MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by mike_hearn | 2025-10-14 14:57:36+00:00
But I disagree with your counterexample - Stanford may say they do this but I don't think they do given the evidence I saw. Or at least, you'd have to explicitly seek it out as a student to get such exposure.

So we're left with your anecdotes. Lots of people have such anecdotes. People saying "I learned critical thinking at university" are a dime a dozen, but their beliefs aren't evidence they really did.

I don't think this is moving the goalposts. Obviously when I meant "no evidence" I meant no evidence that could persuade someone who didn't agree with the proposition. Just saying "yes they do" isn't evidence.
by tliltocatl | 2025-10-14 14:57:38+00:00
You can use containers as a security measure, but I'd argue that if (when) it fails in a spectacular way (see e. g. abstract sockets for an interesting past issue) it's your fault and not a zero-day in the kernel as a sibling comment suggest. To put it a bit less harsh - containers are not just for security and containerization tools have to balance security vs usability.
by adrr | 2025-10-14 14:57:47+00:00
The third largest country by population in the world doesn't matter. So that means every country smaller than us could die off tomorrow and it doesn't matter so they can use as much as us. Also not a problem, its not like we don't have water problems and all our cattle have died off because of it or that 3rd most populous state is having coastal flooding issues thats get worse every year. Just install more pumping stations in Miami to solve the issue and we can switch from beef to eating soy products instead.
by notlisted | 2025-10-14 14:58:25+00:00
Philips 'unalived' any chances for massive future revenues when they killed off Natlab (in spirit, not just in name). Philips Natlab was the Bell Labs of the Netherlands, even Europe perhaps.

In 1989 Philips introduced a new financing structure that required Natlab to secure two-thirds of its budget through contracts with Philips' product divisions. This marked a major change from its prior model, where funding came directly from the corporate board.

Anything that wasn't "commercially viable" according to the penny-polishers with MBAs was abandoned. The dumbest move ever. Fundamental research can't be outsourced, and never has immediate commercial value.
by 827a | 2025-10-14 14:58:36+00:00
There is good anti-AI content. I love reading articles concerning AI's limitations and the negative externalities of a world where we're increasingly outsourcing thought, and maybe even taste and authority, to unfeeling, soulless, unaccountable computers. What does wealth disparity look like in a world of billion dollar infrastructure rollouts?

"HackerNews AI Slop" is not that. HackerNews AI Slop (tm) is "Dropbox won't succeed because its just a wrapper around SFTP". It is low-effort drivel written by people who know a lot about one domain (software), and that gives them authority to speak on all domains (marketing, macroeconomics).

I read and appreciate articles that leave a mark on my heart; that raise novel viewpoints, or that are researched extraordinarily well. Yapping for the sixteenth time "they spend so much money markets crashy crashy bad bad" is so deeply boring, just another parroting voice in the echo chamber of ideas that everyone already knows. Challenge yourself. Be original. An AI could have written this article.
by AfterHIA | 2025-10-14 14:58:39+00:00
Dichotomizing the world as either UNIX based or Windows is pretty myopic. I want the computer architecture Douglas Engelbart dreamed of. I want a realization of the ideas of Seymour Papert and Brenda Laurel.

We're still after 50 years using Xerox Alto clones fundamentally. What would a, "modern Alto" play like? What if we spent X,XXX,XXX's of dollars to create a, "in to the future time machine" like they did at PARC? What if the project had the high ethics of Bush and Engelbart as an operational paradigm?

...and yes Lisp is the best programming language. Suck it.
by kangs | 2025-10-14 14:58:52+00:00
to be fair, most of MTE's benefit is realized by having enough users running your apps with MRE enabled, rather than having it everywhere.

This is because MTE facilitate finding memory bugs and fixing them - but also consumes (physical!) space and power. If enough folks run it with, say Chrome, you get to find and fix most of its memory bugs and it benefits everyone else (minus the drawbacks, since everyone else has MTE off or not present).

trade offs, basically. At least on pixel you can decide on your own
by dapperdrake | 2025-10-14 14:59:32+00:00
Many people (myself included) seem to get the impression that software that used to run on MS Windows before version 11 doesn’t enjoy the same level if backwards compatibility and forwards compatibility like it used to. People were half-joking that Linux/WINE now runs some older games better than Windows 11.

The impression might, of course, be mistaken.
by dfxm12 | 2025-10-14 14:59:35+00:00
Trump only started at 49% approval rating and is currently at 40%. If you consider this as not having "dipped that far", it can only be because it was never high to begin with, although I think an 18% difference is significant.

The economy is great for oligarchs, especially those close to Trump. Congressional politicians generally serve the same masters. Regular Americans do not feature into the equation. We will not as long as the same people are in power. Regular Americans are, of course, feeling it. One spot is at the supermarkets. Food prices are up month to month and particularly year over year (moreso than the historical average).

https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ra...

https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-price-outlook/su...
by ameliaquining | 2025-10-14 14:59:36+00:00
A lot of attention has been given to securing the domain validation process. The primary defense is Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration, which Let's Encrypt already does and all CAs will be required to do in a couple years. The idea is that you run the check from five different servers on two different continents, so that compromising just one internet router isn't enough, you have to get one on every path, which is much harder to pull off.

Also, Let's Encrypt validates DNSSEC for DNS-01 challenges, so you can use that if you like, although CAs in general are not required to do this, there are various reasons why a site operator might not want to, and most don't.

There are two fundamental problems with DANE that make it unworkable, and that would presumably also apply to any similar protocol. The first is compatibility: lots of badly behaved middleboxes don't let DNSSEC queries through, so a fail-closed system that required end-user devices to do that would kick a lot of existing users off the internet (and a fail-open one would serve no security purpose). The other is game-theoretic: while the high number of CAs in root stores is in some ways a security liability, it also has the significant upside that browsers can and do evict misbehaving CAs, secure in their knowledge that those CAs' customers have other options to stay online. And since governments know that'll happen, they very rarely try to coerce CAs into misissuing certificates. By contrast, if the keepers of the DNSSEC keys decided to start abusing their power, or were coerced into doing so, there basically wouldn't be anything that anyone could do about it.
by Avamander | 2025-10-14 15:00:02+00:00
> If the traffic is not tamper-proof, no matter how "unimportant" it may seem, it presents the opportunity for manipulation. All it takes is one of the nodes in the path to be compromised.

It also ignores one really important fact that these pipes are not perfect, they do introduce errors into the stream. To ensure integrity we would still need to checksum everything and in a way that no eager router "fixes".

We want our bank statements to be bit-perfect, our family pictures not to be corrupted, so on and on.

So even if someone handwaves away all the reasons why we need encryption everywhere (which is insane), we would still need something very similar to TLS and CAs being used. Previous TLS versions have even had "eNULL" ciphersuites.
by hedora | 2025-10-14 15:00:06+00:00
The counterargument to this point is also incredibly weak: It forces you to have clean interfaces to your functions, and to think about where the application state lives, and how it's passed around inside your application.

That's equivalent to paying attention in software engineering 101. If you can't get those things right on one machine, you're going to be in world of hurt dealing with something like lambda.
by arielcostas | 2025-10-14 15:00:26+00:00
SSH fingerprints can also be provided via DNS with the SSHFP[0] DNS record, which coupled with DNSSEC and supposing you trust the DNS root and intermediate entities (whether that's IANA/ICANN, or alternatives like OpenNIC or Namecoin) allows you to check the SSH server fingerprints without HTTPS. At some point you probably need to trust someone anyway.

Or you can always get the fingerprint out of band. If it's some friend granting you SSH access to their server, or a vendor, or whatever, you can ask them to write the fingerprint on a piece of paper and give it to you, with you checking the paper comes from them and then checking them.

[0]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4255
by zz3 | 2025-10-14 15:00:33+00:00
Hi! I'm a little confused what the confusion is. Yes, talking about binary terms and using them as an abstraction and a summary is perfectly convenient, and can be useful, but that doesn't change the data. It's just a summary of a very complex system. The terms "female" and "male" have multiple definitions because of that. Here's an example from the dictionary:

Female: (1) Of or denoting the sex that produces ova or bears young. (2) Characteristic of or appropriate to this sex in humans and other animals. (3) Of or denoting the gamete that is larger and less motile than the other corresponding gamete. Used of anisogamous organisms. (4) Designating an organ, such as a pistil or ovary, that functions in producing seeds after fertilization. (5) Bearing pistils but not stamens; pistillate.

There's a few others, but that's why both males and females have both "male" and "female" sex hormones. They're different levels of abstraction. Yes, talking about these abstractions is very convenient for reproduction, that's why we created them, but they're inherently abstract. Just like talking about a voltage as 0V or "OFF" or "FALSE" when it's actually 0.12323V is perfectly convenient and useful.

I actually talk to several biologists on a regular basis, and this is all pretty standard, because mostly what we're doing is just talking about how science works and data.

Being dependent on multiple variables, having that many possible dimensions, makes the data a spectrum. We can summarize that data in arbitrary ways, including drawing an arbitrary line and sorting them into categories, but that doesn't fundamentally change the data. No one is confused when we talk about male and female hormones within an individual. If a person who presents as phenotypically female and considers herself a woman comes into a doctor's office and it's discovered she has XY chromosomes, no one is that surprised: we know about the SRY gene, we know about lack of testosterone receptors etc etc, we understand this is normal. Or if someone presenting as a woman comes in with a beard, no one is surprised. Hirsutism in PCOS is fairly common. We know men and women have both male and female hormones. Again, we know how all of this works, so no one is surprised. Talking about abstract concepts for reproduction is a useful model, but it is just a summary and an abstraction, and it does not change the diversity of human sexual development. Words and abstractions do not change actual biology. We change words and abstractions based on increased knowledge of biology. We can talk about abstractions until we're blue in the face, but ultimately it's only a useful way of trying to describe the actual data. Does that make sense?
by Woodi | 2025-10-14 15:00:56+00:00
I like Linux & Co and do not like Windows accounts etc but "MS wants you buy new computer" is anti slogan. We need new hardware ASAP!

' Problem is: hardware we want probably do not exists yet :) RowHammer ? Are new Intel cpu arch resistant to speculations or how better it is then HT? "Android GPU speculations" from todays news ?

That MS probably wants to bake two tings at once - some security and a lot of slavery - is totally different problem.
by olejorgenb | 2025-10-14 15:00:56+00:00
I don't think these are designed to "discovering" complex type inheritances.

They are designed for code which are more or less fully typed, as opposed to PyCharm which cobbles together a bunch of heuristics to try to make sense out of untyped code. An admirable quest, but not one I'm personally interested in.

And their insistence on only supporting this approach drove my entire team away from using PyCharm.

(From shallowly observing notifications on the 20+ typehint related issues I'm subscribed to, they seem to have kinda turned around and working toward fully supporting the python type system finally - possibly by integrating with one of the third-party type-checkers)
by sagyam | 2025-10-14 15:01:00+00:00
I have read and watched these articles and videos where people seem to have a problem with Microservice, Kubernetes, cloud providers, or anything that's not a PHP server sitting behind an nginx running on a $5 VPS. I have also seen the front-end analogy of these types of posts, where anything that is not written using HTML, CSS, and jQuery is unnecessary bloat. I will soon write a blog, which I think will cover more points and nuances of both sides. For now, here are some of my scattered thoughts.

- If deploying your MVP to EKS is overengineering, then signing a year-long lease for bare metal is hubris. Both think one day they will need it, but only one of them can undo that decision.

- Don't compare your JBOD to a multi-region replicated, CDN-enabled object store that can shrug off a DDoS attack. One protects you from those egress fees, and the other protects you from a disaster. They are not comparable.

- A year from now, the startup you work for may not exist. Being able to write that you have experience with that trendy technology on your resume sure sounds nice. Given the layoffs we are seeing right now, putting our interest above the company's may be a good idea.

- Yes, everyone knows modern CPUs are very fast, and paying $300/mo for an 8-core machine feels like a ripoff, but unless you are business of renting GPUs and selling tokens. Compute was never your cost center; it was always humans. For some companies, not being able to meet your SLA due to talent attrition is scarier than the cloud bill.

I know these are one-sided arguments, and I said I would cover both sides with more nuance. I need some time to think through all the arguments, especially on the frontend side. I will soon write a blog.
by 0xbadcafebee | 2025-10-14 15:01:10+00:00
Well disk (or tape) images are as old as 'dd' and 'tar', that's not the revolutionary part. If the disk is writeable the state is still constantly mutating, so you're fighting a war of attrition (it's configuration management at that point, which is terrible). But a read-only disk that doesn't accrue changes, and only needs a reboot to fix, that's the revolutionary part. Anybody who ran thin-terminals can tell you how reliable and easier to manage those are than a full-blown OS.

At some point in the future people are going to realize that every system should work that way.
by Huppie | 2025-10-14 15:01:17+00:00
The best I can tell you (from working with LLM's) is that... it's complicated.

There are moments where spending 10 min on a good prompt saves me 2hrs of typing and it finishes that in the time it takes me to go make myself a cup of coffee (~10 min) Those are the good moments.

Then there are moments where it's more like 30 min savings for 10 min of prompting. Those are still pretty good.

Then there are plenty of moments where spending 10 mins on a prompt saves me about 15mins of work. But I have to wait 5 mins for the result, so it ends up being a wash except it has a downside that I didn't really write it myself so the actual details of the solution aren't fully internalized.

There's also plenty of moments where the result at first glance looks like a good / great result but once I start reviewing and fixing things it still ends up being a wash.

I find it actually quite difficult to determine the result quality because at first glance it always looks pretty decent, and then sometimes once you start reviewing it's indeed the case and other times I'm like "well it needs some tweaking" and subsequently spend an hour tweaking.

Now I think the problem is that the response is akin to gambling / conditioning in a sense. Every prompt has a smallish chance to trigger a great result, and since the average result is still about 25% faster (my gut feeling based on what I've 'written' the last few months working with Claude Code) it's just very tempting to pull that slot machine lever even in tasks that I know I will most likely type faster than I can prompt.

I did find a place where (to me, at least) it almost certainly adds value: I find it difficult to think about code during meetings (I really need my attention in the meetings I do) but I can send a few quick prompts for small stuff during meetings and don't really have to context switch. This alone is a decent productivity booster. Refactorings that would've been a 'maybe, one day' can now just be triggered. Best case I spend 10 minutes reviewing and accept it. Worst case I just throw it away.
by like_any_other | 2025-10-14 15:01:33+00:00
> minorities

The UK has a population of 55 million whites. Bangladesh has a population of 171 million, Pakistan has 241 million, India has 1.4 billion, and China also has 1.4 billion. In the UK, there are more Bangladeshi alone than there are whites (all whites, not just British) in Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, and China, combined. Yet they are "minorities", while the people that will soon become outnumbered by foreigners in their own country [1] are the "majority".

The reason whites are unaware is because they are propagandized 24/7 to be unaware (including by their own state [2]), while you are encouraged.

[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/03/white-british-mi...

[2] Moffat even talks about the idea he mentions above — the excuse of “historical accuracy” that some people often give to justify an all-white cast — “[W]e’ve kind of got to tell a lie: we’ll go back into history and there will be black people where, historically, there wouldn’t have been, and we won’t dwell on that. We’ll say, ‘To hell with it, this is the imaginary, better version of the world. By believing in it, we’ll summon it forth.’” - https://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/moffat-on-diversity-in-doctor-...
by uhsarp1 | 2025-10-14 15:01:42+00:00
Google has made a terrible decision and their justification for doing this is just laughable. Already right now, if a user wants to install an unverified app, they have to explicitly allow it through settings. They could have moved this option in to the developer settings feature to make it harder for normal people to sideload but still allow developers to sideload. Also Play Store itself is plagued with apps with severe vulnerabilities.

Google has lost its consumers for good. This is really sad. I have no reason to buy an android anymore when I upgrade my phone in the future. At least Apple does gaslight us
by flanked-evergl | 2025-10-14 15:02:04+00:00
I don't think this is really true, I think native data classes can do just about everything you need, it's just that you need some tooling around them to get the same as Pydantic offers. I'm pretty sure we are going to see better native dataclass support in Pydantic going forward.

Already there is some support in Pydantic for native dataclasses: https://docs.pydantic.dev/latest/concepts/dataclasses/
by vivalahn | 2025-10-14 15:02:23+00:00
You can’t have any of this, literally, without manufacturing at home. You can’t do R&D of any sort if you don’t have the capability to produce things, to send an email or walk over to the company making it, speak with someone and have a consultation around what it is you hope to achieve because it’s the people who machine, who fabricate, who apply chemical treatments and layers of paint, who bend who etch and understand tool clearance requirements and so on that know this stuff. Manufacturing is a broad term.

I’m reminded of recent-grad architects whose proposed ideas are bereft of consideration of material properties and pitfalls.

I’m also reminded of Air Force aircraft engineers needed to be told their parts have to be adjusted because they can’t be machined. And the person who knows what needs to be done is Bob whose hands are covered in grease and oil because there’s not enough orange Zep on this planet to clean that guy.

To use China as an example: their entire pipeline from conception of idea to the end-customer is in China. They don’t even need to sell it externally (and frequently they don’t).

The West is fucked because they think pushing things around is being productive. GDP is a reflection of this failure because it’s a flawed, abused metric that’s devoid of where money actually ends up (most often it’s Chinese firms doing the work), so your GDP is looking great meanwhile you are incredibly unproductive over all. It’s a meme tool used for nonsensical political posturing.

Simply put: you can’t start R&D in the middle and not take into consideration a pipeline. It doesn’t work that way. People don’t have the experience or knowledge.
by ge96 | 2025-10-14 15:02:23+00:00
I think best thing I did with my phone is turning sound off, it doesn't make sound except my alarm, it doesn't vibrate either. Granted I don't have kids/don't work in a place that has on-call.

For computer I'm almost 100% on there all the time whether at work or at home, I can't handle silence. The present thing is funny, when the internet goes out I'm in the present like oh man what do I do.

I think going out and being in nature is good for being present. Watching the ocean/large body of water, huge field, being in a forest, etc...

It is funny how your mind operates where you're always in some state, it's 9 AM I gotta be at work, it's this time I have to do this next... that's what I aim for is not huge wealth (although that'd be nice stealth anyway) but freedom with my own time. Right now from dumb choices I'm burdened with debt so my main reason to continue living is just working to pay bills. Not saying that in a bad way I just realized that, trying to get passion back in something. And my cat gotta care for him.
by bluGill | 2025-10-14 15:02:50+00:00
Which basic. I remember Atari BASIC - which was a terrible language since the organization was line numbers. Visual BASIC looked a lot nicer the few times I saw it, but I have a total of 10 minutes of my life looking at visual BASIC and so I have no clue how it is in the real world. I do know Visual BASIC was used by a lot of untrained programmers who never learned why we have best practices and so there is a lot of bad BASIC out there - this isn't the fault of the language just the users.
by wat10000 | 2025-10-14 15:03:42+00:00
That matters in terms of what sort of punishment you're looking at, but I don't think it matters as far as whether the hospital's failures absolve you.

If you accidentally shoot somebody and then the hospital screws up and they die, should you be on the hook for manslaughter, or just negligent injury or whatever it would be called? I'd argue it should be the former. Death is a foreseeable consequence of your negligence even if it wasn't inevitable in this particular case. This seems similar to the eggshell skull rule. Wikipedia describes a case where a person was successfully prosecuted for murder after stabbing someone who then refused a blood transfusion and died as a result.