MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by creakingstairs | 2025-10-05 21:17:02+00:00
One of the workers jumped off a building. [1] They say the person was not being investigated for the incident. But I can’t help but think he was a put under intense pressure to be scapegoat for how fucked up Korea can be in situations like this.

To be some context on Korea IT scene, you get pretty good pay and benefits if you work for a big product company, but will be treated like dogshit inside subcontracting hell if you work anywhere else.

[1] https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/society/society_general/1222145....
by Avamander | 2025-10-05 21:17:04+00:00
Any even remotely proper symmetric encryption scheme "can be broken" but only if you have a theoretical adversary with nearly infinite power and time, which is in practice absolutely utterly impossible.

I'm sure cryptographers would love to know what makes it possible for you to assume that say AES-256 or AES-512 can be broken in practice for you to include it in your risk assessment.
by ajross | 2025-10-05 21:17:09+00:00
> There's multiple stretches of 100+ miles of highway around me that have no supercharging capability

Genuinely curious where this is? It's not anywhere on the US Interstate Highway network for sure (OK, fine maybe there are a handful of 120 mile stretches here and there). There are holes in the middle of the interior west, but you have to work really hard to get 100 miles from a supercharger.

I mean, there are always legitimate criticisms to be made, but the breadth of the charging network is... quite frankly the best in the world?
by throw45678943 | 2025-10-05 21:17:27+00:00
My experience was that .NET programs were typically more tunable for greater perf than Java for many years now even if it didn't come free out of the box which generally is what matters with performance. The ability to optimise further what needs to be optimised means that generally you are faster for your business domain than the alternative - with Java code it generally is harder and/or less ergonomic to do this.

For example just having value types and reified generics as a combination meant you could write generic code against value types which usually meant for hot algorithmic loops or certain data structures a big win w.r.t memory and CPU consumption. For example for a collection type critical to an app I wrote many years ago the use of value types would almost half the memory footprint compared to the best Java one I could find, and was somewhat faster with less cache misses. The Java alternative wasn't an amateur one either but they couldn't get the perf out of it even with significant effort.

It also last time I checked doesn't have a value decimal type for financial math which IMO can be a significant performance loss for financial/money based systems. Anything with math, and lots of processing/data structures for example I would find .NET significantly faster after doing the optimisation work. If I had to choose the 2 targets these days I would find .NET in general an easier target w.r.t performance. Of course perf isn't everything depending on the domain.
by transitorykris | 2025-10-05 21:17:45+00:00
This Icon was a hunk of junk. The only value it provided were to the students with any sort of curiosity about how this frankensystem worked. It was only later that it was clear it took advantage of procurement processes in the most extreme sense. A pure embarrassment of technology, grifters, and government. We learned more from the PETs, Commodores, and after that the PS/2s.
by rossdavidh | 2025-10-05 21:18:18+00:00
Having worked in both startups funded by VC's (or wishing to be), and for businesses not part of that, the primary difference is in the attitude towards boring technology. Main Street is not really any better at seeing through hype cycles than anyone else, but they are less up-to-date on what is currently hyped, and they also are more likely to think that they hired the programmer to make technical decisions, rather than wanting to make those technical decisions themselves. They have other (often equally technical) decisions to concentrate on, in different areas, so they are wanting you to just Make It Work.

The downside is they are unimpressed with refactoring, updating to new versions, and the like. The upside is they are ok with you using boring technology that works, even at times when a VC-backed tech company would insist on something new and overcomplicated.

Also, the pay is ok, but honestly it's not going to be as high as in VC-backed employers.
by npteljes | 2025-10-05 21:18:42+00:00
In case of any service, the user needs to be able to move on. To me, that is the ultimate antidote to most of the ails services afflict, like lock-in, altering the offer, raising the price above a reasonable limit, and so on. If the user cannot, or can hardly move on, the pain is big. If the user is willing to adapt, services are an actual good deal. They can be enjoyed while they last, and the world is full of other wonders ready to discover, when they fail.
by bonoboTP | 2025-10-05 21:19:24+00:00
Peterson was firmly within academia and he got famous by putting his academic lectures filmed at university online. It's not some other thing. He taught in prestigious institutions like Harvard and U of Toronto.

To me it seems like you're trying to paint the picture of misguided goodguy academics VS outsider grifter meddlers. But JP is just not a good example of that.
by StopDisinfo910 | 2025-10-05 21:19:32+00:00
The issue here is not refusing to use a foreign third party. That makes sense.

The issue is mandating the use of remote storage and not backing it up. That’s insane. It’s like the most basic amount of preparation you do. It’s recommended to even the smallest of companies specifically because a fire is a risk.

That’s gross mismanagement.
by MBCook | 2025-10-05 21:19:57+00:00
I’m amazed it doesn’t feel snappier. It absolutely should. I have a 17 pro and have not experienced what you’re describing, nor did I when I was running 26 on my 16 Pro.

That said, there’s nothing wrong with the hardware. iOS 26 is buggy as hell and should not have been released. Full stop.

I heard on an apple related podcast I listened to that the hosts had heard from people inside Apple at 26.1 is what they actually wanted to ship and I guess it just didn’t make it in time.
by AdrianB1 | 2025-10-05 21:20:10+00:00
I think it is a wrong take of what he said. There are many cases when you can say no to small tasks or projects if you can prove they are low value and there are better items on the list. I do that all the time and none of my managers had a problem with it, in the past decade most of my managers let me pick what I want to work on because they know I can prioritize better than they can.

I never saw someone saying no without a reason and if there is a reason, then there is a discussion around it, one can be right or wrong about it but it is usually easy to clarify and move on. It is not the "no" or a spoiled 5 year kid, it is the "no" of an experienced professional that values their time and priorities.
by Lammy | 2025-10-05 21:20:24+00:00
QNX 6 was the first non-Microsoft non-Apple OS I ever used, even before Linux, and after trying and failing to pirate OS/2 Warp 4. It came on the Maximum CD with the March 2001 issue of Maximum PC alongside the “Alt OS” article in the same issue: https://books.google.com/books?id=yAEAAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PT53&dq=%...

So much '90s anime in those screenshots — super nostalgic!
by Esophagus4 | 2025-10-05 21:21:53+00:00
We already had efforts that bring change: the US Digital Services.

They were staffed by real professionals. Ex-Googlers and other tech talent were already working on these problems.

In contrast, DOGE was a bunch of 22 year old idiots someone found on Discord.

What have they accomplished? Other than mishandling customer data and finding some unused software licenses, it’s not clear to me.

The problem is everyone thinks solving these massive problems is easy - but it takes years of effort, inch by inch. But I guess DOGE is better for headlines, and that’s what people seem to care about.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Digital_Servic...
by dralley | 2025-10-05 21:21:55+00:00
> France spies on the US just as the US spies on France, the former head of France’s counter-espionage and counter-terrorism agency said Friday, commenting on reports that the US National Security Agency (NSA) recorded millions of French telephone calls.

> Bernard Squarcini, head of the Direction Centrale du Renseignement Intérieur (DCRI) intelligence service until last year, told French daily Le Figaro he was “astonished” when Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said he was "deeply shocked" by the claims.

> “I am amazed by such disconcerting naiveté,” he said in the interview. “You’d almost think our politicians don’t bother to read the reports they get from the intelligence services.”

> “The French intelligence services know full well that all countries, whether or not they are allies in the fight against terrorism, spy on each other all the time,” he said.

> “The Americans spy on French commercial and industrial interests, and we do the same to them because it’s in the national interest to protect our companies.”

> “There was nothing of any real surprise in this report,” he added. “No one is fooled.”
by tamimio | 2025-10-05 21:22:15+00:00
> Estonia follows the “once-only” principle: citizens provide their data just once, and government agencies re-use it securely. The next step is proactive services—where the government initiates service delivery based on existing data, without waiting for a citizen’s request.

I wish the same concept was in Canada as well. You absolutely have to resubmit all your information every time you do a request. On top of that, federal government agencies still mail each other the information, so what usually can be done in 1 day takes a whole month to process, assuming the mail post isn't on strike (spoiler: they are now).

I think Canada is one of the worst countries in efficiency and useless bureaucracy among 1st world countries.
by drob518 | 2025-10-05 21:22:16+00:00
Sure, it’s not coded the same way as your external ISA does it (like you said, lots of wide information), but the core is optimized for a load/store architecture with ops that generally execute in a single pipeline stage, and the big, complex instructions in the ISA map to multiple smaller micro-ops. But yes, it is NOT literally an x86 decoder wrapped around a MIPS or ARM core.
by 9dev | 2025-10-05 21:22:57+00:00
That doesn’t capture the full truth. Since Snowden, we have hard evidence the NSA has been snooping on foreign governments and citizens alike with the purpose of harvesting data and gathering intelligence, not just to verify their loyalty.

No nation should trust the USA, especially not with their state secrets, if they can help it. Not that other countries are inherently more trustworthy, but the US is a known bad actor.
by afdbcreid | 2025-10-05 21:23:41+00:00
> If the iterator abstracts the iteration away, it should also abstract over the modification.

That's no longer a simple iterator; it's a collection wrapper that represents in-iteration collection. It can be useful, and it is possible to write! But I don't think this is what programming languages should offer as their default iterator. Also, how do you solve the problem of mutation done through the collection without involving the iterator?

> Yes, but we don't forbid modifying other things, just because you could modify them by accident, because you want to modify them some of the time. Why does a[i] = ... needs to be prevented, but a = ... is fine?

I agree, this is not a strong reason on its own, but it strengthen the main reason.
by codingdave | 2025-10-05 21:23:57+00:00
Ignore hype cycles. Let the hype die down, and use tech when it has proven itself. Your run-of-the-mill business doesn't try to stay on the leading edge. When not working in the "startup" world, it becomes a good guideline that if you need to be challenged and informed and parse the hype in order to use a new tech... then you probably should not use it. Boring tech is stable tech.
by ajross | 2025-10-05 21:24:10+00:00
A typical CALL is a 16 bit displacement and encodes in three bytes. A RET encodes in one.

On arm64, all instructions are four bytes. The BL and BX to effect the branching is 8 bytes of instruction already. Plus non-leaf functions need to push and pop the return address via some means (which generally depends on what the surrounding code is doing, so isn't a fixed cost).

Obviously making that work requires not just the parallel dispatch for all the individual bits, but a stack engine in front of the cache that can remember what it was doing. Not free. But it's 100% a big win in cache footprint.
by crazygringo | 2025-10-05 21:24:36+00:00
> From the perspective of securing your data, what's the practical difference between a second country and an enemy country? None.

Huh? An enemy country will shut off your access. Friendly countries don't.

> Even if it's encrypted data, all encryption can be broken, and so we must assume it will be broken.

This is a very, very hot take.
by cweagans | 2025-10-05 21:24:49+00:00
I am very much on board with this line of thinking. Because things are still somewhat in flux, it was much easier to plan for excess cabling and have a place for that cabling to live in the rack so that things can be moved if needed. I'll probably re-cable it with cut-to-length cables in the future.

One thing that I haven't found a solution for though: I have a lot of USB and HDMI cable coiled up behind the Beelink boxes (for KVM connectivity). I've found the normal length cables (1', 3', 6', etc), but I haven't been able to find custom length cables for those specific connections. Do you happen to know anywhere I can find those?
by BrenBarn | 2025-10-05 21:25:15+00:00
I agree that this is a problem with how humanities is often (or at least sometimes) done in colleges, and I suspect it's a significant contributor to the animus directed at the humanities. There has been a blurring of the line between fact and opinion such that some professors think it is worthwhile to teach students about their or other people's opinions, as if those opinions had value in themselves in the way that facts do.

This isn't to say that opinions don't or can't have value, but just having someone say "I think X" or "Professor Blah thinks X" isn't in itself important by virtue of the content of X. This is especially true if the subject of the opinion (what it is about) is something that is rather far removed from the realm of fact. There is not really any meaningful sense in which a given text, for instance, "really does" instantiate a Jungian archetype or a Freudian urge or whatever. But I get the impression some humanities scholars think there is, that when they debate among themselves about such things, there is a "fact of the matter".

Not all humanities scholarship is like this, but I think the proportion has increased over time. To my mind what it misses is that the important thing about such humanistic opinions is not their content in and of itself but the ways such opinions are formed and what kinds of "evidence" can be found to support them. An alternative goal would be for students to read things, engage with them from their own perspective, and learn how to solidify and articulate their response, as well as (importantly) to elucidate its sources both in themselves and in the text (i.e., "my reaction to this story is X, and I think that because the story says Y but also I have had experiences A, B and C that led me to think about things in such-and-such way"). This is likely more valuable than simply being taught someone else's opinion.

I think this approach is sometimes shunned because it is perceived as navel-gazing or having students "just learn about themselves". But this perception may partly be due to a fear of acknowledging that what I said above is true, namely that opinions on such matters have little intrinsic value, and therefore the students' opinions are almost as valuable as those of more senior scholars.

All this is basically to say that I think the humanities could be perceived as much more "valuable" and positive if they shifted more towards the idea of "these are some ways to have a rich life, gain an awareness of other people's opinions and how to infer their sources, and learn how to extract a meaningful experience by careful attention to what you're confronted with in life".
by basisword | 2025-10-05 21:25:35+00:00
The problem isn't gambling. It's America's obsession with excess. There are always going to be people that get addicted but most people can enjoy it with limited downside if it's regulated properly, as it is in lots of other countries that have had legalised sports gambling for decades and more. Instead, sports in American have made gambling part of the broadcast and almost the point of playing the game.
by daxfohl | 2025-10-05 21:26:14+00:00
I think the workflow of translating English to Python, working in Python, and then translating Python to Rust sounds a lot more error prone than just learning Rust if that's your target language. Especially if other people are using different languages as their intermediate language. Idioms are different, best practices are different, patterns are different, and no LLM is going to be able to seamlessly go back and forth while maintaining perfect fidelity and also maximizing the performance benefit of Rust. And how would engineers even communicate with each other if each is seeing something completely different?

Maybe there'd be some opportunity at the small scale, like if you're only a Python person and need to make a small change to a Rust codebase, it might be able to give you some Python pseudocode, and you could maybe make some changes to that and it'd apply them in translation, sure, but you're still going to be on the hook for reviewing the Rust translation; it's not something that can be fully trusted and automated, and it's hard to see where this would scale beyond small code snippets that were easily translatable.
by FeepingCreature | 2025-10-05 21:26:22+00:00
Informed layman warning.

The tokenizer covers the entire dataset. It's basically just a fixed-size Huffman code, grouping together common fragments of letters- for instance, the 100 most common English words are probably all single tokens.

During learning, the model proceeds in roughly the same way a child would: it starts by grouping tokens together, learning the deep regularities of language such as "news[paper]" being more likely than "news[q77.bfe]". Then it incrementally assembles these fragments into larger and larger chains. Similarly , it first learns thematic groupings, such as "word" being more likely somewhere after "dictionary" rather than "stop what I was reading to get the dictionary out every time I encountered a banana assault hungry". Then it starts to pick up "patterns": "as a [baby|child|kid] I had no [idea|concept|clue]". At some point in this process it naturally abstracts concepts from languages: "as a child" starts being internally represented by the same neurons as "als ich ein Kind war".

Then some magic happens that we don't understand, and out pops a neural network that you can talk to and that can write programs and use tools. To be clear, this is the case before RL: probably these patterns are now widespread in the training data, so that the model already understands how to "complete the pattern" on its own. RL then does some magic on top of that to bring it from 20% benchmarks to 80% and presto, AI assistant.
by timschmidt | 2025-10-05 21:26:27+00:00
> I understand that Rust has basically no useful support for deploying shared libraries

Rust has excellent support for shared libraries. Historically they have involved downcasting to C types using the C ABI, but now there are more options like:

https://lib.rs/crates/stabby

https://lib.rs/crates/abi_stable

and https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3470
by raincole | 2025-10-05 21:27:05+00:00
There is no sign that we're dealing the problem properly or the society and political environment is prepared for that. Similar to climate change, it might be a solvable problem but (relatively) very little effort has been made collectively.

- Older people help each other: it's obvious, but the oldest demographic is not going to be significant healthier than what we see now without a lot of medical breakthroughs. The number of new dementia cases in the US are expected to be one million in 2060 [0]. Ironically, the only way to make "older people taking care of older people" even remotely sustainable is automation of most of the caretaking, so I never get the AI doomsayer.

- Immigration: the decline of birthrate is a global phenomenon. Which means if immigration is the solution, instead of a diversified cohort, most of the newcomers will be from few countries where population grows because other countries need influx of immigration as well. In no world it won't cause alt-right rise. What we call alt-right now will look center-left the next decade.

- Future technology and lifestyle change: yes it solves everything including climate change. It's basically handwaving and saying fusion will come tomorrow so we don't need to worry about replacing petro with fission, solar and wind.

[0]: https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/risk-fu...
by ironman1478 | 2025-10-05 21:27:18+00:00
It seems like it's just poor management. I understand they are not product lines, but a university has bills to pay. They have to pay people salaries, benefits, maintain those builds, labs, libraries, etc. The money to do that has to come from somewhere and in the hard times, the fields with the least likely chance of generating revenue to keep the university afloat will see hits. It seems like the university though has put itself in the hard times by taking on a large amount of debt: https://chicagomaroon.com/43960/news/get-up-to-date-on-the-u.... It seems like its less malicious and just risk taking gone wrong.

It's not that different in the corporate world. Lots of companies make bad bets that then lead to layoffs, but not always in the orgs that actually were part of the bad bet. I've seen many startups take on too much risk, then have to perform layoffs in orgs like marketing, recruiting, sales, HR, etc. even if those orgs weren't responsible for the issues that the company is facing.