MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by ssl-3 | 2025-10-11 07:53:29+00:00
That's sounds like a good concept: I'm no stranger to cheap IoT devices chewing up local 2.4GHz bandwidth with chatter and I have a lot of that going on. But does it matter in 2025?

As a broad concept: Ever since my last Sonos device [that they didn't deliberately brick] died, I don't have any even vaguely bandwidth-intensive devices left in my world that are 2.4GHz-only.

Whatever laptop I have this year prefers the 5GHz network, and has for 20 years. My phone, whatever it is today, does as well and has for 15 years. My CCwGTV Chromecast would also prefer hanging out on the 5GHz network if it weren't plugged into the $12 ethernet switch behind the TV.

Even things like the Google Home Mini speakers that I buy on the used market for $10 or $15 seem to prefer using 5GHz 802.11ac, and do so at a reasonably-quick (read: low-airtime) modulation rate.

The only time I spend with my phone or tablet or whatever on the singular 2.4GHz network I have is when I'm at the edge of what I can reach with my access points -- like, when I visit the neighbors or something, where range is more important than speed and 2.4GHz tends to go a wee bit further.

So the only things I have left in normal use that requires a 2.4GHz network are IoT things like smart plugs and light bulbs and other small stuff like my own little ESP/Pi Zero W projects that require so little bandwidth that the contention doesn't matter. (I mean... the ye olde Wii console and PSP handheld only do 2.4GHz, but they don't have much to talk about on the network anymore and never really did even in the best of times.)

It's difficult to imagine that others' wifi devices aren't in similar form, because there's just not much stuff left out there in the world that's both not IoT and that can't talk at 5GHz.

I can see some merit to having a separate IoT VLAN with its own SSID where that's appropriate (just to prevent their little IoT fingers from ever reaching out to the rest of the stuff on my LAN and discovering how insecure it may be), but that's a side-trip from your suggestion wherein the impetus is just logical isolation -- not spectral isolation.

So yes, of course: Build out a robust wireless network. Make it awesome -- and use it for stuff.

But unless I'm missing something, it sounds like building two separate-but-parallel 2.4GHz networks is just an exercise in solving a problem that hasn't really existed for a number of years.
by zkmon | 2025-10-11 07:54:12+00:00
Not only lack of truth, but lack of locality/relevance is an issue. You get flooded by info that you never need in your daily life or in near future. Every news channel would inundate you with global news as if all that is happening in your neighborhood. This is partly the reason why governments of the western world are forced to act on everything that happens on other side of the world. Because people feel that their government should do something about it.
by frm88 | 2025-10-11 07:54:23+00:00
The concept of an antikhristos is not found in Jewish writings in the period 500 BC–50 AD.[15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antichrist

It's a later addition, does not refer to one individual only and is said to

... may have been generated by the frustration of Jews subject to often-capricious Seleucid or Roman rule, who found the nebulous Jewish idea of a Satan who is more of an opposing angel of God in the heavenly court insufficiently humanised and personalised to be a satisfactory incarnation of evil and threat same source.
by tsimionescu | 2025-10-11 07:57:58+00:00
> I’m not advocating for an invasion don’t get me wrong.

Note that while you're not, the Nobel Peace prize winner unfortunately is. And honestly, much more so than privatizing oil, I think this would be the end of even the sham democracy that currently exists. The examples of countries becoming more democratic after a foreign military invasion intent on regime change are entirely restricted to the losing powers in WW 2.
by ssivark | 2025-10-11 07:58:16+00:00
But doesn't the decentralized firehose make it easy to build curation? You decide what/whom you want to subscribe to---rest of social media be damned. Why do you care what unmoderated crap is flooding the world outside your cosy corner?

And if you choose to receive a broader sampling, you can subscribe to someone who will curate it for you---either manually, or through algorithms. It seems like an elegant way to have a web-of-trust layer for curation, composed with an algorithmic curation layer---and be able to tune the latter separately to suit user needs, without being beholden to the interests of the platform operator. You can easily switch your subscriptions if you don't like the way someone is curating it, without wholesale losing access to the network!

> A question to ponder: is anyone here going to volunteer to run a "permissive" radicle seed node?

Doesn't opening up curation+subscription solve this problem too? Anyone can curate in opinionated ways, and offer to "host" whatever they are okay with accepting responsibility for (at whatever level of endorsement, so long as it is clearly communicated) and users have the choice to subscribe.

The problem today is that curation is tangled with access to the network, so you're forced to accept the curation provided to you by the owner of the walled garden (and incentives are misaligned)
Unpopular Opinion: ChatGPT is no substitute for learning core coding concepts
by pyeri | 2025-10-11 07:58:25+00:00
When chatgpt churns out boilerplate code and ready snippets for your projects, it's easy to fall in that trap of "I am building this" or "I am more productive now" but in the greater scheme of things, "ChatGPT knows" is still no different than "Google knows" or "Wikipedia knows" or "Stack Overflow knows".

At the end of the day, we have just replaced one kind of "reference monster" with another that feels somewhat interactive and intimate, is good at searching and filtering, and gives all information through one interface.

But eventually, you must still learn the technical concepts the hard and old school way. AI is still no substitute for that and it won't be even if AGI ever arrives.

In some ways, LLM is more deceptive than Google/Wikipedia because it gives you the false sense of feeling that you've achieved something or know something when you actually haven't (in the strict technical sense).
by rekabis | 2025-10-11 07:58:38+00:00
> When nuclear fission was discovered in the late 1930s, physicists concluded within months that it could be used to build a bomb. Epidemiologists agree on the potential for a pandemic, and astrophysicists agree on the risk of an asteroid strike. But no such consensus exists regarding the dangers of A.I., even after a decade of vigorous debate.

We have problems because AI breaks existing paradigms.

Historically speaking, we have been able to generate consensus because those things without prior examples were “non-complex” and those that did spawn complexity or arose out of chaos and chance had prior art that demonstrated patterns.

So nuclear bombs could be predicted out of the limited uses of fission, and pandemics arising out of random unpredictable mutations could be predicted out of the copious prior examples of novel lethal viruses running amuck.

But now we have something with no prior examples which generates highly complex possibilities and is itself chaotic and random and not very well understood. And that completely breaks our ability to generate a consensus, because without prior examples we simply cannot tell which of the innumerable branching of possibilities is legitimately possible, and which are dead ends.

Or worse -- distractions that blind us to the dangerous paths it is stumbling down..
by washadjeffmad | 2025-10-11 07:59:04+00:00
The gimmicks aren't the product, and the customers of frontier technologies aren't the consumers. The gamers and redditors and smartphone fanatics, the fleets of people who dutifully buy, are the QA teams.

In accelerated compute, the largest areas of interest for advancement are 1) simulation and modeling and 2) learning and inference.

That's why this doesn't make sense to a lot of people. Sony and AMD aren't trying to extend current trends, they're leveraging their portfolios to make the advancements that will shape future markets 20-40 years out. It's really quite bold.
by bob1029 | 2025-10-11 07:59:55+00:00
Gaming using weird tech is not a hardware manufacturer or availability issue. It is a game studio leadership problem.

Even in the latest versions of unreal and unity you will find the classic tools. They just won't be advertised and the engine vendor might even frown upon them during a tech demo to make their fancy new temporal slop solution seem superior.

The trick is to not get taken for a ride by the tools vendors. Real time lights, "free" anti aliasing, and sub-pixel triangles are the forbidden fruits of game dev. It's really easy to get caught up in the devil's bargain of trading unlimited art detail for unknowns at end customer time.
by ssl-3 | 2025-10-11 08:00:08+00:00
Ah, splendid. I'm so glad that you have come before me today to present this bot's confounding quandary, and I receive it with tremendous glee.

Please allow me to proffer the following retort: The answer to having a shitty, incapable router is to use one that is not shitty, and is capable.

(The routing-bits have no clue what RF spectrum is being utilized, and never have. They just deal with packets. The packets are all shaped the same way regardless of the physical interface on which they arrive, or which they are destined for.)
by Imustaskforhelp | 2025-10-11 08:00:39+00:00
Sometimes I believe that democratic systems can also be so polarized (as america) and rest of the countries that they simply split a country into two pieces somehow.

One might want lets say welfare to the youth/masses and the other wouldn't want it sometimes it feels like just to differentiate themselves from the first or to just contradict it.

We have sort of stopped coming to common agreements in republicans and democrats and heck some democrat bsky user pasted me an AI pic for something and when I said that it doesn't actively contribute to the thread they had the balls to say "Google things.Do your own research. Research." Like uh okay mate, we are on the same page but even then they came across as passive agressive :/

We just infight and never try to reach conclusion's man. And if we do and become tolerant, some intolerant freak hijacks the system, maybe the system's broken a little, I am not sure. but I know its the best hope
by port11 | 2025-10-11 08:00:54+00:00
I thought Google had already killed Dart once? Or was it Flutter? I'm not really touching any of their “open-source” projects; fool me once, you know.

But my point stands. I haven't seen a single job posting in 2 years that isn't using React, Vue, Angular, or (a tiny bit) Svelte. So Web Components just aren't being widely used, it seems.
by asah | 2025-10-11 08:02:40+00:00
naive q: could games detect when the user is "looking around" at breathtaking scenery and raytrace those? offer a button to "take picture" and let the user specify how long to raytrace? then for heavy action and motion, ditch the raytracing? even better, as the user passes through "scenic" areas, automatically take pictures in the background. Heck, this could be an upsell kind of like the RL pictures you get on the roller coaster... #donthate

(sorry if obvious / already done)
by mariusor | 2025-10-11 08:03:02+00:00
The problem is that I must make these distributions fit within my well established configuration, which is not as easy as installing them on top of a blank one.

Also it might be the fact that vim was never my main programming tool when IDEs were available for the programming task at hand. I debug as much as I write code, so having the debugger in the same context is important to me.

These things may all sound like excuses, but what I'm trying to convey is that vim can be a tool with which someone is proficient, but it's not the main one for writing code, and as soon as friction gets higher, it gets disregarded in favour of something else.
by rekabis | 2025-10-11 08:04:35+00:00
When the AI bubble bursts, it is going to utterly eviscerate GDP growth for a generation. Or to be more precise, the bubble is so large that its popping will take a generation - or longer - for GDP to recover back to the values it currently has.

From some of the data I have seen elsewhere, the AI bubble is many orders of magnitude larger than any other economic bubble in modern economic history. And it represents the vast majority of data centre growth, energy consumption, and server hardware production for the last few years.

It’s going to blow a hole in our western civilization unlike anything else we have seen to date.
by nippoo | 2025-10-11 08:04:41+00:00
One of the big things this article fails to mention is that TDP/heat budget is way more of a constraint than number of transistors - at small feature size, silicon is (relatively) cheap, power isn't.

There's no way you can use 100% of your CPU - it would instantly overheat. So it suddenly makes even more sense to have optimised hardware units for all sorts of processes (h264 encoding, crypto etc) if you can do a task any more efficiently than basic logic.
by blurbleblurble | 2025-10-11 08:07:06+00:00
IEEE 802.11bf is the one you're looking for as far as WiFi goes. 5G and 6G are bigger than 802 but have been quite "transparently" designed with sensing in mind, as in you can read 100s of industry publications about this.

IEEE has a whole working group for standards around this stuff: https://signalprocessingsociety.org/community-involvement/in...

Here's a paper about related standards: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/11142711

The paradigm itself goes back decades now. It used to be called "joint communication and sensing" in the 00s, and then it was called "integrated sensing and communications".
by lock1 | 2025-10-11 08:08:22+00:00
> Of course, in both languages you can write unidiomatically, but that is a great way to ensure that bugs get in and never get out.

Why does "unidiomatic" have to imply "buggy" code? You're basically saying an unidiomatic approach is doomed to introduce bugs and will never reduce them.

It sounds weird. If I write Python code with minimal side effects like in Haskell, wouldn't it at least reduce the possibility of side-effect bugs even though it wasn't "Pythonic"?

AFAIK, nothing in the language standard mentions anything about "idiomatic" or "this is the only correct way to use X". The definition of "idiomatic X" is not as clear-cut and well-defined as you might think.

I agree there's a risk with an unidiomatic approach. Irresponsibly applying "cool new things" is a good way to destroy "readability" while gaining almost nothing.

Anyway, my point is that there's no single definition of "good" that covers everything, and "idiomatic" is just whatever convention a particular community is used to.

There's nothing wrong with applying an "unidiomatic" mindset like awareness of stack/heap alloc, CPU cache lines, SIMD, static/dynamic dispatch, etc in languages like Java, Python, or whatever.

There's nothing wrong either with borrowing ideas like (Haskell) functor, hierarchical namespaces, visibility modifiers, borrow checking, dynamic dispatch, etc in C.

Whether it's "good" or not is left as an exercise for the reader.
by IshKebab | 2025-10-11 08:08:27+00:00
Yeah this thing has actual support for stacked PRs which Github has somehow failed to do for decades. If I ever need some self hosting thing I'll definitely check this out.

My only hesitation is that I'd want it for private use in a company, and it isn't clear to me how to avoid connecting your Tangled instance to the rest of the public network.
by yawaramin | 2025-10-11 08:08:52+00:00
This really depends on your server-side HTML rendering approach. I have a library in which I can do this:

node +@ Hx.swap_oob "true"

And this adds the `hx-swap-oob=true` attribute to the given node. It makes it trivial to add on any defined markup in an oob swap.

I get that many people prefer template-based rendering, but imho to extract the maximum power from htmx an HTML library that's embedded directly in your programming language is much more powerful.

https://github.com/yawaramin/dream-html/blob/f7928616b9ca1d6...
by MaxikCZ | 2025-10-11 08:09:25+00:00
Nah. You want to land, but you are really not shedding most of your velocity until after touchdown. What you gain by burning fuel is energy, and you can either bank it into altitude, or velocity. You must shed both to land, but not so for go-around. There you shed almost all of your altitude, but you keep most of your velocity -> you still have a lot of energy left. That's why on go-around you spool your engines and start climbing basically right away, unlike typical takeoff, where after spooling up the engines you are still earth-bound until you build enough velocity.

So you only ever really lost your "altitude" component of energy, not "velocity" one. You run your engines at TOGA (Take Off / Go Around = maximum thrust), thrust to gain mainly altitude, only increasing speed a little bit. Then on another approach attempt you use both the altitude and excess velocity bank again.

In flight, ~all your energy losses go to drag. Doesn't matter if you bank it into speed or altitude, both is exchanged to be at minimums (0 altitude above ground, lowest safe landing speed) at touchdown. If you produce extra energy in your engines, it has to go to either speed or altitude, which you then pull out again, usually by maintaining speed while lowering altitude while having engines at idle.
by vindex10 | 2025-10-11 08:09:41+00:00
If multiple services have multiple owners it becomes also a question of trust. You either validate one service that fits 80% of your requirements, or validate ten services where each solves one specific requirement.

Also, of course - economy of scale for the infrastructure / integrations between features. Monoliths are still a thing.

But yeah, I agree developer experience may be traded here.
by einrealist | 2025-10-11 08:09:45+00:00
That's the assumption and motivation:

> I wanted to create an architecture that minimized future work on both the admin app and the controller network layer. That way, the business could lean on its in-house development experience to make changes after the project.

From your perspective as a UI developer, you would need to update all clients (in the building) if something on the server changes, e.g. if a new button or game state is added. HATEOAS is a good architectural choice if you want to minimise the likelihood of having to change the client implementation.

I use HATEOAS as much as possible in my daily work. It is a good way to think about state, state transitions and what capabilities a client must have. That's the actual part of the author's motivation. It provides the "in-house development" with paradigms how to make changes.
by kqr | 2025-10-11 08:10:25+00:00
I want to write more about this, but it has been a really difficult subject to structure. I gave up halfway through this article, for example, and never published it – I didn't even get around to editing it, so it's mostly bad stream of consciousness stuff: https://entropicthoughts.com/root-cause-analysis-youre-doing...

I intend to come back to it some day, but I do not think that day is today.
by royletron | 2025-10-11 08:10:53+00:00
Meh I feel like this sort of misses the point. It's very cool technically but if the aim is to bring back a sense of connection to music then I'd say the execution is way off.

Music stores are struggling, if they go all that'll be left is Amazon and Spotify...

Here's my tip. Buy your kid a CD walkman, go to a music store once a month and give them a budget. If they're lost help them get started. If they make a choice they don't like then most stores will offer trade in. Eventually they'll even form a relationship with the store workers (shout at to Mark in Truck) who will give more recommendations. My son's even started listening to radio to get more inspiration and we pumped all of our money into the local economy...
by poisonborz | 2025-10-11 08:12:12+00:00
The industry, and at large the gaming community is just long past being interested in graphics advancement. AAA games are too complicated and expensive, the whole notion of ever more complex and grandiose experiences doesn't scale. Gamers are fractured along thousands of small niches, even in sense of timeline in terms of 80s, 90s, PS1 era each having a small circle of businesses serving them.

The times of console giants, their fiefdoms and the big game studios is coming to an end.
by amazari | 2025-10-11 08:13:33+00:00
So this is AMD catching up with Nvidia in the RT and AI upscaling/frame gen fields. Nothing wrong with it, and I am quite happy as an AMD GPU owner and Linux user.

But the way it is framed as a revolutionary step and as a Sony collab is a tad misleading. AMD is competent enough to do it by itself, and this will definitely show up in PC and the competing Xbox.
Ask HN: Is the developer of Modern for Hacker News here?
by blindprogrammer | 2025-10-11 08:14:49+00:00
I’m trying to get in touch with the developer of (Modern for Hacker News), link: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/modern-for-hacker-news/dabkegjlekdcmefifaolmdhnhdcplklo?hl=en

. If that’s you, please reach out—I’d like to hire you!

If not, I’m still looking for an experienced Chrome extension developer. Only HN users whose accounts are 7+ years old need apply.

Please comment or DM if you fit the criteria.

Thanks!
by dfe | 2025-10-11 08:15:24+00:00
It’s been a while but I’m pretty sure the Mach-O linker on macOS has exactly the feature you are looking for.

Basically there is a linker flag to produce a .o while maintaining relocation info.

This can then be fed into another linker later, but the important point is that internal symbols can be stripped, or even just remain internal through namespacing.
by xg15 | 2025-10-11 08:17:28+00:00
You could say the same about JavaScript: JS is "fast" today, even though the language itself is hilariously inefficient - but browser vendors invested an ungodly amount of work into optimizing their engines, solving all kinds of crazy problems that wouldn't have been there in the first place if the language had been designed differently, until execution is now good enough that you can even use it for high-throughput server-side tasks.
by protocolture | 2025-10-11 08:17:45+00:00
Yeah sounds very true.

I am aware of a datacentre, whose principal fibre bundle transits a fast tracked development area where theres always construction and always fibre cuts.

I am also aware of a wireless backhaul path with close to 2 weeks battery backup, running entirely off of solar. They only truckroll of they get consistent bad weather.

I used to maintain an absolutely perfect 25km link that only went offline due to wind twisting the mast the radio was mounted on.

I also have maintained an absolute dogs breakfast of a network where customers frequently lost connection. Like daily.

I had one fibre link supporting 1000 customers or so, that the provider admitted had so many joins they could scarcely maintain it. And to add insult to that injury, they mislaid the service id, and would always take an adjacent service offline while troubleshooting it.

The technology is rarely the problem, its the implementation.
by whatever1 | 2025-10-11 08:18:01+00:00
Yeah, I don’t recall a single original game from the PS5 exclusive lineup (that wasn’t available for PS4). We did get some remakes and sequels, but the PS5 lineup pales in comparison to the PS4 one.

Also, to my knowledge, the PS5 still lags behind the PS4 in terms of sales, despite the significant boost that COVID-19 provided.