MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by themafia | 2025-09-07 05:55:20+00:00
> Without those two traits you are going to get you and your squadmates killed in a hurry.

In terms of military history this is not strictly true. In past conflicts where personnel was limited and compromises had to made these types of soldiers were often given solo or special assignments and very often excelled in that environment, with more than a few of our highly decorated soldiers from WWII having served in this way.

Peace time militaries tend to get bogged down with this strict squadron type of thinking and in that context you are not at all wrong, but it is interesting that when push comes to shove, the military rediscovers that there's more than one way to win the battle.
by esbranson | 2025-09-07 05:57:04+00:00
At least one major flaw came up: FirstNet.[1] Apparently they contracted with AT&T and in their infinite greed allow commercial SIMs to attach to Band 14.[2] So all prisoners apparently have to do is get AT&T service.

AT&T: where your bars are imaginary but your bill is real.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FirstNet_Authority

[2] https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10503031430991/1
by doikor | 2025-09-07 05:57:06+00:00
For the first couple decades while it was ahead of South Korea economically (in large part due to support from China/USSR) it was not that bad but during that time the system of absolute control by the Kim family was setup and once it was up it is too late to really do anything due to how absolute/brutal the control is (you say anything wrong and you and your whole extended family end up in a prison/death camp)

Basically people are willing to put up with a lot if their lives are getting better (economic growth). Problem with that is what kind of system of control an authoritarian government can setup in that period of growth.
by arwhatever | 2025-09-07 05:58:15+00:00
I don’t think so, although that seems like a fair question of you to ask.

I’ve tried on numerous occasions to get pricing quotes for healthcare both paying fully out of pocket, and for getting an estimate for what I’ll be left covering after insurance negotiates ads pays their part.

In every attempt I get absolutely nowhere price estimate-wise and wind get this or that procedure done just hoping and praying that the ultimate bill will be remotely reasonable

We’re so far off the mark for having a healthy marketplace for healthcare pricing that I just can’t see considering it dysfunctional to itself be an appeal to some purity.

Perhaps one might argue that a formerly functional healthcare pricing system will inevitably degenerate into this robber Baron situation that we’ve got currently, but otherwise I don’t see the no true Scotsman.
by ChrisNorstrom | 2025-09-07 05:58:35+00:00
I'm honestly still shocked there isn't some kind of lawsuit or federal investigation on how Microsoft is able to get away with dropping support for CPUs that are only a few years old. Thus forcing unknown millions of people worldwide to upgrade an ENTIRE CPU and Motherboard just for the next version of Windows. What are we supposed to do with all that e-waste?! People who spent thousands on a 32 core threadripper from 5 years ago are now suppose to just... throw it away and buy another 32 core threadripper?!

None of the 7 computers in our house have processors that are supported. Just the AMD Threadripper 2000 series and earlier that launched in 2018 (just 7 years ago) are not supported. That's a massive amount of CPUs about to hit ebay probably at huge discounts.

I'm hoping the Linux community takes advantage of this moment and focuses heavily on converting Windows users to Linux + Bottles.
by cellis | 2025-09-07 05:59:45+00:00
"Would putting this operation to a democratic vote ever result in approval?"

As a civilian, I understand the intention. But, unless all are warriors of equal rank, I don't want the public voting on how the military will be run minute-by-minute, nor do I think it's helpful for the public ( i.e. our adversaries in a very real sense ) to have access to information of classified operations. That sounds like a recipe for an authoritarian / tyrannical government to absolutely steamroll us...which would negate the advantages of a democracy in the first place.
by qalmakka | 2025-09-07 06:00:23+00:00
The real issue is that C++ does implicit _deep_ copies by default on assignment and that you can't retrofit the language to change that. One quick, fast solution to avoid such shenanigans is to follow the one parameter `explicit` constructor rule religiously and always mark copy constructors explicit unless you know as a fact the type is trivially memcpy-able. This fixes most of the issues.

Another problem with C++ references is that they aren't really reference types, they are aliases, so they have wonky semantics and crazy nonsensical features like `const T&` doing lifetime extension
by sirwhinesalot | 2025-09-07 06:02:58+00:00
Oh wow, someone posted my article instead of me, thank you so much.

One thing I didn't really put as much emphasis on as I should have was Smalltalk. That's probably the closest existing solution to what I think "Visual Programming" should be like.

Live editing a program, being able to easily navigate the code in terms of classes and tags instead of files, built-in UI toolkit that lets you create whatever custom visualizations you want, etc. Providing an alternative visual view to the code would be pretty easy too.

What ruins it is that the application you're developing and the platform itself are intimately tied together. It's more of an Operating System than it is an IDE. I don't think that's an actual constraint of the live editor design, it's just how Smalltalk is.
by hetman | 2025-09-07 06:03:51+00:00
In fairness, the US kept indirectly funding the Khmer Rouge even after evidence of their atrocities came to light for their own strategic geopolitical reasons.

The realpolitic of international relations very often follows the words of the British prime minister, Lord Palmerston: "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."
by lock1 | 2025-09-07 06:04:26+00:00
When I first saw "Parse, don't validate" title, it struck me as a catchy but perhaps unnecessarily clever catchphrase. It's catchy, yes, but it felt too ambiguous to be meaningful for anyone outside of the target audience (Haskellers in this case).

That said, I fully agree with the article content itself. It basically just boils down to:

When you create a program, eventually you'll need to process & check whether input data is valid or not. In C-like language, you have 2 options

void validate(struct Data d);

or

struct ValidatedData; ValidatedData validate(struct Data d);

"Parse, don't validate" is just trying to say don't do `void validate(struct Data d)` (procedure with `void`), but do `ValidatedData validate(struct Data d)` (function returning `ValidatedData`) instead.

It doesn't mean you need to explicitly create or name everything as a "parser". It also doesn't mean "don't validate" either; in `ValidatedData validate(struct Data d)` you'll eventually have "validation" logic similar to the procedure `void` counterpart.

Specifically, the article tries to teach folks to utilize the type system to their advantage. Rather than praying to never forget invoking `validate(d)` on every single call site, make the type signature only accept `ValidatedData` type so the compiler will complain loudly if future maintainers try to shove `Data` type to it. This strategy offloads the mental burden of remembering things from the dev to the compiler.

I'm not exactly sure why the "Parse, don't validate" catchphrase keeps getting reused in other language communities. It's not clear to non-FP community what the distinction between "parser" and "validate", let alone "parser combinator". Yet somehow other articles keep reusing this same catchphrase.
by gucci-on-fleek | 2025-09-07 06:04:46+00:00
I run nlbw2collectd [0] on an OpenWRT router, and then scrape the data with a standard VictoriaMetrics/Grafana setup. It gives me really nice charts showing when each device is active and how much data it is using.

[0]: https://github.com/mstojek/nlbw2collectd
by everyone | 2025-09-07 06:05:35+00:00
Im assuming MS will always have one secret good version of windows for enterprise? Eg. I have Win 10 LTSC 2021 which runs out in 2032.. I assume when that runs out there will be some replacement good version of windows?

I also installed Linux Mint which I am trying to do as much as possible on. Its really fantastic, its crazy how it "just works".. The most intuitive and user friendly OS ive ever used.. I just do a lot of weird game and game-dev stuff that I still need Windows for.. If I didnt do that stuff I would 100% be on Mint.. And that is changing with Steam, Wine, Bottles, Proton, Lutris, the amount of stuff u cant do keeps shrinking and it keeps getting easier and easier. Most people on earth should be using Linux, it would be objectively better and easier to do everything they want to do on their computer compared to all the other popular OSes.
by Nevermark | 2025-09-07 06:06:01+00:00
This is good advice.

Their is also an effect that I have seen many times and experienced myself. Where it’s evident that someone has an idiosyncratic challenge, but you can tell they have put effort into overcoming or mitigating it. And they just work through it, not letting it get in their way.

It demonstrates life competence, and is a real positive.

Whatever you do, whatever you can do, don’t let “it” get in your way.
by robocat | 2025-09-07 06:07:22+00:00
I disagree. The last sentence kinda strongly implies that there was no redundancy:

"the existing brakes does not constitute a redundant system"

Or from the Portuguese report:

Desta forma, não constitui um sistema redundante à falha dessa ligação

Google translate:

Therefore, it does not constitute a redundant system in the event of this connection failing.

Of course it could just be saying that the brakes were critical (not redundant?). Summary reports often have spin rather than facts.

It turns out that the brakes were critical and they didn't work for whatever reason (design or maintenance or operation or unforseen failure)
by quietthrow | 2025-09-07 06:09:10+00:00
Genuine question:

1) I am surprised there is no mention of trading it back to apple? 2) I am sure putting a decent “churn” schedule for apple devices is already been done right? Top of my head I can imagine coming up with one where for of the major product line apple offers (mbp, iPad, iPhone) we can look at the typical depreciation curve and find optimal “get in” points and “get out” points right? How hard could it be. I agreed there is a friction and activation energy needed to going down to the Apple Store and trading it in but you could get a new device every 1-2 years and keep largely churning the same out of money plus a slightly more to top up (call it premium to avoid the anger /pain inflicted by not doing it.)

What am I missing here ?
by esbranson | 2025-09-07 06:10:17+00:00
The rules of engagement are probably to consider everyone hostile unless and until proven otherwise. If you're a California male citizen for example, you probably have no clue that you've been declared a combatant. By law. (Military and Veterans Code § 122.) North Koreans are probably less sexist and ageist, and less ignorant and naive than Californians to boot. On a state-owned vessel.

Enemy combatants don't magically get immunity from war when they don't have a weapon on them, nor do military forces have to go into a state property and politely ask everyone without a weapon if they're an enemy combatant before they can fire on it and turn everyone into dust. Nor are they required to refrain from engaging enemy forces because someone else is likely to get hurt. Your entire line of assumptions and the questions that flow from them is detached from reality.

The military law of your jurisdiction, at a minimum, would be a good book to read, if you can afford it. I think a one-time purchase from Thomson Reuters for the California Code would cost you $41,000 USD and a pretty onerous contract. If you tried to take one from a library, I'm sure they'd only give you a couple nights in jail and a year of probation. I think you can get Hong Kong's for $90,000 if that's where you live.
by lern_too_spel | 2025-09-07 06:10:57+00:00
> How does a bunch of diehard democrats holding up signs in front of some government building make people "make people confront what they voted for

It doesn't. Democrats didn't vote for it. Perhaps you should try addressing my examples instead of a straw man. How do violent attacks against people just sitting at a counter not make people confront what they voted for? How do protests at Alligator Alcatraz drawing attention to the conditions within not make people confront what they voted for?

If people didn't protest what is happening in Gaza and the West Bank, nobody in the US would pay attention, and we wouldn't have seen the shift in public opinion in that we are now seeing.
by rudedogg | 2025-09-07 06:12:03+00:00
https://angelscript.hazelight.se/ for others.

Any thoughts on Verse? I’m not experienced with Unreal or in the ecosystem, but it looked like it might be too foreign to me. But Tim Sweeney is no dummy, so it’s probably good and just requires some effort if you’re not already a functional programming nerd?
by lucyjojo | 2025-09-07 06:12:21+00:00
> somebody wound up with USD. What does that somebody do with it?

the bank will get usd, aaand will probably put it into stocks/bonds/whatever financial instrument. in other things it will fund national debts.

so that's part government money, part investment money for big business.

with current government/finance policies it directly goes to feed the inequality wheel.

there are many aspects to that (tax-breaks, inflation policies, job market elasticity etc.) but the end result is the inequality is increasing and shows no sign of stopping, and that money that goes out from the bottom - in the form of less salary paid and more unemployment (leading into lower salaries) - and back through the top - national debt/big investment - is not helping.

i am not saying national debt/big corp. is inherently bad for inequality (i wouldn't know.. it s a complex topic) but i am saying that the current way they choose to spend money leads to it.

i'm not complaining, i'm on the poor side that receives usd. but i say it as i see it.

i'm not an expert, just a grunt coder wanting to start a business soon, but i try to keep informed.
by magic_hamster | 2025-09-07 06:13:27+00:00
It's very cool, but I think two issues keep this from being truly delightful. First of all, it doesn't really feel like a computer, little things like typing "dir" in the command line could be a great little interaction, but it's not supported. I'd try to make it more fun to use and not just pretty to look at.

The other thing is, I think the portfolio doesn't really match the quality of the website you vibe coded. This is actually a pretty bad sign that your own work is not as good as something you can do with AI (human assisted or not). The website is pretty high quality, so browsing through extremely simple assets just feels out of place.

Overall it's a good project.
by aspenmayer | 2025-09-07 06:13:53+00:00
> But if a random stranger sees a rape, I have no issue with him killing the rapist, whether in the act or after. IT does not matter whether he was harmed himself or not.

I take issue with this as an innocent bystander, because I don’t know what you know if the transgression happened previously to me happening upon you killing them. This is traumatic and would lead me to believe you are the aggressor, because you’re going off half cocked. You seem like a well meaning unstable person. I don’t feel safer by having you around. I don’t find your actions reasonable or predictable because you are acting as judge, jury, and executioner.

Victims deserve justice, not summary judgement administered on their behalf. It’s not your place to do this if you didn’t see it happening in front of you, and even if you did, you have no right to take a life when one is not at risk. Please don’t use my post to advocate for violence, which you have been doing all thread. If you harm me or mine in your reckless pursuit of misguided justice, I will hold you personally responsible and will prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law.

You’re not a good person in my moral estimation. Please consider that you can be honestly mistaken. You could even be a victim of a psyop, where folks posing as victims agitate others around you and themselves, just so that they can run to you and claim victimhood, knowing you would strike first and ask questions later or never. Your moral theory doesn’t account for bad actors posing as victims so that you will white knight on their behalf, essentially outsourcing their own violence to you under false auspices.

What’s more, you may hurt innocent bystanders physically, emotionally, or psychologically by dispensing violence in their presence, regardless of whether the violence is justified or not. That is on you. You’re not qualified to do so. You don’t have standing to intervene unless you have a reasonable likelihood of knowing the facts of the matter, and your words in this thread lead me to believe you aren’t a reasonable person to be around.

> And morally, it's even more clear cut. If at any point his aggression reached a level which justified death as proportional punishment (which it did), then he kept being deserving of that punishment until, well, punished.

You are right that they deserve punishment all the same, but once the moment has passed, the punishment is not the victim’s to dispense. In fact, it is a crime to act with intent to harm or kill unless you are defending yourself against clear and present danger. This disqualifies past acts of violence against the victim, as the danger is not precipitous, and so the response need not be either. If you killed someone in front of me and then said that you are justified because they killed your mom yesterday, I am going to remove myself from your life and report you to the authorities for premeditated murder.

You don’t know how any of this works, because you think two wrongs make a right.

Get help.
by Animats | 2025-09-07 06:14:00+00:00
Seeking Alpha: [1] "In sharp contrast, Tesla FSD largely remains a beta product that still requires drivers' attention. Even their Robotaxi service, which likely launched more out of necessity to stay in the headlines as opposed to actual readiness, requires a full-time human to monitor the vehicle. Independent data consistently shows that Tesla requires far more human intervention on a per mile basis than Waymo. This is not surprising as it seems FSD errors are becoming commonplace, with numerous examples of Tesla's FSD mode swerving into oncoming traffic, misinterpreting construction zones, and even failing to recognize pedestrians continuing to pile up."

[1] https://seekingalpha.com/article/4818639-tesla-robotaxi-ambi...
by andsoitis | 2025-09-07 06:15:34+00:00
Costs are decreasing due to technological advancements, increased model efficiency, and the availability of smaller, more specialized models.

Large frontier models remain expensive, but costs for powerful yet cost-effective models have dropped significantly, and there’s no reason to believe this trend won’t continue.

Specific reasons for cost reduction:

- Smaller, More Efficient Models

- Improved Training and Hardware

- Mixture of Experts (MoE) Architecture

- Specialization

Evidence of cost declines include: price drops, cost-effective edge deployments, commoditization of core capabilities.
by mpweiher | 2025-09-07 06:15:59+00:00
Largely agreed, I wrote about the confusion around 10 years ago[1] and wrote 2 years later about the problem of concept capture we have with MVC[2] :

I'd like to add a couple of points to TFA.

Yes, it is absolutely paramount to understand what the model is. It is the abstract representation of the domain. The rest of the architecture serves the model and should be as minimal and transparent as possible. Particularly Apple-space code tends to get this very wrong by having very thin models and all the logic in the Massive View Controllers.

It is also important to understand that MVC is not about specific objects, but rather about roles and communication patterns. Different objects can have those roles, and they can actually be usefully combined at times (though do keep the model separate, please).

One crucial part of the communication patterns that TFA duly notes is that models do not know about views. That means that views only ever pull data from models, models never push data towards views. It also means that in an update, the model just says "I have changed". It does not send the data that changed. The "the model changed" notifications is also the only reason a view gets updated.

No, the controller doesn't poke the correct updated data into the view after it has notified the model, that leads to update chains and cycles. IIRC, that was one of the problems that React was trying to solve with "MVC", except it turns out that actual MVC never had those problems in the first place. Mis-application of MVC does.

Having the view always update itself from the model means that view state is always consistent, even if you miss or skip intermediate updates. Skipping intermediate view updates is important, because the model can potentially change a lot faster than the view can update, never mind the user processing those view updates.

Also, one common misunderstanding (that also leads to Massive View Controllers) is the mistaken belief that views must not edit models, that you must have a controller to edit it. That is actually not in the original MVC paper[3]. In the original paper, views can edit models and that makes things a lot more sensible.

Controllers are a bit of a catch-all for stuff that didn't fit anywhere else. The Views in Cocoa actually take over some of those roles, and that works absolutely fine. (Imagine my confusion when ViewControllers were introduced...)

[1] https://blog.metaobject.com/2015/04/model-widget-controller-...

[2] https://blog.metaobject.com/2017/03/concept-shadowing-and-ca...

[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20090424042645/http://heim.ifi.u...
by silicon5 | 2025-09-07 06:17:28+00:00
In the late 90s and early 00s, blogs were originally "weblogs" or "web logs", just a sort of online diary. It was mainly something you wrote, rather than something for others to read.

Over time, the most interesting blogs became the most popular, and these were generally blogs on a fixed topic. The meaning of "blog" shifted to refer to these high-quality regularly-updated article sites, more like a magazine. It became highly commercialized as people tried to turn blogs into careers or side hustles. The original use of blogging, as a personal journal that only your friends care to read, was supplanted by social media.

Nowadays, pro-blogging has been supplanted by YouTube, since the ad revenue on video is much higher and the audience and discoverability much better. Not every blogger was able to make this transition, however, because the skillsets of a magazine writer and a television host are different.
by makeitdouble | 2025-09-07 06:17:38+00:00
The base assumption is parsing upfront cost less than validating along. I thinks it's a common case, but not common enough to apply it as a generic principle.

For instance if validating parameter values requires multiple trips to a DB or other external system, weaving the calls in the logic can spare duplicating these round trips. Light "surface" validation can still be applied, but that's not what we're talking about here I think.