MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by jiggawatts | 2025-10-05 22:17:35+00:00
Much more rarely in my experience, having been at both kinds of organisations.

There’s a sort-of “gradient descent” optimisation in private organisations, established by the profit motive and the competitors nipping at their heels. There’s no such gradient in government, it’s just “flat”. Promotions hence have a much weaker correlation with competence and a stronger correlation with nepotism, political skill, and willingness to participate in corruption.

I’ve worked with may senior leaders in all kinds of organisations, but only in government will you find someone who is functionally illiterate and innumerate in a position of significant power.

Obviously this is just a statistical bias, so there’s overlap and outliers. Large, established monopoly corporations can be nigh indistinguishable from a government agency.
by AnimalMuppet | 2025-10-05 22:17:49+00:00
Yeah, this whole thing smells.

Who has the incentive to do this, though? China/North Korea? Or someone in South Korea trying to cover up how bad they messed up? Does adding this additional mess on top mean they looked like they messed up less? (And for that to be true, how horrifically bad does the hack have to be?)
by jameshilliard | 2025-10-05 22:18:18+00:00
> You were refuted in a sibling post. I am not sure what is unclear to you in that situation. Can you screenshot what you think is at fault? Because if it is that subtle, it isn't working.

If you don't recognize the obvious antisemitic tropes based on what I've already shown I don't think further evidence would change your mind.

> I think antisemitism is becoming a very elastic concept to neuter any criticism.

I'm sure there are some cases where that happens, but I don't think this case would qualify as it's far too overt.

> And, by the way, the Palestinians are a semitic people too. So it should be antijudaism.

You're now going as far as trying to redefine the normal accepted definition of antisemitism, this seems to me to just be another attempt at downplaying antisemitism for whatever reason.
by QuantumGood | 2025-10-05 22:19:21+00:00
Saying "no" can get you into trouble in a hierarchy. There are many ways leading to no without saying "no", such as:

• I'll look into it

• I'll see what I can do

• I'll review that right away

This isn't me saying "say these things", I'm just pointing out this is an age-old problem, and saying "no" inwardly is different than saying it outwardly. Various ways of inquiring about options are also commonplace.
by ForHackernews | 2025-10-05 22:20:33+00:00
There's a correlation that smart people study things they find interesting. As soon as it became clear that computer science was a money maker, you had a lot of students taking doing CS majors who weren't really interested in anything except making money.

Majoring in anything other than CS, engineering, finance, business, or biology (premed) is a signal for intellectual curiosity. Obviously there are plenty of students with real curiosity in those majors too, but there's also many incurious mercenaries.
by brucehoult | 2025-10-05 22:21:23+00:00
> thus putting a relatively bigger emphasis on code density.

> choosing "RISC purity" over code density is arguably the wrong choice

You appear to be under the incorrect impression that CISC code is more dense than RISC code.

This seems to be a common belief, apparently based on the idea that a highly variable-length ISA can be Huffman encoded, with more common operations being given shorter opcodes. This turns out not to be the case with any common CISC ISA. Rather, the simpler less flexible operations are given shorter opcodes, and that is a very different thing. A lot of the 8 bit instructions in x86 are wasted on operations that are seldom or never used and that could, even in 1976, have safely been hidden in some secondary code page.

The densest common 32 bit ISAs are Arm Thumb2 and RISC-V with the C extension. Both of them have two instruction lengths, 2 bytes and 4 bytes, as did many historical RISC or RISC-like machines including CDC6600 (15 bits and 30 bits), Cray 1, the first version of IBM 801, Berkeley RISC-II.

The idea that RISC means only a single instruction length is historically true only for ISAs introduced in the brief period between 1985 (Arm, SPARC, MIPS) and 1992 (Alpha) out of the 60 year span of RISC-like design (CDC6600 1964, the fastest supercomputer of its time). And, as an outlier, Arm64 (2011), which I think will come to be recognised as a mistake -- they thought Amd64 was the competition they had to match for code density (and they did) but failed to anticipate RISC-V.

In 64 bit, RISC-V is by far the densest ISA.

> Contemporary high performance RISC architectures (ARMv9, say) are very un-RISC in the sense of having a zillion different instructions, somewhat complex addressing modes, and so forth.

Yes, ARMv8/9-A is complex. However there is no evidence that it is higher performance than RISC-V in comparable µarches and process nodes. On the contrary, other than their lack of SIMD SiFive's U74 and P550 are faster than Arm's A53/A55 and A72, respectively. This appears to continue for more recent cores, but we don't yet have purchasable hardware to prove it. That should change in 2026, with at least Tenstorrent shipping RISC-V equivalent to Apple's M1.
by walkabout | 2025-10-05 22:21:41+00:00
The entire northeast has very little federal land. You’re looking at state parks and forests if you search up hiking destinations there, mostly. (Acadia’s the major exception)

CT’s absolutely covered in hiking trails, it’s crazy, you see pull-offs and road crossings constantly. State parks, state wilderness, and just about every town (equivalent of a county in other places; CT has counties, technically, but they don’t do anything, and CT “towns” can have multiple “villages” in them) has a land trust that manages even more wild areas, trails, and parks.

Wildlife includes black bears and moose(!)

Outside the little panhandle bit that’s basically one big NYC suburb, it’s a surprisingly forested state, and feels far more wild than lots of states that have lower population density but are covered in farms. CT farms tend to be isolated, not one butting up against another for miles and miles.

The northeastern quadrant is kinda dull but the rest of the state (the bit nearest NYC excepted) is really pretty. Very hilly, lots of trees, and the whole western third or so is a highland that’s an extension of the Appalachians. Follow that up a little ways, or a bit west, and you’re in proper mountains in MA or NY.

Also, the whole state’s the size of some “greater metro areas” for cities, so you can go from the beach to highland hiking in a day. California lite.
by TrackerFF | 2025-10-05 22:22:54+00:00
Shame, I just saw his gofundme a couple of days ago. I've owned and played thousands of guitars, that's pretty much how I earned money through college (I'd flip guitars basically). Parker guitars were really something, but definitely not for everyone - a Parker Fly Deluxe was by far the lightest guitar I ever owned and tried. Should've kept it, as they go for 3-4 grand these days on the used market.
by johnnyanmac | 2025-10-05 22:23:00+00:00
>For the most part they became destitute and at some point they died

Having opportunity doesn't mean they will seize it. I will concede that if you are disrupted and in your 50's (not old enough to retire, and where it becomes difficult to be re-hired unless you're management) you get hit especially hard.

But it's hard to see the current landscape of jobs now and suggest that boomers/older GenX had nothing to fall back on when these things happen. These generations chided millennials and Gen Z for being "too proud to work a grill". Nowadays you're not even getting an interview at McDonald's after submitting hundreds of applications. That's not an environment that let's you "bounce back" after a setback.

>Historically such excess has been dealt with by wars.

Indeed. We seem to be approaching that point, and it's already broken out in several places. When all other channels are exhausted, humans simply seek to overthrow the ones orchestrating their oppression.

In this case that isn't AI. At least not yet. But it's a symptom of how they've done this.
by edoceo | 2025-10-05 22:23:16+00:00
How could you not!? Think of the bragging rights. Or, perhaps the havoc. That persons could sit on this secret for long periods of time seem... difficult to maintain. If you know it's broken and you've discovered it; surely someone else could too. And they've also kept the secret?

I agree on the evidence/absence of conjecture. However, the impact of the secret feels impossible to keep.

Time will, of course, tell; it wouldn't be the first occasion where that has embarrassed me.
by alazoral | 2025-10-05 22:23:25+00:00
What I find is everything that I find interesting is cyclic, and so Rust has poor ergonomics for writing things I’m interested in. This is sad for me because it has the best compiler errors in the business. If I could get Swift with Rust’s compiler errors (Rust’s compiler in general is far better behaved) I’d be a happy chap.
by nowittyusername | 2025-10-05 22:23:57+00:00
I must say, at least for me personally when I hear about such levels of incompetence it rings alarm bells in my head making me think that maybe intentional malice was involved. Like someone higher up had set up the whole thing to happen in such a matter because there was a benefit to this happening we are unaware of. I think this belief maybe stems from lack of imagination on how really stupid humans can get.
by jcelerier | 2025-10-05 22:24:28+00:00
and yet client code can be incredibly simpler nowadays thanks to all these features.

I can write this simple struct:

struct Person { std::string name; my_complicated_date_type date_of_birth; };

and get serialization, network interop, logging, automated UI generation, hashing, type-safe IDs, etc. without having to write an additional line of code. Twenty years ago you had to write 2000 lines of additional boilerplate for each data type to get to the same place.
by DennisP | 2025-10-05 22:25:25+00:00
Which is why they set very wide ranges on the things we know little about. Doing that is less unjustified than guessing specific values, as people have usually done.

It's nowhere near a precise estimate of the probability of life. What it mainly shows is that the Fermi "paradox" is no such thing. It can look that way if we guess specific parameter values, but if we fully account for our uncertainty on the various parameters, then the result is a decent chance that we are alone, given the knowledge we have so far.
by ggm | 2025-10-05 22:25:56+00:00
Some say "of our dreams" but personally those aren't the words which come to mind in my case.

Maybe if I worked in aged care, where loss of dignity and safety issues are a huge issue, I could see this. I'm less sure a hotel is the longterm first exposure for most people for this device.

A pet version for dogs especially, but how you'd do ethics review (cortisol stress testing?)

All human related cleaning devices need a cleaning cycle. I'd want to know a lot about the cycle time between occupants and how the entire interior surface is .. decontaminated -aspiration would me a massive risk.
by ta1243 | 2025-10-05 22:26:38+00:00
> but it's really easy to set up a network to have dual-stack v4 and v6

Why do you need v4? because v6 doesn't work.

> NAT or port forwarding, both of which are terrible

Why? I assume you're still using a stateful firewall, so what difference does it make.

Normal source-nat has many benefits too, for example when you want to send some traffic via ISP1 and some via ISP2, controlled at the network layer, and you aren't BGP peering with them.

> Meanwhile with v4 I have to port forward all web traffic to one server, then reverse proxy it to its final destination

Or just use two IPv4 addresses. Personally I reverse proxy my servers anyway to have a single (well dual) point of control on entry at an application layer, ipv4 or ipv6 doesn't matter.
by leakycap | 2025-10-05 22:26:53+00:00
> How can I escape this cycle?

Possibly by coding with another person, if you can find the right person who can meet you IRL to work on it.

If it is useful and has a following, open-sourcing might create some collaborative energy?

I think you're confusing plans and action, too. You don't actually know what it will take to add the features users ask for until you do it. Your detailed plans are probably taking the fun out of what you should be doing when you sit down to code.
by pedalpete | 2025-10-05 22:26:58+00:00
I had forgotten that when I was raising money for my previous company, there was a great meeting I had with a VC. I thought we were going to raise. At the end he said.

"This was fun. All day long, I have founders pitch me these SaaS companies that have found this tiny arbitrage of a few bucks a month. It's so BORING. But at the end of the meeting, even though I don't care what the product is, I can look at a spreadsheet, and say, the market is X, they're making Y, can grow to Z, and I can make a decision to invest without thinking.

When you're creating a new market, I have to think, and I risk losing money. I like what you're doing, but from an investment perspective, I wouldn't touch you with a 10 foot pole, but it was fun to think about what the future might look like."

The thing is, I really appreciated his reasoning and honesty.
by vayup | 2025-10-05 22:28:17+00:00
A lot of folks are arguing that the real problem is that they refused to use US cloud providers. No, that's not the issue. It's a perfectly reasonable choice to build your own storage infrastructure if it is needed.

But the problem is they sacrificed "Availability" in pursuit of security and privacy. Losing your data to natural and man-made disasters is one of the biggest risks facing any storage infrastructure. Any system that cannot protect your data against those should never be deployed.

"The Interior Ministry explained that while most systems at the Daejeon data center are backed up daily to separate equipment within the same center and to a physically remote backup facility, the G-Drive’s structure did not allow for external backups."

This is not a surprise to them. They had knowingly accepted the risk of infrastructure being destroyed by natural and man-made disasters. I mean, WTF!
by hamandcheese | 2025-10-05 22:28:24+00:00
> Teamwork is fine, but when salaries and promotions are individually negotiated you have to look after number one.

I have the highest rank and salary on my team. I am more than happy to send high visibility work to my aspiring team mates. What goes around comes around, if not in the form of immediate salary then in the form of connections and references down the road (which is a much bigger driver of salary and rank anyway).

Playing a zero-sum game at work at the expense of your colleagues is penny wise, pound foolish, even if you truly do only care about yourself.
by hollandheese | 2025-10-05 22:28:26+00:00
The wealthy aren't supporting left candidates. They are supporting Democratic candidates. These Democratic candidates fully believe in capitalism and support the same things that the wealthy support.

Some in the working-class support Trump for cultural issues since no one supports their economic issues.

It's quite easy to understand when you stop looking at what the politicians tell the rubes and see what they actually do.
by cweagans | 2025-10-05 22:28:41+00:00
> For those not keeping count, total hardware spend is in the 13k-20k USD ballpark, by my count.

Yep! Right around the $13.5k mark.

> This homelab does seem compute focused, which might be right for OP but is normally a mistake that people make when they build their first homelab.

Very compute focused for the specific projects that I intend to work on.

> I'm wondering what OP's home internet bandwidth is. It seems odd to have so much compute behind a network bottleneck unless OP has high-compute-small-output workloads (ml training, data searching/analysis, NOT video encoding)

1gbps symmetric + a failover Starlink connection. Not a ton of large output workloads at the moment.

> However, keep in mind that a single machine will make it hard to tinker with large parts of the stack.

Very much in agreement here. This is one of the reasons I went with multiple machines.

> I'm willing to pay a premium on compute to have less commitment and physical footprint.

I also like this mindset, but my other hobbies are piano (and I'm very sensitive to the way that the keys are weighted, so I prefer playing a real grand piano vs a portable/mini electronic piano) and woodworking (even more bulky equipment), so I'm already pretty committed to putting down roots.
by ta1243 | 2025-10-05 22:30:08+00:00
I made a deliberate choice to see if ipv6 was ready. I don't need ipv6, I do need ipv4. ipv6 doesn't work, ipv4 does.

The alternative (dual stack) is more work for no reason.

If ipv6 ever works then great.

I built a test ipv6 network for work but a lot of equipment simply didn't support it, and of that which did our suppliers said "well it might work but nobody actually uses it so we don't know"

It's a solution to a problem which was solved in a more backwards compatible way decades ago. It would be lovely if it worked, but it still doesn't.
by lucb1e | 2025-10-05 22:30:29+00:00
You're assuming that this needs to protect...

> ... a countries' government entire data?

But the bulk of the data is "boring": important to individuals, but not state security ("sorry Jiyeong, the computer doesn't know if you are a government employee. Apologies if you have rent to make this month!")

There likely exists data where the risk calculation ends up differently, so that you wouldn't store it in this system. For example, for nuke launch codes, they might rather lose than loose them. Better to risk having to reset and re-arm them than to have them hijacked

> Is encryption, [in?] any form, really reliable protection

There's always residual risk. E.g.: can you guarantee that every set of guards that you have watching national datacenters is immune from being bribed?

Copying data around on your own territory thus also carries risks, but you cannot get around it if you want backups for (parts of) the data

People in this thread are discussing specific cryptographic primitives that they think are trustworthy, which I think goes a bit deeper than makes sense here. Readily evident is that there are ciphers trusted by different governments around the world for their communication and storage, and that you can layer them such that all need to be broken before arriving at the plain, original data. There is also evidence in the Snowden archives that (iirc) e.g. PGP could not be broken by the NSA at the time. Several ciphers held up for the last 25+ years and are not expected to be broken by quantum computers either. All of these sources can be drawn upon to arrive at a solid choice for an encryption scheme
by gremlinunderway | 2025-10-05 22:31:10+00:00
What? The author isn't claiming they were abused or a victim of abuse. Abuse is only mentioned through one specific story, which was from a friend:

> In one case, GPS was used to first construct an inaccurate and accusatory narrative about a partner’s behavior that nitpicked the details [...] and then to show up unannounced to physically confront them.

I mean, this very much does sound like abuse. What are you going on about and what is your issue with the post?
by palata | 2025-10-05 22:31:46+00:00
To me, a big reason is that people who don't understand how it works have a say in how it should be done.

It's not the case in traditional engineering fields: when you build a dam, the manager cannot say "hmm just use half as much concrete here, it will be faster and nobody will realise". Because people can go to jail for that. The engineers know that they need to make it safe, and the managers know that if the engineers say "it has to be like that for safety", then the manager just accepts it.

In software it's different: nobody is responsible for bad software. Millions of people need to buy a new smartphone because software needs twice as much RAM for no reason? Who cares? So the engineers will be pushed to make what is more profitable: often that's bad software, because users don't have a clue either.

Normal people understand the risks if we talk about a bridge or a dam collapsing. But privacy, security, efficiency, not having to buy a new smartphone every 2 years to load Slack? They have no clue about that. They just want to use what the others use, and they don't want to pay for software.

And when it's not that, it's downright enshittification: users don't have a choice anymore.
by jacquesm | 2025-10-05 22:32:03+00:00
> Having opportunity doesn't mean they will seize it.

Well, in that sense everybody has opportunity. But I know quite a few people who definitely would not survive their line of employment shutting down. A lot of them have invested decades in their careers and have life complications, responsibilities and expenses that stop them from simply 'seizing opportunity'. For them it would be the end of the line, hopefully social security would catch them but if not then I have no idea how they would make it.
by tredre3 | 2025-10-05 22:33:02+00:00
The 10MM figure might be a falsehood, but I think that you're falling for the same thing previous generations have fallen for: Assume that because it worked out for you, it will work out the same for the current generation.

I'm not sure that it's an accurate view of reality this time. And to be clear I'm older than you, so this isn't me being a doomer and throwing my hands in the air about my own future. This is me noticing that if I myself can't afford a house in my city, how is the younger generation supposed to do it? They simply can't, not after only 5yrs of savings at least. Not even if they cut down on avocado toasts.
by me-vs-cat | 2025-10-05 22:34:11+00:00
Are you thinking of a specific model? What model?

All models I personally experienced came with ink cartridges containing less ink than replacement cartridges. I participated in a ton of ink cartridge refilling during 1998-2007.

For most consumers back then, I could easily imagine that it was still more cost effective to buy new printers (with partial cartridges) than it was to buy replacements.
by detourdog | 2025-10-05 22:34:17+00:00
I think the slabness of form that inhabits current design is a great opportunity. I see it as way to embed sophisticated technology that a small firm could never develop on our own. I’m optimistic that very unique form factors catering too hyper specific tasks is right around the corner. I’m 1991 BSID graduate from the now defunct University of the Arts. I feel technology is finally achieving the promise of the 1990’s promise.
by xoa | 2025-10-05 22:34:22+00:00
>Using encryption, which is known to have backdoors and is vulnerable to nation state cracking?

WTF are you talking about? There are absolutely zero backdoors of any kind known to be in any standard open source encryption systems, and symmetric cryptography 256-bits or more is not subject to cracking by anyone or anything, not even if general purpose quantum computers are doable and prove scalable. Shor's algorithm applies to public-key not symmetric, where the best that can be done is Grover's quantum search for a square-root speed up. You seem to be crossing a number of streams here in your information.
by johnfn | 2025-10-05 22:34:35+00:00
The article has interesting data. But it’s frustrating to read AI generated text like this:

> Performance Optimization: Reducing processing overhead while maintaining accuracy

What on earth does it mean that this “optimized performance”? This is nonsensical content. Performance wasn’t even measured, accuracy was. You can tell this was AI generated because “ Reducing processing overhead while maintaining accuracy” would likely be true for a perf optimization, but it has no meaning whatsoever in the context of the article.

This really throws into question whether I can take the rest of the article and data seriously.