MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by gorgoiler | 2025-09-09 05:01:15+00:00
Not OP, but my take on this from using i3/sway for years was realizing that I often had two kinds of windows open.

Important long lived ones would be on workspaces where I could jump to them by number. I would have sound mixer and music on 1, mail and instant messaging on 2, browser on 3, then dev stuff or admin tasks etc on 4+. These would stretch horizontally, of course.

What I found was the “+” in “4+” could often be quite a lot of windows. I might have to reference some PDF in order to fill out a form in another PDF, and open a new browser window to manage some other reference document, and screenshots for the final draft, and terminals for taking temporary notes, maybe an image editor to trim screenshots, etc.*

With niri, I still have the “1234” layout but these are now rows with keyboard shortcuts. The ad hoc windows that get pushed onto and popped off my mental context stack grow rightwards… as a stack!

For me, niri’s brilliance is giving me those two axes. Known topics with keyboard navigation on the vertical axis. Ad-hoc tasks within each topic on a push/pop context stack on the horizontal axis.

*Ironically, these multi-window tasks were always the most mundane! Form filling for a mortgage application, say, or managing a report review for multiple authors. Software engineering — one of the more complicated things one can do on a computer, is all very neatly contained inside an IDE / tmux+vim+sh.
by fluoridation | 2025-09-09 05:01:57+00:00
>these should indeed be paid services

Okay... But they're not. I don't think it's possible to force someone to accept payment for something they want to give away for free.

>subsidised by the government through a common national communication infrastructure, to make it cheaper for ordinary people

So you want to make a free service paid, and then make it cheaper? Are you a politician? I can't imagine anyone else saying something like this. You could have said anything here. You could have said that the service should be paid by the state, which would legitimize intervention. Instead you went the preposterous, populist route.

>creates a more competitive market (right now, the biggest problem with "free" services are that you need a lot of money, for a very long period, to compete with them, thus giving rich, foreign corporates a natural advantage)

I have an XMPP server running at home, facing the Internet. I could tell my friends to install any XMPP client and hit me up there. Or we could use Tox. The problem is not investment, it's network effect and convenience.

>We do pay for it with our personal data

In other words, you don't pay for it.

>This data is also sold to (foreign) intelligence agencies thereby endangering a country's national security.

You always have the option not to use those services.

>If you speak publicly, to a mass audience, you need to care about what you say

Generally speaking, yes, I agree. I don't agree that the government should be regulating this. All it would do is harm small content creators.

>just as newspapers / news channels are obliged to do so. If you create content for a mass audience, you should abide by the content regulation that the television and movies do too.

Why, though? There's something about newspapers, TV, and cinema that legitimizes regulation. Newspapers are sold out in the open, so you can't print tits on the front cover. TV used to be sent over public airwaves, so it used a common resource. With cinema, there's a monetary exchange, so there's some expectation of standards.

With user-generated content, like with chat platforms, there's no such thing. When you watch a YouTube video, you're connecting to a server owned by a foreign company that stores a file created and uploaded probably by a foreign national and you're allowed to view that content for free. Other than your ISP ensuring a minimum QoS, what would legitimize the government stepping in in that scenario?

>A similar kind of setup can be enforced for social media reviewers too, ensuring platform owners and algorithm don't control the flow of info on it, and local people (and not foreigners) do.

What do you mean? You're just talking about worker's rights. What does that have to do journalism? You don't have an employer-employee relationship with either social media platforms or the users who post on them. Please, what kind of setup you have in mind, because I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.
by fogzen | 2025-09-09 05:02:04+00:00
No. Run away from any sort of refactor or rewrite. Don't even think about it. Do not proceed. If you're thinking that you can do better, you will be humbled in the worst way. Ignore my warning at your peril. I'll never again for the rest of my life make the horrible mistake of rewriting any system. The article's tactics are all good advice – but it's like tactics for surviving on the front line. You win by never going there in the first place.
by safety1st | 2025-09-09 05:02:08+00:00
Well, hang on. Your comment is fair minded, but to be fair we have to consider the context.

The context is that the courts have found Google holds two illegal monopolies within the online adtech market [1], the remedy for which has yet to be determined. Furthermore the DoJ has sued Meta for holding one as well and that trial is now underway. [2]

I don't know about you, but to me, if the counterparty breaches a contract, that contract is now null and void. Same goes for a social contract, and if someone tries to kill me or rob me, whatever social contract we may have had, is now null and void.

Fortunately Google and Meta aren't actually taking hits out on anyone as far as I know, but the fact remains that the market makers for these online ads, are either outright convicted criminals, or being sued by the government for such. I don't see that we have any social contract to respect or allow any of this. It is right, just and moral to oppose the very existence of online advertising in my opinion, until the illegal abuses are corrected.

If the court has resolved that Google's breaking the law, how about we get an injunction ordering them to halt their ad tech business until the remedies are implemented. Why are we going so easy on them?

You don't owe crooks anything, neither do I.

This isn't about being cheap or breaking a fair deal. It's about asking that law and order be restored within American business and society. What's the point of this society, what moral justification does it have to exist as it is, if it keeps on breaking its own laws to protect the most powerful?

Now it's unfortunate that publishers (websites) get caught in the crossfire of this, they might not agree with me when I say you should oppose all online ads full stop until the problem is corrected, but they are getting screwed by Google and Meta and they would be more than happy to see justice done.

[1] https://washingtonmonthly.com/2025/04/18/court-ruling-agains... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTC_v._Meta
by asadotzler | 2025-09-09 05:02:24+00:00
>the metaverse is a giant smelly pile of poo and he sunk millions in it

He sunk tens of billions.

Estimates (because we don't have "Reality Labs" broken out before 2019) put Zuck's Metaverse Misadventure & Boondoggle about $75B in the hole ($10B revenue on $85B spend) with no signs of a turnaround in revenue.

There are plans to turn things around with AR spectacles but decent ones are years off and will require entirely new investment with little re-use of that $75B Metaverse nonsense (Oculus acquisition, 5 generations of Quest R&D, Horizon Worlds, partnered and sponsored games and content, etc.)

The only real ROI will be the experience and staff gained. The rest will almost certainly land in the dustbin.
by ryandrake | 2025-09-09 05:04:13+00:00
I think people are just hopelessly used to their lives being saturated with ads. On TV, on the Internet, on radio, on billboards, at restaurants, at the airport, at the gas station, in stores, out of stores, almost every surface that could have an ad on it either does now or will one day. This saturation has been so complete and normalized that people are blind to it.
by crabmusket | 2025-09-09 05:04:21+00:00
> A purely compiled WASM approach

I would love to see if a browser could like... "disaggregate" itself into WASM modules. E.g. why couldn't new JS standards be implemented in WASM and hot loaded into the browser itself from a trusted distributor when necessary?

Missing CSS Level 5 selectors? Browser goes and grabs the reference implementation from the W3C.

Low-level implementations could replace these for the browsers with the most demanding performance goals, but "everyone else" could benefit from at least remaining spec compatible?

(I guess this begs the question of "what's the API that these WASM modules all have to conform to" but I dunno, I find it an interesting thought.)
by DemocracyFTW2 | 2025-09-09 05:05:16+00:00
Here, fixed it for you:

setup_spi( &adc, mode = SPI_01, rate = 15, cs_control = CS_MUXED, cs = 0x01 ); setup_spoo( &adc, mode = SPI_01, rate = 15, cs_control = CS_MUXED, cs = 0x01 ); setup_s( &adc, mode = SPI_01, rate = 15, cs_control = CS_MUXED, cs = 0x01 ); validate_and_register_spi_spoo_s( &adc, mode = SPI_01, rate = 15, cs_control = CS_MUXED, cs = 0x01 );
by imiric | 2025-09-09 05:06:05+00:00
Whatever Meta says publicly about this topic, and whatever its internal policies may be, directly contradicts its behavior. So any attempt to excuse this is nothing but virtue signalling and marketing.

The privacy violations and complete disregard for user data are too numerous to mention. There's a Wikipedia article that summarizes the ones we publicly know about.

Based on incentives alone, when the company's primary business model is exploiting user data, it's easy to see these events as simple side effects. When the CEO considers users of his products to be "dumb fucks", that culture can only permeate throughout the companies he runs.
by nananana9 | 2025-09-09 05:07:10+00:00
Most people don't use the internet at a whole - if you just stick to the 10 biggest apps/websites, the experience is acceptable without an adblocker.

As for YouTube, blocking their ads is basically a part-time job at this point. On the desktop it breaks once a month, on Android NewPipe stopped working recently, and soon you won't be even able to install third party clients.
by jppope | 2025-09-09 05:07:24+00:00
I haven't been on twitter (or as the kids are calling it "X" in a while), the thing that drove me off was the algorithm jamming me with engagement trash, when I was trying to do "gardening" and have my feed made up of scientists, or software engineers I respect. What I got was: Kardashians? Pete Davidson? and a bunch of flamebait BS. I don't really know how you can mess recommendations up that much, but I can say the whole thing didn't have a thick veil. Its probably killing it with everyone else but it drove me off
by jeena | 2025-09-09 05:07:48+00:00
I'm demoing my own system, this is how I set it up and this is how I use it and the transparency is a integral part of the esthetic.

Having said that, I guess the compression of the video makes it less sharp and contrasty as it is in real life. But all code is shared in the original with a link in the description if someone really wants to dig deeper into it.
by ChocolateGod | 2025-09-09 05:07:58+00:00
I have a juicefs setup and get operations in the 1000/s, not sure how they got such low numbers.

JuiceFS also supports multiple concurrent clients making their own connection to the metadata and object storage, allowing near instant synchronization and better performance, where this seems to rely on a single service having a connection and everyone connecting through it with no support for clustering.
by tamimio | 2025-09-09 05:08:07+00:00
I never trusted fecebook which is why I never created an account or used any of its products (old Instagram placeholder only), except last year, I made a small startup and wanted to use Instagram to promote it. Despite using the other old account to avoid potential false flagging as spam, immediately after creating it I got banned and had to submit a personal picture holding a book or whatever to verify I am real. I did that although it's not a personal account. Regardless, a few seconds after submitting the picture and verifying my number it got permanently banned. So far this is understandable, maybe it's all an automated process which is expected. However, I wanted to get in touch with support, in any form or shape, only to find out that there's none, and apparently the only way to actually fix something within fecebook is knowing someone who knows someone who works there. LOL, really big LOL!! A company that size operating like an underground syndicate is a total joke and totally untrustworthy. Bottom line: Never trust anything from fecebook, no matter what they say, do not.
by johncolanduoni | 2025-09-09 05:08:33+00:00
This is the idea behind the “small modular” part of SMR. Current nuclear projects are huge, largely bespoke efforts that require a bunch of contract firms working together on different parts of the project. The idea of SMR is to push most of the necessary parts one after another from a factory. The best analogy I’ve heard for this is comparing how the Japanese built planes in WWII (in small batches done by craftsmen) to how the US did (with an assembly line following a documented process). I buy the conceptual argument, but there are a lot of details to work out.
by metadat | 2025-09-09 05:08:42+00:00
Do they credit your account if you were impacted? Or it's just "sorry 'bout 'dat month of trash"?

Unfortunate timing, as I am rooting for Anthropic as the underdog, but feel compelled to use whatever works best. Since mid-August I've demoted Claude to only putting the fire on UIs and am getting amazing results with GPT-5 for everything else. Given the nonstop capacity warnings on codex cli, I might not be the only one.
by ryandrake | 2025-09-09 05:08:43+00:00
It's not any kind of contract. A contract (even an unwritten "social" one) implies at the very least some kind of agreement, some meeting of the minds. There is no meeting of the minds on the web: Your browser simply says "Hey, give me this content," then the server says, "Here's what I'd like you to show," and finally the browser decides what out of that stream of bytes gets shown. There's no agreement by the user in that conversation, not even an implied one. The site can decide whether or not to reply, whether or not to send anything, and the user agent then decides what to show. There's no contract.
by diebeforei485 | 2025-09-09 05:09:51+00:00
The article is referring to EV market share, which is a useless metric. The whole point of Tesla opening their patents and their chargers was to encourage more companies to make EV's, which would necessarily imply a drop in Tesla's EV market share.

The metric that I would like to see is Tesla's market share of the auto market in general (regardless of fuel type).

I like the new Model 3 and Model Y. It is unfortunate that they didn't do a facelift for the Model S and X. I know they've updated the motors and batteries and interior, but unless you look closely the Model X looks pretty much the same as it did in 2016.
by dopa42365 | 2025-09-09 05:09:55+00:00
Enriching uranium to 20% instead of 5% is easy. If reactors require it, the fuel will be found just fine. You already have hundreds of SMRs in submarines and aircraft carriers and what not. A1B reactors in your carriers run on 93% enriched uranium!

That really isn't the bottleneck by any means. If there's demand there will be supply.
by non_aligned | 2025-09-09 05:10:30+00:00
> I'm amazed that the article doesn't discuss the end of ZIRP.

I'm not sure this particular phenomenon can be explained this way. For example, antiques auctions are doing quite well, with prices rising quite briskly year after year. There's still plenty of money chasing the kinds of long-term investments you can hold in your hand, put on a shelf, and show to your friends.

Jewelry sales are doing fine too.

There are other reasons why going to a fancy gallery in London to buy some decor for your mansion just isn't as enticing as it used to be a decade or two decades ago.
by Dylan16807 | 2025-09-09 05:10:49+00:00
But those aren't the same thing. The basic idea of "responsible disclosure" is that you give the vendor enough time that they could make and deploy a patch. This might involve coordination or it might involve an upfront deadline. "Responsible disclosure" by itself doesn't give the vendor any control. (Unless you're worried about them suing you, but if you're worried about that your whole strategy needs to change far beyond disclosure timing.)

If you want a different term that's fine, but I don't agree with framing it as all or nothing or the suggested replacement.
by maqp | 2025-09-09 05:11:36+00:00
>Future secrecy?

Meaning --if-- when your keys get compromised the system recovers.

PGP lacks even forward secrecy, meaning key compromise alone allows retrospective decryption of every message you've ever sent.

OTR fixed that in... ...2004 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1029179.1029200

Using PGP for secure communication in 2025 when you have option to use stateful E2EE over stuff like Signal is just bonkers.
by port11 | 2025-09-09 05:11:59+00:00
Anecdata, but YouTube recommendations for me are reasonable when it comes to content in English, and within non-obscure topics. The major drawback is how much it pushes popular videos that just aren't my thing.

As soon as I'm watching content in other languages, the recommendation engine has absolutely no clue what to suggest.

(I have most watch history and personalisation turned off.)
by kergonath | 2025-09-09 05:12:02+00:00
It is not a social contract. They track me whether I use their services or not, on websites that are completely unrelated. I do not get a choice, not to mention the monopolies they built (yeah, fuck YouTube). These ads eat up my resources and affect my battery life.

There is no more honour involved as when someone pays the mob for protection. I strongly reject this argument. I am bound by honour but they can do anything and change the contract unilaterally? Fuck them, that’s no contract at all.
by strken | 2025-09-09 05:13:02+00:00
The problem is that commercial ad-supported websites force themselves into all available online spaces: search results, discords, social media, affiliate links on blogs. The only way to stop them doing so is to take away their source of revenue.

If ads weren't profitable, you wouldn't find no results for your search about which kitchen knife to buy, you would would find better, less weaponised, more relevant results. If you don't block ads then you are directly contributing to a world with more ads and less content.
by vlovich123 | 2025-09-09 05:15:11+00:00
Regulatory requirements were definitely a real thing. One of the drivers was that nuclear companies were required by law to match the price of oil and any surplus profits from that had to be reinvested into safety and that set the bar for new safety requirements. What that meant was the 1970 oil crisis created a new level for nuclear safety beyond what was needed and that was locked in for future construction. The entire history of nuclear energy is one of bungled regulation and given the political power oil companies have had and continue to have, it’s not surprising given the existential threat nuclear posed.
by ignoramous | 2025-09-09 05:15:24+00:00
> the only way to draw the wallpaper the user has set in Settings is to use a magic method that doesn’t let the launcher actually do anything with the image and forces you to let the system handle compositing

My guess is, this might have to do with fixed layers in the Hardware Composer HAL, which offloads compositing that otherwise (I guess) Surface Flinger would need GPU/CPU for.
by nananana9 | 2025-09-09 05:15:41+00:00
The complexity of C# and C++ should be a warning, not something to strive towards. C++ has 3 reasonable implementations, C has hundreds, for all sorts of platforms, where you don't get anything else.

Most C developers don't want a modern C, they want a reliable C. WG14 should be pushing for clarifications on UB, the memory and threading model, documenting where implementations differ, and what parts of the language can be relied and what not.

Nobody really needs a new way to do asserts, case ranges, or a new way to write the word "NULL".
by zippo_the_zippo | 2025-09-09 05:16:00+00:00
Many news articles have failed to mention that the social media ban in Nepal was a direct response to a viral "nepo-baby vs. regular youth" online campaign, which ultimately backfired.

https://www.timesnownews.com/viral/why-nepo-kid-campaign-is-...

The government framed the ban as a measure against "unregistered social media" platforms. However, major companies like Facebook and YouTube have been registered and paying taxes for years. These companies did not agree to the government's overly controlling bill, which had not even been passed into law. The K.P. Oli government attempted to bypass a public vote and enforce it as a directive, threatening non-compliant apps with bans.

https://www.law-democracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Nep...
by duped | 2025-09-09 05:16:37+00:00
What I was trying to point out is that you're essentially talking about LTO. Getting into the weeds, the compiler _can't_ optimize strcpy(*) in practice because its not going to be defined in a header-only library, it's going to be in a different translation unit that gets either dynamically or statically linked. The only way to optimize the function call is with LTO - and in practice, LTO only accounts for 2-3% of performance improvements.

And at runtime, there is no meaningful difference between strcpy being linked at runtime or ahead of time. libc symbols get loaded first by the loader and after relocation the instruction sequence is identical to the statically linked binary. There is a tiny difference in startup time but it's negligible.

Essentially the C compilation and linkage model makes it impossible for functions like strcpy to be optimized beyond the point of a function call. The compiler often has exceptions for hot stdlib functions (like memcpy, strcpy, and friends) where it will emit an optimized sequence for the target but this is the exception that proves the rule. In practice, the benefits of statically linking in dependencies (like you're talking about) does not have a meaningful performance benefit in my experience.

(*) strcpy is weird, like many libc functions its accessible via __builtin_strcpy in gcc which may (but probably won't) emit a different sequence of instructions than the call to libc. I say "probably" because there are semantics undefined by the C standard that the compiler cannot reason about but the linker must support, like preloads and injection. In these cases symbols cannot be inlined, because it would break the ability of someone to inject a replacement for the symbol at runtime.