MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by JCM9 | 2025-10-28 14:16:47+00:00
1. Lots of cracks showing in AWS before he took the big job, lack of focus, bloat of too many services with too few users

2. He then hired Adam to take over AWS which didn’t work out well

3. Good to see he’s cleaning things up, but we’re past the “clean things up” phase for a CEO. He’s been in role for a while now. That should have been the first few years of his tenure.

4. Anthropic was a good investment, but Amazon is just one of many investors. It’s nothing like the partnership that MSFT and OpenAI have, which was further strengthened with today’s announcements there. Amazon has nothing comparable to counter that.
by LogicHound | 2025-10-28 14:17:40+00:00
> But Windows Update was definitely already a thing back then, so I don’t think this “Microsoft was still figuring out this Internet thing” holds.

They had update mechanisms sure. But it was very much upto you to run. When XP came out most people used dial-up (at least in the UK), after 2002 ADSL internet started to become ubiquitous and computers were on the internet for longer periods.

They had to start baking security into every aspect of the OS. It was one of the reasons Vista came out several years later than planned. They had to pull people from Vista development and move them onto Windows XP SP2.

One of the reasons Vista was such a reviled OS is because the UAC controls broke lots of piece of software which ran under XP, 2000 and 98.

> Software was updated all the time, and it’s much more difficult to do that with locks.

YIt wasn't unusual to run un-patched software that come from a disc for years. You had to manually download patches and run them yourself. A software update / next version could take like 30 minutes or so on 56k dialup to download. If you didn't need to download a patch, you probably didn't.
by pshirshov | 2025-10-28 14:18:00+00:00
> 65k key limit for objects

The limit comes from 2-byte element pointer size. That can be adjusted. We don't have an implementation with larger pointers but it can be done easily.

> while the rest streams in

Yes, there are many usecases where you can use some chunks of the data/rebuild some parts of the structures immediately without any accumulation. The problem is that we don't have a nice streaming abstraction which would suit anyone for any usecase.

SICK as a library is an efficient indexed binary storage for JSON with listed limitations.

SICK as a concept is much more but you might need your own implementation tailored to your usecase.
by runako | 2025-10-28 14:18:55+00:00
> Virtually every state has a prohibition on the use of public spaces that specifically prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex or gender

This ties into a very specific confusion about affinity groups. Specifically, they generally are not exclusionary (in part because it's largely illegal). The only thing preventing boys from participating in a "girls who code" type of event is the boys don't want to go to something with "girls" in the name.
by jklowden | 2025-10-28 14:19:00+00:00
There is no pass-by-value overhead. There are only implementation decisions.

Pass by value describes the semantics of a function call, not implementation. Passing a const reference in C++ is pass-by-value. If the user opts to pass "a copy" instead, nothing requires the compiler to actually copy the data. The compiler is required only to supply the actual parameter as if it was copied.
by Retric | 2025-10-28 14:19:13+00:00
My point was about a declining global population concentrating in a few areas not being a major issue.

Globally more babies were born in 1985 than 2025. Population growth at this point is all down to people living longer but that’s a one time correction, we’re already in a steady state situation and heading to decline. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-births-per-year
by corytheboyd | 2025-10-28 14:19:21+00:00
Completely agree, I hate the “hackathon” for so many reasons, guess I’ll vent here too. All of this from the perspective of one frustrated software engineer in web tech.

First of all, if you want innovation, why are you forcing it into a single week? You very likely have smart people with very good ideas, but they’re held back by your number-driven bullshit. These orgs actively kill innovation by reducing talent to quantifiable rows of data.

A product hobbled together from shit prototype code very obviously stands out. It has various pages that don’t quite look/work the same, Cross-functional things that “work everywhere else” don’t in some parts.

It rewards only the people who make good presentations, or pick the “current hype thing” to work on. Occasionally something good that addresses real problems is at least mentioned but the hype thing will always win (if judged by your SLT)

Shame on you if the slop prototype is handed off to some other team than the hackathon presenters. Presenters take all the promotion points, then implementers have to sort out a bunch of bullshit code, very likely being told to just ship the prototype “it works you idiots, I saw it in the demo, just ship it.” Which is so incredibly short sighted.

I think the depressing truth is your executives know it’s all hobbled together bullshit, but that it will sell anyway, so why invest time making it actually good? They all have their golden parachutes, what do they care about the suckers stuck on-call for the house-of-cards they were forced to build, despite possessing the talent to make it stable? All this stupidity happens over and over again, not because it is wise, or even the best way to do this, the truth is just a flaccid “eh, it’ll work though, fuck it, let’s get paid.”
by TimorousBestie | 2025-10-28 14:19:30+00:00
Emily Riehl is one of the best category theory writers in the business. Lurie’s opus was basically unreadable for me until I found her notes on (inf, 1)-categories and enrichment.

More recently, she wrote https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.15795 on how univalence drives some approaches to synthetic topology/homotopy.
by lunar_mycroft | 2025-10-28 14:19:31+00:00
It seems clear from the context that what's being discussed is not "can a country enforce it's laws on a foreign citizen within it's borders" but "can a country enforce it's laws on a foreign citizen outside it's borders".

If I were ever to go to North Korea their government could of course arrest me for insulting Kim Jong Un. What they could not do, and absolutely should not be able to do, is have my local police in the US arrest me for doing the same at home. Yes, even if I do it on the internet where a citizen of North Korea might theoretically see, or make use of content I acquired over the internet that originated in that country.
by bellamoon544 | 2025-10-28 14:19:38+00:00
My RN Jobs is the premier job board for nursing professionals across the United States. It offers a comprehensive platform to discover a wide range of nursing opportunities, including Registered Nurse (RN), Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), Nurse Practitioner (NP), Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist (CRNA), Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN), Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), and Travel Nurse positions. With daily updates, My RN Jobs ensures that job seekers have access to the latest openings, making it easier than ever to find the ideal nursing career. Whether you are an experienced nurse or just starting out, My RN Jobs is your go-to resource for advancing your nursing career in a dynamic healthcare landscape.
by toofy | 2025-10-28 14:19:57+00:00
> Should European citizens be subject to the laws of Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and pals?

if they do business in those jurisdictions, yes, of course.

if a new york cpa does business in ohio they need to be licensed in ohio and follow ohio laws. even if their firm and majority of work is based in new york.

i’m really surprised people find this confusing.
by Zambyte | 2025-10-28 14:20:05+00:00
Asking people to define "general intelligence" in a way that does not include capabilities we have had for years always reveals that people do not believe that they themselves are capable of general intelligence. At least if they held themselves to the same standards.

People expect general intelligence to mean oracle of truth, yet they make mistakes. People expect general intelligence to mean perfect memory, yet they themselves forget. People expect general intelligence to be infinitely moldable and adaptable, yet they themselves will be unable to break habits, and be unable to reason about psychedelic experiences.

If we do not currently have something that can be called AGI, we do not have something that can be called GI.
by adzm | 2025-10-28 14:20:08+00:00
I thought the same thing. I remember being in elementary school and seeing one of these terminate-and-stay-resident / TSR joke things that made the smiley face ascii character bounce around the screen. That led me to finally move on from Pascal and dive into C to make one of my own, though I'm pretty sure it would be possible in Pascal, all the (very obscure) information I could find as a child used C examples. When I finally had one running that would "Moo!" at random places I felt like a real hacker.
by KurSix | 2025-10-28 14:20:16+00:00
You can take the git idea even further.

Instead of just committing more often, make the agent write commits following the conventional commits spec (feat:, fix:, refactor:) and reference a specific item from your plan.md in the commit body. That way you’ll get a self-documenting history - not just of the code, but of the agent’s thought process, which is priceless for debugging and refactoring later on
by gwbas1c | 2025-10-28 14:20:30+00:00
Basically, if you handle the request at the stream level, there's a small chance you might be vulnerable.

For example, let's say you have an HTTP API that checks a few headers and then makes another outgoing HTTP request. You might just send the stream along, using incomingHttpRequestStream.CopyTo(outgoingHttpRequestStream) / (or CopyToAsync). (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.io.strea...)

That might be vulnerable, because it could trick your server to send what appears to be two HTTP requests, where the 2nd one is whatever the malicious party wants it to be... But only if you allow incoming HTTP versions < 2. If you blanket disallow HTTP below 2.0, you aren't vulnerable.

---

But I agree that this seems to be more "much ado about nothing" and doesn't deserve 9.9:

> In the python aiohttp and ruby puma servers, for example, give the vulnerability only a moderate severity rating in both cases. In netty it's even given a low severity.

I suspect the easiest way to handle this is to disallow HTTP < 2 and then update .Net on your own schedule. (Every minor release of .Net seemed to break something at my company, so we had to lock down to the patch otherwise our build was breaking every 2-3 months.)
by iLemming | 2025-10-28 14:21:03+00:00
> we're here to edit text though, I thought?

It seems you're missing the point - that example is 'reductio ad absurdum' - a showcase of the logical extreme of capabilities, not an illustration of concrete practicality.

You seem to be blinded by your sunk cost, social proof, tribal identity, status quo, and other biases, so you rather reject novel ideas than accept their practical superiority in certain scenarios.

Emacs, in every respect, is a pinnacle of text editing in its digital form. Half a century of evolution and refinement with fundamental architectural advantage - a Lisp runtime that happens to edit text.

It makes it possible to edit any text that lives within its running instance and beyond - just about anything it can reach - containers, kubernetes pods, browsers. I can edit the URL of any tab in my browser directly from my editor; remote computers - I can edit a commit message on an EC2 instance; heck, even spacecrafts a million miles away - if it can gain access. More than that - there's universal bidirectionality - I can push any text into Emacs - from my terminal, my browser, or any app. If I allow access to it, I can even push to Emacs from remote computers.

I'm, by the way, not an 'Emacs purist' - I use Neovim daily, and sometimes VSCode too. I have used various JetBrains products - I was a heavy user of IntelliJ for almost a decade. Yet, getting exposure to Emacs capabilities proved that I was wrong in my prejudice and I should've tried it sooner. Like I said: it's a mindset-changing endeavor - without a heartfelt attempt to use it, it's unlikely you'll ever get what I'm even talking about.
by ModernMech | 2025-10-28 14:22:02+00:00
Yes, it's called C++.

Seriously tho, not really because programming languages are designed, and design is all about carefully balancing tradeoffs. It starts with the purpose of the language -- what's it for and who will be using it? From there, features follow function. Having all the features is counterproductive because some features are only good in the absence of others, others are mutually exclusive. For example, being 1-indexed or 0-indexed. You can't be both, unless it's configurable (and that just causes bugs as Julia found out).

If you want your language to be infinitely configurable to meet the needs of everyone, then you would want it to be as small as possible, not big. Something like Lisp.
by jack_tripper | 2025-10-28 14:22:05+00:00
Correct title would be "Austrian ministry replaces Microsoft with Atos".

I wish Austria had domestic national IT development teams for national products/websites, like the high quality ones Denmark or UK have, instead of just outsourcing everything government IT related to politically connected publicly traded consultancies like Atos, Kapsch or T-Systems, which just screams of corruption and cronyism, things Austrian politicians are well versed in.

This would a much better use for taxpayer money and valuable skill build-up of the nation's tech sector(that's severely lacking in Austria) if the government did its own IT development.

Plus, a lot more locals, especially with high moral values who care more about the state of their nation than just making a quick and easy buck, would find working for their government IT services more rewarding and giving a sense of ownership in their nations, versus working for those shady consultancies who are incentivized to milk the taxpayer dry and enrich the shareholders without caring about the quality of what they deliver because of their iron clad government contracts with little accountability which they got from buttering, wining and dining the right people in power, who then get hired as "consultants"(lobbyists) in those consultancies when their political careers are over to perpetuate this revolving door to the gravy train.
by pshirshov | 2025-10-28 14:22:17+00:00
In our usecase, for which we created the library, we made this tradeoff to save several bytes per pointer and keep binary form more compact. The application splits large objects into smaller chunks. 99% of the structures there are relatively small but there are tons of them. Most likely you can do the same - just split large structures into smaller ones.

If you need support for larger structures, you may create your own implementation or extend ours (and I would really like to hear about your usecase).

SICK as a concept is simple. SICK as the library was created to cover some particular usecases and may be not suitable for everyone. We would welcome any contributions.
by embedding-shape | 2025-10-28 14:23:00+00:00
Yeah, makes sense it sounds like that. But the crux is probably that most of us learned programming via Algol-like languages, like C or PHP, and only after decades of programming did we start looking into lisps.

But don't take my word for it, ask the programmers around you for the ones who've been looking into lisps and ask them how they feel about it.
by hansvm | 2025-10-28 14:23:07+00:00
It depends how we're defining "representation", but I'd argue that languages are definitely more dissimilar here than they are they same. If you want to mix and match two compilation units with the semantics of different languages, even something as simple as a cross-language if-statement is going to be a hard bridge to cross, and even when targeting a single runtime it's easy to have a syntactic layer which doesn't efficiently map to that runtime.

That said, for the first thing they asked for (different syntactical views on the same "substrate," where I'm assuming the language has one model of how its runtime works), that's very doable.
by Twisol | 2025-10-28 14:23:11+00:00
> But no advice that you give about "the correct philosophy" is going to instantly transfer enough knowledge to make all large companies write good code, if only they followed it.

Good old "Programming as Theory Building". It's almost impossible to achieve this kind of transfer without already having the requisite lived experience.

[0]: https://ratfactor.com/papers/naur1_theory_building.pdf
by Kim_Bruning | 2025-10-28 14:23:34+00:00
"On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

--Charles Babbage

We have now come to the point where you CAN put in the wrong figures and sometimes the right answer comes out (possibly over half the time!). This was and is incredible to me and I feel lucky to be alive to see it.

However, people have taken that to mean that you can ask any old question any old way and have the right answer come out now. I might at one point have almost thought so myself. But LLMs currently are definitely not there yet.

Consider (eg) Claude Code to be your English SHell (Compare: zsh, bash).

Learn what it can and can't do for you. It's messier to learn than straight and/or/not; and I'm not sure there's manuals for it; and any manual will be outdated next quarter anyway; but that's the state of play at this time.
by electric_muse | 2025-10-28 14:23:36+00:00
Agreed. Only provide the servers and tools needed for that job.

It would be silly to provide every employee access to GitHub, regardless of whether they need it. It’s just distracting and unnecessary risk. Yet people are over-provisioning MCPs like you would install apps on a phone.

Principle of least access applies here just as it does anywhere else.
by fusslo | 2025-10-28 14:23:36+00:00
thats the trouble I see with AI and management.

Management may see a churn of a few years as acceptable. If management makes 1$M in that time.. they wont care. "Once I get mine, I don't care"

Like my old CEO who moved out of state to avoid a massive tax bill, got his payout, became hands off, and let the company slide to be almost worthless.

Or at my current company there is no care for quality since we're just going to launch a new generation of product in 3 years. We're doing things here that will CAUSE a ground up rewrite. We're writing code to rely on undocumented features of the mcu that the vendor have said 'we cannot guarantee it will always behave this way' But our management cycles out every 3-4 years. Just enough time to kill the old, champion the new, get their bonus, and move on. Bonuses are handed out every January. Like clockwork there's between 3-7 directors and above who either get promoted or leave in February.

I don't see how any business person would see any value in engineering that extends past their tenure. They see value in launching/delivering/selling, and are rolling the dice that we're JUST able to not cause a nation wide outage or brick every device.

So AI is great... as long as I've 'gotten mine' before it explodes
by notepad0x90 | 2025-10-28 14:23:41+00:00
yeah, this is a take I see by people who work in unix like environments (including macs). If anything Microsoft will grow much bigger. People are consolidating in Azure and away from GCP. easier to manage costs and integrate with their fleet.

Windows workstations and servers are now "joined" to Azure instead, where they used to be joined to domain controller servers. Microsoft will soon enough stop supporting that older domain controller design (soon as in a decade).
by tstack | 2025-10-28 14:23:49+00:00
> We just don't want your sexuality shoved in our faces.

The flag simply acknowledges that certain people have the right to exist. Extrapolating anything else out of that is you being weird.

> I've been hearing claims of the necessity of doing so for over a decade.

It seems to be necessary because you want to "turn the power of the state against you". All because of a rainbow?

> We won the last election.

Did the whole of humanity have an election that I missed? Just because an election at one time and in one place went one way or the other doesn't mean much to something that is global. If you're speaking of the US Election, a certain person didn't even get 50% of the vote. So, I don't see how you act like this is some mandate that means you get to silence other people.

> We can and will, with sadness but determination power, turn the power of the state against you and make you leave us the hell alone.

You don't seem sad about this at all.

My small site now sports a flag because it is clear it is needed. Are you going to come after me too?
by constantcrying | 2025-10-28 14:23:54+00:00
Good, but this needs to happen on a much larger scale. These are "just" 1200 employees, but throughout Europe there are hundreds of millions of people working with Microsoft services and they all need to be torn out and replaced.

>As for the reasoning behind this move, it was prompted by a risk analysis that showed foreign cloud services failed to meet the ministry's privacy requirements, particularly regarding GDPR compliance and the upcoming NIS2 directive.

This also shows that they did it for the wrong reasons. It really doesn't matter if Microsofts services are GDPR compliant or not.
by Retric | 2025-10-28 14:24:00+00:00
That graph is well below earlier forecasts. Accurate predictions require more than simple extrapolations which 30 years ago suggested exponential growth. Instead CO2 per capita and especially in terms of GDP resulted in a different story.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita

Add in more kids being born in 1985 than 2025 and per capita numbers matter. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-births-per-year

Poor countries are rapidly becoming wealthier which is obviously a good thing. Meanwhile wealthy countries are becoming a lot more efficient with their carbon emissions. Where those lines intersect is what matters in the near term because poor countries aren’t copying 1950’s technology. Skipping power hungry CRT screens and inefficient engines etc just makes economic sense. China emissions spiked as they industrialized but they are currently minimizing their investment in outdated fossil fuel based technologies in favor of solar and EV’s etc.
by nradov | 2025-10-28 14:24:00+00:00
Most employers won't confirm the reason for termination with random callers who are verifying employment history.

Unemployment insurance is a bit different. When a former employee files for unemployment benefits then the state will notify the last employer, and that employer can dispute the claim if the termination was for cause. In practice many employers don't dispute unemployment claims even for employees whom they terminated for performance reasons because it's not worth the hassle.