MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by NoMoreNicksLeft | 2025-10-04 17:17:33+00:00
>Don’t you think it’s likely more of a pendulum?

No. For it to be a pendulum, it would have to be true that some little girl, herself the only child from a long line of only-children, who grows up in a society where people have only one child or more likely no children, all her role models being childless... her school teachers, celebrities, everyone she's heard of, that little girl would grow up and say "I want to be a mommy and have 5/8/12 kids!" And that's so absurd I don't know why you'd even ask.

Nor is it likely, as many of those with unearned optimism believe, that some "high fertility families" can just outbreed everyone and come out the other side of this. Their children become indoctrinated faster than they can have them... the Duggars aren't on track for 400 (20x20) grandchildren. Insularity doesn't help, the Amish only survive with their lifestyle as long as our lifestyle exists... it requires too much technology that they buy from us. They either would need to change and become like us, or revert to technology from centuries before after which their fertility plummets.

>Maybe the equilibrium is 5-7 billion,

What's the life expectancy in China? Find that number, n. In that many years, China's population will be less than half what it is today. Much less. You have no intuitive sense of the math here. The current generation being born will live until that life expectancy number, then die (on average). So the current generation being born right now will evaporate in that number of years... but the generation they'll start giving birth to in about 25 years, it will be only half the size. The older generations, almost all of those will be dead in n years, since they're way past life expectancy.

It's fucking bleak.

>Even if we drop to 3 billion, the world would find ways to go on, likely implementing policies that make big families more favorable again.

There are no policies that can incentivize this that are also affordable. How much do you think you'd need to bribe someone who calls themselves "childfree" to have children? Sure, everyone has a price. Is that $1mil, or $1bil? And sure, the US government can afford even the $1bil number. But the United States can't afford $1bil times the 500,000 births we need next year. And if the US can't afford it, how the fuck will Portugal or Taiwan or Australia afford it?

It's not that you're thinking unclearly about this. It's that you haven't thought about it at all. Because no one's ever rang the alarm bell. And why haven't they? They keep telling you that it's no big deal. This is human extinction.
by boothby | 2025-10-04 17:18:00+00:00
And now with the advent of highly capable LLMs, we don't even need humans watching and listening. The data streams can be captured, analyzed, summarized, for any behavior, mention, suspicion, or hallucination of undesirable activity. In a population inured to masked agents snatching people off the street domestically and semi*-autonomous drone strikes abroad*, our future doesn't look rosy.

* for now
by mooreds | 2025-10-04 17:18:15+00:00
I don't agree with everything in this book, Goliath,[0] but his main argument was that business monopoly and democracy are in direct opposition. And that since the 1970s we've chosen to enable monopoly again and again.

0: https://www.amazon.com/Goliath-100-Year-Between-Monopoly-Dem...
by estimator7292 | 2025-10-04 17:18:20+00:00
IDEs I think are a bit of a special case. Under the hood, it's constantly re-compiling and re-analyzing everything. That truly does take up a lot of memory and CPU. Probably not as much as if it were super aggressively optimized, sure, but still very heavy.

Full featured IDEs like this have always been heavy, as far as I know. It's only the pure-text editors without advanced full code analysis that can get away with low resources.
by 1dom | 2025-10-04 17:18:30+00:00
I came to the comments to try find a similar sentiment. I agree wholeheartedly with the author on everything apart from the bit about OO, where I feel the same as you.

What's the deal with this? I'm not an OO evangelist at all, but I often find myself using objects like you describe: as a mechanism to group related functions and data.

I feel there are people who see OO like a philosophy on how to architect stuff, and from that perspective, the idea of a "purely OO system" is perhaps a little unwieldy.

But from the perspective of OO as a low level tool to help group stuff in programming, as part of some other non-pure-OO system - it works really well and makes a lot of sense for me. I've often done this in environments around people who are outspoken anti-OO who either haven't noticed or haven't complained.

Am I a bad person, are you like me, are we idiots somehow?
Show HN: Managing multiple GitHub Actions workflows, a tool to centralize them
by fralps | 2025-10-04 17:18:33+00:00
Hey everyone,

I’ve been working on several projects recently, and one pain point kept coming back: jumping between multiple repos to keep track of GitHub Actions workflows. • Hard to see all running workflows at once • No easy way to get insights across repos • Constant context switching

So, I decided to build a small tool for myself — it ended up becoming Squidly.

What it does: • Centralizes all your GitHub workflows in a single dashboard • Lets you monitor and get insights (success/failure, bottlenecks, etc.) • Makes it easier to manage without repo-hopping

It’s still in early beta, but I thought it might be useful for others here too.

I’d really love your feedback: • Is this actually a pain you feel in your teams? • What features would make it truly valuable for you?

Thanks a lot — happy to answer questions and share more details if anyone’s interested
by dashundchen | 2025-10-04 17:18:58+00:00
Larry Ellison, major asshole and big ally of the current authoritarian regime:

"Citizens will be on their best behavior because we are constantly recording and reporting everything that's going on," Ellison said, describing what he sees as the benefits from automated oversight from AI and automated alerts for when crime takes place.

Ellison, Vance, Musk, Thiel, Luckey, Zuckerberg and many of the tech oligarch assholes want us to live in their surveillance state.

They're currently making good progress. What will you do to help stop them?

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2024/09/omnip...
by scottydelta | 2025-10-04 17:19:05+00:00
> You're thinking Chinese surveillance

> US-based surveillance helps victims and prevents more victims

— Garry Tan, Sept 03, 2025, YC CEO while defending Flock on X.

https://xcancel.com/garrytan/status/1963310592615485955

I admire Garry but not sure why there can’t be a line that we all agree not to cross. No weapon has ever been made that was not used to harm humanity.
by jandrewrogers | 2025-10-04 17:19:11+00:00
> The ability to make number types that were limited in their range is really useful for certain classes of bugs.

This is a feature I use a lot in C++. It is not part of the standard library but it is trivial to programmatically generate range-restricted numeric types in modern C++. Some safety checks can even be done at compile-time instead of runtime.

It should be a standard feature in programming languages.
by jlund-molfese | 2025-10-04 17:19:18+00:00
I agree! You have to also remember that, if you're the person pushing for something to be priority, it's your job to make it make sense to whoever is responsible for prioritization.

The easiest way to do that is to speak the same language everyone else is. Your product manager probably speaks in dollars (or euros, renminbi, etc). If you provide a good-faith estimate (ballpark ranges are totally fine) that increased test coverage or whatever your technical objective is will cost 200 dev hours, and save 400 dev hours on an annual basis, or reduce the rate of support tickets by 15%, or allow for X future business scenario to be supported or whatever, you'll generally have way better luck. My favorite "trick" is taking tech debt work, and framing it in a way so, not only do I not have to push for it as "tech work", but my PM will actually put it on the roadmap proactively because it just makes sense from a business perspective.

It also gets easier over time. You might get some skepticism at first, but if you have a history of delivering accurate estimates and results over months or years, you'll build trust with stakeholders such that what might've taken a round of meetings to convince them before, can now be a 10-minute conversation.
by daxfohl | 2025-10-04 17:19:28+00:00
Its easy to mix up "what seems easier to work with" vs "what's actually easier to work with". Pulling things out to config, splitting into microservices, additional layer of abstraction, rules engines, etc., they seem like they'll be easier to work with at a high level because it gets logic out of the core, but then when you're actually working with them, or worse, when someone else is working with them and doesn't have your context, now there are five places to go look for logic and deciding which piece needs changed, instead of just one obvious place.
by chuckadams | 2025-10-04 17:19:29+00:00
The wonderful thing about .reduce() is that it can compute literally anything. The problem with .reduce() is that it can compute literally anything. As for the rest of the morphism menagerie, I like being able to break up functions and pass intermediate results around. It's literally cut and paste with map/filter, with a loop it's rewriting. Yay composability.

That said, it's easy to get carried away, and some devs certainly do. I used to be one of those devs, but these days I sometimes just suck it up and use a local variable or two in a loop when the intent is perfectly clear and it's not leaking side effects outside of a narrow scope. But I'll be damned if I let anyone tell me to make imperative loops my only style or even my primary one.
by atomicnumber3 | 2025-10-04 17:19:51+00:00
I think you're absolutely correct and I think it goes one step higher level too.

As a staff engineer, it's very important to make sure people know you are not the code. The code is just a liability - as you said, it's legacy the second it hits prod.

I've found its best to position yourself not as on the side of the "code" but as a EQUAL PARTNER to leadership/product/whoever has power. It's often just a framing problem, too! You can do nearly the exact same things as if you were the BOFH. But just positioning yourself so that leaders see you as an ally in shipping product and impact, vs someone they have to bully to get approvals from on "just building the damn product." Makes it night and day.
Virtualizated DOM saved us from 1M+ DOM elements
by vinserello | 2025-10-04 17:20:22+00:00
Building Datastripes, our interactive data grid was our next biggest bottleneck. Every column has its own charts & stats, so the DOM was getting absolutely wrecked. And scrolling with 100+ columns was straight up a slideshow.

We ditched the default render and went full horizontal + vertical virtualization. We only render the handful of cells you actually see thx to tabler virtualized The performance went from literally unusable to buttery smooth.

This is the whole vibe for Datastripes which making heavy data analysis feel fast and light.

See how it feels now: https://www.datastripes.com
by marcinzm | 2025-10-04 17:20:24+00:00
I'd add:

Don't do things those with more political power than you manager don't want done unless someone with even more power publicly tells you to. That doesn't mean you do what they want done but simply that you avoid pissing them off.

Enemies are rarely worth making and the majority of managers will throw you under the bus to save their own skin in that situation.
by estimator7292 | 2025-10-04 17:20:45+00:00
Irrelevant because Spotify doesn't pay for, nor do they have to care about user's resources.

If a user doesn't have enough ram to use Spotify, Spotify doesn't care. That user canceling their service is lost in the normal user churn. Spotify most likely has no idea and doesn't care if resource wastage affects their customers. It isn't an immediate first-order impact on their bottom line so it doesn't matter
by justinhj | 2025-10-04 17:20:49+00:00
As a Zig adopter I was rooting for this because even though there is the official documentation and some great community content, it's nice to just kick back and read a well written book. I'm also very happy with other Manning titles; they have built a high level of trust with me.

To answer your question is it too early. My expectation is that the core language, being quite small by design, will not change that much before 1.0. Some things will, especially async support.

What I think we will see is something like a comprehensive book on C++14 . The language is not much changed between now and then, but there will be new sections to add and some sections to rework with changes to the interface. The book would still be useful today.

Not a perfect analogy because C++ maintains backwards compatibility but I think it is close.
by buzer | 2025-10-04 17:20:57+00:00
> The money has to go somewhere: Into another bank account, usually, which is easily traceable since banks by law have to know who they're dealing with.

Yes but you actually need to notice that it happened which requires them to actively monitor their transactions on all of their accounts. They then need to use their own time to report these transactions and wait for banks to resolve it. And that's just in the good case where bank doesn't dispute it. If they do, you now need to file official complaint with regulators or sue them. Former can probably be done by highly educated people by themselves (others likely need some legal help), in latter case you are going to need a lawyer. I'm not even sure if you are eligible to recover costs for those.

Why is this better than just not allowing pulls without explicit authorization by the consumer (SEPA Direct Debit) or just asking consumer to actually send the funds (bank transfer)?
by hysan | 2025-10-04 17:21:11+00:00
This mirrors my thoughts but as someone who has/is trying to bend KDE into a mac-like experience, there are other big road blockers to getting the same smooth workflow:

- the global app menu doesn’t work for most apps because GTK based ones yanked support and generally don’t implement it. With Firefox being the most commonly recommended browser and it still not supporting this, you have a glaring hole in having a unified UX in daily usage

- consistent and common shortcuts for main functionality. Having everything tied to CMD and being the same in all apps makes for a predictable UX. While you can achieve it with remapping (ex: toshy), I’ve found the experience to have just enough rough edge cases that it breaks me out of my flow constantly

- configurable 1:1 gestures and other non-keyboard centric accessibility features. At the end of the day, every Linux DE is keyboard centric. If you have disability issues that make it hard to stay on your keyboard, then I think macOS generally has the nicest feel (meaning lowest chance of hitting an edge case or bug). GNOME has stability but lacks the breadth of UX features while some other DEs have a greater breadth and configurability but lacks the stability

Overall, you aren’t going to ever get a truly mac-like experience on Linux because no one is specifically targeting the same UX design goals. You can try to tweak things endlessly, but you’ll end up spending more time working out bugs than actually using the system. If you plan to use Linux, be prepared to change your workflow and pick the DE whose design goals most closely match what you’re willing to adopt.

P.S. - I don’t mention aesthetics because I think everyone who brings that up detracts from the actual UX differences. At the end of the day, if you can match the UX entirely, then how the DE looks doesn’t matter. I mean look at how Liquid Glass is changing the look entirely. Yet the core UX principles are still the same and that’s what really matters (for those looking for a mac-like experience).
by dsjoerg | 2025-10-04 17:21:43+00:00
> the majority of all economists are Republican

citation for that please? quick Gemini work gives me the opposite so could you please back that up?

Federal Reserve Economists: A 2022 analysis of voter registration data found the ratio of Democrat to Republican economists at the Federal Reserve System to be 10.4 to 1.

American Economic Association (AEA) Members: Studies have found the D:R ratio among AEA members to be around 4:1 or 3.8:1.

Economics Faculty: One study reported that Democrats outnumber Republicans 4.5:1 among economics faculty at 40 leading universities.

General Survey of Economists: A 2003 survey of American Economic Association members found the voting ratio of Democrat to Republican to be 2.5:1.

https://www.independent.org/tir/2022-fall/political-affiliat...

https://www.independent.org/tir/2022-fall/political-affiliat...

https://www.independent.org/tir/2022-fall/political-affiliat...
by marcosdumay | 2025-10-04 17:21:51+00:00
What is disingenuous is claiming that putting a crazy punishment on the paper will change anything when absolutely nobody gets caught.

If you tear apart whatever guarantees human rights exist on your places just so your can impose unreasonable punishment to nobody, then don't act surprised when somebody else uses it against real people you sympathize with. (And yeah, if you are from the US or some other place where lifelong punishment is common, you should be fighting to fix this, not to add support to it.)

On the other hand, you could be pushing for those people being punished at all, by reasonable crimes that your law probably already recognizes or that could be added without rotting your society. But yeah, maybe that's too much.
by hombre_fatal | 2025-10-04 17:22:11+00:00
Spotify and Youtube Music on desktop are so bad (esp CPU) that I vigilantly shut them down the second I'm not listening to music which isn't something I've done wrt computer resources since I had a 10" Atom netbook fifteen years ago with 2gb RAM.

I'm sure they're no better on my iPhone but I don't even have the appropriate tools to gauge it. Except that sometimes when I use them, another app I'm using closes and I lose my state.

There's no pressure to care. Most users can't tell that it's your app that's the lemon. The only reason I know anything about my Macbook is because I paid for iStatMenus to show me the CPU/RAM usage in the global menubar that can quickly show me the top 5 usage apps.

This basic info should be built in to every computer and phone.
by a022311 | 2025-10-04 17:23:47+00:00
This is true, I don't like the fact that JS is needed either, but as someone who has used Unity as well, the current state of GNOME is much better in other aspects. As far as I can tell, JS was chosen to make it easier to extend, without requiring knowledge of systems programming languages like C, while also preventing all sorts of memory bugs which could crash the whole desktop (technically still possible, but harder to accidentally do).
by fxtentacle | 2025-10-04 17:23:55+00:00
I find it VERY weird that there's no mention of https://hackaday.io/project/176931-hp-printer-cartridge-cont... which is a CUPS-based 2D inkjet printer using the exact same print head and open source software and CERN license open hardware.

Most likely, that's also precisely the reason why this product uses a very old HP print-head. (The one from HP DeskJet 1110, released December 2014.) Because that one has been reverse-engineered already: https://spritesmods.com/?art=magicbrush&page=3
by aidenn0 | 2025-10-04 17:24:10+00:00
Who knows what will happen with at, but with e-mail owning your own domain is no longer sufficient to participate in e-mail federation. I have a domain, which I use for e-mail and multiple times per year I need to use gmail to get reliable delivery of e-mail.

My mom is even caught in a Kafkaesque bind with one company where they told her that to access her account, she needs to change her e-mail, as they refuse to deliver to domains registered with GoDaddy (yes, registered, regardless of e-mail host), but she can't log in without getting a security code to her e-mail.
by throwaway295729 | 2025-10-04 17:24:32+00:00
Yes! I’ve noticed that when people struggle to manage their emotions, it often comes out in a kind of jabbing or teasing way. It’s usually not really about the other person, it’s more a reflection of their own insecurities. For example, the guy jabbing his friend for being short is probably not that tall himself and may feel insecure about it deep down. There could be some unprocessed feelings around it. The genuinely tall person usually couldn’t care less. The thought of making that jab doesn’t really even surface lol
by repintel | 2025-10-04 17:24:51+00:00
=================================================

CTO / Founding Engineer | NYC | RepIntel.com

Founded by Oracle Cloud’s Program Director (EMEA) and a New York tech impresario.

=================================================

RepIntel builds field-intelligence software for pharmaceutical sales teams. Our platform turns Medicare, NPI, and claims data into optimized walking routes, live physician scoring, and actionable insights reps use in the field.

=================================================

We’re looking for a CTO or founding engineer to:

+ Take a functioning Python backend and turn it into a full MVP;

+ Own architecture and technical roadmap from day one;

+ Lead development as we scale into production.

=================================================

In early pilots, sales reps using RepIntel covered 40% more physicians per day without increasing hours.

=================================================

Learn more: https://www.repintel.com/careers

Contact: info@repintel.com

=================================================
by mooreds | 2025-10-04 17:25:02+00:00
Good analysis.

But the answer is, "kinda"? There are similarities, but the AI buildout is worse in some ways (more concentration, GPU backed debt) and better in others (capacity is being used, vendors actually have cash flow).

The conclusion:

> Unlike the telecom bubble, where demand was speculative & customers burned cash , this merry-go-round has paying riders.

Seems a little short sighted to me. IMO, there is a definite echo, but we are in the mid-late stage, not the end stage.

It's simply not fair to compare Lucent at the end of a bubble with Nvidia in the middle, and that is what the author did.

If you haven't listened to the referenced interview between Thompson and Kedrosky, I'd do so: https://www.theringer.com/podcasts/plain-english-with-derek-...
by cgearhart | 2025-10-04 17:25:04+00:00
I think there’s often a misalignment of incentives when annual perf reviews are judged on feature work delivered not quality. Engineers who spend any time polishing or finding and fixing bugs wind up rated mid, while folks who quickly crank out mediocre or bad code that does something new are on a fast track for promotion. This creates a current in the whole org where PMs, engineers, managers, etc., are all focused on new things all the time. Any quality work has to accompany a new feature proposal for traction, and the quality items in that project will never get cross functional support like the new feature work does.

This resource allocation strategy seems rational though. We could consume all available resources endlessly polishing things and never get anything new shipped.

Honestly it seems like the another typical example of the “cost center” vs “revenue center” problem. How much should we spend on quality? It’s hard to tell up front. You don’t want to spend any more than the minimum to prevent whatever negative outcomes you think poor quality can cause. Is there any actual $ increase from building higher quality software than “acceptable”?