MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by ibdf | 2025-10-31 15:02:39+00:00
I think I might have the wrong concept of meal planning. For me, it should be simple meals using fewer ingredients and most importantly reusing ingredients you already have. During the meal creation, I asked to keep it to 1 protein source, but it gave me recipes for 4 different protein types. I cannot possibly be buying salmon, chicken and 2 different cuts of meat each week. The other ingredients follow the same pattern.
by awb | 2025-10-31 15:02:49+00:00
Their old Pro plan at $15/mo (paid annually) had 2,500/mo AI requests per month, use it or lose it.

The new Build plan at $20/mo has 1,500 AI requests, but they roll over. (Edit: apparently they don’t)

> No bones about it: this plan will be more expensive for some users and less expensive for others.

> We get that there’s a lot of whiplash in the AI devtools pricing market, and sympathize. While we expect some churn from this change, we are trying to do it in as minimally disruptive a way as possible.

I’ve found Warp to be very useful, but you’re really paying for AI compute, not the terminal. And the AI compute space is getting very competitive.
by GeneralMayhem | 2025-10-31 15:02:49+00:00
Turning around a track definitely dissipates some heat energy through increased friction with the rails. Imagine taking a semicircle turn and making it tighter and tighter. At the limit, the train is basically hitting a solid wall and rebounding in the other direction, which would certainly transfer some energy.

The energy question is this: going from a 100kmh-due-north momentum to a 100kmh-due-south momentum via slowing, stopping, and accelerating again clearly takes energy. You can also switch the momentum vector by driving in a semicircle. Turning around a semicircle takes some energy, but how much - and where does it come from? Does it depend on how tight the circle is - or does that just spread it out over a wider time/distance? If you had an electric train with zero loss from battery to wheels, and you needed to get it from going north to going south, what would be the most efficient way to do it?
by GuestFAUniverse | 2025-10-31 15:03:23+00:00
+1

Nobody thought about mutable releases being utterly bad _before_? Baffles me...

As bad as hardware vendors selling products with different chips inside as the same model (hello Cisco -- at least in former times; hello HP, formerly selling at least three different, _incompatible_ laptop power supplies with the same label).

Mutability: surprise, surprise, I'm not what you expected! -- maybe one of IT's worst ideas.
by jzb | 2025-10-31 15:03:36+00:00
While I love Douglas Adams, and there's a hint of truth there, I don't think it works well here. By that logic, anything invented after 2005 would be abhorrent to me. Yet, there's tons of new tech invented since that I find/found "new and exciting."

My dislike of GenAI stuff is based on practical, ethical, and economic concerns.

Practical: GenAI output is bland and untrustworthy. It also discourages thought and learning, IMO. Lest folks line up to tell me how wonderful it is for their learning, that may be true, but my observation is that is not how the majority uses it. Once upon a time I thought the Internet/Web would be a revolution in learning for people. Fool me once...

Ethical: So many problems here, from the training data sets, to people unleashing scraper bots that have been effectively DDoS'ing sites for going on a year (at least) now. If these are the kind of people who make up the industry building these tools, I want nothing to do with the tools.

Economic: Related to ethics, but somewhat separate. GenAI and other LLM/AI tools could benefit people. I acknowledge, for example, there's real promise in using various related tech to do better medical diagnostics. That would be wonderful. But, the primary motivation of the companies pushing AI right now is to 1) get people hooked on the tools and jack up prices, 2) sell tech that can be used to lower wages or reduce employment, and 3) create another hype technology so they can stuff their pockets, and the coming crash be damned.

Again, what is driving AI/LLM is not well intentioned. Ignore that at your own peril. Probably everybody else's peril, too.

Adams no doubt knew people who were aghast at PCs or mobile phones because they were not around when they were younger. I get it. But, well, I wonder how Adams would feel about GenAI tools that spit out "write blah in the style of Douglas Adams" after being trained on all of his work.
by no_wizard | 2025-10-31 15:03:43+00:00
Compiler optimizations make up for it, usually. Thats been my experience at least.

An important thing to keep in mind is just how far compilers have come over the least 40 years. Often, with immutable languages, they can do extremely efficient compile only optimizations because of said guaranteed immutability by default.

Its not true in every case, of course, but I think for most situations compilers do a more than good enough job with this.
by delis-thumbs-7e | 2025-10-31 15:03:56+00:00
As much ChatGPT says I’m basically a genius for asking it a good Vegan cake recipes, I don’t think that is providing it any data it doesn’t already have that makes it anyway better. Also at this point the massive increases in data and computing power seem to bring ever decreasing improvements (and sometimes just decline), so it seems we are simply hitting a limit this kind of architecture can achieve no matter what you throw at it.
by Brendinooo | 2025-10-31 15:04:00+00:00
I could get into virtue ethics or religion but I know this is Hacker News, so maybe I can frame it like this:

Telling people to wait until they're financially stable before giving risks creating a dynamic where people never start. The person who says "I'll give when I can afford it" at $30k is likely to say the same thing at $100k, because the scarcity mindset scales with income.

Small-scale giving early on helps build the identity and habits of someone who contributes to their community rather than just consuming from it.

And arguably there are network effects formed from generosity of time/money that can bring long-term benefits as well. It's a spicier idea, but I could even suggest that giving helps you see money as a tool rather than as security itself.
by bluGill | 2025-10-31 15:04:08+00:00
I was referring to real world races where we cannot ignore physics.

Racing games are very different. They tend to have adaptive AI - you are more likely to win with the naive approach you describe than the physically perfect route. The physically perfect result will get your through the race several minutes faster, but the AI opponents become impossible to beat. Thus the ideal path is the worst thing you can learn. (I haven't played games in years, but IIRC the games you mention don't pretend to be about racing, I wonder how ones that pretend to be a real race compare)
by pier25 | 2025-10-31 15:04:23+00:00
He was probably right from a technical perspective. Maybe not from a business one.

I believe Jim Keller is now working on RISC-V which could take the server market by storm in the next 5 years or so.

There are already RISC-V server offerings:

https://labs.scaleway.com/en/em-rv1/
by kemotep | 2025-10-31 15:04:25+00:00
In a Windows environment this can be managed with AppLocker, or an endpoint management solution, or 3rd-Party tool like Threatlocker.

It becomes less about controlling the users and more about stopping any bad guy dead in their tracks. If nothing but what has been implicitly authorized can execute, then 99% of ransomware attacks will be stopped immediately even after the user clicks the link.

Your company software procurement process shouldn’t be so onerous that people turn to Shadow IT. You have to work with people where they are.
by parineum | 2025-10-31 15:04:25+00:00
Not really. The idea that reality lies _in_ the middle is fairly coherent. It's not, on it's face, absolutely true but there are and infinite number of options between two outcomes so the odds are overwhelmingly in the favor that the truth lies somewhere in between. Is either side totally right about every single point of contention between them? Probably not, so the answer is likely in the middle. The fallacy is a lot easier to see when you're arguing about one precise point. In that case, someone is probably right and wrong. But, in cases where a side is talking about a complex event with a multitude of data points, both extremes are likely not completely correct and the answer does, indeed, lie in between the extremes.

The fallacy is that the true lies _at_ the middle, not in the middle.
by anonymousiam | 2025-10-31 15:05:02+00:00
I just built and ran it.

Unlike traceroute and mtr, this utility must be run as root.

fastrace 1.1.1.1

fastrace 0.2.1

Tracing route to 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1)

Maximum hops: 30, Probes per hop: 3, Protocol: UDP

TTL │ IP Address (RTT ms) Hostname

────┼───────────────────────────────────────────

Error creating ICMP socket. Are you running as root?: Operation not permitted
by crazygringo | 2025-10-31 15:05:04+00:00
But nobody is falling for the "illusion of revenue growth". This is out in the open. This isn't a scam. Investors know this and are pricing accordingly. They see the revenue growth but also see the decrease in cash.

What Microsoft is actually doing is taking the large profits it would have otherwise made on its cloud compute with retail customers, losing much/all of those profits as it sells the compute more cheaply to OpenAI, and converting those lost profits into ownership of OpenAI because Microsoft's goal is to own more of OpenAI.

There is nothing "bubble" about this. Microsoft isn't some opaque startup investors don't understand. All of this is incredibly transparent.
by swat535 | 2025-10-31 15:05:11+00:00
To counter this, I was using my account for years with no issues, then one day I've had my Wise account "closed" for no reason other than "breach of terms".

No other insights or discussion and the appeal process basally took months with nothing but an automated response.

I've given up on all these "fintech" companies and am using tradition banks.. at least there is regulations and they can't randomly decide to close your account and remain unresponsive when you require support.

I've been telling my loved ones to stay away from Wise, PayPal and similar services.
by capitainenemo | 2025-10-31 15:05:20+00:00
Well. Although this rouille thing is obviously a joke, it's also just a preprocessor macro layer, so it'd be pretty easy to switch to any view of the code. Could write it in "french" then transform it to english, then to russian.. Could also imagine doing that in an IDE without even impacting copy and paste just as a visual layer. Not sure what one would do for that spanish por omisión, but maybe just put an underscore. por_omisión
by alphazard | 2025-10-31 15:05:24+00:00
I agree with the sentiment; I also want to control where things are installed. But the framing of the technical problem here is totally backwards.

The operating system or application manager within the operating system (what does flatpak consider itself?) should decide where all application state goes. The application shouldn't ever prompt the user for this, it should just assume a path inside a sandbox. That path inside the sandbox will get mapped to where-ever outside the sandbox, and that's where the user exercises control.

We already see this pattern emerging with docker images. Everything assumes `/data` is a good place to store things, and `/config` is a good place to read configuration from. I want every application to do this. If I want it to store state, then I'll decide to map those to directories that are persisted.
by sbuttgereit | 2025-10-31 15:05:54+00:00
> In the 1980s there were huge protests about jucelar weapons that actually resulted in detente and a relaxation of tensions.

Really? Yes there were protests, in the west (that sort of thing was generally frowned upon in the Eastern Bloc countries), but they didn't do much.

What I recall happening was that one of the principle parties started to suffer from a worsening economy and could sustainably maintain the spending the cold war demanded. When that party became much more conciliatory, progress on arms control resulted. Didn't end up saving them in the end.
by Nifty3929 | 2025-10-31 15:06:09+00:00
"free to" - of course! Everybody is free to do mostly anything.

TFA is making the point that, if your goal is to make software that is broadly useful (and maybe that's not your goal), then you should try to make the most common use-cases easy and intuitive, even if that means compromising on complex ones or edge-cases.
by GeekyBear | 2025-10-31 15:06:26+00:00
> apple basically had the power to frog march it's app devs to a new cpu arch

Microsoft's ARM transition execution has been poor.

Apple's Rosetta worked on day one.

Microsoft's Prism still has some issues, but at release its compatibility with legacy x86 software was abysmal.

Apple's first party apps and developer IDE had ARM versions ready to go on day one.

Not so for Microsoft.

Apple released early Dev Kit hardware before the retail hardware was ready to go (at very low cost).

Microsoft did not.
by nvader | 2025-10-31 15:06:31+00:00
You are not a Clojure programmer. You use Clojure to solve problems in a professional context. I'm sorry that there's a political tribal war based on language going on at your workplace.

But especially now that coding agents are radically enabling gains in developer productivity, you don't need to feel excluded by the artificial tribal boundaries.

If you haven't, I recommend reading: https://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a-pr...
by capitainenemo | 2025-10-31 15:06:43+00:00
Going to go with "yes" based on this 2nd hit in a DDG search :) https://gitlab.com/bztsrc/easyboot/-/blob/main/LISMOI.md?ref...

[edit] n/m based on correction below and followup search, there are far more LISEZMOI.md files than LISMOI.md files.
by RamRodification | 2025-10-31 15:07:06+00:00
> This is very annoying

It's a feature. You shouldn't be installing software on your work computer. Your IT department should be vetting it, deploying it, and keeping it up-to date for you.

Maybe you can tell the difference between report.pdf and report.exe, but too many people can't, so unfortunately we can't let everyone install anything.
by SiliconGen | 2025-10-31 15:07:10+00:00
When I was a kid, I often wondered what would happen if you could mix two animals — like a cat and an eagle — and see what that new creature might look like.

So I built Magic Animal Generator, a small web app that lets anyone blend two animals into one consistent, realistic hybrid. It’s powered by nano banana.

You can mix thousands of combinations, from “lion + butterfly” to “whale + bee,” or let randomness surprise you. It also supports exporting coloring-book line art for kids who want to print and color their creations.

It’s still a work-in-progress — I’m exploring better consistency and storytelling features next. Would love feedback, bug reports, or wild combination ideas!

https://animalgenerator.net
by gethly | 2025-10-31 15:07:20+00:00
> A constant is a variable...

No, it is not. A constant is the direct opposite of a variable.

> An immutable variable..

There is no such thing. You can decide not to mutate it but variable is by definition mutable.

If you want to argue mutability, then you have to talk about the data structure or memory footprint of the constant or variable that it points to or represents, not the concept of variable or constant itself.

In other words, we can have var foo = 5 and const bar = 5. foo can be changed by being reassigned another value with simple foo = 6, whereas bar cannot as bar = 6 should cause panic/exception/... On the other hand, we can have var foo = {value: 5} and const bar = {value: 5} and now it depends on the language how it handles complex types like a struct/object as the operation now bypasses the guards on the variable/constant assignment itself. Will it guard against mutation or not? It should, but that is rarely the case. Hence, in most languages, we will be able to do foo.value = 6 and also bar.value = 6, even though we should not. But again, now we are arguing about the mutability of the data type or memory representation and not the variable/constant itself. Most languages don't care about mutability, so we have this flawed thinking where we are simply unable to strictly define what data is actually mutable and what data is not. Rust uses the borrow checker, that is one approach, but generally this should be properly handled by the language spec and compiler itself and we should not even have this conversation where programmers simply cannot make a distinction between variables and constants, let alone comprehend what those terms mean in the first place, as those meanings have been thrown out of the window by the folks designing the languages.
by guywithahat | 2025-10-31 15:07:38+00:00
It's incredible how Tesla used to lose a few hundred million a year and analysis shows would freak out claiming they'd never be profitable. Now Rivian can lose 5 billion a year and I don't hear anything about it, and OpenAI can lose 11 billion in a quarter and Microsoft still backs them.

I do think this is going to be a deeply profitable industry, but this feels a little like the WeWork CEO flying couches to offices in private jets
by Tade0 | 2025-10-31 15:07:45+00:00
As a father of two I would say "nope", primarily because you won't be deciding the rhythm. Best you can do is coordinate sleep with your partner so that there's at least one somewhat functioning parent at all times.

As I'm typing this my 1.5yo is napping. I had maybe 6h of sleep but I'm after (part time) work and at home already, so I should probably nap as well.

Can't. My adult body won't go to sleep right now even though I'm feeling drowsy because it's too bright, too loud and chiefly I already had too much caffeine in the morning and I have like 15 minutes until I'll have to head out to collect my older child from preschool.

My SO is knocked out cold at the moment though, so I'll be relying on her this evening.
by solatic | 2025-10-31 15:07:53+00:00
> Also, interfaces are extremely important to allow your components to be easily replaced even at runtime.

The share of all software that actually benefits from this is extremely small. Most web-style software with stateless request/response is better architected for containers and rolling deployments. Most businesses are also completely fine with a few minutes of downtime here and there. For runtime-replacement to be valuable, you need both statefulness and high SLA (99.999+%) requirements.

To be fair, there is indeed a subset of software that is both stateful and with high SLA requirements, where these techniques are useful, so it's good to know about them for those rare cases. There is some pretty compelling software underneath those Java EE servers for the few use-cases that really need them.

But those use-cases are rare.
by rhodey | 2025-10-31 15:07:57+00:00
I am glad for this feature

If I have anyone's attention there is something related I would like to see

Please add a small thing which users can look for on the public: repo/actions page

This small thing should let users know the action was run by github like is default and not run on a custom / private action runner

The private action runner feature makes sense but many projects tell users to look to the github action history to trust that tests A, B, C passed. If the github action ran on a private action runner then you really cannot trust that what is in e.g. run.yml actually ran

The attestation feature can be used to prove that an action was run by github and not by private / custom but users need to install the github cli to validate attestations and this is a heavy ask when I think an addition icon on repo/actions page or a diff icon color will do better
by orionblastar | 2025-10-31 15:08:06+00:00
These were the techniques taught to me in college in 1989 when I learned how to debug. We didn't have git back then. Sometimes taking a break helps if you get stressed out and stuck. I worked with a Marine in 1996-1997 at the ATCOM Army base who taught me that going to the snack bar and buying a soda and a bag of chips is the best way to refocus your brain on the problem. Take a walk as well.
by tomck | 2025-10-31 15:09:17+00:00
> I replied directly to you

My comment was responding only to the person who equated threads and async. My comment only said that async and threading are completely orthogonal, even though they are often conflated

> `is_something_true` is very simple, if condition is true, and then inside the block, if you were to check again it can be false, something that can't happen in synchronous code

It can happen in synchronous code, but even if it couldn't - why is async/await the problem here? what is your alternative to async/await to express concurrency?

Here are the ways it can happen:

1. it can happen with fibers, coroutines, threads, callbacks, promises, any other expression of concurrency (parallel or not!). I don't understand why async/await specifically is to blame here.

2. Even without concurrency, you can mutate state to make the value of is_something_true() change.

3. is_something_true might be a blocking call to some OS resource, file, etc - e.g. the classic `if (file_exists(f)) open(f)` bug.

I am neutral on async/await, but your example isn't a very good argument against it

Seemingly nobody ever has any good arguments against it

> async-await pollutes the code completely if you're not strict about its usage

This is a good thing, if a function is async then it does something that won't complete after the function call. I don't understand this argument about 'coloured functions' polluting code. if a function at the bottom of your callstack needs to do something and wait on it, then you need to wait on it for all functions above.

If the alternative is just 'spin up an OS thread' or 'spin up a fiber' so that the function at the bottom of the callstack can block - that's exactly the same as before, you're just lying to yourself about your code. Guess what - you can achieve the same thing by putting 'await' before every function call

Perhaps you have convinced me that async/await is great after all!
by dvt | 2025-10-31 15:09:37+00:00
> Pricing model for a terminal. What a time to be alive.

As soon as they raised like 50M+ (why you'd ever need 50 million dollars to build a terminal—which have been essentially "solved" since the 1970s—is a pretty good question), this was bound to happen. Same nonsense will happen to Zed, etc.
by HeyLaughingBoy | 2025-10-31 15:10:07+00:00
Same here. I don't care where the application goes; I care where the data goes. One of my initial annoyances when I started using PlatformIO was that it assumes a default workspace directory and as a new user, it took me forever to figure out where it was putting my files. I have a standard directory structure that I use and this was really messing me up.
by griffzhowl | 2025-10-31 15:10:59+00:00
Ah ok, I thought after I posted that maybe I missed the intent of your somewhat cryptic remark;

I'm not sure, though, that the intuitive appearance of the sun moving is the same sense of intuition as some philosophers use. We don't perceive the Earth to be in motion, and from a frame of reference based on the surface of the Earth, the sun actually is in motion. The mistake was thinking that this was an absolute reference frame. I would say that was more a misinterpretation of our perceptions than an intuition. People could give reasons for why they thought the Earth was motionless: wouldn't buildings fall down, and birds find it harder to fly in one direction rather than another? etc. It wasn't just an intuition in the sense that it's something that people believed without being able to say why. They could say why they believed it, and they could relate it to perceptions to justify those beliefs. I think there's a distinction there.