MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by immibis | 2025-10-05 16:29:06+00:00
That's correct. I wouldn't think of it as a VM (a container) though but rather as a server which happens to be virtual. Yes, that's literally just a different word for the same thing but the different emphasis affects thought patterns. For all intents and purposes, from the buyer's perspective, a VPS is a small server, not a different type of thing.

It's true you shouldn't put super sensitive data on a VPS because the host could access it. Regular sensitive is fine - your host will be in a world of trouble if they access your data without permission, so you can generally trust them not to read your emails or open your synced nudes. But if your data is so sensitive that the host would risk everything to read it, or would avoid getting in trouble at all (e.g. national security stuff) then absolutely don't use a VPS. For that level of paranoia you'd need at least a dedicated server which makes it unlikely the host has a live backdoor into the system, ideally your own server so you know they don't, and for super duper stuper paranoid situations, one with a chassis intrusion switch linked to a bag of thermite (that's a real thing).
by cogman10 | 2025-10-05 16:29:12+00:00
I somewhat agree, but I'll say that cancer can move fast and it's important to keep that context in mind.

Jobs delayed for 9 months before doing traditional treatments. I don't believe he ever did full chemo.

Jobs getting the liver was more an exposure of a weakness of the transplant system in general. [1] Transplants are region locked. We can't easily move a liver across the country which means that it can be use it or lose it. Jobs had the resources to get put on lists across the country and had the resources to get to any part of the country from where ever he was in under 3 hours thanks to his private jet.

I don't think there's really a practical way to solve this problem. The want is national list for people that need new livers and some sort of life flight system to get the liver to the person in need.

I guess the one way to make it more fair would be coordinating the lists and tracking/penalizing someone for being registered across the nation. But if the list has Jobs on it the next person in line is also someone with cancer I don't really see a reason why Jobs couldn't get the liver.

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/24/liver.transplant.prior...
by yojo | 2025-10-05 16:30:01+00:00
That was my first thought coming from SPA development. Like, is there even a meaningful translation between rendering logic written in a functional, declarative style to e.g. object-oriented imperative Java? How many LOCs of C would be required to model a simple DOM operation?

Yes, everything is Turing complete and a translation can exist, but how would you make any sense of it as a reader?
by renewiltord | 2025-10-05 16:30:02+00:00
I doubt there is a notion in the world of what seats anyone deserves. Poor people maybe should be helped live but ergonomic seats etc. are not life threatening and so if anyone poor or rich wants to avoid paying for them then they should have the option.

In fact, I would go so far as to say there are no people in the world who earn an airplane ticket through deserving it. It's an entirely pay to play luxury.
by criddell | 2025-10-05 16:30:04+00:00
A low-res display would be fine. In fact the same display as the original Model 100 would be great.

A sibling mentioned e-ink and that might be ideal. With a fast enough CPU and race-to-sleep scheduling, the machine would mostly be in a low power idle mode.

I think the temptation for a lot of designers here would be to use Linux and I think that would be a big mistake. A custom, basic OS with a few simple programs like the Model 100 or Psion 5 had would be ideal, at least for me. Or maybe even something like FreeRTOS (like the Flipper uses) if it is low power enough.
by dns_snek | 2025-10-05 16:30:18+00:00
> The core premise-- we will rely on AI so much that we will de-skill ourselves-- requires acknowledging that AI works.

No it doesn't require that because the vast majority of people aren't rational actors and they don't optimize for the quality of their work - they optimize for their own comfort and emotional experience.

They'll happily produce and defend low quality work if they get to avoid the discomfort of having to engage in cognitively strenuous work, in the same way people rationalize every other choice they make that's bad for them, the society, the environment, and anyone else.
by FollowingTheDao | 2025-10-05 16:30:20+00:00
I agree, even though he was way off on his thinking at least he tried something. The doctors told my father to go ion chemo because it would give him 2 yeras vs the 1 year he was facing with his pancreatic cancer. My sister, a oncology nurse told him not to do it, but he id. The chemo ended up causing a bile duct blockage which killing him after six months.

It is because of what Jobs did we know what not to do.
by dagmx | 2025-10-05 16:30:38+00:00
A senior to me is someone who can tackle complex problems without significant supervision , differentiated from a lead in that they still need guidance on what the overall tasks are. They should be familiar enough with their tech stacks that I can send them to meetings (after the requisite on-boarding time) to represent the team if needed (though I try and not overload my engineers with meetings) and answer feasibility questions for our projects. They don’t need constant check ins on their work. I should be able to bounce ideas of them readily on how to approach bigger problems.

A junior being someone who needs more granular direction or guidance. I’d only send them to meetings paired with a senior. They need close to daily check ins on their work. I include them in all the same things the seniors do for exposure, but do not expect the same level of technical strength at this time in their careers.

I try not to focus on years of experience necessarily, partly because I was supervising teams at large companies very early in my career.
by patrakov | 2025-10-05 16:31:22+00:00
Dear Sir,

The absence of IPv6 within our organizational network is a deliberate and carefully considered decision, implemented in accordance with the requirements of our current cyber insurance provider. Enabling IPv6 would invalidate our existing insurance coverage, which in turn would result in the loss of a critical client whose continued partnership depends on our maintaining this specific insurer. This dependency arises from regulatory obligations that compel our client to source services exclusively from suppliers holding cyber insurance from accredited providers.

We recognize the technical benefits of IPv6, but compliance and risk management considerations must take precedence under these circumstances.
by blincoln | 2025-10-05 16:31:47+00:00
Amazon hasn't done a great job of packing for item protection in ~20 years. I honestly don't remember now if they ever did, and I was buying books from them in the late 90s.

In my experience, small single items will usually go in padded mailers, which are the most effective option they seem to offer.

As soon as the item or shipment is big enough for a box, all they've done for as long as I can remember is add enough packing material to fill any empty space, so that items in the box are less likely to bounce around inside the box, but offering no protection against situations like the box as a whole being dropped onto a hard surface.

I stopped ordering hard drives from them about twenty years ago because they refused to pack them safely enough for UPS or FedEx standards.
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-10-05 16:32:11+00:00
> Make it so terrible of an experience that people are forced to pay more

This is ahistoric. Flying started out comfortable and expensive. (Though I’d argue a first-class seat in an unpressurized cabin flying through the weather was less comfortable than a modern economy seat flying over it.)

Airlines fought to find ways to make tickets cheaper because a vast majority of flyers choose the cheapest ticket on checkout. (There are legitimate issues with add-on fee transparency. But even after accounting for that, most travelers —until super recently—chose the cheapest ticket.)

> doesn't understand the value of trains

I’m not seeing that many WestJet routes across which a train would make sense? It certainly wouldn’t be cheaper.
by tpmoney | 2025-10-05 16:32:22+00:00
I think you're reading "reinvent" here too literally. I doubt the OP literally thinks that Jobs personally designed every part of the iPhone and simply directed mindless drones to just do the dirty work of manufacturing it. But I think it's fair to say that Jobs' vision and direction of what the iPhone can and should be absolutely "reinvented" the category of "smart phone" for the masses.
by adgjlsfhk1 | 2025-10-05 16:33:40+00:00
they have 2 options:

1. adopt hybrid/dual encryption. This is safe against a break of the PQC layer which seems entirely plausible given that the algorithms are young, the implementations are younger, and there has been significant weakening of the algorithms in the past decade.

2. Adopt PQC without a backup layer. This approach is ~5% faster (PQC algorithms are pretty slow), with the cost of breaking encryption for everyone on the internet if any flaw in the PQC algorithms or implementations is found.
by wrs | 2025-10-05 16:33:42+00:00
The SolveIt tool [0] has a simple but brilliant feature I now want in all LLM tools: a fully editable transcript. In particular, you can edit the previous LLM responses. This lets you fix the lingering effect of a bad response without having to back up and redo the whole interaction.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45455719
by toast0 | 2025-10-05 16:33:47+00:00
> like pretty much every cell carrier

TMo US gives me a whole routed /64. Why build and staff v6 NAT devices for no reason? At least several years ago several cell carriers were all about v6 to reduce the volume of v4 traffic they carry, because v4 requires expensive addresses, expensive nat boxes, and expensive people to feed and care for the NAT boxes.
by gs17 | 2025-10-05 16:33:53+00:00
The article Wikipedia cites for that says the group publishing the hypothesis cited a PhD thesis that "pioneered the idea of using the Old Testament as a guide to our understanding of cosmic airburst phenomena", and that they cited a young Earth creationist journal for their information on the Tunguska airburst event. It's a weak connection IMO.

I thought I had heard it used as flood explanation, but it seems young Earth creationists know the timeline doesn't fit.
by lunar-whitey | 2025-10-05 16:33:55+00:00
> I went to one of those universities where CS grads had the option between being a Quant at Citadel, an APM at Google, or an SWE working on an ML research team

I find it interesting that you are trying to find fault in my position while describing the same phenomenon in even greater detail than I could have myself. All of the roles you list are broadly aligned with the finance or adtech industries, which simply do not employ people with the skills you desire in sufficient numbers. The talent you seek is following the money, just like your peers did.
by linguae | 2025-10-05 16:34:02+00:00
One of the things that I admire Steve Jobs the most is his good taste. He had a great ability of recognizing talented individuals and adopting some of the best ideas computer science had to offer at the time. For example, the Lisa and the Macintosh were heavily influenced by the work Xerox PARC did on the graphical user interface. The original Macintosh team had many excellent people; off the top of my head, I'm thinking of Jef Raskin (RIP), Bill Atkinson (RIP), Joanna Hoffman, Andy Hertzfeld, and Susan Kare. Larry Tesler (RIP) and even Alan Kay were both brought in from Xerox PARC to join Apple. When Steve Jobs left Apple in 1985 and started NeXT, he not only brought some original Macintosh team members with him, but he hired other brilliant people such as Avie Tevanian. NeXT also looked to Xerox PARC for inspiration, this time adopting PARC's work in dynamically-typed object-oriented programming (Smalltalk, but in the form of Objective-C) and networking. When Apple purchased NeXT in late 1996, NeXT's operating system became the foundation of the next-generation Mac OS, Mac OS X, which fused a visually updated Macintosh interface with NeXT underpinnings.

Mac OS X under Steve Jobs was a truly excellent desktop operating system, with excellent technical underpinnings and a well-considered user interface with strong usability guidelines.

I miss Steve Jobs, and I wish the computer industry still had champions of personal computing.
by immibis | 2025-10-05 16:34:45+00:00
The problem is that a lot of these services are just worthless. As in their market price is precisely zero dollars and zero cents. The reason you won't get me to subscribe to your random recipe or news website isn't the competition - the site simply provides no value. If it also costs nothing, then I might be indifferent to browsing it when it appears as a search result. If it costs anything, I definitely won't. I also feel the same about your competitors, so I'm not replacing you with them - I'm just browsing this type of content less. And that's a good thing for me and for society overall.
by quotemstr | 2025-10-05 16:34:54+00:00
They're just doing price discrimination (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination). It's economically efficient to match customers with their precise ability to pay, right?

Sure. Yet what economists and policymakers often can't or won't understand is that slight pricing inefficiency are a load-bearing parts of a happy and productive society. When you slice and dice every market segment such that everyone gets a product with just barely positive ROI, you spread cynicism, misery, and a zero-sum mindset and you actually reduce overall productivity.

Yeah, okay, if you require as policy that seats decline and people have a certain amount of legroom, prices might rise a bit, and on the margin, people would take fewer trips and thereby GDP would tick lower or something.

So what? Letting people feel a shred of dignity while flying is worth perhaps reducing total trips by some infinitesimal percentage of it reduces the overall misery of society.

The crappy thing about enshittification is we're all part of the same system and participate in the same economy. Hyperoptimization for cost is spiritually shitting where you eat.
by WhyNotHugo | 2025-10-05 16:35:08+00:00
A decade or two ago it wasn’t uncommon to use a single messaging program for multiple networks. I have fond memories of using Pidgin for a long long time.

This was a single program which spoke to all the networks, not a set of tabs rendering disparate web views. A single contact list, and the same UI for all conversations. You’d basically forget who used MSN, who used Yahoo Messenger, who used XMPP, etc…

I’m not sure why we don’t have the same for the current set of trending proprietary networks. Sure, they make it harder for third parties to connect, but proprietary networks never really collaborated on making it easier.

Maybe there’s just less folk willing to invest free time in making desktop messaging apps?

In theory, XMPP (or similar protocols) would simplify this nowadays: just have a single client and protocol and connect to proprietary networks via gateways. We have gateways for some networks, but desktop messaging clients have really stagnated.
by estimator7292 | 2025-10-05 16:35:24+00:00
People today (or maybe just businesses) seem thoroughly uninterested in interoperability or upgradability.

It's a fantastic ideal for nerds who like to repair and upgrade and Frankenstein tech bits into new shapes, but I'm not sure I've ever met a normal person who was interested in adding a feature to an existing widget instead of buying a new widget.

I'm absolutely certain this is because it's less profitable for businesses to offer upgradable or interoperable parts.
by sisosibx | 2025-10-05 16:35:47+00:00
> So no need for complex societies

There was no need for complex societies anywhere ever. You can find primitive peoples in pretty much any environment on earth (hot, cold, wet, dry, etc). I think it’s much more likely there were complex societies we never heard of that have vanished over the centuries. 200,000 years is a long time (and that date only goes further back as our understanding increases). How long would it take for remnants of our civilization disappear if an apocalyptic meteor hit?

A complex society or a natural disaster (a la dinosaurs) wiping out megafauna sounds much more plausible than the equivalent of the primitive societies we see today.
by wizzwizz4 | 2025-10-05 16:35:52+00:00
It's not just that, it's that parts of the words are very hard to read. They've been smoothed over. Rather than being drawn to the information content, my attention skips over it like a stone over a lake. Some of the paragraphs are mostly yours: others clearly aren't.

Comparing the two images is a good analogy. You instructed the AI to remove the keyboards, and it completely changed the entire contents of both screens, as well as the hand holding the phone. I'm not sure what app has a modular plug as its "main screen" icon, but that distracts me from the whole rest of the image: even the cardboard surface of the bottom part of the laptop. It's less clear what you were trying to convey with the image than before.

Human-to-human communication is not something that benefits from inserting generative AI in the middle. This whole article is confusing: like a collaboration between a pointillist and an impressionist, except they didn't agree on what they were trying to say, so the picture can only be understood by working backwards and trying to model the production process in your head.

> But—and this matters—the sandbox remains someone else's. The app defines the possibility space. The platform determines what's possible. Users create within the system, never of the system.

I was going to use this as an example of a paragraph I understood, but then I looked closer: I have no idea what the distinction between "within" and "of" that you're trying to draw actually is. Sure, I know what you're trying to say, but which one is meant to be "within", and which one is "of"? The slop header image is a symptom of the broken authorial process that led to this article, not the primary issue with it: the main problem is that you started out with something to say, and ended up with confusing, verbose, and semi-meaningless output.

Most people can write better than this. You can write better than this.
by Arathorn | 2025-10-05 16:36:54+00:00
I’m obviously biased (as proj lead for Matrix) but I genuinely think Matrix is in a good place going forwards. There’s a lot of legitimate complaints about the transition to Matrix 2.0, and trust & safety still needs a tonne of work - but the core protocol and featureset feels pretty good. Critically, we just showed we can successfully land pretty major changes to the core federation protocol to improve it (https://matrix.org/blog/2025/08/project-hydra-improving-stat...), which feels pretty liberating in terms of having carte blanche to fix the other remaining warts.

What design choices are you worried about? (To confirm that they are on the radar).
by screye | 2025-10-05 16:37:13+00:00
It's not just gambling. Influencer and VC culture incentivize this same 'hit it big or die trying' ethos. I have seen '5 million is too little to retire on' type of messaging on HN too. The only way to save more than that is to take on an irrational amount of risk (ie. Gamble).

For genZ, the squeeze comes from 3 sides. On one side, few professions promise long term stability. There is a feeling that the ground can vanish under your feet at any moment. (SWE jobs in particular are feeling this pressure). 2nd, Social media has raised the goalposts on the idea of a good life. Lastly, Nimbys and opaque healthcare policy have put the lowest (and most quantifiable) aspects of Maslow's pyramid out of reach. (Safety needs)

Gambling is a symptom. Nowdays, people don't invest in good bonds because there is no such thing. Similarly, people don't invest in steady jobs because increasingly, there is no such thing.

Housing reform, transparent healthcare and a small degree of worker protections would go a long way towards incentivizing stable decision making.
by immibis | 2025-10-05 16:37:15+00:00
Like with most laws, smaller companies have smaller chance to get caught and smaller likely penalties.

But I've noticed there are two kinds of people when it comes to entrepreneurship and regulations. There are people who go all gung-ho and do what they want and ignore the law as much as they can get away with. And there are people who are so scared of things like laws that they never become entrepreneurs. I don't see much of a middle ground in practice.
by AnonC | 2025-10-05 16:37:38+00:00
> Apple products are just generic at this point. There's a new phone, which is exactly the same as the last 10 phones.

This is way too much of an exaggeration to be taken with any amount of seriousness! If you can’t see the huge upgrades in capabilities over the last 10 phones, you’re not the target customer for any smartphone and haven’t been paying attention to the announcements every year.
by ajross | 2025-10-05 16:37:39+00:00
> This just happens to be the consensus opinion for their group.

That becomes non-falsifiable then. Everyone everywhere from every period in history has been part of some in-group or another with a consistent scripture/canon/creed/whatever. No one (especially nerd king HN commenters like us) is truly an independent thinker in the way you're constructing.

The claim upthread was that modern kids were afraid of consensus-breaking because of technological surveillance. And that's clearly false because they hate the surveillors with a passion and are not quiet about those opinions.
by somenameforme | 2025-10-05 16:37:43+00:00
By all accounts he was an asshole from the earliest days, long before he was a known quantity.

I'd argue that brutal honesty is a good thing. So many people try to be agreeable, but don't people stop to think what they themselves think of agreeable people? Generally they seem fake or insincere. When an asshole tells you 'That's an interesting idea.' they mean it. What an agreeable person says it they might mean it or they might mean 'Wow, that's one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard.' So it makes their opinions, or even discussion with them, rather pointless. And broad agreeability can also make a person seem quite daft.
by BoorishBears | 2025-10-05 16:38:13+00:00
I unironically love that it's so brazen that you thought the review made it up, and I don't blame you.

Mind you it's her stage name, but she typically isn't robbing a bank on stage (her most iconic song is about healthy food at Trader Joes.)

PTA wasn't forced to use the name, but it wreaks of PTA loving the chance to use it while having cover from obvious it is (as you demonstrated)
by leptons | 2025-10-05 16:38:17+00:00
>The point of terrorism is that it’s a random act of violence.

That's absolutely incorrect. Terrorism is violence used to achieve political goals.

>"Terrorism is the calculated use of violence or threat of violence against civilians and property to intimidate or coerce a population or government to achieve political, religious, or ideological goals" - a simple google search

It's not random at all. Random acts of violence are not meant to achieve any goal - they spur-of-the-moment, unplanned, etc. Terrorists have a goal, they typically have a target in mind to achieve a goal, it isn't very random at all. Sure random people might get hurt in the incident, but the incident itself isn't typically random. Terrorists usually prepare for it, for months or years. Was flying two planes into the twin towers random? No, it was not. Was blowing up the federal building in Oklahoma City random? No, it was not. These were very carefully selected targets.