MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by saghm | 2025-10-09 20:56:39+00:00
> My former coworkers also told me their side of the story, and it’s absolutely nothing like what has been alleged so far. I deeply trust these two people, and I can’t possibly imagine they’d be lying to me, but I’d understand if you don’t want to take my word for it.

> I don’t know when their side of the story will come out, nor if it will come out at all, but I do hope it comes out soon and with receipts. Seeing so many good-natured and well-intentioned people get demonized like they have been over the last few weeks is depressing.

I haven't written Ruby professionally since 2019 (and don't have any plans to return to it currently), so my perspective on this is mostly that of an outsider who happened to be involved in the community for a few years in the past but otherwise doesn't really have much opinion about any of the organizations or people involved in all of the recent controversy. All that being said, it's hard for me to understand what the mindset is of authors of blog posts like this that attempt to provide context by providing extremely detailed history of events that involve the various personalities party to the current events right up until the actual controversy, at which point the only claims made are fairly vague allusions to there being more to the story with even a hint at what that might be. I understand the instinct to want to defend people you have good relationships with (or at least, have only had friction with in the past due around unrelated things), but at least to me, it doesn't really come across as anything other than an implicit attempt at damage control.

The grievances against Shopify seem pretty legitimate based on the only knowledge we have as outsiders. As far as I'm aware, the only concrete explanation of what happened that has been shared publicly is that they told RubyCentral that they either needed to take over the Github organization that owns bundler and the offline CLI RubyGems tool (not to be confused with the RubyGems.org package repository that RubyCentral did already own) and remove at least some of the specific external maintainers or they'd pull their funding. There have been proposed explanations for this around supply-chain security, but as far as I've read, no one has publicly stated a different set of events for what led up to the change in ownership of the Github organization, and without that, I don't think any amount of references to there being another side to the story will sound particularly convincing.
by freeopinion | 2025-10-09 20:56:59+00:00
My employer gives my credentials to LinkedIn, Github, Microsoft, Google, Slack, Amazon, AuthIAM, SuperSecure, TrustMe, Cisco, Oracle, SAP, Peoplesoft, Shopify, Salesforce, and a dozen others. Then they gripe because my coworker gave their credentials to login.ad.azure.microsft.com.
by jampekka | 2025-10-09 20:57:16+00:00
I've noted that LLMs tend to produce defensive code to a fault. Lots of unnecessary checks, e.g. check for null/None/undefined multiple times for same valie. This can lead to really hard to read code, even for the LLM itself.

The RL objectives probably heavily penalize exceptions, but don't reward much for code readability or simplicity.
by 999900000999 | 2025-10-09 20:57:50+00:00
I like the idea.

But this is a very weird way to sell a game.

1st, we have Steam. That's where I and most people buy games. 30$ for a random exe is going to be really inconvenient.

Launch it on Steam at the same time, or at a minimum promise a key.

It's also not clear why it's just a bunch of American cities, if you're pulling the data from Google anyway, any city ( within reason) should work. If you need additional data, let users add it.

Maybe on steam I'll buy it
by CyberHoot-Craig | 2025-10-09 20:58:21+00:00
One of the reasons IT doesn't want you clicking on Unsubscribe links is they have been turned into malicious Session Token stealing attacks. Hackers subscribe an victim to dozens of newsletters, many of which do not follow netiquette of sending a confirmation email for you to confirm your desire to receive the newsletter, or worse, the confirmation email contains a second Session Token stealing attach which you are even more likely to click on because you DID NOT subscribe to begin with and your hackles are up... so you click and BOOM, Business Email Compromise! It's happened on a couple of incidents I've been a part of earlier this year and led to 1000's of dollars in Wire Transfer losses! Banks have to add MFA to all Wire Transfers (but don't - Credit Union's are you listening here!!!). So, there's good reasons not to trust unsubscribe links. If you didn't subscribe, and there's no clear confirmation email from the domain in question, report the newsletter as SPAM and block.

Notice: I'm a virtual CISO at CyberHoot (and co-founder here) providing security program development and Incident Response services.
by xdennis | 2025-10-09 20:58:21+00:00
I'm surprised people are so negative here. Compared with generative AI (which steals work, and replaces the part people like about their jobs: creativity), the promise of humanoid robots is that they'll do the my chores, while I focus on the important stuff.

What surprises me is that people can't see this for what it is: early steps.

As an aside, the first steam engine was created by the Greeks 2000 years ago, but they just used it for toys. When Watt created the modern steam engine it had 0.7 horsepower. He actually invented the term horsepower as a marketing term because his engine was so underpowered. An actual horse produces 14 horsepower, but he adjusted for how long a horse needs to sleep and and rest and came up with 1 horsepower. His first production engine had 5 horsepower.

If hackers had existed in the 18th century I would have expected them to see the promise of engines replacing horses even though engines were less powerful at the time, not say "engines are basically smoke and mirrors right now".

It could be that I'm wrong, and we're at the Greek stage, where humanoids are at a false start, just toys, and the real thing is 2000 years away. But the lack of optimism surprises me.
by jstummbillig | 2025-10-09 20:59:06+00:00
The moment I have been waiting for: Top 1% player in all scenarios, both Mini Metro and Motorways. AMA.

No, they are both really fun (and highly addictive in my case). I like that you can do a scenario in 30-ish minutes (and even pause if you need to). I personally prefer Motorways over Metro, but alas, both highly recommended. Fantastic game design.
by kazinator | 2025-10-09 20:59:09+00:00
By unwinding I mean performing registered clean-ups associated with dynamic controus (e.g. such as that set up by unwind-protect), whose effect is understood to be permanent, on the hypothesis that the contexts being abandoned cannot be returned to.

Scheme's dynamic-wind is a kind of academic attempt to repair uwinding for situations when contexts can be returned to.

It doesn't pass my smell test. If we are following a control flow that leaves a context in such a way that there is a possibility to resume there, we should simply. not touch anything.

On this topic, I didn't mention dynamically scoped variables. Continuations capture their dynamic context. So that is to say, suppose *print-base* is set to 16 for printing integers in hex. Or ruppose *stdout* is redirected to a file. What happens if we capture a delimited continuation, and then resume it? Part of the resumption will be the reinstatement of the dynamic scope, so those variables are effectively captured. And I think that the capture of the dynamic scope goes beyond the prompt; i.e. it doesn't obey the delimiting, which is probably the least surprising requirement.

> That's essentially what lone is doing.

So that is good and you can think of unwinding (e.g. in an exception-related permanent control transfer) as separate from that.
by IAmBroom | 2025-10-09 20:59:45+00:00
Mars gravity is 38% of Earth's.

The force caused by the wind acting on the rovers are 50% of Mars, if you are correct, so I'd expect twice the "sail" force pushing the CG of the rover versus its current contact "point" on Mars as in the experiment. 2/0.38 = 2.5x the moving force. When the CG is pushed forward, the whole thing rotates, and the rover advances to a new contact point.

Of course, we're talking about things like wind velocity and surface texture as "constants" here, but yeah: the thing should move.
by koito17 | 2025-10-09 20:59:48+00:00
The README gets straight to the point and I really like that.

Additionally, the .env file parser is quite clean.

https://github.com/ashtonjamesd/lavandula/blob/main/src/dote...

However, it doesn't seem that the parser supports comments. I guess a "good first issue" for anyone interested in contributing would be extending the `skipWhitespace` function to detect `#` tokens and skip the rest of the line when present.

Would also need to handle edge cases like env vars having values containing `#` tokens inside (but these will be quoted, so it's probably not too tricky to handle.)
by dabockster | 2025-10-09 20:59:56+00:00
The issue then becomes "well why don't they just go back to a Teamspeak server? they can self host it!"

But we're forgetting there that the average person online is not a dev. The most they usually know is how to point and click on something. Which also means they usually don't know how to spin up a Linux machine/VM somewhere and install their own chat server.

Discord is popular because it lets almost anyone on Earth point and click to create a chat "server". If someone can figure out how to do that (eg cPanel), you can absolutely break their moat.
by colinsane | 2025-10-09 21:00:20+00:00
> Why hasn’t there been a fork of nixos? And the folks who want to do things in a certain politically leaning way gravitate towards that and those that don’t stay.

v.s.

> Why hasn’t there been a fork of nixos? And the folks who want to do things in a certain politically leaning way stay and those that don’t gravitate towards that.

now let's spend the next few years arguing which of these is the correct proposition.

sure, it's more complicated: there's questions about _what_ to fork (Nix is an _ecosystem_, not necessarily a single repository), there are certain things which can't trivially _be_ forked (e.g. a multi-hundred-TB S3 cache that's actually critical infrastructure; project websites, wikis, uncountable automation services). how do you coordinate all the details of forking, if forking isn't actually as trivial as pushing the "fork" button? that requires highly capable leaders, and if the ecosystem were good at finding and promoting that type of leader, then it wouldn't be in this place to begin with.

more optimistically, various parts of this ecosystem _have_ been forked, or reshaped, by various entities. things happen; sometimes that happening is just a lengthy process.
by jech | 2025-10-09 21:00:38+00:00
“We, the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the Bundestag, are opposed to the unwarranted monitoring of chats. That would be like opening all letters as a precautionary measure to see if there is anything illegal in them. That is not acceptable, and we will not allow it.”

Reported by Patrick Breyer, <https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/citizen-protest-halts-chat-...>
by saghm | 2025-10-09 21:01:03+00:00
Yeah, this is incredibly confusing. The stance that Ruby Central has stated since the takeover of the RubyGems (offline) tooling on Github was that it was necessary for supply chain security, but if this happened literally within a couple of weeks of when they tried (and apparently failed?) to remove all of the previous maintainers, how does this add any amount of confidence in their ability to secure things going forward? If they can't even properly remove the people they already knew had access that they went out of their way to try to remove, it's hard to feel like consolidating their ownership over all of the tooling is going to be an improvement.
by jakubmazanec | 2025-10-09 21:01:36+00:00
It seems that as usual, there are just two groups: people who for some reason didn't like React and its way of things, but now found something else they do like (which is good!), but now still have the need to shit on React; the second group likes React and never had serious problems using it.

I don't understand what is so complicated about hooks. It's a good abstraction with specific trade-off s.

I think people forget that when React came out, it was awesome. Declarative, fast, and composable. I immediately wrote my own VDOM-based library ([1]), faster than React (probably with a lot more bugs, but my apps didn't have the same requirements as Facebook) - that's how inspiring React was. So many UI libraries :D

Also it's funny that some people think that it's just a big cartel that will force developers to use React forever, and others think it's inevitable that something better will come up.

[1] https://github.com/datanautika/ash
by nomel | 2025-10-09 21:02:26+00:00
Sorry, had a procrastination timeout mid edit, so couldn't complete my comment. See edited comment above, with reference for a state plate not being required in IL. So, it appears a federal and state plate aren't required. Additionally, the link in my previous comment shows that the IL plate requirements can be negotiated.

> For exempted vehicles from U.S. Government plates (as noted above), do you think state laws for plates ... just don't apply?

Please include the reference for the requirement that contradicts what I have in the edited comment.
by chithanh | 2025-10-09 21:03:15+00:00
> So what’s the evidence that banning artificial sweeteners leads to positive outcomes in a free living population, considering you said: “I'm in favor of banning artificial sweeteners”?

It depends on the context. In the context of school lunches (which is discussed here) they absolutely need to be banned, same as added sugars. Giving children (sugar or artificially) sweetened meals trains children's palates and shapes lifelong preferences for sweet foods.
by joe_the_user | 2025-10-09 21:03:17+00:00
I personally, as GM, don't like to be the one that kills a character. I want to set up a situation where the situation-and/or-the-rules kills the character.

I've played in games with "the GM kills you" mechanics and it felt juvenile/arbitrary/abusive. Remember, this is a game where every players' character needs to "shine" and similarly needs to know they're being judged with fairness and compassion by the GM (compassion especially along the lines of "understand what I say my character does as something reasonable").
by EA-3167 | 2025-10-09 21:03:19+00:00
Anyone who's experienced or knows someone who has experienced chronic pain appreciates how desperately the world needs a major breakthrough in this arena. Pain management has evolved, there are steady improvements, but unfortunately a lot of people are effectively left behind and the choice becomes a series of profoundly mind-altering drugs... or profoundly mind-altering pain. The way that pain can erode your personality and your life is hard to express quickly in words, but it's both invisible and endlessly corrosive.

I certainly hope that this or another path of research leads to a new generation of therapies that don't depend on opioids and are more effective than current alternatives.
by nomdep | 2025-10-09 21:03:33+00:00
> “Following these budget adjustments, Mr. Arko’s consultancy, (…), submitted a proposal offering to provide secondary on-call services at no cost in exchange for access to production HTTP access logs, containing IP addresses and other personally identifiable information (PII). The offer would have given Mr. Arko’s consultancy access to that data, so that they could monetize it by analyzing access patterns and potentially sharing it with unrelated third-parties.”

WTF. This is the same guy that is launched gems.coop, a competing index for Ruby gems recently.

On the other hand, RubyCentral actions were truly incompetent, I don’t know anymore who is worse
by jjk166 | 2025-10-09 21:03:52+00:00
> You couldn't consume gigabytes because that amount of ram didn't exist.

No, they didn't consume gigabytes because they were written is such a way that they didn't need to. Run one of those programs on a modern computer with gigabytes of ram and it still won't. It was as easy then as ever to write software that demanded more resources than available; the scarcity at the time was just the reason programmers cared enough to fix their bugs.

> You still had apps with the same issues that would eat all your ram.

The worst offenders back then had objectively smaller issues than what would be considered good now.

> Computers crashed all the fucking time for dumb bugs. I remember being shocked when I upgraded to XP and could go a full day without a BSOD.

Because XP could handle more faults, not because the programs running on XP were better written.
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF | 2025-10-09 21:03:58+00:00
Assuming that's why it was added, I wouldn't be confident saying how likely it is to be effective. Especially with there being so many other statements with seemingly the same intent, I think it suggests desperation more, but it may still be effective. If it said the phrase just once and that sparked a conversation around an actual problem, then it was probably worth adding.

For what it's worth, I am very new to prompting LLMs but, in my experience, these concepts of "uncomfortable" and "pushing back" seem to be things LLMs generate text about so I think they understand sentiment fairly well. They can generally tell that they are "uncomfortable" about their desire to "push back" so it's not implausible that one would output that sentence in that scenario.

Actually, I've been wondering a bit about the "out loud" part, which I think is referring to <think></think> text (or similar) that "reasoning" models generate to help increase the likelihood of accurate generation in the answer that follows. That wouldn't be "out loud" and it might include text like "I should push back but I should also be a total pushover" or whatever. It could be that reasoning models in particular run into this issue (in their experience).
by kibwen | 2025-10-09 21:04:02+00:00
> There's no reason we can't be writing code that lasts 100 years. Code is just math.

In theory, yes. In practice, no, because code is not just math, it's math written in a language with an implementation designed to target specific computing hardware, and computing hardware keeps changing. You could have the complete source code of software written 70 years ago, and at best you would need to write new code to emulate the hardware, and at worst you're SOL.

Software will only stop rotting when hardware stops changing, forever. Programs that refuse to update to take advantage of new hardware are killed by programs that do.
by mrguyorama | 2025-10-09 21:04:31+00:00
No they do not, except for things that don't even seem to benefit anyone.

Republicans have been openly bragging about preventing the government from doing anything for decades. Specifically about Obama, they vowed to make him a one term president by preventing him from doing anything.

Since that time, the MAGA folk have taken over the party and edict #1 is to hate and obstruct and harm democrats, so anyone who has crossed the party line to get anything done, no matter how important, has been primaried out of the party.
by zmmmmm | 2025-10-09 21:04:40+00:00
It's a bit disturbing for the open model ecosystem, that your model could arrive with one of the elements of the lethal trifecta already compromised. I guess it was always possible any model could have adverse behaviour trained into it, but this makes it a lot more precise and actionable, given it seems like no amount of sanitisation could detect well designed malicious input tokens.

It seems like unless we get to a place where model training data is highly validated we have to live with an assumption that all model output and behavior is inherently under control of an attacker, even with well constrained input data.
by alphazard | 2025-10-09 21:04:47+00:00
I can't guess what point you're trying to make with a long article that acknowledges the fraud in the beginning, and then rehashes the initial reasons for looking into the amyloid hypothesis. No one is claiming it was stupid to look into the amyloid hypothesis. They are complaining that it hasn't been the most promising theory in quite a long time, and it was fraudulently held as the most promising. Other theories, arguably more promising, are listed throughout your article.

There is a testable prediction in your article. Unfortunately, I don't think the mechanism is quite restricted enough. TFA says that repairing the BBB helps amyloid plaque clearance. Would the author of your blog post claim that as a win, or admit that the plaques are downstream of the problem, and that BBB integrity is closer to the root cause of the disease process?
by JeremyNT | 2025-10-09 21:05:33+00:00
What a truly wild situation.

In a certain sense this post justifies why RC wanted so badly to take ownership - I mean, here you have a maintainer who clearly has a desire to sell user data to make a buck - but the way it all played out with terrible communication and rookie mistakes on revoking access undermines faith in RC's ability to secure the service going forward.

Not to mention no explanation here of who legally "owned" the rubygems repo (not just the infra) and why they thought they had the right to claim it, which is something disputed by the "other" side.

Just a mess all around, nobody comes off looking very good here!
by novocayn | 2025-10-09 21:06:14+00:00
> comment blocks inside codebase

Is vibe-commented a thing yet? :D

Wanted to give fellow readers a good on-ramp for understanding the FTS internals. Figured leaning into readability wouldn’t hurt

For me this makes the structure super easy to grok at a glance

https://github.com/wizenheimer/blaze/blob/27d6f9b3cd228f5865...

That said, totally fair read on the comments. Curious if they helped/landed the way I intended. or if a multi-part blog series would’ve worked better :)
by drdec | 2025-10-09 21:07:33+00:00
> they could cancel the [social security] program entirely and it wouldn't affect the deficit

I don't think this is true. During the surplus years the savings vehicle was US bonds. So social security lent the US government money.

Now that we are not in a surplus situation, we are using money from those bonds to pay benefits (we are also using SS revenue of course, only part of the payouts come from the bonds).

So if the program were cancelled, the bonds could revert back to the US government - in other words a bunch of debt would be forgiven and would not need to be paid out. Deficit (and debt) reduced.
by gen220 | 2025-10-09 21:07:59+00:00
I agree with you that these have all risen in cost. All of those (excluding property tax) are included in CPI.

What inflation metric, in your opinion, accurately captures those costs?

To clarify, the CPI story is this: we had a period of high-inflation during COVID/the war in Ukraine and our recovery from COVID / reorganization of energy supply chain away from Russia. Now, we're back to normal-pace inflation. Since prices are a one-way ratchet, we're stuck on a new+higher plateau, but we're not still going up at the rate we were in 2021-2022.

Is there an inflation metric that contradicts this narrative?
by asdff | 2025-10-09 21:08:23+00:00
What is interesting is that this system basically exists to catch the most petty criminals, since the actual baddies do not use it at all. Bin Laden didn't have a cellphone. FBI only cracked the sinaloa cartel cellphone network by managing to flip its architect, not by their own technical expertise, their partnerships with telecoms, or any surveillance technology.