MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by flohofwoe | 2025-10-10 16:09:42+00:00
> In part, because Vulkan is a graphics API, not a GPGPU framework like CUDA. They're entirely different beasts.

Tbf, the distinction between rendering and compute has been disappearing for quite a while now, apart from texture sampling there isn't much reason to have hardware that's dedicated for rendering tasks on GPUs, and when there's hardly any dedicated rendering hardware on GPUs, why still have dedicated rendering APIs?
by chrismorgan | 2025-10-10 16:09:42+00:00
There’s some value in the public suffix list being shared, with mild sanity checking before accepting entries: it maintains a distinction between site (which includes all subdomains) and origin (which doesn’t). Safe Browsing wants to block sites, but if you can designate your domain a public suffix without oversight, you can bypass that so that it will only manage to block your subdomains individually (until they adjust their heuristics to something much more complicated and less reliable than what we have now).
by philipallstar | 2025-10-10 16:09:55+00:00
I think your categories are off. The workers in an individual company are not all the workers ever. You might work in a car factory and a new bit of automation makes your job safer or higher quality, and but also your team won't get to double in size. You make cars more efficiently, which means either your car company stays in business as it's still competitive, or the global customer base of car buyers gets a cheaper car than it would've if your team had doubled in size, or both.
by alganet | 2025-10-10 16:10:49+00:00
> Consider, for example, this observation, conveyed by the Dutch sociologist Ruut Veenhoven: “the average citizen lives more comfortably now than kings did a few centuries ago.”

> A Snickers and a power shower would blow Henry VIII’s mind.

That's such a narrow, snapshot view of humanity. Comparing one epoch to another directly, skipping the trend, seems inconsequential.

For the majority of human history, descendents did better than the previous generation. There's nothing surprising or awe-inspiring about that.

Henry VIII did not expected warm baths and chocolate bars, but he expected (in theory, I know, don't fret about it) everyone to have a little more, then in the next generation, a little more, and so on. That trend eventually leads to somewhere like chocolate bars and warm baths, even if you don't land on it exactly.

However, _this is not true anymore_. There's an argument to be made that we are not on this trend anymore. Where before young adults could buy houses, now they can't, for example.

It seems like we went over peak humanity, then dropped a little. Some very important things got a lot worse.

Under this light, talking about how anyone now lives better than a past king, sounds disconnected from a reality where mostly everyone feels like shit. You can't convince me that I'm in the best phase of humanity if I can quite easily point out some better paths we could have taken. We were supposed to be better than we currently are, or at least something manufactured that impression in large scales. Either way, something feels off.
by scott_w | 2025-10-10 16:11:26+00:00
I'm biased as I've not been a beginner dev for nearly 20 years, however I have found Copilot is pretty helpful for is learning Rust. In combination with Intellisense, it helps ease some of the mental overhead of the syntax, letting me focus on learning the important bits of the language. It helped me go from opening up a book on Rust to having a working tool in about a week.

I won't pretend that it's turned me into a senior engineer, of course, but it's definitely gotten me over the 0 to 1 problem much quicker than I think I could have without it nudging my code in the right direction.

For what it's worth, I don't ask Copilot to write the code, I just use it as an advanced auto-complete, reading the suggestion to see if I agree with it before hitting tab.
by kevindamm | 2025-10-10 16:11:30+00:00
Enjoyable, after getting the hang of the "full rows/cols" variant it became like popping packing bubbles.. I kind of wanted to keep playing with the kaleidoscopic shapes you can make with the near-complete positions.

I'd seen the "adjacent only" variant before but not the other two, I'm glad the default was one I hadn't seen or I might not have noticed there was a choice!

Have you considered allowing the all-white state as a terminal state too? First time I completed it was with a detour to there (I know the text says make them red but my instincts went with the lights-out being to the color matching the background)

Thanks for the diversion. On the 5x5 my scores went from ~100 to dozens (sometimes 8-10). On larger boards I'm not as consistent but also not as interested in path length.
by kbolino | 2025-10-10 16:11:54+00:00
I do think the author's ignorance was a bigger problem--both in the sense of he should have known better and also in the sense that the PSL needs to be more discoverable--than anything Google('s automated systems) did.

However, I'm now reflecting on what I said as "be careful what you wish for", because the comments on this HN post have done a complete 180 since I wrote it, to the point of turning into a pile-on in the opposite direction.
by jeroenhd | 2025-10-10 16:12:14+00:00
The thing about Google is that they regularly get this stuff wrong, and there is no recourse when they do.

I think most people working in tech know the extent to which Google can screw over a business when they make a mistake, but the gravity of the situation becomes much clearer when it actually happens to you.

This time it's a phishing website, but what if the same happens five years down the line because of an unflattering page about a megalomaniac US politician?
by jakub_g | 2025-10-10 16:12:26+00:00
It's both true that Ryanair has very good safety record, and that in the past there were incidents with them landing on low fuel.

https://www.eurocockpit.eu/news/mayday-mayday-wins-over-ryan...

> In 2012 and 2013 “Brandpunt Reporter” broadcasted a two episode TV investigation in which Ryanair pilots, speaking anonymously, raised concerns about the airline’s fuel policies and company culture. The pilots revealed that the company may be exerting pressure on them to minimize the amount of fuel they take on board – a practice which limits significantly the fuel costs for the company but could jeopardise safety in certain circumstances. The direct reasons for this broadcast were 3 emergency landings of Ryanair aircraft in Valencia Spain on the 26 July 2012, within a short timeframe due to low fuel levels.
by rhetocj23 | 2025-10-10 16:12:49+00:00
Yeah Im just waiting for this to finally play out.

If you understand product design, economics, corporate finance and various other disciplines well - its obvious what is going on.

MSFT wants to juice their numbers for the next earnings call to keep the mania going. Zzzzzzzzzzz

Ive spoken to people who work in the finance sector - portfolio management and tax audit - they laugh hysterically at how bad the tools are (copilot in particular) and resent how much they are being pushed down on them.
by adlpz | 2025-10-10 16:13:15+00:00
I thought this was going to be yet another post about how AI is ruining Junior devs so we'll have a Senior replacement crysis in a few years.

It sort of is, indirectly, and I agree with pretty much everything.

But the bit about sycophancy was particularly enlightening. I actually thought "plain" ChatGPT-like interfaces could be good for learning. But the Youtube ROAS example is really powerful. If the student can skew the teacher's conclusions so much just by the way they phrase their questions/answers, we're going to mislead new programmers en masse.

I'm not even sure that the extensive prompting they say they use for their "Boots" is good enough.

I guess in the age of AI you still need someone to repeatedly reject your pull requests until you learn. And AI won't be that someone, at least for now.
by nrclark | 2025-10-10 16:13:25+00:00
Understood. Even in keeping with your definition - people are irrational actors. We make incomprehensible choices all the time, with no real reason at the moment of decision. Then our brains backfill and rationalize later.

Keep in mind that our brains are made of meat that talks to itself via chemical reactions. Brains are not digital computers, and are very much an analog thing. Brains can and do make actual mistakes all the time. Like straight up "this computed incorrectly" or "there was a transmission error" kinds of mistakes.

Humans are not rational actors, and never have been. That's why economic theory so frequently fails to predict behavior in spectacular ways.
by rolph | 2025-10-10 16:13:44+00:00
if you expect building plans to be mirrored in real life, whoah pull the reigns hard.

if your double checking before submission for a permit, thats fine.

if you are using building plans for a tactical briefing [a-la-starwarz] you have a chance of loosing your team.

it all depends on how rigorously a locale inspects new construction for conformity to plan.
by mrguyorama | 2025-10-10 16:13:50+00:00
Are you suggesting that an unregulated gambling system primarily advocated for by gamblers in an ecosystem rife with degenerate gambling and outright fraud that advertises itself with an entirely theoretical and vibes based theory of "better information" that is primarily filled with people desperate to make gambling a "good thing" and provides ample opportunity for the incestuous and deeply connected crypto community to fleece people who have repeatedly demonstrated themselves to be delicious targets...

You think maybe that might not be on the straight and narrow?

Maybe we should get people to bet on it! Gamblers routinely show that they have a strong understanding of the world, right? What? No I don't have a problem. Hey do you have a few dollars I can borrow?
by jmyeet | 2025-10-10 16:13:57+00:00
Disclaimer: I'm not accusing you of (intentionally or unintentionally) doing this but your comment brought up the issue.

For a lot of horrific events in the world, you will find a bias exposed by the use of active vs passive voice. Compare:

- "100 children died". How?

- "100 children killed". By whom? Why? How?

- "100 children killed in conflict". Between who? How? Why?

' "100 children killed in air strike on refugee camp by X". Oh...

The point is that a lot of people treat what is happening in Venezuela like it's some kind of unavoidable natural disaster like an earthquake. This reinforces the idea that nobody is responsible and, more improtantly, there's nothing we can do.

Venezuelans are being intentionally starved to death by economic sanctions (that's what sactions are). Why? Because Maduro is bad. Sound familiar? It should. Castro was bad. Saddam Hussein was bad (despite being a US puppet for decades).

The actual issue is that these people threaten the interests of Western companies. That's it. That's the only thing that matters.
by tliltocatl | 2025-10-10 16:13:58+00:00
No. Please for the love of Cthulhu. I need documentation. Not examples. They will help with the common cases, but common cases are easy, it's corner cases I'm after. Not type signatures - type systems are that would be sufficiently expressive would be badly unsound and undecidable. I need to know assumption the code takes. Specially so with statefull/object-oriented code, aka "why I hate the builder pattern". Too much unsaid assumptions about the order of methods application.
by jacquesm | 2025-10-10 16:14:06+00:00
3 go arounds + 2 hours in a holding pattern should result in at least 45 to 60 minutes left in the tanks after landing. Depending on the kind of aircraft that can be a pretty impressive amount of fuel.

> Does the estimation change depending on weather forecast, season of the year etc?

Yes. There are many factors that go into this including trade winds (which vary quite a bit seasonally and which can make a huge difference), time of day, altitude of the various legs, route flown, weather, distance to alternates, altitude of the place of departure and altitude of the place where you are landing, weight of the aircraft, engine type, engine hours since last overhaul, weight of passengers, luggage and cargo, angle-of-attack and so on. The software I wrote was a couple of thousand lines just to output a single number and 10x as much code for tests, and it was just one module in a much larger pre-flight application.
by empath75 | 2025-10-10 16:14:09+00:00
If you are doing visual design, if you want to call out the parts of the space you are working in where you _aren't doing anything_, that is the 'negative space'.

If you are producing a letterform, all the parts of the object you are producing which is not filled by letter is the 'negative space'. The "space" is the whole area, including the letter.

People intentionally play with the distinction in optical illusions:

https://inthewhitespace.com/2021/11/17/what-it-means-to-be-i...
by jasonthorsness | 2025-10-10 16:14:47+00:00
> Don’t use: > AI auto-complete in your editor > Agent mode or agentic tools for your educational projects

While I am not learning "coding" as a beginner anymore, I am constantly learning new frameworks, language features, algorithms etc. as is the norm in the industry, and I disagree it's bad to use AI auto-complete. Pre-AI IntelliSense-style autocomplete from Visual Studio or ReSharper makes learning new libraries and language features much easier. ReSharper for example will suggest taking advantage of new language features when you write something an older way, and many times this was my introduction to that new feature.

The new AI-based autocomplete can be even better; it demonstrates one way to do something and regardless of whether you use it or not, you can learn from it. You have to be curious enough to actually read what it is doing, but if you lack that curiosity it isn't AI's fault (before AI this was just "copy-pasting from Stack Overflow").
by toomuchtodo | 2025-10-10 16:15:03+00:00
I think it's more nuanced than that. Microsoft is desperate for growth in a growth challenged macro, and Nadella has guided valuations and stock targets that are simply unobtainable without this growth. That's one part of the AI slop shovel. The second part is institutions that are desperate to cut labor costs or find other efficiency gains to maintain historical financial performance targets during ZIRP that are simply no longer obtainable. They are willing to push their workers through the sausage machine of "AI" to try to make it happen.

And so the performance art must continue, at least until the AI investment music stops. Your options are get rich if in a position to (due to irrational exuberance and unsophisticated capital investment), or play along until the facade falls to keep your job. "It is what it is."
by 0xbadcafebee | 2025-10-10 16:15:03+00:00
I commend all the ideas the author has here about better education. I agree it's a big problem. But perhaps the biggest problem is the idea of one curriculum.

I grew up with a learning disability. I was extremely curious and able to hyper-focus on learning, but only when I found it interesting or easy to pick up and run with ideas. Other kids didn't have the same problem as me, so they excelled while I dragged behind. What I learned (after attending 5 schools in 2 years) is that I have to find my own path to learning that works for me.

It's impossible for me to focus on dense text. You could point a gun at my head and I still couldn't absorb the information. I need spatial learning. Moving pictures, flow charts, multi-level cutaways. Lists and sections broken up into hierarchies with clear simple headings and compartmentalized concepts. This way my brain can organize a literal map of the information for me to traverse later. But some other people might find that a nightmare.

At the same time, I learned programming extremely slowly, because I only used the methods that were easy to me. I just gave myself projects to accomplish and used trial and error to slowly learn how the language worked, along with a book for reference. It took me years to finally understand the academic underpinnings of how languages (and software) worked. I wish I could've seen a map of the different concepts, to reinforce what I needed to know to learn the next thing.

But there's also different kinds of information which need different learning methods. What's a sine, cosine, and tangent? I honestly still don't know, because the words themselves are foreign to me. For that I would need some kind of Duolingo-style repetitious-card-memory-trick-thing to even remember what word is what concept.

I don't know any framework to break up any subject into multiple course methods. And AI can't do it either. AI sucks at visualizations, and it doesn't have a deep understanding of how to teach things in multiple ways. EdTech needs to be extremely careful not to put all its cards into one "thing" if that thing can't do what people need. (That said: AI is great at quickly explaining things you don't know, and providing you an insanely fast path to the information you need)

In terms of CS itself, I feel like what we're lacking is a big-ass wikipedia or knowledge base. A lot of it is in Wikipedia, but not nearly detailed or interlinked enough. Once you have all the content, then you can reorganize them into different curriculums for different learning styles. But these are two separate problems. The tutorials are way too shallow, and the dense academic verbiage is far too detailed. You need a way to intermix them that's tailored to the user.
by yafinder | 2025-10-10 16:15:05+00:00
For something that you think is a de-facto standard, public suffix list seems kinda raw to me for now.

I checked it for two popular public suffixes that came to mind: 'livejournal.com' and 'substack.com'. Both weren't there.

Maybe I'm mistaken, it's not a bug and these suffixes shouldn't be included, but I can't think of the reason why.
by aeternum | 2025-10-10 16:16:12+00:00
Yes it's fine even for planes. Boeing planes are still incredibly safe but some people now prefer Airbus and will use that when selecting flights. This feedback loop is what ultimately triggers change.

Note that all the regulation was useless in the Boeing case, the FAA ultimately allowed Boeing to self-inspect using contractors. The same is happening with drugs.

You may be underestimating the risk of human drivers. Given the choice of sharing the road with 10,000 tesla, waymo, zoox, etc. self-driving cars vs. 10,000 human-driven cars, which would you choose for you and your kids?
by metalman | 2025-10-10 16:16:21+00:00
6 min, is empty, 6 min is purely theoretical, 6 min would not clear for ground handling or a test start, or a fuel system check,6 min would not do a go around. will interesting to see if they release info about what the real amount of fuel left is, and an authorative discussion on how much useable flight time was there. did they actualy make the taxi to the terminal?, or run out on the apron?
by gsnedders | 2025-10-10 16:16:44+00:00
As others have said, final fuel reserves are typically at least half an hour, and you shouldn't really be cutting into them. What if their first approach into MAN had led to another go around?

With a major storm heading north-easterly across the UK, the planning should have reasonably foreseen that an airport 56 miles east may also be unavailable, and should've further diverted prior to that point.

They likely used the majority of their final fuel reserve on the secondary diversion from EDI to MAN, presumably having planned to land at their alternate (EDI) around the time they reached the final fuel reserve.

Any CAA report into this, if there is one produced, is going to be interesting, because there's multiple people having made multiple decisions that led to this.
by dlenski | 2025-10-10 16:17:02+00:00
Great writeup.

I have done similar things on several long flights.

Very often, there is at least one large cloud provider or CDN (e.g. Microsoft/Azure or Amazon/AWS or Google/GCP) that is whitelisted by the in-flight Internet gateway so that it can serve static pages, and I can get access to all the sites hosted by that provider simply by using domain fronting (which the author of this post describes as "disguise domain": https://ramsayleung.github.io/en/post/2025/a_story_about_byp...)
by maxeda | 2025-10-10 16:17:28+00:00
> “Environmental regulations are, in my view, largely terrible,” he said at an event with the libertarian Cato Institute last year. “You have to get permission in advance, as opposed to, say, paying a penalty if you do something wrong, which I think would be much more effective.”

This quote is particularly telling of a billionaire's mindset when the fines are too small to matter.
by jeroenhd | 2025-10-10 16:17:29+00:00
The PSL is something you find out about after it goes wrong.

It's a weird thing, to be honest, a Github repo mentioned nowhere in any standards that browsers use to treat some subdomains differently.

Information like this doesn't just manifest itself into your brain once you start hosting stuff, and if I hadn't known about its existence I wouldn't have thought to look for a project like this either. I certainly wouldn't have expected it to be both open for everyone and built into every modern internet-capable computer or anti malware service.
by empath75 | 2025-10-10 16:17:48+00:00
Communities don't generally invent jargon for no reason, and a lot of things that people see as gatekeeping and shibboleths are just terms that save a lot of time in communication between people who know what they mean.

If you are a programmer, terms like "imperative" or "declarative" are extremely opaque to outsiders, but convey a lot of information efficiently if you know what they mean.
by bespokedevelopr | 2025-10-10 16:17:57+00:00
The answer to bad AI results from businesses won’t be, let’s forget about AI and instead hire back all those 6 figure programmers.

Instead it will be just as it is has been for years, let’s send this (in this case) AI generated data to Malaysia or Bangladesh and have them clean it up and then bill it as perfect AI solution.

These people in poorer nations have been cleaning data for ML and AI for years. It’s just adding another loop back in.
by maxglute | 2025-10-10 16:18:21+00:00
Demand forces is measured in $$$'s all the bubble talk is there aren't enough demand in $$$'s to justify projected supply, but more significantly, the time dimension of building supply and deprecation of supply is not favourable. We can simultaenously go through a crippling bubble burst that gives all the big players huge haircuts and still live in a post bubble world where demand/supply continues to increase because hardware improves, i.e. chips X gen from now can do 1T worth of data center compute with 100m, but right now that 1T worth of data center might only return 200b - the economics of the current iteration is bubbly. Almost obviously bubbly because we're dealing sychronizing (really mismatch) between very expensive, capex heavy, fast to build but faster to depreciating compute, and also very expensive, capex heavy, slow to build infra. It's a deadly combo. It's an EXTRA deadly combo because the fast deprecating compute component (i.e. 80% of investment) makes are fast spoiling stranded assets. These are not 50/100 year hard assets like rail or fiber rollout where most of the work is simply civil engineering - moving a fuckload of earth that can be reaped for generations. Most of chips and bespoke datacenter infra are >5-10 year assets (it's not tulips but it's closer to tulips than rail), there's no reason to use them if gen +X chips makes their capex + opex completely obsolete / economically unviable.