MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by kelseyfrog | 2025-10-19 19:59:58+00:00
Thanks for bringing this point up.

I may have incredible freedoms inside a market, but I have little to no freedom from markets (or capitalism) I have no practical freedom between different economic systems. Capital has eaten it all. I detest being essentially forced to participate in a system I don't believe in where the alternative (living in the woods alone) isn't really an alternative at all. It's Moloch or the wilderness.
by BobaFloutist | 2025-10-19 20:00:02+00:00
Right, but the population of people who buy lottery tickets often do buy more than one lottery ticket, so even if the number of people buying lottery tickets divided by the per ticket chance to win is smaller than the number of people divided by the chance of being hit by lightning, the overall chance of anyone winning the lottery can be higher than the overall chance of anyone getting hit by lightning for the same period.
by jstimpfle | 2025-10-19 20:00:39+00:00
The most important ingredient by far is competent people. Those people will then probably introduce some static analysis to find problems earlier and easier. But static analysis can never fix the wrong architecture and fix the wrong vision.

In the industries I've worked, it's not a huge problem if you have a bug. It's a problem if you can't iterate quickly, try out different approaches quickly, bring results quickly. A few bugs are acceptable as long as they can be fixed. I've even worked at a medical device startup for a bit and it wasn't different, other than at some point there need to happen some ISO compliance things. But the important thing is to get something off the ground in the first place.
by 1718627440 | 2025-10-19 20:00:52+00:00
That is a very good comparison. I tend to err to #2, because I think of this more as separate databases. It is quite useful to decompose problems into different units, which might represent different actors or aspects of a domain space. Thus, the ability to describe interface definitions from both sides provides a way to describe the interface in the terms of each side, serving as a way to document internal assumptions and allowing for the necessity of intermediaries to surface. This is a concept that is shaped by C's notion of translation units.
by Esophagus4 | 2025-10-19 20:00:54+00:00
Usually not - the people writing these comments have neither the understanding nor the courage of their conviction to bet based on their own analysis.

If they did, the articles would look less like “wow, numbers are really big,” and more like, “disclaimer: I am short. Here’s my reasoning”

They don’t even have to be short for me to respect it. Even being hedged or on the sidelines I would understand if you thought everything was massively overvalued.

It’s a bit like saying you think the rapture is coming, but you’re still investing in your 401k…

Edit: sorry to respond to this comment twice. You just touched on a real pet peeve of mine, and I feel a little like I’m the only one who thinks this way, so I got excited to see your comment
by lorenzo95 | 2025-10-19 20:01:07+00:00
That sounds intriguing! I'm looking forward to giving it a try. I've checked out the example configurations, and while there’s definitely a learning curve, it seems manageable. I use Babel over WireGuard myself and appreciate the ability to redistribute interfaces through inclusion and exclusion.

I’m curious if Nylon offers similar functionality. Can it redistribute a dummy /32 or a local /24 into the network? Also, how does it handle default route advertising? Would there be a risk of looping, similar to what happens with IPsec tunnels?

I also think this could really benefit from a Docker image to streamline setup.
by saurik | 2025-10-19 20:01:16+00:00
This wording isn't as useful as it comes across at first, as the issue itself is often two-sided. Steve Jobs--one of the defining users of these phrases in tech--saying that it is important to exert his puritan values on everyone to provide a "freedom from" porn by normalizing taking away someone else's "freedom to" install whatever they want is also him exerting what he feels should be his "freedom to" build centralized cryptographic locks and take away many peoples' "freedom from" authoritarians, whether here or in China. The west, for numerous reasons, tends to focus a lot on "freedom from" such control, and it happens to manifest as a "freedom to" do things, but a "freedom to" do something is always commensurate with a "freedom from" the constant intrusion of the people who insist that you can't. GPL software guarantees me both a "freedom to" do things with it, but it's moral purpose is to ensure "freedom from" all the shitty things developers can do to me if I don't have those guarantees. At the end of the day, I feel this linguistic contrivance is maybe useful if you've never before realized the world is made up of tradeoffs between multiple interests, but then it starts to lose its usefulness once people try to apply it as a shortcut for how to analyze or judge morality.
by throw10920 | 2025-10-19 20:01:36+00:00
This is great point, and I'll extend it by claiming that there's a more general physical principle underneath: that it's significantly easier to build bistable systems than tristable (or higher) systems, so much so that it makes up for the fact that you need more of them.

This is far more general than electronic systems (e.g. quantum computers follow the same principle - it's far easier to build and control qubits than qutrits/qudits).

(technically, it's even easier to build systems that have a single stable configuration, but you can't really store information in those, so they're not relevant)
by bitwize | 2025-10-19 20:01:59+00:00
I've quipped a lot here about s/AI/statistics/g, but the applications where that is most straightforwardly true are probably the most solid that are going to produce a lot of value over the long term.

Before computers came along, we really couldn't fit curves to data much beyond simple linear regression. Too much raw number crunching to make the task practical. Now that we have computers—powerful ones—we've developed ever more advanced statistical inference techniques and the payoff in terms of what that enables in research and development is potentially immense.
by casenmgreen | 2025-10-19 20:02:08+00:00
I may be wrong, but it seems to me pricing everything at its actual correct price is the best way; do not subsidize consumption or production, do not protect producers. All of these things are firstly political footballs and secondly only act to consume wealth inefficiently (which is to say, to mis-allocate resources).

Then work on making everyone as wealthy as possible, by encouraging economic growth, so we have as much personal, individual wealth as possible, and so can buy as much of what we want or need as possible.
by userbinator | 2025-10-19 20:02:20+00:00
When cat writes to stdout, it doesn't block waiting for grep to process that data.

It will certainly do that if the buffer is full.

prevents the implicit blocking

No, that's exactly the case of implicit blocking mentioned above.

Does anyone else find this article rather AI-ish? The extreme verbosity and repetitiveness, the use of dashes, and "The limitation isn't conceptual—it's syntactic" are notable artifacts.
by addaon | 2025-10-19 20:02:23+00:00
> So you're using proof on every line of code you produce?

No, except for trivially (the code is statically and strongly typed, which is a proof mechanism). The set of activities chosen to give confidence in defect rate is varied, but only a few of them would fit either a traditional or formal verification definition of a proof. See DO-178C for more.
by cardiffspaceman | 2025-10-19 20:03:15+00:00
DIRECTV had a box that had integrated satellite tuning and EPG. I don’t know what happened to that service, but my guess is the service ended around the time you found the HDDs available?

TiVo had a few experimental features and NBC helped test them. You could press the TiVo button to record the show that was being advertised by a commercial for Friends, if the TiVo logo prompted you.
by Forgeties79 | 2025-10-19 20:04:16+00:00
>still bad

Then what are we debating? Should we debate if 3 murders is as bad as 5 murders while we’re at it? Or if stabbing someone to death is better/worse than shooting someone to death?

You’re treating this like some cold academic exercise or game of “what if” when it is a very real thing that happens to people literally every day. We are talking about a person who actually did this - an act that you yourself consider “bad.”
by jamwil | 2025-10-19 20:04:38+00:00
This is similar to my idea for a better democracy. Every cycle involves a lottery where, say, 1000 random citizens become eligible to run for public office. A small enough number to make ‘career politician/sociopath’ an unviable life path but large enough that there will inevitably be some excellent potential candidates in the pool that wouldn’t have entered politics otherwise.
by Timsky | 2025-10-19 20:04:41+00:00
Because this is precisely what the word counterfeit means, an imitation that deceives you. The functionality of counterfeit can be from 0% to 100%, depending on your luck. If you accidentally bought a fake iPhone, it can still make calls. Chat output is something that looks like a literature review, some collection of summaries of relevant papers. But the problem is that a review is not just text compression. It is also about rejecting low-quality research, considering the historical context, identifying contradictions, etc. No machine can do that analysis for you, yet. I have quite a confidence in that.
by vector_spaces | 2025-10-19 20:05:13+00:00
The viewpoint of a lecture as an inefficient note delivery system is a pretty common and reductive view. Your "Let's Play" analogy was pretty apt though.

I think their (potential) value seems pretty clear when you look at language courses -- you can't possibly hope to develop fluency in a language by studying it in isolation from books -- forming your own sentences and hearing how other human beings do the same in real time is pretty decisive.

With math classes, YMMV, especially since they are rarely so interactive at the upper division and graduate level, but at the very least seeing an instructor talk about math and work through problems (and if you are lucky to have a particularly disorganized one, get stuck, and get themselves unstuck) can go a long way. But to be fair I regularly skipped math lectures in favor of reading too, heh
by bdangubic | 2025-10-19 20:05:34+00:00
every penny I made in the market over the last 30 years can be in some (or all) way attributed to exactly this. but this has to be backed by fundamentals. and fundamentals are weakening… this is a good read on OpenAI shit happening recently but it is industry-wide related - https://www.wheresyoured.at/openai400bn/
by falcor84 | 2025-10-19 20:05:55+00:00
> I've heard personal histories of being courted and finding the guy was out for sexual gratification and didn't much care for her life-perspective.

Personal belief: if a woman finds that she isn't pleased with the type of man courting her, then maybe she should take the initiative and put in the effort to approach and court the men that she does want. Just as you likely wouldn't get the best job if you just wait for recruiters to reach out to you.
by whycome | 2025-10-19 20:06:06+00:00
Agreed

> Its dominance comes from an unusual level of control: YKK manufactures its own machines, designs its own molds, and even spins its own thread. That self-sufficiency lets it experiment in ways competitors can’t, turning a mundane component into a field for continuous innovation.

I thought the point was that there hasn’t been any innovation??
by Bender | 2025-10-19 20:06:26+00:00
Part of me wonders if that was a deliberate decision to hide activity which users may not want.

Possibly. My first 386-DX40 had activity lights and I tried out a CompuServ disk and saw my HD activity going nuts so I killed the power and trashed the CD.

There are programs that can show a virtual LED for HD and Network activity so all is not lost.
by ants_everywhere | 2025-10-19 20:06:29+00:00
> The signatories to the January 1977 petition included Gabriel Matzneff (the petition's author), Jean-Louis Bory, Pierre Hahn [eo; fr; ia; pt], Jean-Luc Hennig [ar; fr; ru], Guy Hocquenghem, Françoise d'Eaubonne, René Schérer, Pierre Guyotat, Louis Aragon, Francis Ponge, Roland Barthes, Simone de Beauvoir, Philippe Sollers, Patrice Chéreau, Bernard Kouchner, François Châtelet, Gilles Deleuze, Félix Guattari, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Jean-François Lyotard.[6]

> Notably, the signatories did not include Michel Foucault,[6]: 16 Marguerite Duras, Hélène Cixous, or Xavière Gauthier [fr; sv], who all refused to sign the January petition.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petitions_against_age-o...

This was in defense of people arrested for sexual abuse of children 12-13.
by bayindirh | 2025-10-19 20:06:51+00:00
Malfunctioning devices are small part of the issue. One can understand how the workload strains the system via the sounds it (used to) make.

Graphs and logs provide a proxy to that data at best, and attaching a debugger, tracer, or perf tool is not an option all the time.

Sounds and LEDs provided an overhead-free real time communication channel to the operation of the system.
by opan | 2025-10-19 20:07:25+00:00
I similarly had an issue with stuff falling out of my pockets which made me get pants with zipper pockets. In the end I was disappointed. I had some pants and shorts from Fjallraven and the zippers on the pockets all failed in under a year from what I recall. I ended up switching to all Duluth Trading Co. pants/shorts. These do NOT have zipper pockets, but they DID solve my problem, somehow. The pockets are deeper and perhaps a better shape. I've hung upside down in an inversion table, pockets stuffed full with what some would call an excessive EDC, and nothing falls out.

I would say avoid excercise-y pants/shorts and pajama pants, they have particularly bad pockets. That alone helped me quite a bit. I went from more lounge-y wear to dressing like a tradesman on the average day. The Duluth Trading pants are a lot more comfortable than any blue jeans I've worn before, as well as more durable and with more pockets. I have seen some other brands with similar design but can't recall the names. I just know I got some pair from Menard's or Fleet Farm once as a gift and the pocket layout was surprisingly identical to my Duluth Trading pants. I didn't like them as much, but I don't remember any specific major flaws either. Mostly including that tidbit to sound less like an ad for DT.
by alphazard | 2025-10-19 20:07:44+00:00
I've never understood the fascination here. Apparently some expression relating the number of possible symbols and the length of a message is closer to euler's number. I don't see why the product of those things is worth optimizing for. The alphabet size that works best is dictated by the storage technology, more symbols usually means it's harder to disambiguate.

2 is the smallest amount of symbols needed to encode information, and makes it the easiest to disambiguate symbols in any implementation, good enough for me.
by nekusar | 2025-10-19 20:07:46+00:00
A far as I'm concerned, they're just intentionally failing to do their job. And they *all* in congress should be fired for job abandonment. And yes, rerun elections, with those idiots not allowed to run.

After all, when I look at my W2 (yeah, I'm a working stiff), they sure as hell are taking out taxes still. That aint "shut down". It's a scam.

Something about "taxation without representation". I think we went to war over that before.
by jemmyw | 2025-10-19 20:08:25+00:00
Einstein didn't outright reject the Copenhagen interpretation. We like a story, but such a story glosses over all the nuance and messy chaos of real life. The physicists of the time were friends and friendly rivals. We probably get the same for any story: there's the simple story most people believe, then several more complex stories and interpretations, then a chaotic and nuanced mess of data, then the actual goings on that weren't written, actions and thoughts and so forth. So we should always be very suspicious of pat stories about historical figures that are used for an argument about behavior.
by lukeschlather | 2025-10-19 20:08:31+00:00
The bubble referenced in the article is $1 Trillion, compared to Google's $3 trillion market cap. And OpenAI / Anthropic legitimately compete with Google Search. I feel weirdly like AI's detractors are somehow drinking too much of the AI Kool-Aid. All AI has to do to justify these valuations is capture 1/3rd of Google. Unless Google is wildly overvalued, which it may be, but that's not a phenomenon that has anything to do with AI hype.

And there are legitimately applications beyond search, I don't know how big those markets are, but it doesn't seem that odd to suggest they might be larger than the search market.
by fuzzfactor | 2025-10-19 20:08:34+00:00
What you say does make sense because it's got to be better than what things have evolved into in so many misguided places.

But I forgot to add that the amount of revenue from property tax is only intended to act like collateral damage :)

When you do the math it turns out anytime you start taxing anything but commerce, it is unsustainable because it accrues and accumulates disadvantage to the taxpayer until it is overwhelming. Plus the higher that taxes rise above absolute insignificance, the more likely a major upset occurs from just a slight lapse in overall prosperity, re-balancing to the further disadvantage against those who can afford it least. And that doesn't include the pulling of political strings by those who benefit most from that type activity.

You don't sensibly tax people just for existing, even at 3/5 the amount per head. Likewise their property unless it is involved in commercial activity, nor wage income since the employer is the commercial enterprise they should have that all covered like it used to be when things were not so predatory.

But they tax "rooftops" like a lot of other places based on square footage and now in Houston there has been some recent influence to demolish unoccupied buildings more so for appearance sake to the world for the upcoming World Cup as an excuse more than anything else.

It appears the actual demolition of truly abandoned buildings can not be accelerated without blurring the lines between actual abandonment and merely unoccupied to some degree or another.

But appearances can be deceiving.

The big thing is there's enough people much wealthier than those who have the properties now, who want them either way, demolished or not.

Under threat of forced demolition those having buildings suitable for rehab would need to sell for less than they would have otherwise. Who cares about the poor sellers who have been paying taxes on the buildings the whole time, working toward a financial turnaround? The idea seems to be to incentivize new buyers to have better opportunities by preying on previous owners' misfortune.

OTOH, as soon as any property has had any nonproductive structures removed, its appraised value and tax levy drops like a rock, making it way more attractive for the same type buyers who could have already obtained all the lots having buildings they are willing to rehab.

The new buyers can then afford many more vacant lots for potential future construction, which had always been a non-bonanza prospect otherwise, and with the newly lowered taxes afford to wait and see which might be a bonanza to build on someday. A lot more so than the previous owners.

If a lot of this happens at the same time, then the market for reclaimed lots like this will have downward price pressure too until the effect runs its course.

Too bad for the little guy either way.
by zero-ground-445 | 2025-10-19 20:08:40+00:00
I think it is a matter of perspective. First, many of us wants something (or someone) that would do our work for us. It started with physical work, now it getting to knowledge work. Let's not discuss where that direction leaves us (well... in oblivion obviously), but I have bad news for you in any case. There will be no free lunch. When the bubble bursts we will find out how expensive and vulnerable AI is. Making predictions is not my thing, but most likely we will end up with some Higher Level Programming language. That will address unpredictable AI output, injections, etc. And once again, non-technical users will have hard time using it. A historical example - SQL, it was originally envisioned as a tool for "non-technical" users. It's already happening. Here is just one example of today: https://kiro.dev/blog/introducing-kiro/. And the concept of a "spec" is just one step forward to how gen AI will look like tomorrow. All I can say, enjoy the trial period and try to make the most of it. It will not last long.
by grogers | 2025-10-19 20:09:35+00:00
The argument about Tether wasn't that they didn't have any assets backing the coins. It was that the assets they had were more risky than the boring <1 mo maturity treasuries they should be holding. Just because tether didn't implode , doesn't mean it wasn't a very real possibility. It's not very different from "the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent"
by Avamander | 2025-10-19 20:10:31+00:00
It's not only NVMe/SSD that could use such standardization.

If you want detailed Ryzen stats you have to use ryzen_monitor. If you want detailed Seagate HDD stats you have to use OpenSeaChest. If you want detailed NIC queue stats there's ethq. I'm sure there are other examples as well.

Most hardware metrics are still really difficult to collect, understand and monitor.
by BobaFloutist | 2025-10-19 20:10:53+00:00
I will say, the quality of exhibition in even the biggest most popular art museums is pretty poor.

The number of times a glare on the glass obscured the work, or I've walked through a room completely befuddled about what I'm looking at until finally on my way out discovering that I entered from the "wrong" direction and they intended that I take one very specific weird meandering path through the halls, and I get no info until the end of an exhibit otherwise, is ridiculous. On top of that, I feel like I get some history and analysis per artist or per period when what I really want is per work, explaining how they painted it, what they were thinking about or referring to (since art is almost always part of a conversation), and what's notable about that specific work. I'd also probably like fewer pieces from a given artist in a row and just have more a collection of contemporaries that drew inspiration from each other in a sequence so I can see how techniques and vocabularies developed, rather than "Here's the artist room. He was very famous and used a lot of color. We have access to these for a month, so take a good look."

It's weird just how much better science museums are at exhibit building. Please, art museums, crib their notes!
by 1718627440 | 2025-10-19 20:10:58+00:00
That would be more akin to say that everyone must sleep with the first lady, so no it's not the same thing at all. What I'm stating is more to decide whether you should breath a gas or a liquid.

> The categorical imperative says: decide rules that would be good if everybody followed them

No, it's a measure to decide which rules should can be considered good in the first place.

> "everyone should have sex with whatever gender they like"

If you think this a good rule, then you should also be content, with a world where everyone is homosexual. Are you?

> It doesn't say you shouldn't be homosexual because it would be bad if everyone was homosexual.

That's exactly what it says. It builds on the fact, that rules that only apply for some people, are generally considered to be unjust. If a rule is acceptable, it has to be still acceptable, if everyone would use it in the same direction. If you don't like that result, then either the rule is bad, or you accept different standards for different people. ("Rules for thee, but not for me.")