MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by 7jjjjjjj | 2025-10-27 16:47:24+00:00
I think people are overlooking the most important part:

- Further, violation of this term gave the NSF the right to “claw back” previously approved and transferred funds. This would create a situation where money we’d already spent could be taken back, which would be an enormous, open-ended financial risk.

They're saying the terms give the Trump administration what's essentially a "kill the PSF" button. Which they may want to use for any number of arbitrary reasons. Maybe the PSF runs a conference with a trans speaker, or someone has to be ousted for being openly racist. If it gets the attention of right wing media that's the end.

The "just comply with the law" people are being extremely naive. There can be no assumption of good faith here.
by bittercynic | 2025-10-27 16:47:26+00:00
One went in 1/4 mile from my home a couple years ago. I ignored the notices of development because I thought it was far enough that it wouldn't affect me, but it blocks the view of the mountains that I used to enjoy, and sometimes I can hear noise from its cooling system (I assume).

I wish I'd known what was coming, and gone to the meetings to oppose it.
by tptacek | 2025-10-27 16:47:51+00:00
I'm thrilled to have people digging into this, because I think it's a super interesting problem, but: no, keeping quorum nodes close-enough-but-not-too-close doesn't solve our problem, because we support a unified customer namespace that runs from Tokyo to Sydney to São Paulo to Northern Virginia to London to Frankfurt to Johannesburg.

Two other details that are super important here:

This is a public cloud. There is no real correlation between apps/regions and clients. Clients are public Internet users. When you bring an app up, it just needs to work, for completely random browsers on completely random continents. Users can and do move their instances (or, more likely, reallocate instances) between regions with no notice.

The second detail is that no matter what DX compromise you make to scale global consensus up, you still need reliable realtime update of instances going down. Not knowing about a new instance that just came up isn't that big a deal! You just get less optimal routing for the request. Not knowing that an instance went down is a very big deal: you end up routing requests to dead instances.

The deployment strategy you're describing is in fact what we used to do! We had a Consul cluster in North America and ran the global network off it.
by carimura | 2025-10-27 16:47:59+00:00
I feel like sometimes I write like an LLM, complete with [bad] self-deprecating humor, overly-explained points because I like first principals, random soliloquies, etc. Makes me worry that I'll try and change my style.

That said, when I do try to get LLMs to write something, I can't stand it, and feel like the OP here.
by ratelimitsteve | 2025-10-27 16:48:03+00:00
then it follows that if their thinking is the same then their intentions are the same. given that thinking is an action, and the description says their actions are the same, then their thinking must be the same and therefore their intentions the same. it's meaningless to think of someone who only does what's right but only does it for wrong reasons as someone can only arrive at right actions through right thought, to allude to buddhism. if alice's motivations are truly different then her actions must diverge from bob's at some point (or we just assume that alice's actions and motivations have no relationship which, again, renders the question meaningless).
by rcxdude | 2025-10-27 16:48:10+00:00
Yep, big problem with them: most users have no idea where the thing that pops up and offers to store the passkeys actually stores them (sounds like in your case, in your computer's TPM was either on the CPU you replaced or complained and reset itself when the CPU changed). It's a ticking timebomb that all the 'users love passkeys! (after we nag them about it every time they login until they give up)' blogs fail to catch.
by abdibrokhim | 2025-10-27 16:48:13+00:00
I Made World’s Most Expensive Tutorial

Expenses: Air flights: $1245 (with return) Uber: $54 (one-way) Public transport: $140 (in total) Boat: $70 (with return) Photo: $1100 (it’s iPhone 16 Pro, lol) Hotel 1-night: $50 (approx.) Food: $0 (i’m broken)

Total: $2659

Music credits: https://www.instagram.com/p/DK1jtGEA8-r/ Instagram post: https://www.instagram.com/p/DO_6XewDUPL/
by janalsncm | 2025-10-27 16:48:18+00:00
This kind of “hope growth” and LLM based metrics speaks to rot within the economy. Don’t hire more, just say you’re going to build new products and launch something half baked with a skeleton crew that’s also maintaining the legacy products.

These incumbent companies are able to keep doing this because there’s no one around to eat their lunch. Maybe it’s cheaper to just buy (and kill) any company who legitimately threatens the status quo.

Companies should be hungry for real growth. You should not be able to financially engineer your way into stock growth.
by whatshisface | 2025-10-27 16:48:20+00:00
The least action principle conceptually emerged from the least time principle for light. Light refracts along the path that gets it from the starting to the ending point the quickest, and the index of refraction is what regulates its speed. The question went like this: we know that potential and kinetic energy work together to regulate the speed of moving objects. Is there a way to combine the two quantities into something like an index of refraction? The analogy between potential fields and optics isn't just conceptual - beams of charged particles are focused using electromagnetic "lenses," made out of fields.
by cube00 | 2025-10-27 16:48:26+00:00
I don't trust LLMs to do the kind of precise deterministic work you need in a spreadsheet.

It's one thing to fudge the language in a report summary, it can be subjective, however numbers are not subjective. It's widely known LLMs are terrible at even basic maths.

Even Google's own AI summary admits it which I was surprised at, marketing won't be happy.

Yes, it is true that LLMs are often bad at math because they don't "understand" it as a logical system but rather process it as text, relying on pattern recognition from their training data.
by chemotaxis | 2025-10-27 16:49:12+00:00
I don't like binary takes on this. I think the best question to ask is whether you own the output of your editing process. Why does this article exist? Does it represent your unique perspective? Is this you at your best, trying to share your insights with the world?

If yes, there's probably value in putting it out. I don't care if you used paper and ink, a text editor, a spell checker, or asked an LLM for help.

On the flip side, if anyone could've asked an LLM for the exact same text, and if you're outsourcing a critical thinking to the reader - then yeah, I think you deserve scorn. It's no different from content-farmed SEO spam.

Mind you, I'm what you'd call an old-school content creator. It would be an understatement to say I'm conflicted about gen AI. But I also feel that this is the most principled way to make demands of others: I have no problem getting angry at people for wasting my time or polluting the internet, but I don't think I can get angry at them for producing useful content the wrong way.
by bitbasher | 2025-10-27 16:49:26+00:00
It's because "modern" web developers are not writing web pages in standard html, css or js. Instead, they use javascript to render the entire thing inside a root element.

This is now "standard" but breaks any browser that doesn't (or can't) support javascript. It's also a nightmare for SEO, accessibility and many other things (like your memory, cpu and battery usage).

But hey, it's "modern"!
by DarmokJalad1701 | 2025-10-27 16:49:31+00:00
Have you tried using Bevy? I have used it for some pretty non-trivial use-cases (not open source), and I have found that I did not have to use the typical "RefCell<Vec<Rc<RefCell<Item>>>>" stuff you talk about. There are paradigms in place for safe mutable access to the game state without jumping through hoops.
by danudey | 2025-10-27 16:49:32+00:00
This is correct - it was all on-device, with security guarantees that were instantly proven incorrect. Microsoft withdrew Recall, then brought it back with a newer, more secure implementation that was also proven insecure.

It also claimed that it wasn't going to record sensitive information but it did, to the point where some apps, like Signal, used available Windows APIs to set DRM flags on their windows so that Windows wouldn't capture those regions at all.

What Microsoft could have offered is an easy-to-implement API for application developers to opt into (but users can opt out of), and a blanket recall-esque toggle that users can apply to applications without explicit support. Applications like Firefox or Chrome could hook into the API to provide page content to the API along with more metadata than a simple screenshot could provide, while at the same time not providing that data when sensitive fields/data is on the page (and possibly providing ways for the HTML to define a 'secure' area that shouldn't be indexed or captured, useful in lots of other circumstances).

But, as with everything AI, they don't want users to want it; they want users to use it regardless of whether or not they want it. This is the same reason they forced Copilot into everyone's Office 365 plans and then upped the price unless you tried to cancel; they have to justify the billions they're spending and forcing the numbers to go up is the only way to do that.
by StevePerkins | 2025-10-27 16:49:55+00:00
This sounds like me always complaining about "Past Me"'s tech debt. Or when tech debt is being introduced, my team jokes about it being "Future Me"'s problem. It's good for a chuckle, but obviously there is continuity of identity.

But continuity is not immutability. Your actions are a present thing, and define you in the present. Past actions may have consequences, but you are always free to act differently now. Likewise, your present actions don't carve a future identity in stone, either. "The rent is due everyday", so to speak.
by tptacek | 2025-10-27 16:50:01+00:00
SWIM is probably going to scale pretty much indefinitely. The issue we have with a single global SWIM broadcast domain isn't that the scale is breaking down; it's just that the blast radius for bugs (both in Corrosion itself, and in the services that depend on Corrosion) is too big.

We're actually keeping the global Corrosion cluster! We're just stripping most of the data out of it.
by cryptonector | 2025-10-27 16:50:05+00:00
Quantum entanglement cannot transmit information. Full stop. Let alone FTL.

When you measure an entangled particle that tells you, the observer, the corresponding characteristic of the other particle in the pair, but it will tell no one who has access to the other particle anything at all about what you wanted to say.

This is like transmitting information from you to you about a faraway thing (instantaneously! "FTL", but read on), but it's not useful because what you want to transmit information from you to someone else far away rather than from you to you.
by jayers | 2025-10-27 16:50:57+00:00
I think it is important to make the distinction between "blog post" and other kinds of published writing. It literally does not matter if your blog post has perfectly correct grammar or misspellings (though you should do a one-pass revision for clarity of thought). Blog posts are best for articulating unfinished thoughts. To that end, you are cheating yourself, the writer, if you use AI to help you write a blog post. It is through the act of writing it that you begin to grok with the idea.

But you bet that I'm going to use AI to correct my grammar and spelling for the important proposal I'm about to send. No sense in losing credibility over something that can be corrected algorithmically.
by palata | 2025-10-27 16:51:03+00:00
> My point is that the skills shouldn't be useless.

But it's not your choice to make.

And really, how many people don't understand why they should use a password manager? Or can't be arsed to learn how to use one? Or don't understand how to parse a link like https://microsoft.updateeleven.com?

Are they dumb or do they lack practice? I bet they lack practice because they don't really give a shit about that. My grandmother is 100, she doesn't spend 6h a day swiping TikTok, and she doesn't grasp the concept of AI-generated videos. But she can knit infinitely better than me. Should she call me dumb because I can't knit?

Because people don't give a shit about stuff you care about doesn't make them dumb. Maybe you don't know much about music, or painting, or dinosaurs, and that does not make you dumb.
by HaZeust | 2025-10-27 16:51:09+00:00
Short answer is no. Impeachment can remove a president for abusing the pardon power and deter future use, but it does not undo what would otherwise be a valid federal pardon. Once issued and accepted, a pardon binds federal courts and prosecutors. A jury cannot convict on a pardoned federal charge because the case is dismissed or the conviction is vacated.

The "check" to this power itself is also the reach: A pardon does not reach state crimes or civil liability. And the "check" to the person with the power of a federal pardon (the President) is political removal and later criminal charges like bribery - subject to Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution [1]:

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

1 - https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-3...
by martinald | 2025-10-27 16:51:12+00:00
This is going to be massive if it works as well as I suspect it might.

I think many software engineers overlook how many companies have huge (billion dollar) processes run through Excel.

It's much less about 'greenfield' new excel sheets and much more about fixing/improving existing ones. If it works as well as Claude Code works for code, then it will get pretty crazy adoption I suspect (unless Microsoft beats them to it).
by diath | 2025-10-27 16:51:16+00:00
I judge the viability of a game engine/framework based on its commercial success. This may be a bit harsh but the truth is that hobby game jams and games with complex gameplay features are two different kinds of games and the viability of Bevy for one does not automatically make it viable for the other. Bevy may be fun to use for a simple 30 minute platformer for a game jam, but try re-creating any of the big indie hits released in this year and you will quickly realize how much friction Bevy/Rust create. In fact, of all the 619 successful (>500 reviews) games released in 2025 on Steam, can you point out at least one of them made in either Bevy or Fyrox?

https://steamdb.info/stats/gameratings/2025/?min_reviews=500...
by latexr | 2025-10-27 16:51:17+00:00
> I add that source to a blacklist

Please do tell more. Do you make it like a rule in your adblocker or something else?

> If more people did that, then the selfish people would start avoiding the use of genAI because using it will cause their audience to decline.

I’m not convinced. The effort on their part is so low that even the lost audience (which will be far from everyone) is still probably worth it.
by dminik | 2025-10-27 16:51:53+00:00
Ok, but surely there are more important thing going on there than the wording.

It feels like Stallman wants to defend his friend, but doesn't really have any way to do that. So, instead, he pivots to pedantry.

Like ok, assuming that Marvin really did not know, it's wrong to label him as a sexual assaulter(?). Though legally a sexual assault still occured.

But, it still doesn't explain, justify or deny that he allegedly slept with someone , possibly behind his wife's back. And it also doesn't explain that they went *BACK* to Epstein's island after knowing he was a sex trafficker. And that presumably the girl he slept with might have also been trafficked.
by lenerdenator | 2025-10-27 16:52:01+00:00
A civil suit is exactly the government sticking their dick in the problem. You're having a government employee (the judge) either decide the case themselves in a government building at taxpayer expense, or impanel a jury in a government building at taxpayer expense. Either way you're going to be using laws and rules of civil procedure decided upon by the government in order to try the case. Then the trial hands down a verdict that the government has the ability to enforce through seizure of things of value or by curtailing a person's rights.
by XCabbage | 2025-10-27 16:52:19+00:00
A point made deep in a comment thread by user "rck" below deserves to be a top-level comment - the clawback clause explicitly applies ONLY to violations of existing law:

> NSF reserves the right to terminate financial assistance awards and recover all funds if recipients, during the term of this award, operate any program in violation of Federal antidiscriminatory laws or engage in a prohibited boycott.

So there's no plausible way that agreeing to these terms would have contractually bound PSF in any way that they were not already bound by statute. Completely silly ideological posturing to turn down the money.
by bonoboTP | 2025-10-27 16:52:48+00:00
Yes, but it shouldn't be mandatory for "regular" jobs. People often dislike the idea that there are some ambitious, agentic, talented, motivated people who really put in the hours and their job is simultaneously their hobby etc.

Again, I'm not for the cringe corporate pretending to be one big family smiling and singing. But clearly there are really strong, aligned teams that want to accomplish something and have the corresponding freedom to creatively shape the path forward. And such teams are just vastly more effective and can do stuff in a weekend that a traditional committee-based process would not get done in a year.

But again, this is a fraction of a percent of people who are built for that kind of work. But let some people just be weird and misfits! Somehow the same standards are not applied to athletes who train insane hours or musicians on tour.

My point is, let's be grateful to have such exceptional people instead of complaining about them or how they set an unrealistic standard or whatever.
by onlyrealcuzzo | 2025-10-27 16:52:55+00:00
There is a HUGE amount of waste in big companies from:

1. People being blocked on others

2. Lack of focus (Upper management ordering lower ICs to build bridges to nowhere, stop midway, start another bridge to nowhere project)

3. A lot of work being purely performative

4. A large chunk of REAL work having negative returns (management telling people to do stuff you'd be better off not doing financially)

5. ICs having slack.

AI doesn't need to do any of the real work. If it can increase efficiency ANYWHERE in this chain, it could have huge rewards.

Most people are focusing on getting AI to do REAL work.

But most "work" is waste or exceptionally low value, and I think more effort should go to AI reducing (instead of increasing) that.
by japhyr | 2025-10-27 16:53:02+00:00
> DEI is an immoral, hate based and anti-truth ideology.

Much of the DEI work stems from people looking around a decade or so ago at tech conferences, and noticing that they were almost entirely comprised of men.

There's way too much to address in a single comment, so I'll share one specific thing the Python community has done over the past ten+ years that's made a world of difference: The talk proposal process has been standardized so identifying information is hidden in the first round of reviews.

That one change helped shift the dial from almost entirely male speaker lineups to a much more balanced speaker lineup. As a result, we get a much broader range of talks.

There is nothing "immoral, hate based, and anti-truth" about efforts like this.
by CuriouslyC | 2025-10-27 16:53:09+00:00
Sorry, but I 100% guarantee that there are a lot of people that have time for a quick outline of an article, but not a polished article. Your choice then is between a nugget of human wisdom that's been massaged into a presentable format with AI or nothing.

You're never going to get that raw shit you say you want, because it has negative value for creator's brands, it looks way lazier than spot checked AI output, and people see the lack of baseline polish and nope out right away unless it's a creator they're already sold on (then you can pump out literal garbage, as long as you keep it a low % of your total content you can get away with shit new creators only dream of).
by iamwil | 2025-10-27 16:53:26+00:00
Lately, I've been writing more on my blog, and it's been helpful to change the way that I do it.

Now, I take a cue from school, and write the outline first. With an outline, I can use a prompt for the LLM to play the role of a development editor to help me critique the throughline. This is helpful because I tend to meander, if I'm thinking at the level of words and sentences, rather than at the level of an outline.

Once I've edited the outline for a compelling throughline, I can then type out the full essay in my own voice. I've found it much easier to separate the process into these two stages.

Before outline critiquing: https://interjectedfuture.com/destroyed-at-the-boundary/

After outline critiquing: https://interjectedfuture.com/the-best-way-to-learn-might-be...

I'm still tweaking the developement editor. I find that it can be too much of a stickler on the form of the throughline.
by amrocha | 2025-10-27 16:53:43+00:00
Tangential, but when I heard the Zoom CEO say that in the future you’ll just send your AI double to a meeting for you I couldn’t comprehend how a real human being could ever think that that would be an ok thing to suggest.

The absolute bare minimum respect you can have for someone who’s making time for you is to make time for them. Offloading that to AI is the equivalent of shitting on someone’s plate and telling them to eat it.

I struggle everyday with the thought that the richest most powerful people in the world will sell their souls to get a bit richer.
by eggy | 2025-10-27 16:53:55+00:00
Adacore is doing great work. They have a Rust compiler, but the static analysis and formal verification is not quite there for the Rust toolchain and it does not have any where near the legacy for high-integrity, mission-critical apps. Not that it is not heading that way, but for us it is not there by a longshot to select it for our product.
by devsda | 2025-10-27 16:54:01+00:00
I don't know how it was during the dot-com bubble, but the current AI hype is the biggest "Fake it till you make it" operation I've ever seen.

My only worry is about the huge impact on rank and file employees when they issue the "we are re-aligning our strategic direction/priorities and we are focusing on effective resource utilization" pr statement.