver has been tested on the Android emulator as well as a Google Pixel 6 Pro.

That's a pretty old device at this point. I get that most stuff should work on pretty much all hardware, but given what they said about the importance of this, my expectation would be that Google would shower the Linux team in Pixel devices for testing. Maybe I'm misunderstanding where the Pixel 6 comes in?