MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by nebula8804 | 2025-09-17 02:48:49+00:00
I left Android at the Nexus 5 after years of buying every Nexus phone. The deal breaker: Despite staying on official ROMs, Google broke audio in video recording such that all my vacation videos with a special friend ended up with garbled audio. My mistake for trusting Google updates right before my trip. You'd think for their reference phone they would test a primary feature like video recording for regressions? Apparently not.

My friend at the time had an iPhone 5, I noticed her phone worked without issue while my Nexus 5 was constantly draining its battery.

I finally bought an Apple device and 11 years later never looked back. Finally said goodbye to Windows & Linux as well. I presume this is how many Apple conversions happen.

Back when Pixel came out I used to argue with a friend because it supposedly had a better camera: I'd always point out that the Pixel phone has its own Wikipedia article describing all its issues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_(1st_generation)#Issues

Its been like 12 years since the G1? They are still playing games till this day. Give it a rest already.
by eru | 2025-09-17 02:49:15+00:00
Compensation ain't about how hard something is in an absolute sense. At least that's only one part of it.

Playing an instrument is harder than being a code monkey. On the one hand, you can make good money being a top tier musician, there's almost no money in being a mediocre musician (or even an above average one). On the other hand, it's fairly easy to get by as a mediocre code monkey.

Even as a somewhat subpar software engineer, you can make enough money that you don't have to be waiting tables as your day job.

(Waiting tables itself is a good example at least to contrast with acting or making music or writing novels. None of these aspiring artists and poets is necessarily any good at waiting tables, but it still pays the bills compared to even pretty good acting skills.)
by vlovich123 | 2025-09-17 02:50:47+00:00
Literally none of the things you mention help with verifying distributed systems. I think you just fundamentally aren't understanding what it is and this isn't the right forum for me to bridge that gap for you. You highlight this lack of understanding by dismissing a custom hypervisor as a collection of bash scripts and focusing on things Rust has or does well that are completely irrelevant for the classes of bugs that Antithesis is trying to uncover.

> To get Raft, will do sans-io with full typed rust covered by proofs for state(machine) and macro generator for glue(from state machine). I need only prop/fuzz test to test small integration sans-io part. I do not need antithesis.

Again, I think you're missing the point entirely. With hand written property test/fuzz test, you have to manually and correctly implement all the failure conditions that can happen "sans-io". A notable one would be packet reordering (if you're I/O doesn't guarantee ordering) or network partitions. The point of Antithesis is that it will transparently do all of that state checking for you. It's not that you'd not get there eventually, but Antithesis will be an easier system and you'll move faster. Whether or not that's valuable is a decision everyone makes for themselves.
by nothrabannosir | 2025-09-17 02:51:15+00:00
No kidding!? I have never had someone take this in stride. Responses have ranged from surprise to defensive condescension. It rarely even works at all, and the two worst offenders were both banks. One UK, one USA. I almost had the check for my rent bounce after three days of this rigmarole and ended up having to just go with it.

Where do you bank? I'm looking for recommendations.
by avighnay | 2025-09-17 02:51:44+00:00
I understand your point.

Since AI code is inherently bound to face a critical review, we have kept the goal of security at the top. We have taken the following steps for it.

- 1. Code execution is sandboxed

- 2. Access to all built in modules of NodeJS is prevented, with option to whitelist using the server configuration

- 3. Platform APIs which access system (within the sandbox) also need to be whitelisted with explicit permission grants

Yes, we would like to make it ever more secure, with the help of the community and feedback from our customers. Like with any code human or ai there is bound to be bugs, the issue list of even the most popular, major projects out there is a testament to it. We intend to ever make it better for ourselves and for our customers.
by tTarnMhrkm | 2025-09-17 02:51:55+00:00
That's an incredibly kind and insightful comment. Thank you so much, I really appreciate you taking the time to write that.

You're right, the cycle from idea to competitor is getting terrifyingly short, and for a simple utility like this, a patent or complex code isn't the moat.

My entire plan is to focus on building a great product, being active in the community, and becoming the trusted, "original" recommendation that people like you would choose.

It's really encouraging to hear that perspective from a user. It validates that I'm on the right track.

Thanks again for the kind words and the fantastic analysis!
by eru | 2025-09-17 02:52:28+00:00
Presumably the tax payers would have procured something themselves, if you'd have left the money into their own pockets.

See how IBM was on the path to inventing electronic computers for business and accounting, but got pre-empted by the militaries' needs and procurement.

In the counterfactual if there hadn't been a war going on, presumably businesses would have had even more needs for international business machines.
by kragen | 2025-09-17 02:53:51+00:00
I don't think corruption indices do a great job of measuring kleptocracy. The PRC's national government, for example, has clearly prioritized enriching the general population through economic development and reducing poverty over lining their own pockets, despite not being transparent or accountable. The indices do provide some information; extremely kleptocratic countries like Venezuela, Eritrea, Yemen, and Nicaragua reliably come out on the bottom of the CPI. But the most damaging effects of kleptocracy are very subtle.

I do agree that dollarization hasn't been resoundingly successful, and that does undermine my thesis somewhat. I agree that cryptocurrencies are like super-dollarization: not only do they remove domestic government control of monetary policy, they remove or weaken domestic government control of and visibility into capital flows, banking services such as savings and lending, and payments. If that would be great, you'd expect dollarization to at least be good. And it isn't clear that it has been. It hasn't been obviously disastrous either—you can make credible arguments that Ecuador or El Salvador would be either better off or worse off without it—but it hasn't been obviously beneficial.

I think "choosing kleptocrats that are offering a better deal" is a good description of dollarization and, for example, Tether, USDC, or CBDCs. But, as a description of Bitcoin and Ethereal, it's comprehensively incorrect; there haven't ever been any credible allegations of corruption in their blockchains, unless you count Ethereal's DAO rollback. They've so far been completely immune to the kind of politically-motivated currency manipulation that is the actual official job of central banks behind fiat currencies like the dollar.
by s20n | 2025-09-17 02:54:17+00:00
I believe most C++ gripes are a classic case of PEBKAC.

One of the most common complaints is the lack of a package manager. I think this stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of how the ecosystem works. Developers accustomed to language-specific dependency managers like npm or pip find it hard to grasp that for C++, the system's package manager (apt, dnf, brew) is the idiomatic way to handle dependencies.

Another perpetual gripe is that C++ is bad because it is overly complex and baroque, usually from C folks like Linus Torvalds[1]. It's pretty ironic, considering the very compiler they use for C (GCC), is written in C++ and not in C.

[1]: Torvalds' comment on C++ <https://harmful.cat-v.org/software/c++/linus>
by all_factz | 2025-09-17 02:54:18+00:00
Meh, sort of. Just because LLMs let you output reams of code, doesn’t mean you should use them to do that. As always, you should make the smallest diff that would accomplish your goal. Working this way, LLMs don’t really accelerate my workflow much except for work that’s truly boilerplate and for refactoring. But for the sort of small-ish changes that iterate towards product-market fit, I find I have to spend more time trying to get Claude to do what I want than just writing the code I need by hand.
by to11mtm | 2025-09-17 02:54:39+00:00
> rapidly cycle their prius between 50 and 70 on the freeway because regenerative brakes save gas (I felt carsick for hours after arriving at my destination)

Weird take to me, unless you were on a lot of hills; at least in my Maverick [0] 55-65 is 'ideal' MPG range for long trips, going between speeds tends to trip things up and actually -avoid- the weird 'battery has enough juice where we just kinda lug the engine' mode.

Doing regenerative 'braking' compared to using physical brakes, absolutely can give energy for momentum/acceleration and save on the physical brakes wear and tear, OTOH any normal cyclist would say it's better to 'maintain' a given output power vs allowing deceleration and then going back up to speed.

As for why, well I'm not a physics person, but in general it's that you are having to overcome the rotational mass/etc of the wheels (i.e. tires, axles, etc), and no regenerative braking within the current laws of physics will make slowing down and speeding back up more efficient, at least on a flat road.

[0] - OK It ain't quite a prius but it works fairly close aside from overall drag...
by rectang | 2025-09-17 02:55:04+00:00
You've presented your argument as if rebutting mine, but to my mind you've reinforced my first paragraph:

* You are trusting large numbers of trustworthy developers.

* You have established a means of validating their trustworthiness: only trust reputable "first-party" code.

I think what you're doing is a pretty good system. However, there are ways to include work by devs who lack "first-party" bona-fides, such as when they participate in group development where their contributions are consistently audited. Do you exclude packages published by the ASF because some contributions may originate from troublesome jurisdictions?

In any case, it is not necessary to solve the traitorous author problem to address the attack vector right in front of us, which is compromised authors.
by ryao | 2025-09-17 02:55:30+00:00
It depends on the codebase. If the code base deserves to be a case study in how not to do programming, then a rewrite will definitely yield better results.

I once encountered this situation with C# code written by an undergraduate, rewrote it from scratch in C++ and got a better result. In hindsight, the result would have been even better in C since I spent about 80% of my time fighting with C++ to try to use every language feature possible. I had just graduated from college and my code whole better, did a number of things wrong too (although far fewer to my credit). I look back at it in hindsight and think less is more when it comes to language features.

I actually am currently maintaining that codebase at a health care startup (I left shortly after it was founded and rejoined not that long ago). I am incrementally rewriting it to use a C subset of C++ whenever I need to make a change to it. At some point, I expect to compile it as C and put C++ behind me.
by briHass | 2025-09-17 02:55:33+00:00
Especially the 'backend' languages that do all the heavy lifting for domain-specific software. Just in my vertical of choice, financial software, there are literally billions of lines of Java and .NET code powering critical systems. The code is the documentation, and there's little appetite to rewrite all that at enormous cost and risk.

Perhaps AI will get reliable enough to pour through these double-digit million LOC codebases and convert them flawlessly, but that looks like it's decades off at this point.
by about3fitty | 2025-09-17 02:55:44+00:00
I wonder if we are back to “who you know” because of a couple of factors:

1. The risk of a bad hire is great, and this de-risks that

2. It facilitates more natural and spontaneous conversations, which for better or worse short-circuits a well crafted and pre-planned anti-bias interview process which can be too rigid for both parties to explore detail
by joules77 | 2025-09-17 02:56:29+00:00
> I posit that any for-profit social media will eventually degrade into recommendation media over time.

For profit social media is totally possible. But a "healthy" version won't happen until govts reform social media such that Attention is demonitized or remonitized.

The post is right in that Attention has been monetized by social media companies. How much Attention you pay to something and how much Attention you receive both got monetized. They monetized Attention by adding View, Like, Share and Follower counts to everything.

And those counts started acting like Currency does in the real economy.

For example a key feature of Currency is that it acts as Store of Value. That value can then be exchanged at whatever time for something else in the real economy.

But in the real economy the Money Supply is regulated and controlled by the Central Bank. Why did that happen?

Before Central Banks (a very recent invention) showed up individual Banks printed their own currency. If they printed "too much" all kinds of strange phenomenon started emerging in the real world. For centuries no one connected that back to how much money was being printed. Because people had no idea what the level of the money supply was. Just like on social media there is no tracking or visible signal of the global Money supply and interest rate setting to control it.

So any time there was a price rising in the market, bank runs, bubbles in the market people would blame everything under the sun other than those responsible for money printing. After centuries of chaos Central Banks started emerging to control what individual Banks could do. Same story will repeat with Attention(which is acting just like a Currency).

This is why Elon and Trump rush to start their own Attention Banks cause they understand better than anyone being able to print a store of value that everyone else uses gives you power.

This is also why having China influencing the money supply (Attention) of US is via TikTok is non-optional.

So people eventually land on 2 paths forward - 1. Demonetize Attention - which is what the post is talking about

2. Remonetize Attention - where there is tracking of how much Attention anyone can receive, and how much Attention anyone can pay. Similar to what controls exist on Banks in what they lend and how much cash they need to hold. And Banks can then run for-profit without doing as much damage as they did when they controlled the money supply.
by NeilAS007 | 2025-09-17 02:56:53+00:00
I’ve been building a personal health tracking web app called Ombric. It lets you log symptoms and automatically converts them into a clean PDF for your doctor — saving time and avoiding guesswork.

The backend is evolving with AI improvements to better recognize symptom patterns and suggest likely next steps (coming soon).

I’d love feedback from anyone interested in AI for health, symptom tracking, or building lightweight LLM-powered tools. You can try the app here: https://useombric.com
by yndoendo | 2025-09-17 02:57:07+00:00
Sorry, there is always a 3rd party involved in a library. The librarians are the ones that select which books to have on handle for consumption, same with a book store, or any source provider of books.

A person going to a library and consuming with out a check-out record, one must assume any book was consumed with in the collection. Only a solid record of a book be checked out creates a defined moment that is still anchored in confidentiality between the parties.

Unless that microwave sensor requires an external communication it is a closed system which does not communicate any information about what item was heated. The 3rd party would be the company the meal was purchased from.

A well designed _smart microwave_ would perform batch process updating and pull in a collection of information to create the automated means to operate. Never know when there could be an Internet outage or the tool might be placed were external communication is not a possible option.

A poorly designed system would require a back and forth communication. Yet it would be no different than a chief knowing what you order with limited information about you. Those systems have an inherent anonymity.

It is the processing record that can be exploited and a good organization would require a warrant or purge the information when it is no longer needed. Cash payment also improves the anonymity in that style of system preventing leaking personal information to anyone.

Why should a static book system like a library not be applied to any ML model since they are performing the same task and providing access to information in a collection? The system is poorly designed if confidently is not adhered by all parties.

Sounds like ML corporations want to make you the product instead of being used as a product. This is why I only respect open design models, from bottom up, that are run locally.
by sashank_1509 | 2025-09-17 02:57:37+00:00
We’ve also not seen how capable Tesla is at evasive maneuvers. We have plenty of videos (hundreds now) of Waymo making instant swerves to avoid children running onto the road, cars running red lights, a person falling from a Scooty etc. These are not maneuvers you would expect from a human, which shows how Waymo has pretty successfully crossed the human bar in safety. If Tesla does not demonstrate this, on top of driving normally, I don’t think they have a product. The barrier to give control to a computer is super human not human like driving.

Also philosophically I don’t see how a big neural network will create such evasive maneuvers, unless you try to create such scenarios in a simulator and collect evasive data. Seems prohibitively expensive to do so in the real world.
by nothrabannosir | 2025-09-17 02:57:47+00:00
To be fair I give just about anyone and their dog my CC number. Chargebacks work and my life is that little bit easier for it.

Playing Jason Bourne with your credit card number is not worth the effort if you ask me.

I would even say this is a net positive for the economy: the cost of fraud is outweighed by the lower barrier to payment. I'm sure you'd have made fewer sales had people been more worried about security. Net positive then, right?
by ryao | 2025-09-17 02:58:21+00:00
GCC was originally written in GNU C. Around GCC 4.9, its developers decided to switch to a subset of C++ to use certain features, but if you look at the codebase, you will see that much of it is still GNU C, compiled as GNU C++.

There is nothing you can do in C++ that you cannot do in C due to Turing Completeness. Many common things have ways of being done in C that work equally well or even better. For example, you can use balanced binary search trees in C without type errors creating enormous error messages from types that are sentences if not paragraphs long. Just grab BSD’s sys/tree.h, illumnos’ libuutil or glib for some easy to use balanced binary search trees in C.
by carlosjobim | 2025-09-17 02:59:11+00:00
> I can't believe how tone deaf it is to suggest that most people have multiple rungs upon which to fall back.

There are rungs which are available to the population at large, so all of us have those privileges. For example the armed forces are recruiting. They will put a roof over your head and food in your belly, as well as give you medical coverage.
by qzw | 2025-09-17 02:59:22+00:00
Your best moat against low effort copycats? Stamina. Keep your app in the store, update it regularly, add support for new devices, add new features if appropriate, keep marketing and selling it, and keep polishing it. The copycats don't want any part of that. They want to make a quick buck with as little work as possible, hence the copying and plagiarizing. In a matter of weeks or months, unless they're making bank from it, their app will start to rot. If your app has staying power, then you will eventually rise above them all. And when you have another good idea down the road, cross promote between your own apps (but don't be obnoxious about it), and you'll begin to grow a user base who trust you. That's as good a moat against copycats as you could ever get.
by calmworm | 2025-09-17 03:00:23+00:00
Google spam filters are terrible because they filter way too much legitimate email. I have been a paying business Gmail user for years, all DMARC, DKIM, etc… in place. My messages still go into client Gmail spam folders. It’s extremely infuriating. Google knows I’m not sending spam. They can’t deliver my email properly to their own inboxes? Nonsense.
by Fomite | 2025-09-17 03:00:33+00:00
Decisions as to whether or not to pursue regulatory approval for, example, expanded coverage of the HPV vaccine to men, or older age groups, is very commonly informed by cost-benefit calculations. I've worked on those projects, seen presentations by my colleagues, etc. There was a good two years of my life where this was what I worked on (mostly strain replacement post-vaccination).

It's a level of evidence that's generated (usually) prior to ACIP, and it is presented to them, while there is not necessarily a bright line threshold.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7652907/
by throwawaygmbno | 2025-09-17 03:01:18+00:00
Black people have known for decades, you vote for the people that don't actively hate you.

Sitting out of the process does absolutely nothing, whether its a protest vote, pretending that politics don't affect you, or just giving up completely. The people who get elected in those situations always 100% ignore you.

When people are in office that are at least willing to listen, you then make a lot of noise and put on pressure. You might get ignored mostly, since you are a minority voting block, but you can make incremental gains and even sometimes big wins.
by o11c | 2025-09-17 03:01:37+00:00
I think it's fine when the language has sufficiently strict types for string concatenation.

Unfortunately, many languages allow `string + int`, which is quite problematic. Java is to blame for some of this.

And C++ is even worse since literals are `const char[]` which decays to pointer.

Languages okay by my standard but not yours include: Python, Ruby.