MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by fakedang | 2025-10-08 21:00:44+00:00
That seems to be the only big plus with NextJS and SSR. But a big reason behind that was how Vercel made NextJS accessible to so many newbie devs right during Covid season. I was one of those new learners picking up React through it. Out of all the frameworks, Next was the most well-documented and more straightforward. The extras such as the straightforward routing and the availability of templates by vercel made things all the more easier for many to pick up. Meanwhile React was languishing and most of the other alternatives were just all over the place.

That being said, I'm waiting in the back stage, like many other folks, for tanstack to get production-ready, because of the all the weird crap being pulled by Vercel on NextJS.
by mrguyorama | 2025-10-08 21:00:48+00:00
Military theory struggles to provide serious benefit above trite things because the actual reality of war changes every single day.

The most successful military theory is still the extreme basics: Your troops will do better when they want to do war. You need to feed troops and give them plenty of ammo. Training matters.

Adapt or die

>But then, seeing the harm that this is doing to the world, should we not see about changing the rules of war to reduce this likelihood and make things more decisive again, with the aim of reducing overall harm to civilians?

Why would I follow your "rules of war" if it causes me to lose? There is no global authority to force anyone to follow rules, that's the whole point.

If there was, there would be no war.
by BurningFrog | 2025-10-08 21:01:18+00:00
First of all: You may well be right about the cost!

Of course, to solve the biggest problem on the planet, absolutely massive amounts of resources may be the right size investment.

The way I imagine this to work is that a future MOF material spontaneously accumulates CO₂ molecules from the atmosphere. When it's "full" the CO₂ is extracted (this may be the hard part), and pumped underground (this is mature tech).

If you can go through this cycle without destroying the MOF, it seems pretty sustainable to me.
by Imustaskforhelp | 2025-10-08 21:02:17+00:00
Somethings have definitely changed but I've accepted that maybe this is what is best needed for having some fewer amount of bugs/headaches about software while making it more performant and I sort of trust the svelte team in whatever version they lead us to!

Afterall, what is fun in webdev if not for creating factions and I am part of the lovely sveltelandia! Proud to be a member of it and I have full trust on the team.
by alfalfasprout | 2025-10-08 21:02:21+00:00
> Devs have been taught from a young age that it's always you, not the tools you were given, and that's generally true.

That's not been my experience at all FWIW. Tools get things wrong all the time.

Simply that more mature projects with heavy use like eg; gcc or clang/llvm generally tend to have had major bugs stamped out by this point. They do still happen though.

More nascent language and compiler ecosystems are more likely to run into issues. Especially languages with runtimes.
by bobthepanda | 2025-10-08 21:02:45+00:00
I mean as far as this goes

> Many YouTube channels make great use of Zoom calls for example. It’s still generally a compromise vs an actual face to face conversation.

A lot of today's news footage with experts etc. these days is also not shot from studios but from online calls. Actually flying somebody out onto location is pretty uncommon; and I would say with the rise of filmed podcasting, that podcasters are more likely to have people on set than television news is.
by throwawaymaths | 2025-10-08 21:02:57+00:00
> That's the sense in which the numbers game is more important than the genius factor.

Numbers game doesn't work in the idealized way you think it does. if you let too many mediocre or bad people become scientists, some of them engage in fraud or ill- considered modelmaking, which wastes the time of good scientists who are in the place of having to reproduce results that were never going to work.
by nixpulvis | 2025-10-08 21:02:59+00:00
I've never used Svelte before, so maybe I'm misunderstanding what they mean by tracking dirty, but this bit confused me.

> This requires the framework to track which components are dirty. Vue does this at runtime, Svelte handles it at compile time.

How can it possibly track this at compile time? Best I could see if tracking where those bits could be set, but not actually setting them.
by bigfatkitten | 2025-10-08 21:03:02+00:00
The market has correctly observed that it wasn’t Salesforce who screwed up, it was their customers.

Okta came out and said they were not compromised, despite being targeted.[0]

I assume this is because they did some hardening on their unnamed “support case management system” last time they got popped.[1]

[0] https://cyberscoop.com/okta-zscaler-security-leaders-saleslo...

[1] https://sec.okta.com/articles/2023/11/unauthorized-access-ok...
by xboxnolifes | 2025-10-08 21:03:24+00:00
I disagree that customer support is the lowest bar for LLMs. Companies have been trying to reduce customer support spend for decades, and yet it still exists. Why? Because the types of questions and types of callers that fall on-to the remaining customer support requests are not easy to automate. Either the question itself is a complex edge-case that requires human intervention, or the person calling wants to talk to a human and good documentation was not going to change their action.
by rectang | 2025-10-08 21:03:28+00:00
Although I’m good enough at it, like you I hate this kind of debugging experience, and try hard to avoid putting myself in a position where I have to do it. It’s not fun for me at all.

I also don’t like many puzzle games, like Sudoku, because to me they feel like this kind of work. Many colleagues of mine have expressed bafflement that I don’t find such puzzles fun and give me all kinds of grief about how I ought to enjoy them, since they do.

It’s the same thing here, just flipped around: this person seems to enjoy the debugging experience; just let them be. Or recruit them, because that temperament is valuable.
by lukev | 2025-10-08 21:03:32+00:00
As someone who has been doing frontend dev since "AJAX" was the hot new stuff...

I am deeply, deeply disappointed in the field. It simultaneously has an extremely high rate of churn and an extremely low rate of actual innovation.

After observing the discipline for nearly two decades, I am concluding that almost all the "progress" really starts to look like we're just rearranging the furniture endlessly without substantive improvements in developer velocity or end user experience.

Any given "progress" looks reasonable for a moment but is ultimately circular. We've been playing rock/paper/scissors with "better" techniques for a long time now.
by gausswho | 2025-10-08 21:03:34+00:00
Perhaps more incriminating, he reported the fire via a 911 call while incorrectly claiming where he was located. Confusing to me is that the fire took seven days to conflagrate. So was the 911 call the night of starting it or a week later? If the night of, why wasn't it extinguished? If a week later, was he nearby adding fuel to it or something?
by Buttons840 | 2025-10-08 21:03:58+00:00
The reason the web changes so fast, and there are so many rewrites, is the same reason a puzzle whose pieces don't fit together keeps getting shifted around and restarted.

People are looking for a satisfying non-leaky abstraction to build upon and they don't find it with web technologies. They get close, but those last few pieces never quite fit, and we lack the power to reshape the pieces, so we tear out all the pieces and try again. Maybe this next time we'll find a better way to fit them together.
by jeffbee | 2025-10-08 21:03:58+00:00
> If there is a town of 8k rental apartments and I own 4k and you own 2k ...

You can't make policy this way. There is no such market anywhere in America, where 2 players own a majority share. In the case that I cited there is only 1 RealPage client in the city and they manage 100 of 30k homes.
by Sohcahtoa82 | 2025-10-08 21:05:15+00:00
GPUs are TERRIBLE at executing code with tons of branches.

Basically, GPUs execute instructions in lockstep groups of threads. Each group executes the same instruction at the same time. If there's a conditional, and only some of the threads in a group have a state that satisfies the condition, then the group is split and the paths are executed in serial rather than parallel. The threads following the "true" path execute while the threads that need to take the "false" path sit idle. Once the "true" threads complete, they sit idle while the "false" threads execute. Only once both threads complete do they reconverge and continue.

They're designed this way because it greatly simplifies the hardware. You don't need huge branch predictors or out-of-order execution engines, and it allows you to create a processor with thousands of cores (The RTX 5090 has over 24,000 CUDA cores!) without needing thousands of instruction decoders, which would be necessary to allow each core to do its own thing.

There ARE ways to work around this. For example, it can sometimes be faster to compute BOTH sides of a branch, but then merely apply the "if" on which result to select. Then, each thread would merely need to apply an assignment, so the stalls only last for an instruction or two.

Of course, it's worth noting that this non-optimal behavior is only an issue with divergent branches. If every thread decides the "if" is true, there's no performance penalty.
by uhgseyjnn | 2025-10-08 21:05:23+00:00
The bill is bad, but this is disingenuously stupid:

> Still frustrating that Politico still implies that the bill has any power to stop CSAM, given that everyone who wants to trade it will obviously just use another layer of encryption.

Obviously, many people will not because many are already caught not using any, and many more are just using simple consumer options that this legislation would eliminate.

We can agree that the legislation is horrible without lying to ourselves and asserting that it would have zero impact
by JohnBooty | 2025-10-08 21:05:30+00:00
On a tiny screen like that, I suspect 800x600 is probably high enough DPI to fake the lines themselves well enough to the point where the pixels aren't discernable to the eye.

This alone still wouldn't remotely resemble a real vector display...

They would also need to accurately simulate the glow/bloom of the lines, and the phosphor decay rate over time that leads to effects like the "trail" behind the bullets in Asteroids. That is all extremely feasible. In a lot of ways, much easier than emulating a raster CRT display.

However, I have never seen a commercial emulation product do this with any competency.

Presumably because the number of people who would actually care is not large enough to affect the sales figures in any meaningful way.
by xboxnolifes | 2025-10-08 21:05:39+00:00
The problem is when they lose their phone, how do they contact somebody without having their phone contact list. They do not have a phone to import this backup into. They do not have their phone on them to access a website with the backup. The backup ability is basically irrelevant, as all carriers can backup and restore your contacts seamlessly. It's the lack of the phone being the problem.

Presumably, we're talking about the short time-frame of a few hours between the act of losing the phone, and needing to contact somebody. The kind of situation where you ask somebody to borrow their phone.
by resters | 2025-10-08 21:06:07+00:00
All participants contribute to price discovery. A nanosecond order book helps with price discovery the deeper it is, regardless of whether orders clear.

> The better the computers hooked directly into the exchange get you mean.

I think you're trolling with this one. But you had an advantage typing your comment into a web browser compared to all the people who wrote theirs on paper and put it in an envelope with a stamp.
by jrowen | 2025-10-08 21:06:47+00:00
There's a difference in terms of their motives and methods and the surrounding context, but, ultimately it's just actions and consequences and a messy collective decision-making process. The collective ruling body has thus far decided that Uber be allowed to continue and the conversations and laws continue to evolve around these things. Nobody is calling Travis a hero but we've [collectively] agreed that there was some value to some of those decisions.
by hinkley | 2025-10-08 21:06:55+00:00
I had set associative caching on a final exam in 1993. We’ve had it for a long long time because it substantially improves the behavior with worst case eviction pattern relative to naive caches. The sophistication has crept up over time. But if somehow that trick had been missed by all computer engineers, I firmly believe we would have been having this discussion 25-30 years ago.
by rifty | 2025-10-08 21:07:00+00:00
It may very well be trivial for a few days, but it's worth considering the full length it could be in effect for. The emergency act after initial confirmation can be in effect for 30 days before reapproval (it can be voluntarily ended as it was in the convoy instance).

If we put someone in jail, as in to disable their ability to interface with society, we would have the expectation to feed and shelter them decently for that duration. Removing access to funds under the emergency act has no baseline duty of care expected from the government, despite government action disabling them from acquiring food or shelter independently in modern society for a number of days beyond which someone could starve. The number of days is unpredictably constrained by popular sentiment in a heated moment not a pre-encoded ethical baseline.

I don't think this hypothetical and the potential grave consequences is going to be often likely, yet i don't see why it need be a possibility to entertain.
by GranPC | 2025-10-08 21:07:15+00:00
For some values of "well". No GPU acceleration means it's incredibly sluggish and plagued with rendering issues. There's also some sort of incompatibility around clock sources, which can result in the VM crashing during startup if you assign more than one core to it. There are ways around it but if you're unlucky enough they result in a massive perf hit.
by marcosdumay | 2025-10-08 21:07:21+00:00
Things have been stable for a while now. We haven't had actual churn in years.

But given that there has not actually been progress either, my guess is that this is a temporary situation.

Either way, Svelte is one of those things that promise some real progress. Not one of the things that have the same amount of problems, but in a different configuration.
by HolyLampshade | 2025-10-08 21:07:49+00:00
In fact, it won’t be. Which is why NYSE was so quick to rebrand NYSE Chicago as NYSE Texas when TXSE made the announcement they were launching in Equinix NY4 in Secaucus. The only real differentiator these guys would have had (outside of listings rules) would have been location, but they opted for the lower resistance of locating with all the other markets.
by Imustaskforhelp | 2025-10-08 21:07:50+00:00
The article is a bit old but I don't think that it was AI, like, no offense but like before AI mania no one would have ever thought that calling blazor js framework would've discredited everything the author wrote by three words

Is this AI?

Fun fact just asked chatgpt, and even chatgpt says that blazor is not js framework, so the fact that author did say makes it prove that it was just a mistake and not some AI thing but you can't always be sure of these things

It said to my question, is blazor a js framework?

Good question — no, Blazor is not a JavaScript framework.

Here’s a clear breakdown

What Blazor Actually Is

Blazor is a .NET-based web framework created by Microsoft that lets you build client-side and server-side web apps using C# and Razor, instead of JavaScript.

It runs on top of .NET runtime — not on a JavaScript engine like React, Angular, or Vue do.

Pasting the link to it here https://chatgpt.com/c/68e6d1ed-9030-8322-82fa-84267f8d20c5

Offtopic but why is my chatgpt being so sycophantic, I thought that they had reverted out the update which was causing the sycophancy but I am tired of this dumb LLM praising me, I am starting to dread the first sentence of chatgpt because of it saying good point or anything bruh.
by toast0 | 2025-10-08 21:07:51+00:00
Seems like he wasn't able to get it out of gear, and then didn't want to turn off the engine because he'd lose power steering. Losing power steering isn't ideal, but seems like it'd be better than traveling at 135 mph, power steering is most important at low speeds, and I'd think better to have a bit of trouble with the steering as you get it stopped than to end up crashing it.
by postflopclarity | 2025-10-08 21:08:00+00:00
> so everything is just buggy everywhere as a result

I don't think this is an accurate summary. the bug here is that JuliaFormatter should put a <=1.9 compatibility bound in its Project.toml if it isn't correct with JuliaSyntax.jl

OffsetArrays was different because it exposed a bunch of buggy and common code patterns that relied on (incorrect) assumptions about the array interface.
by tsimionescu | 2025-10-08 21:08:29+00:00
Again, the worse case complexity can be O(N), but it can also be Big-Omega(N^2). Note that Knuth talks about the magnitude of a function, not of the runtime of an algorithm. The worse case complexity of an algorithm is a function, call it f_worse. The best case complexity of that same algorithm is a different function, call it f_best. It's just as meaningful to talk about O(f_worse) as it is to talk of O(f_best).

This is actually pretty common in CS. For example, people will often say that the typical case complexity of Quicksort is O(N log N), even though the worse case complexity is O(N^2). I doubt you'll find anyone who can tell you off the top of their head what is the actual complexity function of quicksort, and that will depend anyway on details of how the exact algorithm is implemented, even in pseudocode (will it do N reads, or 2N reads?).

Let's take a simple example: linear search. The worse case complexity is that we need to read every element from the array, and then compare it to the desired value, and we never find the desired value. So, in the worse case, the runtime is 2N (N reads + N comparisons) - f_worse(n) = 2n. In the best case, we read the first item in the array, we compare it to the pivot, and it is equal - so we need 2 operations - f_best(n) = 2. Now, we can say that O(f_worse(n)) = O(2n) = O(n). And we can also say that O(f_best(n)) = O(2) = O(1). So the best case complexity for linear search is O(1), and the worse case complexity is O(n). We never want to remember details like this to say things like "the best case complexity of linear search is 2".
by adrianmonk | 2025-10-08 21:08:44+00:00
I kind of agree in the sense that utilities at least need regulation. You can't leave it all up to the market. (I've lived through the winter storm days-long blackout that lies down that path.)

But, I don't think this particular thing proves that point. What we have here is a chaotic shift to a new equilibrium. Technology has changed and needs/priorities have changed.

People wouldn't overbuild solar if they could forecast that it wouldn't be profitable. The issue is they can't forecast.

The reason we aren't allocating resources optimally is not about who is in control or what their motives are. It's that we don't have the information we would need in order to be able to.

TLDR: growing pains, not misaligned incentives.
by vasco | 2025-10-08 21:09:00+00:00
How many of those projects have been going for more than 3 generations? Why do you think all the last times it was attempted it turns to that? Most of the undisturbed tribes kill intruders on sight. Most countries that ever turned to isolationism have their population suffer vs their neighbours when enough time passes. I said nothing about the intentions of who starts these communities, that barely matters, what matters is the system they put in place after a few generations. If the system is flawed good intentions go nowhere because after a few generations you don't have a group of idealists anymore, you have random people operating in an isolationist system and they'll act according to their incentives.

We should maximize cooperation between communities, not restrict it. It's the best way to avoid war long term.
by tim333 | 2025-10-08 21:09:19+00:00
I think the valuations of dogecoin and fartcoin don't fit well with the efficient market hypothesis. They both have no assets and no profits but fartcoin is valued at $668 million and dogecoin at $39 billion. Surely in a rational market fartcoin should be valued at more as it has a funnier name?

Slightly more seriously his assertion:

>Alternatively stated, the Efficient Market Hypothesis is true if [...] a sufficiently large majority of investors believes it to be false.

is flawed. They could believe it false but still make a mess of the valuations. Which can cause real world problems if profesional investors put your pension money into webvan or other bubble stocks and then there is a cash shortage after the dot com bubble burst. Of course they are wiser now and won't make such errors with AI.
by osener | 2025-10-08 21:09:32+00:00
This is cool, except I don’t want to run multiple copies of my dev stack.

GitButler does this cool thing where you can work on multiple branches at the same time, applied to the same working directory. For example you can work on the css while an agent works on the admin panel on a separate branch. It would be cool to have this with a tool like FleetCode.
by hn_acc1 | 2025-10-08 21:10:08+00:00
Same here.. I'm usually driving some conglomerate of my first 3 cars (all VWs) - MK1 Jetta GLI, MK2 Golf GTi 16v or VR6 Corrado (or sometimes a Scirocco which is related to the Corrado). And gear shifts are like 30-50cm long, and then the brakes start to fade..

I stopped having that dream nearly as often when I bought my '05 Subaru Legacy GT wagon.

What's even stranger is that my current Kia Stinger (a fun car!) becomes an exotic Maserati or Aston Martin or Jaguar in my dreams..
by fragmede | 2025-10-08 21:10:43+00:00
Let's look at that gulf. One's a poor black woman in the 1960's and the other's a rich white guy in the 2010's. It's easy to see which one we've been programmed to be supportive of. But picking someone based on the color of their skin and not the content of their character isn't what we're going for. So we have to be explicit in saying that the documented actions by this particular rich white guy are what people find offensive about him, rather than simply that he is one.

In terms of societal change though, they both had a bad law in front of them, they both broke it. In Rosa Parks' case, the law got changed. In Travis Kalanick's case, new laws got passed specifically regulating his company. But the thing is, the taxi medallion laws haven't actually gone away. This results in Uber having to do things in weird ways to satisfy the letter of the law in order to comply with the various laws that exist in each jurisdiction.

Travis Kalanick got rich off the backs of an army of drivers and a swath of passengers. Rosa Parks did not.

He did some pretty shitty stuff along the way, sure.

One thing about Rosa Parks is that she wasn't the first. It was because she was the woman who wasn't going to fall to ad hominem attacks. We can name the logical fallacy, but unfortunately it works in the unregulated court of public opinion.

Neither was Travis, but they were both the ones that succeeded. She succeeded in changing minds and laws, and he succeeded in making a pile of money.

So there's absolutely a gulf between the two, and that gulf is that the laws about sitting in the back of the bus got struck down. The taxi laws did not. One happens to be a rich white guy and the other happens to be a not-exactly-well-off black woman, and the black woman actually managed to get the laws changed.