MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by MountDoom | 2025-10-07 20:00:03+00:00
I don't think it's malicious, it's just that Qualcomm offered a big payday to people who have been working on the project for a very long time and are probably on the verge of wanting to go something else in their life. And then they're gonna force them to navigate the Kafkaesque bureaucracy at BigCo to get an approval for every blog post, conference talk, etc. Expense reports, headcount planning, performance management, you name it. After a year or two, they're gonna be thoroughly cooked and leave.
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-10-07 20:00:10+00:00
> "They want/intend to be a paramilitary organization therefore calling them wannabe paramilitaries isn't correct."

(I never said what you’re falsely quoting.)

An armed civilian organisation that wants to be—and behaves like—the military has satisfied the most important (and usually difficult to prove) requirement of paramilitarism. The only remaining question, if we’ve established intent, is capability. They obviously have the manpower, budget and equipment to constitute a martial force.

TL; DR If ICE is a “wannabe paramilitary,” they’re a paramilitary. If you’re giving that up you’re giving away the game.

> Gov plates or personal vehicles?

Civilian. (The relevant bit for whether a group is a paramilitary.)

I’d note that whether ICE is a paramilitary is a red herring. Paramilitaries are fine. Militias as paramilitaries.

The problem is ICE is acting as a secret state police.

> local police keeping an eye on things?

Not state or local.
by timr | 2025-10-07 20:00:33+00:00
> More than that, I worked for many enterprises that were using Rails but had their own infrastructure conventions and requirements, and were unable or unwilling to explore tools like Capistrano or (later) Heroku.

Well, OK, so you remember a bad setup that was bad for whatever reason. My point is that there's nothing about your remembered system that was inherent to Rails, and there were (and are) tons of ways to deploy that didn't do that (just like any other framework).

Capistrano can do whatever you want it to do, of course, so maybe someone wrote a deployment script that rsynced a tarball, touched a file, etc., to restart a server, but it's not standard. The plain vanilla Cap deploy script, IIRC, does a git pull from your repo to a versioned directory, runs the asset build, and restarts the webserver via signal.
by JohnLocke4 | 2025-10-07 20:00:44+00:00
It is true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank_paper_protest

More than anything, this is a good lesson in information theory. A blank sheet of paper isn't devoid of information just because it doesn't contain ink - rather, it is the context of the current situation that defines the information being conveyed. This is true in all forms of communication.

This reminds me of a story I read once about when Victor Hugo had just published Les Miserables. Just after publication, he went to his vacation home due to the controversy he was sure was going to follow the publication of the book. Wanting to know how the reception was going, he mailed his publisher a letter simply containing a question mark. The publisher responded with only an exclamation mark, and Hugo immediately understood - he had written an eternal classic.

(BTW, I read this in the book The User Illusion - a fantastic read)
by echelon | 2025-10-07 20:01:24+00:00
Safari and Edge scare the user about pointer lock control, which makes it annoying/impossible to build nice 3D games or visualizations in Tauri. Every on click event is met with a huge, scary browser-native alert. Chrome doesn't do that.

That's just one of dozens of browser inconsistencies we've recently dealt with. It's just the most egregious.
by timr | 2025-10-07 20:01:35+00:00
Me too. I'm not responding specifically to you with the parent comment. That said, "autoscaling", as a concept, didn't really exist prior to AWS AMIs (or Heroku, I guess).

My point is that a lot of devs reach to Docker because they think they need it to do these "hard" things, and they immediately get lost in the complexity of that ecosystem, having never realized that there might be a better way.
by atombender | 2025-10-07 20:02:01+00:00
Mind you, a lot of their designs are cheap knock-offs of contemporary designs.

* The POÄNG chair is a copy of Alvar Aalto's 406.

* Nakamura's earlier POEM copied both the 406 and a chair by Bruno Mathsson.

* FROSTA (now discontinued) is a copy of Aalto's Stool 60.

* KROMVIK copied Bruno Mathsson's Ulla bed frame.

* BORE copied Mathsson's Karin chair.

And so on. Ironically, some of these also have become classics of their own, or at least sought-after vintage objects.

IKEA sometimes comes up with original, sometimes novel designs, but generally they copy better designs with worse manufacturing quality rather than coming up with original ones.

And they are genuinely worse in terms of construction. For example, if you compare the wood quality of a FROSTA with Aalta's stool it's night and day. FROSTA is just plywood cut to size. The Aalto stool is solid birch, with a plywood top and an elegant solid birch veneer for the edge band, and the legs use a unique plywood-like join that is a thing of beauty [1].

[1] https://www.alvaraalto.fi/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/l-jalka...
by tomrod | 2025-10-07 20:02:19+00:00
This appears to be endemic at Microsoft.

I have two Minecraft accounts, several Live.com accounts accrued over the years, and a smattering of Github accounts for various reasons (professional, self-employed, personal),

Logging into Minecraft java a week ago took me 7 logins across various different accounts -- and then it ALSO uses Xbox for auth, which I never set up. And then, the endpoint is blocked for my ISPs IP range so I had to use a VPN and try from a few locations. Bless you, Ohio.
by john01dav | 2025-10-07 20:02:23+00:00
I want regulation that divides all software into two categories: part of the hardware, or not part of the hardware, with specific requirements.

Part of the hardware:

- Can be restricted to specific devices

- Must be available under GPLv3, including anti-tivoization provisions (forced bootloader unlock)

- May not attempt to use TPMs, DRM, or other systems to support assertions about client devices

Not part of the hardware:

- May only interact with hardware through public, documented, APIs in the "part of hardware" category

- Using alternatives from competitors must be fully supported

- When made by a company that also makes hardware, must also work on competitors' hardware (at least one, more if technically feasible)

- May be under a proprietary license

- Must not attempt to assert anything regarding the hardware, so things like Google Safteynet are now illegal. Security boundary must be shifted to consider client devices insecure

This is, I think, a good compromise to allow software developers to get paid without taking away ownership of hardware devices. Developers can be paid for "part of the hardware" software with money from selling the hardware, and "not part of the hardware" software can be trivially commercialized under a proprietary license. But, there is no way for a user to end up unable to control their hardware, or incentivized to configure it in a specific way.
by RhythmFox | 2025-10-07 20:03:02+00:00
-> In my opinion they are now deliberately making the community angry.

This is one thing I think hasn't been talked about explicitly enough within the community (that I see at least) yet, Ruby Central seems to be actively trolling the 'other side' of this situation. It reads to me like they know they have the lawyer power to defend their castle and are enjoying pissing down on people and telling them it's raining. Oh and you should enjoy that because it means there will be flowers soon... or something.

I think the dialogue of 'are they acting in good faith' only works in so far as they even care about the rest of the Ruby community at all. If they are indeed bad actors (motivated purely by greed, ambition, ego, etc) then they are not ever going to come clean and they would let the whole Ruby community die before they admit defeat or wrongheadedness. My favorite term for these types of actors is SCUM - Sufficiently Clever and Uncaring Malefactors.
by losteric | 2025-10-07 20:03:29+00:00
> if you were learning photography. would you still?

First of all, photography was never a profession I would have recommended a kid get in to lol.

I think it's likely we'll see fewer photography jobs, but the jobs that do exist will require more networking, higher skill, and come with better pay.

For example, in my area there's a surge of demand for weddings shot on film - durable physical memories of reality. Some folks even do daguerreotypes. Or in the other direction, we see "cinematic" weddings with video production teams.
by jrochkind1 | 2025-10-07 20:03:51+00:00
If you like the "just rails" with no JS or CSS preprocessing at all (including no node dependencies), that's great.

I think that's still pretty ridiculous though.

I find that Rails+vite is a pretty nice sweet spot that really does just work. It's far far better than trying to use Rails with that "webpacker" chain or anything like that. i like that vite can do my CSS and my JS preprocessing needs, so it's just ONE thing, vite, and I'm set.

(Hypothetically you can use some light weight NPM dependencies with "just Rails" (really a weird take on importmaps, not "just rails"), but unless it's ultra simple it gets just ridiculous very quickly. Vite does not. I think the "no need for any real npm dependencies or other preprocesing of your JS, or CSS" dhh take is a weird one. Fortunately everything still works great if you agree with me.
by kace91 | 2025-10-07 20:04:07+00:00
>'vanilla rails' is really a bunch of other tech bundled together.

That was roughly my point - unless there's something wrong in my mental model, a Rails user is someone who trusts Rails to get them a sane and consistent bundled pack of tools so they can skip the choice and get to work. If one is going to choose a different set of tooling later on, that seems to defeat the point of using Rails in the first place.

I was not judging the framework itself, for the record. Just saying that if you go for it, going "vanilla" seems like the only sensible choice.

>when they upgrade major versions, all of the tooling that comes bundled in the box changes.

this does sound like a major con indeed.
by apeytavin | 2025-10-07 20:04:12+00:00
Actually the BOM cost required to make something stable that can execute manipulation tasks well enough is around $1k+ hence our price. You will find very cheap robots that can pretend to do what this one can, but in practice won't work well enough.

As for the unitree robot, this one is not unlocked for development, does not have onboard GPU, and does not have an arm. If you want it, check the price they give, it's very prohibitive.

You could attach a cheap arm to it but it would also not be stable enough for AI algorithms to run it. We're researchers ourselves, we would have made it cheaper if we could, but then you just can't do anything with it.

Our platform will deliver the experience of a real AI robot, anything cheaper than that is kind of a lie - or forces you to assemble and calibrate, which we do for you here. It is just the nature of trying to deliver a really complete product that works, and we want to stand for that.

EDIT: You can take a look at our autonomous demos there, you need something reliable for these: https://docs.innate.bot/welcome/mars-example-use-cases
by zehaeva | 2025-10-07 20:04:16+00:00
The point of Dune, or the Butlerian Jihad within Dune, isn't that Humans are more capable than the Thinking Machines. It is that Humans should be the author of their own destiny, that and the Thinking Machines were enslaving humanity and going to exterminate them. Just like how the Imperium was enslaving all of humanity and was going to lead to the extinction of humanity. This was seen, incompletely, by Paul and later, completely, by Leto II who then spent 10,000 years working through a plan to allow humanity to escape extinction and enslavement.

Dune's a wild ride man!
by ndriscoll | 2025-10-07 20:04:19+00:00
I'm not in favor of extreme authoritarian laws being on the books at all for their abuse potential, but dystopian laws that exist but are only ever enforced in practice if you are a nuisance are obviously better than dystopian laws that exist and are regularly enforced. And actually "you're only not allowed to install an electrical outlet if you're too dumb to do it without starting a fire" seems like it's right about what the law should be, so if you only get in trouble if you start a fire... good? Likewise if you only end up in trouble for selling food in practice if you end up poisoning people. Sounds about right.

---

Like I said,

> I'm not in favor of extreme authoritarian laws being on the books at all for their abuse potential

I'm not in favor of that. But obviously a police-state-on-the-books is better than a real-actual-police-state. Duh. Laws that are never enforced that say women can't wear pants or gay relationships are illegal are stupid. I like when legislators do "cleanup" bills to delete invalid laws and keep things tidy. The same laws if they are enforced are oppressive.

In practice I'm not sure that "you can do dangerous things as long as you are competent and are not negligent and don't injure others" is a bad guiding principle? Like yeah if it turns out you were not competent or you were negligent, then we (retroactively) say you should have at least known enough to not do that. Sounds reasonable. Especially if the law is effectively "thing is dangerous. Only people who know what they're doing should do it". It's on you then to know enough to know whether you know what you're doing. If you don't know whether you're competent enough, then I suppose you're not.

It would be better to have that explicitly be the law, but having it be the de facto law works well enough. It's sort of the same "if you know you know" kind of thing, but I guess with a different psychological filter where people are more likely to default to "I don't realize I can do this"? Personally I'd prefer we not infantilize people, so it's better to encourage them to better themselves and learn a skill rather than discouraging them and saying they "can't" do it, but maybe the type of people who allow themselves to be infantilized are exactly the ones you don't want to do it anyway.
by grues-dinner | 2025-10-07 20:04:46+00:00
> not crazy or conspiratorial to look at these giant lines in the sky and think "those things must be doing something"

I think more accurately it's not crazy to think they might be doing something. I could equally be convinced if researchers crunched the numbers and concluded they might seem big but they're negligible on a global scale. In fact the same figure of "only 3%" of flights really have an effect" could easily have cut the other way.

A bit like how wind turbines look huge and numerous but are (as yet and for the foreseeable future) completely negligible on the scale of global wind power.

In fact plenty of times much closer to home, thinking "this very obvious thing must be having an effect" and failing to verify that it actually does has screwed me over repeatedly in everything from bug fixing to installing floorboards.
by yjftsjthsd-h | 2025-10-07 20:05:00+00:00
Actually, how does that work? In my non-lawyer understanding, GPLv3 already says the end user must be allowed to actually run the code, to the point where the iOS app store can't have GPLv3 apps in it. So... does this change mean that GPLv3 apps can't legally be shipped for Android?
by ZeroConcerns | 2025-10-07 20:05:01+00:00
> Norms and mores change over time

Yeah, but laws tend to be more constant, and lawful interception laws are, 100% guaranteed, a thing, right now, in the country where you live.

They apply to telegrams, postal mail, telephone conversations, and a whole bunch of other things nobody really does anymore. They don't really apply to the things people do tend to do these days.

ChatControl is an incompetent attempt to remediate the lapses in law enforcement that this has caused. I strongly oppose it. But I also strongly oppose the idea that the Internet should be off limits for any kind of law enforcement, unless it is through dubious mechanisms like state-sponsored malware.

Your "slippery slope" argument is much more compelling in the absense of extended lawful interception than in the situation where Signal messages would somehow be equated to postcards or SMS messages...
by 0xblinq | 2025-10-07 20:05:51+00:00
> The front-end dev space feels like a cacophony of people all blurting out the same over-engineered stack. If your app is a few lists, a chart, and a form... Does it _reaaallly_ need React?

If your app is that simple you don't even need Rails.

In my experience, everything starts that simple. But then time passes, team members rotate, and... your PM keeps asking to add more and more features... And that's when the "simplicity of hotwire" becomes a nightmare to maintain. And guess what, the next dev that comes to the project will hate all the hotwire crap, and whoever built it.

It's easier to make a simple list and a form with React/vue/svelte even if it seems overkill at first, because when things get more difficult you already have the big guns. If you start with the tools to build simple, well.... wish your project stays that simple forever, or that you're given enough time to rewrite everything.

> 37signals is afterall running multiple successful products with Rails, and one of them is an email client.

These applications may be a successful product, despite of hotwire, but they're not a good example of anything. They feel like shit to me (using them from Europe). And again, the main problem is not the end result but the maintenance. If there's anything we've got from all of this mess, is that implementing UIs as "components" are the best idea in the last 10 years.

Stop beating the dead horse of variables interpolated in templates. It just doesn't work (unless you work alone).
by JdeBP | 2025-10-07 20:05:54+00:00
Viewers thought of them as that, and in popular culture that is what cue dots are remembered as today, especially by the Map Men, but technically that is not what cue dots were.

They were a way for the network to cue the regions for when to insert their regional content. It was not necessarily advertisements. And for programmes that were already regional, there was no need for cues from the network for when to run advertisements.

With digital playout, such things became no longer in-band.
by apeytavin | 2025-10-07 20:06:03+00:00
As a side note, the previous generation of research platforms for that size made in Asia were the Turtlebots, which go for that same price, but without GPU, arm...

I would say the problem is that most manufacturers, including chinese, sell you platforms that are not reliable enough for AI manipulation, and there's a race to the bottom for it, to which we try not to participate to
by voidnap | 2025-10-07 20:06:05+00:00
> The commits are imperfect steps along the way.

The workflow you're describing here is fine for staging or stashing or commits that you don't intend to publish. I'll sometimes commit something unfinished, then make changes and either stash those if it doesn't work out, or commit with --amend (and sometimes --patch) to make a single commit that is clean and coherent. The commits aren't always small, but they're meaningful and it's easier to do this along the way than at the very end when it's not so clear or easy to remember all the details from commits that you made days ago.

> It seems some people treat every commit like it's its own little tidy PR

Pull requests are not always "little". But I'm nitpicking.

It sounds like a big difference between the workflows is that you don't amend or stash anything locally along the way. I guess I find it easier and more valuable to edit and squash changes locally into commits before publishing them. Instead of at the very end as a single pull request. For me, I can easily document my process with good commit messages when everything is fresh in my mind.

The end result is that some commits can be pretty big. Sometimes there is no good opportunity to break them down along the way. That is part of the job. But the end result is that these problems concerning a messy history shouldn't be there. The commits I write should be written with the intent of being meaningful for those who might read it. And it's far easier to do that along the way then at the end when it's being merged. So it's difficult to understand some of the complaints people make when they say it's confusing or messy or whatever.

Even if requirements change along the way while the pull request is open, and more commits are added as a response. I've just never had a situation come up where I'm blaming code or something and looking back at the commit history and struggling to understand what was going on in a way where it would be more clear if it had been squashed. Because the commits are already clean and, again, it's just easier to do this along the way.

But again, I use `git commit --verbose --amend --patch` liberally to publish commits intentionally. And that's why it feels like a bit of busywork and violence when people advocate for squashing those.
by cycomanic | 2025-10-07 20:06:31+00:00
Why are you saying land is not included in the cost calculations? I've not read this particular study, but every study looking at the cost of electricity generation I have seen in recent years, essentially looked at investment/returns which obviously includes land use cost. The reason why it's not a big topic, is because it's generally not a big contributor to overall cost, the main drivers being panels and construction. Incidentally, the main power sources where things are not included in the cost are nuclear (typically risk for major accidents is taken on by the government, as no insurance will do it, waste storage cost is often capped as well incalculations) and fossils (health effects of pollution, CO2...).
by adityaathalye | 2025-10-07 20:06:35+00:00
If the language allows passing lists of functions, then `comp` can be implemented by hand: https://clojuredocs.org/clojure.core/comp

And re-implementing `comp` by hand can teach us more than we bargained for (all the way to compiler technology)... I blogged about it here: https://www.evalapply.org/posts/lessons-from-reimplementing-...

;; Clojure source code for `comp` (since Clojure v1.0) (defn comp "Takes a set of functions and returns a fn that is the composition of those fns. The returned fn takes a variable number of args, applies the rightmost of fns to the args, the next fn (right-to-left) to the result, etc." {:added "1.0" :static true} ([] identity) ([f] f) ([f g] (fn ([] (f (g))) ([x] (f (g x))) ([x y] (f (g x y))) ([x y z] (f (g x y z))) ([x y z & args] (f (apply g x y z args))))) ([f g & fs] (reduce1 comp (list* f g fs))))
by DeepSeaTortoise | 2025-10-07 20:06:35+00:00
For the vast majority of crypto currencies tracing the transactions is trivial. And even currencies like XMR are hardly as anonymous as people think.

The challenging regulations around technically anonymous crypto currencies require you to actively make trackable arrangements with your financial service providers. VERY few people will ever do this, and therefore if anything suspicious were to occur, all you've achieved is putting yourself on the suspect list preemptively.
by devjab | 2025-10-07 20:06:59+00:00
This is true. A lot of the older panels are also rather inefficient and come with a rather poor lifespan. It's part of the reason I don't personally have any form of solar despite working in the industry.

Technology is catching up on the solar panel front though. French Heliup are producing panels which are only 5kg per square meter. Which makes them significantly easier to install on roof-tops. I imagine I'll eventually have solar panels on my roof, but I'll likely wait another decade for battery tech to also be more viable.