MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by rewgs | 2025-10-26 01:23:46+00:00
From what I've read in this thread, you don't have a ton of power with regards to meaningfully dealing with this guy. As far as I can tell, your only real course of action is to learn to live with him.

I've worked with many people like this. Personally, I've always landed with curt, minimal responses, such as:

- Them: says mean/passive-aggressive thing

- Me: "Noted, thanks." And then I move onto the next thing.

It's only exhausting if you let it be. I know that might feel dismissive to you, but really: it's all about how you frame it. Be no more angry with this guy for being a dick than you would with a dog for barking (it's in its nature) or a baby for crying (it's in its nature) or for the sky raining (it's in its nature).

“When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: the people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous and surly...[I] have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own - not of the same blood and birth, but the same mind...and so none of them can hurt me. No one can implicate me in ugliness. Nor can I feel angry at my relative, or hate him. We were born to work together like feet, hands and eyes, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower. To obstruct each other is unnatural. To feel anger at someone, to turn your back on him: these are unnatural.” - Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
by bobbiechen | 2025-10-26 01:27:20+00:00
As opposed to username/password, where... An attacker that controls the email address can log right in.

Unless you mean to say I should set up 2FA for my CSS theme variable helper website?

Passkeys and OAuth/social login are great, but everyone has an email. And I don't think any mainstream site supports only passkey as an auth method (and no other way).
by diek | 2025-10-26 01:27:50+00:00
You're correct. If you have:

public int someField; public void inc() { someField += 1; }

that still compiles down to:

GETFIELD [someField] ICONST_1 IADD PUTFIELD [somefield]

whether 'someField' is volatile or not. The volatile just affects the load/store semantics of the GETFIELD/PUTFIELD ops. For atomic increment you have to go through something like AtomicInteger that will internally use an Unsafe instance to ensure it emits a platform-specific atomic increment instruction.
by jiveturkey | 2025-10-26 01:27:58+00:00
fascinating how it's all over the place wrt level of detail. and absolutely unreadable. luckily the layout is simple and reader mode works.

> Hex is base 16

i would argue that someone that understand bases (in the first place), understands what the << operator does (context where base 16 is explained), but doesn't understand what base 16 is, doesn't exist. this is the kind of haphazard approach of this article i'm talking about. even the author's name, 0xkato, is an example of this.

as to the content, i wish it had touched on TPM, PCRs, UEFI secure boot, and ME pre-boot.

i'm forgiving all the actual errors since it is a pretty broad overview.

i'm guessing first-year uni student.

rather amazed a post like this can make it to the #1 spot.
by Insanity | 2025-10-26 01:28:59+00:00
What do you mean by tech and compsci bubble? Many of the software engineers I interact with don’t seem all that optimistic or positive about the AI tools. There are bubbles for either side I think.

But I’m one of those who hasn’t had great experiences using them for anything beyond toy projects.. so maybe my bubble falls more on the AI skeptic side.
by neilv | 2025-10-26 01:29:17+00:00
Good insights.

1. Do you think that getting the legal advice was a good defensive measure?

(Something to point to, to establish that they were being responsible, if ever challenged.)

2. And do you think that publicizing it was a good idea?

(Probably they are drawing fire on Monday morning, like you said. But maybe it's a plausibly good tactical move because, just speculating here, someone now takes the time to pay attention to who they are, rather than them later land on some poorly-informed list of non-compliants that gets rubber-stamped for action.)
by sshine | 2025-10-26 01:29:51+00:00
Thanks for highlighting the real issue: an abundance of guns on random encounters. I’ve heard it also leads to a lot of PTSD showing up to the aftermath of cases where cops aren’t directly pointed at, but they still have to deal with the gore.

I also think we haven't put American cops in a position to succeed. The gun laws were made to protect cowboys.

Good comparison to software.
by pndy | 2025-10-26 01:30:41+00:00
The 2005 return/reboot had a small budget and that could be seen in the props which mostly were ordinary items repurposed as out of this world technology. But that worked on the overall charm of this period - I dare to say that show felt realistic in that cheapness.

The regained interest surely allowed to assign more money to the series. DW was at the peak during 11th and 12th Doctors tenure with BBC America involvement in production - the low-quality is mostly gone and more CGI was utilized, and so the stories were good. Not mention the good chemistry between all main actors.
by meltyness | 2025-10-26 01:31:05+00:00
Optimistically because the component was considered self-contained, and done?

If you build things with wires, diodes, multiplexers, breakers, fuses and keyed connectors there's less maintenance needed than if you try and build a system entirely out of transistors and manually applied insulators.

I haven't looked at the package itself, but was it built on top of the C libraries with like, bindgen?

e: a glance suggests thats not the case, but perhaps they were ported naively by simply cloning the structure without looking at what it was implementing? that's definitely the path of least resistance for this type of thing. On top of that the spec itself is apparently in POSIX, some parts of which are, well, spotty; compared to RFCs
by makeitdouble | 2025-10-26 01:31:46+00:00
> call or something.

I kinda hate this.

It will feel efficient for the two people involved, but I'd actually want that exchange to be public and in writing, as we're talking about code that will go to production and will be read, debugged and maintained by dozen of other people from there.

Especially if it was complex enough to be discussed to these lengths. I don't care about code comments and don't trust people to properly maintain them, as long as MRs have the original context and discussion of the decisions. Shorting these discussions is a net loss to the org IMHO.
by dlubarov | 2025-10-26 01:32:16+00:00
> There is hamas and the PA, who aren't UN accepted governments of any territory whatsoever, who both have signed the Rome statute

This is half-right - officially only the State of Palestine (really Abbas, the PA president) has signed, Hamas hasn't. Presumably the ICC wouldn't recognize Hamas as a member even if they tried to sign, since they operate under the fiction that the PA is the de jure government of Gaza (despite never having controlled it).
by shagie | 2025-10-26 01:34:42+00:00
I'm a proponent of them. They help separate out atomic commits ("I'm writing the feature here... I'm doing a refactor there"). They also serve for being able to quickly identify where I need to look in the story I told myself for "what did I do there?"

While the goals that it is designed to get people to follow is something that I've preferred in my own commits in the past, this gives a structure to them that helps identify when there's too much in a commit for it to be reasonably reviewed in isolation.
by aspenmayer | 2025-10-26 01:36:07+00:00
I used to use Zalgo text to make it harder to read my name when I use it, as I use my “real name” and didn’t want it to be scraped by bots, but some folks literally blocked me on social media after a bit of a spat that I’ll admit was caused by a misunderstanding on my part. Apparently, these kinds of characters’ interpretations are context-specific, and using them as a person as strike-throughs is readily apparent for some, but while the meaning is possible to be deduced by an AI, it shouldn’t be expected or assumed to be understood. My HN username in Zalgo text was taking over 30 seconds to read all of the diacritics per post on platforms I used it on, so I had to change my ways or admit that I didn’t care about the experience others had, the latter of which couldn’t be further from the truth.

AI has a hard time deriving how many r’s are in strawberry, so I won’t expect it to parse my text on behalf of others any time soon, though I don’t think you meant any harm. In the interest of respect for those who don’t have a choice in using tech to help them do what comes easily and naturally to me, I thought I’d pay forward the knowledge of how the world and our perceptions of it is as unique as every individual.
by 0xDEAFBEAD | 2025-10-26 01:36:13+00:00
If prices are high, that typically means demand exceeds supply. What is preventing supply from expanding to meet demand? Elsewhere in this thread someone mentioned regulation.

Suppose we wave a magic wand and everyone in society becomes equally wealthy. That doesn't solve the fundamental problem of a contractor shortage. It just means we no longer have prices as a method for matching contractors with jobs to the same degree as previously. Without prices being bid up as high, there is less incentive to go into contracting, meaning that the shortage is liable to persist for longer.
by Ylpertnodi | 2025-10-26 01:36:59+00:00
> AI on the iPhone is basically a global toggle, one switch turns it all off.

> ...my windows 11 PC. Everything on offer has a toggle or uninstall option and the level of nag is far less than the Windows 10 OneDrive days.

Opt-out toggles are a nice option, but they can be set to opt-in 'by accident', by the OS owner.

I fear this is the near future, and not so long after, there'll be no toggles. Politicians and .gov's will be exempt, of course.
by tqi | 2025-10-26 01:37:42+00:00
> Forums and communities are losing authentic voices... The comments under most tweets follow the same robotic tone, and it's obvious that a lot of them exist only to farm engagement.

AI isn't making it better, but tbh most of the author's complaints have been a problem since well before LLMs. Engagement bait is profitable, and an internet that connects 8 billion people will always trend toward monoculture.
by numpad0 | 2025-10-26 01:38:34+00:00
My point is, it's not like other types of media contents aren't consumed at the same rate. Everything's on tap, not just porn. Classical literature, music, movies, everything is basically infinite. You can construct a whole world for yourself out of it and exist within <insert media genre> almost entirely. So what's the deal with singling out porn?

The theory I have is it's because porn and porn-adjacent contents are slowly replacing Western contents. AIs are used to generate anime porn and specifically Ghibli-style contents. Those kids don't know if it's technically possible to do an AI Marvel porn. I think that's what actually upsets people.
by tofof | 2025-10-26 01:39:19+00:00
Radiation units are fiendishly tricky to convert between. Here, the only indication is that after decontamination their hair was still reading 300 counts per minute. CPM are instrument-specific and doesn't mean that's the correct number of disintegrations per second, nor easily converted to absorbed dose units, and this is after decontamination, and disregarding the amount of water they ingested.

All that disclaimer aside: a banana produces about 15 Bq (which is s^-1), i.e. 900 cpm.
by rtpg | 2025-10-26 01:40:21+00:00
I have been looking at things like D2 and Penrose, trying to wrap Python around them to make it a bit easier to script up diagrams based on data.

Working through the problem I realize I probably would have a better time with something like Haskell but I do think the lower the barrier to entry is for drawing up stuff with these tools the more people will reach for programmatic diagramming to help debug and explain things.

The biggest problem with most of the declarative tools like D2,dot,mermaid etc is that they tend to not really offer "declare, then tweak" workflows. You can of course generate some SVG and then tweak it in Inkscape, but sometimes you just want to move something a bit after layout, constraints be damned.

Penrose makes that easier, at the cost of ... I guess everything else being weirder and randomized.
by gsibble | 2025-10-26 01:40:42+00:00
Way back in 2014, I once built a neat test of a product I wanted. I was CEO of a company that allowed an internet API to interface with bar/restaurant POS systems. We could open/close tabs, make orders, etc..

I always hated closing my tabs at the end of the night at bars since it could frequently take a little while for only a few seconds of work.

So I built an app that detected once you entered a beacon's area, and opened a bar tab for you with your name on it. You'd just go up to the bar and order as if you had a tab open already, and when you were done, you'd leave. If your phone didn't detect the beacon for 15 minutes, it closed the tab with your preferred credit card and tip (which you could edit).

We had a demo going for employees at Local Edition on Market street. It was really cool and worked really well. The issues came that exact position was not very exact at that time and I didn't think it was a feasible product to build and market since the installation of beacons at bars vs gaining users would be difficult.

But for a brief period, I never had to hand my credit card to a stranger or worry about getting stuck 20 minutes trying to close my tab.

If you like the idea, take it and run with it. I'm not going to do it but I feel like people would love it.
by karlitooo | 2025-10-26 01:41:57+00:00
I've had mixed success with this. It works when you have a nice person going through a tough time in their life who doesn't realise they are reacting badly to everything. I don't think that applies here because this person seems to believe their rudeness is justifiable.

A habit of being an asshole is not cost effective to fix. And giving validation to their belief that they should have "important jobs" just gives them real power to bully you more.

Instead of rewarding bad behaviour, they need an unambiguous dressing down from someone they respect, and a PIP. But IME it's a waste of time, rip the bandaid off and get someone with better default settings.
by bm3719 | 2025-10-26 01:42:48+00:00
I think Lacan's obscurantism, if you want to call it that, can be thought of one of two ways:

1. He claims to not to want to be understood too quickly. If you believe that, you might say he's forcing the reader (or emerging psychoanalyst) to not just take his ideas as a simple list of facts to be memorized. He often rants about other fields being reductive in the face of necessary nuance. You might also justify this by saying precisely that perspective is necessary in psychoanalysis, with the human mind (particularly the suffering one) in all its unexplored complexity being its target. I'm of two minds on this: I see his point, but there are certainly times when such is an obstacle. Of course, that's if you believe him in the first place. He also said he was something of the master, and his audience the acolytes. He was trying to build a new school under his system, after all.

2. Lacan's ideas are indeed complex and extremely tightly interconnected (or polyvalent, as he likes to say). The graph of Lacanian thought has a lot of nodes (ideas), and an extremely high number of edges (relationships between ideas) per node, and thus very high graph density. If you think about it from that perspective, how does one present such a oeuvre in the linear form like essays or speeches? Further complexifying things is that he was building this in situ, his Seminars being akin to live-blogging that development. He often asks his audience if there's an expert on a particular topic and if so, to let him know about some detail. He never wrote a comprehensive final form of Lacanian thought, so any secondary texts you read will be that author's interpretation. All this creates quite the conundrum for anyone getting started.

If you want condensed info and clarity, go for a secondary source (Bruce Fink being my favorite), while noting the above. I'd also say that, like Hegel, Lacan has something of a language of his own, one you can learn. If you find his ideas compelling (I do, and have benefited from them in my personal life greatly) you should still read him as a primary source. Even if you do the actual learning via other sources, I'd assert that Lacan is one of the last of the true Renaissance men, pulling in ideas from everywhere and everywhen, and I also find reading him an expanding experience just from that perspective.
by tgsovlerkhgsel | 2025-10-26 01:44:03+00:00
There is an interesting sentence in the post that shows why you want to ask actual lawyers, even if the law actually meant what one would think based on a common-sense reading of the text (it often doesn't) and you could read it (you often can't, because you might not know about a second law that also applies):

> For the time being, services like ours do not appear to be Ofcom’s priority.

Lawyers don't just tell you how the law is interpreted, but also how it's applied in practice. Often, bad law is worked around by the legal system rather than fixing it, and while one could rightfully lament this, if your goal is to get something done rather than fix the country's legal system... ask a lawyer and you might find yourself unblocked, or be told about a way to avoid the issue, or at least have a better understanding how big the risk is in practice, allowing you to make an informed decision.
by aspenmayer | 2025-10-26 01:44:48+00:00
That wasn’t my implication, but I apologize if I was unclear. My point was that those who appear to know something I don’t might be charlatans, but discernment on my part requires effort on my part, even if it turns out to be wasted. The adage that a stopped clock may be right twice a day implies that it might not be right at all, and it’s on me to know what time it is, and to catch where catch can.
by crote | 2025-10-26 01:45:15+00:00
You're missing the possibility of AI having gotten too big to fail.

If too many careers are tied to AI succeeding, accepting its failure is no longer an option for the company. It if far more attractive to keep shoveling it into more and more places in a desperate attempt to find a use case than to accept you've wasted hundreds of millions of dollars on a hype.

Combine this with AI being used in places where quality is highly subjective and not directly tied to the KPIs business people care about (like Google Search summaries, where the actual product is eyeballs on ads), and we might be stuck with it despite a lack of usefulness.
by bignerd_95 | 2025-10-26 01:45:21+00:00
If you're referring to little-endianness, it means the CPU stores multi-byte values in memory with the least significant byte first (at the lowest address).

This convention started on early Intel chips and was kept for backward compatibility. It also has a practical benefit: it makes basic arithmetic and type widening cheaper in hardware. The "low" part of the value is always at the base address, so the CPU can load 8 bits, then 16 bits, then 32 bits, etc. starting from the same address without extra offset math.

So when you say an address like 0xABCD shows up in memory as [0xCD, 0xAB] byte-by-byte, that's not the address being "reversed". That's just the little-endian in-memory layout of that numeric value.

There are also big-endian architectures, where the most significant byte is stored at the lowest address. That matches how humans usually write numbers (0xABCD in memory as [0xAB, 0xCD]). But most mainstream desktop/server CPUs today are little-endian, so you mostly see the little-endian view.
by kibwen | 2025-10-26 01:47:34+00:00
Compared to C, Rust makes it easy to push stuff to a place that people will find it. That's the major difference. With C, people push their half-finished projects to Github where they drown in Github's poor discovery; in Rust they push their half-finished stuff to crates.io where people have more than half a chance to actually find it via a casual search.
by Gigachad | 2025-10-26 01:47:34+00:00
I don't think any tech has ever been pushed so hard in front of people so fast. People hated facebook for ages but you could just not use it. While these AI features are shoved in front of your face constantly. Google sticks them at the top of every search, reddit sticks generated slop on every page, every SaaS has rebranded themselves as an AI tool with constant popups telling you to use the new AI feature.

Most other crappy tech you could just choose to not use.
by aleph_minus_one | 2025-10-26 01:49:05+00:00
> OpenAI is skirting around not just segmented consent but any concept of revenue-sharing (i.e. OpenAI wants to dip its toe into OnlyFans territory, but without any revenue-sharing or licensing deal with creators).

OpenAI is still doing basic experiments with which product offering are well received by users and/or work well and which are not. If some data provided by users (e.g. photos depicting the user) are seen to be very essential to the success of the AI-created content using this data so that OpenAI will likely loose an insane amount of money of these users leave (I think this is rather unlikely, but not impossible), then OpenAI will think about some concept of revenue-sharing, but not before (why should they?).
by analog31 | 2025-10-26 01:49:18+00:00
Anecdote: My house mate in grad school was working in a national lab when an experiment caught fire and the fire consumed a certain amount of radioactive material. (Tiny little buttons used for calibrating detectors). He was on shift and was the person who discovered the fire and pulled the alarm.

Among other things, he had to sit inside an enclosure made of scintillator material for a period of time, to make sure he wasn't contaminated. Then he also got blood tests for heavy metals etc. They pretty much went by the book for all of these tests.

Also, the facility is the only place that's equipped for this kind of situation.
by cookie_monsta | 2025-10-26 01:49:19+00:00
The (non-tech) industry I am in generates an enormous amount of text that it's fairly certain nobody reads past the executive summary.

My workmates love it. Amongst the tech community, I see a divide very similar to the crypto one - everybody who has a stake in it succeeding is very optimistic. Everybody working in other areas seems dubious at best.
by aspenmayer | 2025-10-26 01:49:55+00:00
I don’t read German, or French very well for that matter, so going to the sources is a bit of a linguistic barrier to my own self-directed learning, but that’s no excuse not to learn. I also have found both Lacan and Hegel to be a rich source of food for thought, so I appreciate others who have been steeped in their ideas, as you have, so that their knowledge graph can adjoin my own, at least in small ways.

I appreciate the mention of Bruce Fink, as his name is new to me. Any works of his or others you might recommend to me would be duly noted.