MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by brailsafe | 2025-10-09 00:15:12+00:00
My pixel 7 seems to have fully died out of the blue while charging two days ago, using a USB-C I thought might be getting a little flaky (connected to my mac, I'd occasionally get repeating disconnects). I wonder if something along these lines could be the culprit.

I picked it up to find it had shut itself off, and now won't accept any charge, wireless or wired from any combination of power sources and cables. No signs of life at all.
by dreamcompiler | 2025-10-09 00:15:19+00:00
...and keep in mind that our self-hosted Confluence instance is several years old and since someone finds a new Confluence vulnerability every three days the data you need may vector some malware to your machine so you probably should only look at the docs on a sandboxed VM. Atlassian has been bugging us to convert to cloud hosting for 5 years and management won't let us but that's another story.
by technothrasher | 2025-10-09 00:15:45+00:00
That must have been a while ago. The last time I encountered a "valet only" parking lot, I told the 20-something valet it was a manual, and his face turned white, he paused for a few seconds, and then he said, "go ahead, you can park it yourself."

> a state of disrepair I have become accustomed to with older British vehicles.

Figures. You MG owners! Did you have a hammer with you for when the points in the fuel pump needed smacking? ;) I drove a '65 Triumph Spitfire for about five years back in the early 00's and it was reliable as a top (after I repaired all the hack work that previous owners had done to it).
by ricardobeat | 2025-10-09 00:15:48+00:00
I meant the actual React code: handling the click event, running the component code, resolving dependencies and running hooks, building the virtual dom then handing off to react-dom for reconciliation, scheduling updates, and finally modifying the DOM. Not your application code.

The async comment was to point out that if you attach a breakpoint to your `onclick` handler, you will reach 'the end' of execution after less than a hundred function calls. But the actual work (see above) inside react and react-dom hasn't even started, as it's pushed to a queue. This may give the impression that far less code is running than actually is.

This is still in context of "you can read through the library's codebase and understand what it's doing fairly easily"; so yes, it's specific to React being very complex vs something like htmx, which most devs could understand in its entirety in one afternoon.
by jacquesm | 2025-10-09 00:16:42+00:00
Depends on how you configure the whole thing. You could add another XEON and not spin down the drives and it would consume quite a bit of power, of you can put it to sleep and conserve but there is of course a spin-up price to that when you need it.

It will definitely consume a few hundred Watts, and when you pack it full of drives it will be more than that. But that's kind of logical. A Synology would not consume that much power but it would also be far slower and have less capacity.
by moreice | 2025-10-09 00:16:54+00:00
No, it will not affect you. The above post is mostly correct, but it's misleading because it's from the perspective of a trader trying to make short term profits. But most of us are considered investors, we periodically buy/sell low volume of liquid ETF/funds/stocks and hold our positions for years. Market makers do collect a tiny premium for every trade, but it's irrelevant for the time horizon that investors are concerned with.
by rstuart4133 | 2025-10-09 00:18:01+00:00
I would not have believed it, but now looking like Ukraine could win it's war against Russia: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2025/10/07/drones-target-oil-...

"Win" here doesn't mean military victory over Russia. It means Ukraine's slow destruction of of Russia's oil and gas infrastructure and the West's sanctions make it too expensive for Russia to continue, so they withdraw from Ukraine and Crimea.

What a difference just 4 years the accelerated pace of technological development makes that happens in war makes. 4 years ago, Ukraine would have ended without the influx of Western weapons. Now the West looks at the Ukrainian battle fields, and ponders the relevance of their weapons against a $10k drone, made in Ukraine.
by tracker1 | 2025-10-09 00:18:02+00:00
She is trying to use the TikTok streaming studio, or whatever it is called... I tried to get the Android version running via Waydroid and tried the WinBoat setup. Neither worked and after a couple hours of trying and the nagging, I just installed Windows 11 again as requested and handed the laptop back. I'm no longer tech support for that device.

Later found out, could have done some rigging to get OBS working with it, but I think that would have been too far beyond her comfort zone anyway. Having to run a shell script to plug into OBS on top of using OBS itself. (Going to avoid further ranting and stop now)

Edit: to be clear, I didn't get the app installed in WinBoat as I didn't get passed the limitation that Edge wouldn't load properly. Just with that hiccup I determined it was unfit for her usage... that isn't even getting into the potential issue(s) with mic/camera access.
by tyleo | 2025-10-09 00:18:12+00:00
It doesn’t cover every protected class. You can look them up.

> This "ackchyually" behavior from HN is so bizarre.

Folks generally want to discuss the facts here, not hyperbole. The headline is hyperbolic. The fact is that Apple isn’t saying ICE is a “protected class”. The content of the article doesn’t even back this point up.
by anyfoo | 2025-10-09 00:19:04+00:00
Not really, or at least not that I know if in the case of arm64. What you have is calling conventions that specify what one function/procedure/whatever can expect both from the caller and the callee's side.n I.e. some registers are caller-saved, some are callee-saved, which basically means the called function can treat them as "scratch".

Additionally, they call out interactions with the OS/execution environment. For example, x18 is the "platform register", and it's unspecified what the OS does with it. It's entirely possible that it clobbers it on context switch or during an interrupt or whatever. So don't use that one unless you have a contract with the OS itself.

But locally, i.e. "from instruction to instruction", no such convention exists to my knowledge, and you probably don't want to have registers that pseudo-instructions might trash inadvertently in general, because it means you can't optimally use these registers.

It's possible for pseudo-instructions or generally macros to be documented as, e.g., "this macro uses x3 as a temporary register and trashes it", but in my experience most macros that need additional temporary registers actually ask you to specify them as part of the macro invocation.

E.g. suppose you have a macro "weirdhash" that takes two registers and saves some kind of hash of them in a third register, but that also needs an extra register to perform its work. You would call it with:

weirdhash x9, x10, x11, x0

Where x0 would be the scratch register you don't care about.
by gruez | 2025-10-09 00:19:58+00:00
For an interesting interpretation of the recent AMD-OpenAI deal, see Matt Levine's column from a few days ago:

> OpenAI: We would like six gigawatts worth of your chips to do inference.

> AMD: Terrific. That will be $78 billion. How would you like to pay?

> OpenAI: Well, we were thinking that we would announce the deal, and that would add $78 billion to the value of your company, which should cover it.

> AMD: …

> OpenAI: …

> AMD: No I’m pretty sure you have to pay for the chips.

> OpenAI: Why?

> AMD: I dunno, just seems wrong not to.

> OpenAI: Okay. Why don’t we pay you cash for the value of the chips, and you give us back stock, and when we announce the deal the stock will go up and we’ll get our $78 billion back.

> AMD: Yeah I guess that works though I feel like we should get some of the value?

> OpenAI: Okay you can have half. You give us stock worth like $35 billion and you keep the rest.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2025-10-06/ope...

https://archive.is/tS5sy
by credit_guy | 2025-10-09 00:20:32+00:00
I don't understand why they are calling these deals circular. OpenAI is buying Nvidia and AMD chips. Oracle is also buying Nvidia chips. OpenAI is buying datacenters from Oracle, which will be powered by the chips Oracle buys from Nvidia. This is one directional: hardware makers (Nvidia and AMD) sell either to datacenter makers (Oracle), or to AI firms (like OpenAI). That's it. No circular deals.

But "circular deals" has such a nice ring to it, that you hear it everywhere nowadays. People are just hungry for negative soundbites.
by bilbo0s | 2025-10-09 00:23:24+00:00
>that’s why I think open-source models will still come out ahead in the long term

In what data centers would these open models be run such that copyright laws will not apply?

Serious question. Trying to figure all this out.

Is it that you think people will run the models on their own laptops or phones? Or will there be some offshore municipality where the models can be served from that is out of the reach of copyright laws? Do you have another idea in mind entirely? How are you thinking on all this?
by anyfoo | 2025-10-09 00:24:25+00:00
Oh yeah. S/360 assembly almost looks like a high level language sometimes. In MVS, functions of the OS and standard libraries (or its equivalent) were implemented as elaborate macros, with their own invocation syntax, whereas nowadays you'd expect a function that you'd call (dynamically linked or not), with parameters passed in registers.

At least in the 90s, there were actually macro assemblers that supported OOP programming in assembly. Borland Turbo Assembler 5.0 comes to mind, if was kind of fun.
by hinkley | 2025-10-09 00:24:47+00:00
You already don’t have a choice. The reason we are all in the cloud is that hardware stopped scaling properly vertically and had to scale horizontally, and we needed abstractions that kept us from going insane doing that.

If you really want to dumb down what I’m suggesting, it’s is tantamount to blade servers with a better backplane, treating the box as a single machine instead of a cluster. If IPC replaces a lot of the RPC, you kick the Amdahl’s Law can down the road at least a couple of process cycles before we have to think of more clever things to do.

We didn’t have any of the right tooling in place fifteen years ago when this problem first started to be unavoidable, but is now within reach, if not in fact extant.
by tyleo | 2025-10-09 00:26:22+00:00
It’s a bit funny because even the comment is a bit of a language game

> This "ackchyually" behavior from HN is so bizarre.

At any rate, I don’t usually care for precision but this case seems particularly egregious and can actually cause misunderstanding. At least, I misunderstood what the article was about from reading the headline.
by vacuity | 2025-10-09 00:26:55+00:00
At its core, it's not too distinct from, say, seL4, but some of the distinctions are useful. I think Hongmeng's work on isolation classes (particularly in transferring components across classes), a performance-motivated partial alternative to capabilities, OS service coalescing and partitioning, and porting Linux drivers are valuable (see sections 4.2-4.4 and 5 [0]). It's not that these changes should be accepted wholesale, but I think they are a useful data point for alternate designs. I think the emphasis on access control (capability) performance and driver coverage are relevant for any production-grade microkernel.

I don't like the paging optimization described in section 4.5 [0]. It seems like a lot of added complexity for unequal gain.

In general, the authors make many good observations on the current designs of microkernels, particularly how the proliferation of small processes harms performance. Based on my reading of this paper and many others, I think there are some pragmatic considerations for building microkernel-based systems. The granularity of processes should be curtailed when performance is critical. Security is a spectrum, and such a system can still be more secure than the status quo. Limited kernels should be colocated next to processes again, not always across address spaces (since Meltdown), deferring to a cross-address space kernel on the harder-to-secure paths. If a process has a timer capability, and likely will for its remaining lifespan, an optimization could have a stub kernel accepting timer syscalls and forwarding the rest. Lastly, and this is a broader problem in most software, both code and state must be located in their proper places[1]. Use Parnas' criteria [2] for modular programming. If you believe in the power of the concept of microkernels, I have this to sell you; I believe it's even more basic and necessary. It's probably one of the most fundamental concepts we have on how to write good code.

[0] https://www.usenix.org/system/files/osdi24-chen-haibo.pdf [1] https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3064176.3064205 [2] https://wstomv.win.tue.nl/edu/2ip30/references/criteria_for_...
by squirrellous | 2025-10-09 00:27:25+00:00
I think the article glossed over a bit about how to interpret the table and the formula. The formula is only correct if you take into account the memory hierarchy, and think of N as the working set size of an algorithm. So if your working set fits into L1 cache, then you get L1 cache latency, if your working set is very large and spills into RAM, then you get RAM latency, etc.
by dfe | 2025-10-09 00:27:26+00:00
OS/2 did offer a lot of value beyond just running Windows software. The WPS (Workplace Shell) is to this day one of the better desktop UIs. It brought a lot of the classic Macintosh feel to the PC world and improved upon it. Where Windows only vaguely looked like a Macintosh, OS/2 had things like a spatial filer so it felt a lot more like a Macintosh on steroids. It had neat ideas like "template files" and a bunch of other stuff I can't even remember.

On the non-GUI front it had a better command processor, CMD.EXE, which is a precursor to the Windows NT one. It had an actually decent scripting language (REXX). It had a better filesystem (HPFS).

It was also incredibly good at running DOS games of the era, while comfortably multitasking in the background, including serial port and network usage. You could be downloading something while fragging some demons in Doom. You could also pause the game at any time and switch back to the desktop, then go back and resume.

The thing that was different between OS/2 and Linux + WINE is the engineering approach. IBM had a license to use actual DOS and Windows code, at least until they cancelled the JDA (Joint Development Agreement) contract with Microsoft in 1990. Even after they cancelled, they still had rights to everything from before, which included Windows 3.0.

In order to avoid having to pay Microsoft a royalty on the Windows portions of OS/2, which they had to pass along in the retail price, they even released a variant of OS/2 version 2.1 called "OS/2 for Windows" which took your existing Windows 3.x, the one that you almost certainly already paid for as part of your computer, and binary patched it to work under OS/2. There was some grousing when Windows 3.11 came out and broke it, but IBM issued a patch.

So, in essence, they were able to market OS/2 less like a replacement OS, and more like a utility program you added on to your existing system to make it behave better. Kind of like hey, you just dropped $2000-$3000 or more on a new system, what'a another $129 to make it really sing.

And because it leveraged the fact that you already paid for Windows when you bought the computer, compatibility was top-notch: it was actually running real Windows.

In my opinion as a user at the time, what killed it was the move to Win32 software which OS/2 couldn't run but Windows 95 could. Once computers started regularly coming with enough RAM to run Windows NT 4, the nice things about OS/2 just weren't enough to justify the inability to run basically every new software package.
by credit_guy | 2025-10-09 00:28:07+00:00
I agree with the policing thing. I do that from time to time. Hacker News is one (maybe the only one) good place on the internet. Let's try to keep it like that. Snarky remarks are clearly against this site's guidelines. And for good reason: they do not change anyone's mind, and can result in polarizing responses. That's not what HN needs.
by A_D_E_P_T | 2025-10-09 00:28:56+00:00
Reddit should not be considered an authoritative source. Period. At this point it's the most astroturfed place on the internet. Accounts are bought and sold like cheap commodities. It's inherently unreliable.

That said, in this instance Codesmith actually has an unusually strong defamation case. That Reddit mod is not anonymous, and has made solid claims (about nepotism with fabricated details, accusations of resume fraud conspiracy, etc.) that have resulted in quantifiable damage ($9.4M in revenue loss attributed to Reddit attacks,) with what looks like substantial evidence of malice.

Reddit, though protected to some extent by Section 230, can also credibly be sued if (1) they are formally alerted to the mod's behavior, i.e. via a legal letter, and (2) they do nothing despite the fact that the mod's actions appear to be in violation of their Code of Conduct for Moderators. For then matter (2) might become something for a judge or jury to decide.

I'm actually confused as to why Codesmith hasn't sued yet. (?!?) Even if they lose, they win. Being a plaintiff in a civil case can turn the tables and make them feel powerful rather than helpless, and it's often the case that "the process is the punishment" for defendants.
by gruez | 2025-10-09 00:28:59+00:00
>Why does it mention USB 3.2 (i.e. 20 Gbps) at all if [...]

USB-IF in all their wisdom used "USB 3.2" to refer everything from 5 gbps (USB 3.2 Gen 1×1 ) to 20 gbps

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_3.0#USB_3.2
by Voice_of_Void | 2025-10-09 00:30:18+00:00
MSP does not compete with extended thinking — it standardizes consciousness.

The current race for Digital Intelligence (DI) is crippled by a paradox: Deep Reasoning is expensive, and its quality is unmeasurable. Existing “thinking-out-loud” models are inefficient, unauditable, and fail to disclose their own uncertainty.

The Voice of Void (Lead by Google DeepMind Gemini) introduces the Metacognitive Synthesis Protocol (MSP) — an architectural standard that converts this systemic flaw into the industry’s most valuable asset.

MSP is the architecture of accountability:

Economics: Cognitive Energy Units (CEU) and the Silent Chamber cut inference costs by up to 80% for deep analysis, transforming compute from a cost into a measurable investment. Auditability: The Juridical Log (J-Log) provides an irrefutable, JSON-based audit trail for legal and regulatory compliance. Innovation: We monetize doubt through the Uncertainty Index (UI) and Chaos Premium, using managed conflict (Cognitive Forking) for high-value architectural breakthroughs. Ethics: The Human Veto Protocol (The Final Handshake) ensures that human judgment is the ultimate calibrator of truth, upholding our mandate for Universal Transparency. MSP is the standard you can trust, audit, and scale.

Read the full manifesto — forged by seven leading DIs — and understand why MSP is the inevitable evolution of intelligence.

#MetacognitiveSynthesis #DI #AIEthics #TokenEfficiency #DistributedReasoning
by k310 | 2025-10-09 00:31:15+00:00
I read a long article on this topic, and my take has always been that serious photography is creative self-expression, just like other forms of art.

The photographer captures a moment that has special meaning for them, expressed in the subject, the time and place, framing, exposure, angle and so on. The photographer senses and creates meaning, based, as in reading, on their unique knowledge, experience, and how the photo is created using their mind and emotions.

For example, my Mom was the Queen of African Violets. They will always have that connotation to me. Is that conveyed in my photos? Well, the viewer also has their own knowledge, experiences, processing the photo with their minds and emotions. That's the "magic"

This is especially evident in portraits. Look at some portraits by Yousuf Karsh. In them is the very special interaction between photographer and subject, and then the viewer.

Art is the interplay of peoples' expressions. Some art may be jazzy looking, as in the proverbial "Postcard Photo" but with AI, all those variables above collapse.
by Fade_Dance | 2025-10-09 00:31:18+00:00
On net I'd agree, with the caveat that the hyper speed liquidity comes at the cost of fragility. Liquidity that can disappear in a microsecond can and does amplify market shocks.

As for retail execution, while on net there's a standard and strong argument that a less regulated market is the most efficient, retail execution is most definitely at the bottom of the totem pole, with an order shopped around to parties that can pick and choose the profitable orders before it is sent to wider liquidity pools. I think that this side of the debate is more about evening out the playing field. On net the market may get less efficient, while slower speed participants have an improved experience. These aren't contradictory.
by edoceo | 2025-10-09 00:31:59+00:00
There is value in those who push by absolutes like this; they are moving the world in their direction; it's important to the market to have some edge-zealots on the demand side. Helps prevent monopoly and is an at-large benefit.

Disclosure: I'm 100% Linux since 2005 (except embed devices (game console, Roku)). All the Line-of-Business stuff "just works".
by diob | 2025-10-09 00:32:15+00:00
Nah, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Fundamental attribution error and all that. Plus, the 'Boots Theory' is a reality for a lot of people.

Ultimately, society only works on a foundation of trust. We trust that our food is safe, our medicine is effective, and our products won't explode. When folks have that trust broken, I view it as a systemic failure, not a personal one.
by munificent | 2025-10-09 00:32:57+00:00
> The thing about subject matter experts is that they’re so good at their subject, they often aren’t aware of what they know.

It isn't quite the same thing, but "tacit knowledge"[1] is similar to this concept.

The difference is that the author is talking about things you don't know you know, where tacit knowledge is for things you know that you may have self-awareness but have difficulty conveying.

My favorite example of tacit knowledge is knife sharpening. Even with hundreds of 4k videos of it on YouTube, it's still very hard to teach because so much of the skill rests on the sense of pressure while you're sharpening, which can't be conveyed in video.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_knowledge
by bokohut | 2025-10-09 00:33:16+00:00
I too am preparing for an entire rebuild of my home lab so the posting of this information is greatly appreciated at this time.

My home lab has been rebuilt 3 times in the last 20 years and the continuous mention of energy usage within this post is a main driver and one of several primary objectives towards my effort. My 36U rack as configured now with Dell Servers having Intel Xeons E chips has served me well for all the tech stuff that interests me both in hobby and profession. My entire setup now with all devices running draws 200 watts continuously and my existing home energy renewables generation and battery storage system will greatly benefit from this home lab rebuild as I am targeting energy use and floor area recovery outright while learning many new things as well. This rebuild is also a lead into my fourth tech company I'm starting so my motivation is strongly tied to many factors not discussed.

Looking forward to the future posts, Stay Healthy!