MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by endomorphosis | 2025-10-28 00:21:43+00:00
AMERICAN ALLIANCE FOR EQUAL RIGHTS, versus FEARLESS FUND MANAGEMENT, LLC, 2023

To be sure, the line between “pure speech” that arguably entails discriminatory sentiments, see 303 Creative, 600 U.S. at 587, and the very act of discrimination itself may at times be hard to draw. And to be sure, Fearless characterizes its contest as reflecting its “commitment” to the “[b]lack women-owned” business community. The fact remains, though, that Fearless simply—and flatly— refuses to entertain applications from business owners who aren’t “black females.” Official Rules at 3. If that refusal were deemed sufficiently “expressive” to warrant protection under the Free Speech Clause, then so would be every act of race discrimination, ... "Moreover, and more specifically, each lost opportunity to enter Fearless’s contest works an irreparable injury because it prevents the Alliance’s members from competing at all—not just for the $20,000 cash prize but also for Fearless’s ongoing mentorship and the ensuing business opportunities that a contest victory might provide. "
by jnaina | 2025-10-28 00:22:54+00:00
As an AWS shareholder, I applaud this.

The org suffers from several systemic issues: entrenched tenured employees coasting on accumulated RSUs who resist change, middle management engaged in territorial conflicts/fiefdom turf wars that prioritize their own self-preservation over company goals, numerous underperforming hires made to meet diversity targets rather than capability needs, and leaders whose primary competencies lie in mastering the silly cliched "Amazon speak" (Amazon LP this and LP that, quoting Bezos as opening lines, day ones, etc) and the usual de rigueur rituals such as churning out obligatory, meaningless six-pagers, instead of driving genuine innovation or results.

AWS is fast becoming a parody of itself and needs a reset. The recent outage is a harbinger of things to come, if things continue as is.
by bigbadfeline | 2025-10-28 00:23:00+00:00
> Three months from now - Amazon hiring 50k new corporate workers.

Wanna bet? The 3-month balance of hired minus fired will be less than 20K. Those ballrooms don't pay for themselves [1].

Let's mark the calendar 01/27/26

[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-ballroom-donors-white-hou...
by pseudalopex | 2025-10-28 00:23:03+00:00
> The community in general seemed to follow the same policy back then

Our definitions of the community in general must differ. This was not what I saw.

> Reducing complex individuals into two bits of information, skin and gender

This is a straw man. Skin and gender were not the only factors he considered. And he considered gender because of patterns of failure when other mentors mentored women.
by IX-103 | 2025-10-28 00:23:27+00:00
There's no law yet. But people in power seem highly in favor of it. Pete Hegseth seems to think women shouldn't be able to vote (https://19thnews.org/2025/08/pete-hegseth-doug-wilson-women-...) and he was joined by Charlie Kirk (https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-guest... https://19thnews.org/2025/08/pete-hegseth-doug-wilson-women-...)

Trump is throwing so many racist dog whistles it's a subject of scientific inquiry https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politi... https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=8997844... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266662272...

Charlie Kirk also thought that people of color shouldn't be pilots https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/mike-freeman...

As for the benefit of restricting the Ladies rooms to people that are assigned female at birth, that is less of a benefit than you seem to believe. How do you expect they will enforce such a rule?

So far this has resulted in countless women being groped in attempts to prove that they don't belong in the Ladies' room and a comparatively small number of trans-women with no where to go to the bathroom. Can't you see that this effectively punishes those women who don't meet a stereotypical view of women? Catching fictional trans-women peeking on women in restrooms is just the excuse! (Of course even you would understand that if you understood even the basics of gender dysphoria disorder).

As for your other point, well racists always have that one black friend - you know, to prove their not racist. And it seems like it's pretty profitable to be a token black or Hispanic person in the maga MAGA movement.
by adriand | 2025-10-28 00:23:55+00:00
> DEI is at its heart a type of discrimination. You might argue that the end justifies the means, but if intermediate step is that a person gets different treatment depending on their sex or skin colour, then it is discrimination.

The purpose of DEI is to rectify the discrimination that is already present. It isn't as though we live in a discrimination-free world and then DEI arrived on the scene and suddenly started creating discrimination. Rather, the opposite is true. There is rampant discrimination on the basis of race, gender and other characteristics across society. DEI is an attempt to fix that. Like all human endeavours, it is not perfect, and some organizations did it better than others.

You state that you were in a situation where you were denied opportunities due to your sex. This experience is entirely commonplace for women, particularly women who are in male-dominated fields. You say what happened to you wasn't okay, so I have to assume you also believe it isn't okay that it happens to women every day. You don't think DEI is the solution - so what solution do you propose?
by dathinab | 2025-10-28 00:24:03+00:00
also obviously remove support for 12hour clocks from everything, who the duck thought having two different 4 O'Clock times every day makes sense. And what the insanity is the nonsense that write 12 mean 0 a.m. I.e. going from 11:59am goes to 12pm, like seriously who thought clocks braking basic math is a good ideaf!?!? Like the rang [11:59am;12am] is 12 hour and 1 minute wide instead of just 1 minute even through it uses the same unit.
by jbs789 | 2025-10-28 00:24:16+00:00
Yup. It becomes clearer to me when I think about the existing validators. Can these be improved, for sure.

It’s when people make the leaps to the multi-year endgame and in their effort to monetise by building overconfidence in the product where I see the inherent conflict.

It’s going to be a slog… the detailed implementations. And if anyone is a bit more realistic about managing expectations I think Anthropic is doing it a little better.
by bloppe | 2025-10-28 00:24:25+00:00
> I'm paying much less attention for quality now. After all, why bother when AI produce working code?

I hear this so much. It's almost like people think code quality is unrelated to how well the product works. As though you can have 1 without the other.

If your code quality is bad, your product will be bad. It may be good enough for a demo right now, but that doesn't mean it really "works".
by dekhn | 2025-10-28 00:24:35+00:00
If your experimental system is so delicate that it can't be reproduced in another location (by expert hands), is it really a good experimental system? To me it sounds like a terrible experimental system that is brittle and does not generalize.

Let me give an example of a good experimental system: restriction endonucleases. You can download the original papers where EcoRI, BamH, etc, were isolated, purified, and demonstrated to show sequence-specific DNA cutting. Any student in any lab in the world can pull those papers- some 40+ years after they were published- and reproduce them using trivial old techniques and map any random plasmid with it. It might work a little worse in an incredibly hot lab, or a very cold one, but you'll still get all the activity you need to demonstrate that you purified a restriction endonuclease.

There are a lot of researchers out there who have something in their lab that they use to generate papers, but who are not actually discovering anything that is robust and generalizable- and those are required steps for treating people with cancer reliably at scale. Many results are irreproducible because the authors were incompetent or lying (or outright fooling themselves and others without knowing).
by potato3732842 | 2025-10-28 00:25:06+00:00
I think the problem here is that it's not black and white like that, it's a bunch of not great shades of gray.

It's like having a bunch of frat bros getting rowdy at a party while the host's wife is having a mental breakdown and waving a gun around. Like the frat bro's aren't great and probably wouldn't be getting that rowdy but are they really what's ruining the vibe?
by NathanKP | 2025-10-28 00:25:36+00:00
> It is estimated that more than one in five U.S. adults live with a mental illness (59.3 million in 2022; 23.1% of the U.S. adult population).

https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/mental-illness

Most people don't understand just how mentally unwell the US population is. Of course there are one million talking to ChatGPT about suicide weekly. This is not a surprising stat at all. It's just a question of what to do about it.

At least OpenAI is trying to do something about it.
by ekidd | 2025-10-28 00:26:23+00:00
I suspect the big problem here is thinly-stretched volunteer maintainers.

I am very sympathetic to the idea that all memory corruption bugs should be fixed systematically, whether or not they're exploitable. It works well for OpenBSD. And, well, I wouldn't have leaned into Rust so early if I wasn't a bit fanatic about fixing memory corruption bugs.

But at the same time, a lot of maintainers are stretched really thin. And many pieces of software choose to trust some inputs, especially inputs that require root access to edit. If you want to take user input and use it to generate config files in /etc, you should plan to do extremely robust sanitization. Or to make donations to thinly-stretched volunteer maintainers, perhaps.
by Havoc | 2025-10-28 00:26:50+00:00
Good to know that it works well for that.

>I'm not doing complex formulas

Neither am I frankly. Finance stuff can get conceptually complicated even with simple addition & multiplication though. e.g. I deal with a lot of offshore stuff, so the average spreadsheet is a mix of currencies, jurisdictions and companies that are interlinked. I could probably talk you through it high level in an hour with a pen & paper, but the LLMs just can't see the forest for all the trees in the raw sheet.
by themafia | 2025-10-28 00:28:39+00:00
I use the locks my insurance company recommends. That's who it's there for anyways.

The other side is "career" thieves will know how to pop-can shim a lock but most of them are not going to use or break out a set of picks. One main reason it's an additional felony charge if you get caught using them. So a _slightly_ better lock is sometimes warranted for outdoor applications.

The final piece is they'll just steal a car and then drive that car through your shop front to get what they want. Up here in Northern California a gang pulled off the same heist as the movie "Casino." They drove a van up to a wall and then knocked out a small segment of the wall to gain entry.
by pansa2 | 2025-10-28 00:28:44+00:00
> I do remember him using the visitor pattern to implement part of the parser I think. I thought that was kind of an odd choice, especially since it seemed like he was really just trying to avoid Java boilerplate.

It's used to allow writing a "resolver" and an "interpreter" that both know how to handle every type of node in the AST. It's almost a functional approach, and I actually think it might increase boilerplate because Java is more designed around the object-oriented approach of adding `resolve` and `interpret` methods directly to each node type.

The two approaches result in very different code organisation, though - maybe the visitor approach was easier to explain in prose.
by DiabloD3 | 2025-10-28 00:29:05+00:00
CVEs, however, do get scored according to CVSS, and they are often extremely hostile and live in fantasy land.

CVEs also cannot be denied by projects, and are often used as an avenue of harassment towards open source projects.

I agree with the poster on that mailing list, this is not, nor should be, a CVE. At no point can you edit those files without being root.
by eterm | 2025-10-28 00:29:53+00:00
I've been experimenting with a little vibe coding.

I've generally found the quality of .NET to be quite good. It trips up sometimes when linters ping it for rules not normally enforced, but it does the job reasonably well.

The front-end javascript though? It's both an absolute genuis and a complete menace at the same time. It'll write reams of code to gets things just right but with no regards to human maintainability.

I lost an entire session to the fact that it cheerfully did:

npm install fabric npm install -D @types/fabric

Now that might look fine, but a human would have realised that the typings library is a completely different out-dated API, the package last updated 6 years ago.

Claude however didn't realise this, and wrote a ton of code that would pass unit tests but fail the type check. It'd check the type checker, re-write it all to pass the type checker, only for it now to fail the unit tests.

Eventually it semi-gave up typing and did loads of (fabric as any) all over the place, so now it just gave runtime exceptions instead.

I intervened when I realised what it was doing, and found the root cause of it's problems.

It was a complete blindspot because it just trusted both the library and the typechecker.

So yeah, if you want to snipe a vibe coder, suggest installing fabricjs with typings!
by array_key_first | 2025-10-28 00:30:35+00:00
> In the US, this also applies to Republican voters. What about them?

Nobody cares about them. If you want to make a "coding for republicans", then go for it. Nobody is stopping you. You can't pretend people are stopping you so then you can turn around and act like a victim. That's not normal person behavior.

> conservative views? They're also pretty underrepresented in the tech industry

First off, not they're not. Second off - nobody is censoring conservative views.

They ARE censoring obvious racism, sometimes pedophilia, sometimes misogyny. Because those all suck. And when that happens, some conservatives cry. Which doesn't say what you think it says. That does not reflect well on you or the broader ideology.

At the end of the day, if I speak like Hilary Clinton at work, it's perfectly normal. If I speak like Trump and talk about "human garbage" and various brown people eating cats and dogs, I'm probably getting fired and potentially a referral to a psychiatrist.

That's the difference. Not the ideology, the words.
by shawnz | 2025-10-28 00:30:57+00:00
I think finding an upper bound is basically just as difficult as finding the actual value itself, since both would require proving that all of the programs which run longer than that will run forever. That's why we can say BB(x) grows faster than any computable function. Being able to compute BB(x) algorithmically or any faster growing function would let you solve the halting problem
by myrandomcomment | 2025-10-28 00:31:04+00:00
The wife owned the original 2015 Macan S. She loved it. A few months ago we leased a 2025 Macan 4S EV. It is a fantastic vehicle, much better than the gas version. Power is cheap here in WA. Premium gas at $4.50 p/g vs $.082 p/kHh. So that works out (rough) 100 miles cost $18 gas vs. $2.48 for the EV. No moving parts to fix, oil to change, etc. The EV wins hands down. I want an Electric Boxster to replace my old 2010 Boxster S. I will buy it as soon as they ship it.
by potato3732842 | 2025-10-28 00:31:33+00:00
This. It's like the environmental people going off half cocked screeching about how random petty developments needs more green space in their site plans (while invariably screeching out the other side of their mouth about how the decreased density of stuff makes it less walkable) all while the DuPont or the .gov or some university or whoever has got their engineers and lawyers and whatever to lay out exactly why the thing they're doing is "fine" even if it's worse than whatever the little guys are being prevented from doing.

You can't solve the problem at the "just regulate the employers" level because it invariably turns into a tighter regulatory capture further enriching the incumbents. Any reform will necessarily increase the competitive advantage of the current winners because they are the ones in a position to shape it.
by svachalek | 2025-10-28 00:32:43+00:00
Also, put heavy lint rules in place, and commit hooks to make sure everything compiles, lints, passes tests, etc. You've got to be super, super defensive. But Claude Code will see all those barriers and respond to them automatically which saves you the trouble of being vigilant over so many little things. You just need to watch the big picture, like make sure tests are there to replicate bugs, new features are tested, etc, etc.
by shadowpho | 2025-10-28 00:33:14+00:00
>For these reasons, 1.6mm sure seems like a default if there is one.

If you do consumer (phone/tablet/pc) a lot of boards are 0.8mm(12L) or 0.6mm for example.

If you do automotive/drones/industrial it’ll become thicker (2 oz copper).

DirtyPCB defaults to 1.2mm. I measured a couple random dev/breakout boards around and got 0.8/1.2/1.6.
by crazygringo | 2025-10-28 00:33:59+00:00
> The people saying LLM can code are hard for me to understand.

Just today, I spent an hour documenting a function that performs a set of complex scientific simulations. Defined the function input structure, the outputs, and put a bunch of references in the body to function calls it would use.

I then spent 15 minutes explaining to the free version of ChatGPT what the function needs to do both in scientific terms and in computer architecture terms (e.g. what needed to be separated out for unit tests). Then it asked me to answer ~15 questions it had (most were yes/no, it took about 5 min), then it output around 700 lines of code.

It took me about 5 minutes to get it working, since it had a few typos. It ran.

Then I spent another 15 minutes laying out all the categories of unit tests and sanity tests I wanted it to write. It produced ~1500 lines of tests. It took me half an hour to read through them all, adjusting some edge cases that didn't make sense to me and adjusting the code accordingly. And a couple cases where it was testing the right part of the code, but had made valiant but wrong guesses as to what the scientifically correct answer would be. All the tests then passed.

All in all, a little over two hours. And it ran perfectly. In contrast, writing the code and tests myself entirely by hand would have taken at least a couple of entire days.

So when you say they're good for those simple things you list and "that's about it", I couldn't disagree more. In fact, I find myself relying on them more and more for the hardest scientific and algorithmic programming, when I provide the design and the code is relatively self-contained and tests can ensure correctness. I do the thinking, it does the coding.
by otterley | 2025-10-28 00:34:26+00:00
> If instead we have a standard protocol for service discovery, you can drop [reconciliation] in place of the AWS internal service discovery system and then clients (both internal and external) can directly resolve the DynamoDB backends without needing a DNS intermediary.

DNS is a service discovery protocol! And a rather robust one, too. Don’t forget that.

AWS doesn’t want to expose to the customer all the dirty details of how internal routing is done. They want to publish a single regional service endpoint, put a SLO on it, and handle all the complexity themselves. Saving unnecessary complexity from customers is, after all, one of the key value propositions of a managed service. It also allows the service provider the flexibility to change the underlying implementation without impacting customer clients.

I’m not sure the best response to “the reconciler had a bug, and other reconcilers might, too” is to replace it with an entirely new and untested service discovery protocol. A proposed compensating control to this bug might be as simple as “if the result would be to delete the zone or empty it of all RRs, halt and page the on-call.” Fail open, as it were.

Also, anyone proposing a new protocol in response to a problem—especially one that had nothing to do with the protocol itself—should probably be burdened with defining and implementing its replacement. ;)
by nativeit | 2025-10-28 00:35:18+00:00
> What disappears as a result is a societal baseline of tolerance—a development that could contribute to the long-term erosion of democratic structures. To prevent societies from increasingly fragmenting, Thurner emphasizes the importance of learning early how to engage with different opinions and actively cultivating tolerance.

That could be a problem, considering how the push back to "actively cultivating tolerance" has unfolded so far.
by tpmoney | 2025-10-28 00:35:22+00:00
I've had this idea kicking around in my head now for a few months that this is an opportunity to update copyright / IP law generally, and use the size and scope of government to do something about both the energy costs of AI and compensation for people whose works are used. At a very rough draft and high level it goes something like this:

Update copyright to an initial 10 year limit, granted at publication without any need to register. This 10 year period also works just like copyright today, the characters, places, everything is projected. After 10 years, your entire work falls into the public domain.

Alternatively, you can register your copyright with the government within the first 3 years. This requires submitting your entire work in a machine readable specified format for integration into official training sets and models. These data sets and models will be licensed by the government for some fee to interested parties. As a creator with material submitted to this data set, you will receive some portion of those licensing feed, proportional to the quantity and amount of time your material has been in the set, with some caps set to prevent abuse. I imagine this would work something like the broadcast licensing for radios works. You will receive these licensing fees for up to 20 years from the first date of copyright.

During the first 10 years, copyright is still enforced on your work for all the same things that would normally be covered. For the 10 years after that, in additional consideration for adding your work to the data sets, you will be granted an additional weaker copyright term. The details would vary by the work, but for a novel for example, this might still protect the specific characters and creatures you created, but no longer offer protection on the "universe" you created. If we imagine Star Wars being created under this scheme, while Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker and Leia Organa might still be protected from 1987-1997, The Empire, Tatooine, and Star Destroyers might not be.

What I envision here is that these government data sets would be known good, clean, properly categorized and in the case of models, the training costs have already been paid once. Rather than everyone doing a mad dash to scrape all the world's content, or buy up their own collection of books to be scanned and processed, all of that work could already have been done and it's just a license fee away. Additionally because we're building up an archive of media, we could also license custom data sets. Maybe someone wants to make a model trained on only cartoons, or only mystery novels or what have you. The data is already there, a nominal fee can get you that data, or maybe even have something trained up, and all the people who have contributed to that data are getting something for their work, but we're also not hamstringing our data sets to being decades or more out of date because Disney talked the government into century long copyrights decades ago.