MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by wat10000 | 2025-10-10 17:28:32+00:00
Gross versus net margin. The other commenter was saying they don't have incentives to cut costs because of the MLR limit, but that limit is a 25% margin over the cost of their "product." For a product that boils down to just moving money around, 25% is pretty good.

This is illustrated by the fact that they aren't actually bumping into the legal MLR limit currently. It would make sense if they don't care about cutting costs because the law doesn't allow them to spend less, but that's not where they are at the moment. If they could cut their medical spending by 1% they could increase their profit by 40%.
by mcv | 2025-10-10 17:28:48+00:00
That monopoly doesn't mean all that much. Sure, they had no Dutch competitors east of Africa, but they had English, Spanish, Portuguese and local competitors. But due to their extreme wealth, they ended up controlling entire countries, a massive navy, and they minted their own currency.

Any corporation is inherently a grant by the state to act as a legal entity. If you truly oppose government regulation of corporations, you should oppose the existence of corporations themselves. And honestly, I think that would solve a lot of the problems with capitalism. But it would also cripple our ability to take on projects too big for a small group of people. The government grant and the concentration of wealth are the entire point of corporations.
by dpc_01234 | 2025-10-10 17:29:00+00:00
Does it now allow handling non-2xx responses in non-SSE actions? Refusing to support it (even as an opt-in) is what made me just look into using alpine + alpinejs instead. SSE in d* is awesome when you have a feature that needs it, but IMO d* completely over-emphasizes and wants you to use it for everything. If I was using d*, I would use it more often, sure. But most of my projects just need little html updates on a click of a button, that's all. I'm not going to change the whole architecture to tailor it to a 1% feature.
by verisimi | 2025-10-10 17:29:01+00:00
We don't get to find out much about these folks - their background. However, for this person, we get given a little bio here:

https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2019/12/geoffrey-fowler-tech

What do we read. We was at the Wall Street Journal before the Washington Post.

He can ask National Security Agency folk to hack his phone so he can write an article.

His (unnamed) father was professor of medicine at University of South Carolina, his (unnamed) mother a librarian. He himself went to Harvard, a Ledecky Fellow. What did he study? Anthropology and Afro-American studies, ffs. Then on to Cambridge, Trinity College. He gets an internship at the WSJ, no Starbucks barista job for him!

"His first day of work was September 11, 2001; the paper’s office, located beside the World Trade Center, was severely damaged and filled with ash. Fowler, on his way to work by subway, rushed back home before the towers collapsed."

ok... just an average guy, right?

Harvard (Anthropology) -> Cambridge (Anthropology) -> WSJ -> WaPo. Doesn't everyone have this sort of career? lol
by dfxm12 | 2025-10-10 17:29:21+00:00
Our org has legal/security requirements around AI. MS is not making themselves available to address these concerns or giving our admins the information that is being asked for.

There are also ever changing, inscrutable licensing schemes, and too many similarly named products. It's impossible to know what to buy or how much it is going to cost.

This is even before you get to the quality of the product itself. I mean, part of the reason people aren't using it because it is hard to buy and use.
by mariusor | 2025-10-10 17:29:23+00:00
I'm not sure your implication of LSPs existing, specifically for vim, or in general, for 20 years is actually true in order that your questioning of Julia's skills to actually make sense.

As a similar example, I could never be bothered to install and configure any LSPs even though I've been using vim for more than a decade. The friction of doing that was always just a little bit higher than installing a full blown IDE when the work actually requires high level LSP functionality.
by lawn | 2025-10-10 17:29:55+00:00
The problem with that editing model for me is that it makes text objects much more cumbersome.

In Vim you can for example do "dap" to delete around a paragraph, but you cannot easily invert it ("pad") because 'p' is too common and is already bound.

You can also easily do the "select first" in Vim by first pressing 'v' to start a visual selection, so I just don't see the point.
by freedomben | 2025-10-10 17:30:02+00:00
Another day, another invocation of the false dichotomy fallacy.

If the truth isn't somewhere in the middle, then by definition it must be on one of the two extreme edges. That's a pretty bad (and ironic) fallacy to commit, unless you think everything in this world (or at least all regulations) are binary (either perfect or completely worthless)
by eCa | 2025-10-10 17:30:29+00:00
> and many more passengers would have survived than normal?

This[1] kind of crash landing is very rare (in that case there was no fire despite being immediately after take off, perhaps because of the cold). Normally an outcome like this is only reasonable to expect if you actually reach a runway despite being out of fuel. Like Gimli[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Airlines_System_F...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider
by o11c | 2025-10-10 17:30:38+00:00
That's not my impression at all. The logical "contradiction" it spends all its time talking about only applies if everything is strict binaries, and falls apart if we start addressing how much for every single point.

Or to pull out another example: what level of overstep is necessary for it to become acceptable (praiseworthy?) to throw your shoes at George W. Bush?
by gann_ | 2025-10-10 17:31:02+00:00
By compiling ICP smart contracts to WASI (WebAssembly System Interface), you can run applications that depend on standard system-level interfaces like file access, time, and randomness. A community-run project called WasmForge makes this possible on ICP through their tool wasi2ic, which provides ICP-compatible polyfills for WASI system functions.

This approach unlocks the ability to run any third-party tool or platform that can compile to WASI — including SQLite. Thanks to WasmForge’s ic-rusqlite and the ic-sql-migrate library, you can now use SQLite natively inside a canister, run schema migrations, seed data, and perform complex queries — all directly on ICP.
by noelwelsh | 2025-10-10 17:31:06+00:00
"Right wing" is not defined by popularity but by the nature of the arguments being put forth. A central argument in the piece is that London was better in the past. The suggestion that things were better in the past, and we should return to that time, is core to a certain kind of conservative thought. Conservative, by definition, means opposing change. Therefore this is a right-wing argument, whether it is popular or not.
by inglor_cz | 2025-10-10 17:31:18+00:00
"claiming they're low on fuel"

It is almost fascinating how humans will stoop to dishonesty even in banal situations - and not just any humans, but pilots, who should be subject to at least some vetting.

Maybe planes should be retrofitted as to transmit their actual fuel state including a qualified assessment in minutes to the ATC. Not just because of the cheaters, but also to warn the ATC in the rare case that some plane crew isn't very assertive about their dwindling fuel, or hasn't noticed the problem.

It would make prioritizing the queue a bit more neutral.

If I designed such a system from scratch, "remaining fuel" would be part of my telemetry.
by rpearl | 2025-10-10 17:31:50+00:00
I've noticed a number of moderately sized companies "standardizing" on vscode tooling. You can use other editors, but they'll have extra special support for vscode: default project format settings or special tooling for debug integration specifically in the form of vscode config, that sort of thing. Recommended plugin sets.

I also took pause at the claim that LSP was the issue. Neovim + treesitter + LSP feels... fairly solved at this point? It was definitely a bit rough 5 years ago, but it's pretty smoothed out now. Not sure where that opinion is coming from (and it feels at odds with everything else I've read from jvns, to be honest!)
by alwa | 2025-10-10 17:31:52+00:00
(1) The turbofan category of jet engine seems to inspire a lot of very pretty animated technical diagrams—here’s one set from a German manufacturer [0]. Now if only we could convince Bartozs Ciechanowski to take on such a subject… [1]

(2) I know glider pilots who fly without any fuel at all, once aloft… sounds not unlike the 150-200km glide range that @MaxikCZ mentions at idle from cruising altitude.

[0] https://aeroreport.de/en/good-to-know/how-does-a-turbofan-en...

[1] e.g. https://ciechanow.ski/airfoil/
by boudin | 2025-10-10 17:31:55+00:00
I believe that an atmosphere compatible with human life is a bit more useful than internet by satelite. The fact that the impact of re-entry of satelites is absolute insane. Any good engineering company would study the whole impact of scaling up before doing so. The fact that spacex didn't do that is really worrying and regulation should come to stop what they are doing asap until the impact is better understood. Some more serious engineers at Japan aerospace are studying wooden satelite which is a quite approach to the problem.
by sodapopcan | 2025-10-10 17:32:09+00:00
Indeed, Vim has had ways to do this for years, before nvim. I suppose their point is that it comes out of the box? It is worded in a way that makes it seem like they think like there are no options.

There are other things too, like pressing `*` then using `:%s` is no different than the behaviour they describe. I use a plugin that shows you all the updates live as you type making it essentially the same as multiple cursors (for this example). The only difference is that you're typing on the command prompt as opposed to the current line.
by weinzierl | 2025-10-10 17:32:14+00:00
"using a terminal-based text editor

For many years I’d mostly been using a GUI version of vim/neovim, so switching to actually using an editor in the terminal was a bit of an adjustment."

For a long time my pain with this was that I often want to open an ephemeral editor while not losing context and sight of my terminal.

With a GUI editor you always get a fresh window, but in the terminal this is difficult.

Luckily

zellij edit

solves this issue nicely for me.
by shadowgovt | 2025-10-10 17:32:19+00:00
Generally because Facebook polices Facebook (imperfectly, but the effort is demonstrated) and the damage radius is limited to Facebook users mostly. As long as the easiest way to avoid damage from the Facebook domain is "Don't use Facebook," the larger Internet doesn't need a mechanism to police it.

If Facebook became a trap that frequently hosted malware to strangers, the rest of the net would begin to interpret it as damage and route around it.
by paxys | 2025-10-10 17:32:31+00:00
Agree with everything in the article, but this isn't a new phenomenon. As long as I can remember (20 years, probably longer), for every student or professional who is seriously and diligently learning to code there are many orders of magnitude more who are simply there to take shortcuts and pad their resume. Vibe coding is just the latest iteration of this. This is why CS programs have such low graduation rates. This is why coding bootcamps don't produce many industry-ready engineers. Coding is hard, and the salaries of software engineers, even in the AI age, reflects this.
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-10-10 17:32:38+00:00
> Checklists are absolutely important

Checklists are good, including in public discourse. A 14-point list where every item is ambiguous, is not.

It’s not useless per se. Just insufficient as a consistent definition.

> you add in an ad hominem to Political scientist Dr. Lawrence Britt

Literally don’t. (Ad hominem would be me saying I hate Dr. Britt and rejecting his checklist on that basis.)

Saying I reject Britt as a final authority on a topic I don’t believe we have any final authority on yet is very different from rejecting them in any capacity.
by mrguyorama | 2025-10-10 17:33:09+00:00
Some of it. The air density is an important part of efficiency at higher altitudes, so every moment spent under like FL320 is wasted fuel.

So the entire climb "up", you are also wasting energy fighting the thick air. On the way back "down", that air again fights you, even though you are basically at idle thrust.

Your fuel reserves are calculated for cruise flight, so time spent doing low altitude flying is already at a disadvantage. "Two hours of reserves" is significantly less than that spent holding at a few thousand feet. Fuel efficiency while climbing is yet again dramatically worse
by christophilus | 2025-10-10 17:33:25+00:00
Their cargo.lock file is 3500 lines or so: https://github.com/helix-editor/helix/blob/master/Cargo.lock

So, I kind of agree with you, but that’s still a lot of dependencies baked into the editor. It’s probably not as bad as Neovim+plugins, but it’s still a supply chain issue.
by lunias | 2025-10-10 17:33:28+00:00
Sure, there's multiprocessing, but historically no multithreading (relatively recently there is the free-threading interpreter). Each of those processes / threads will also execute slowly compared to most other languages. But we agree Python is not performance oriented... I'm just curious why people think it's a good trade-off when I suspect that writing the same code in say, Java, will take roughly the same time, be easier to maintain (compiler assisted refactoring, type safety, etc), and execute faster.
by BrkAway21 | 2025-10-10 17:33:38+00:00
Maybe I’ll get maligned for saying this, but as someone who’s managed and successfully delivered software projects of all sizes, I’ve become somewhat of a convert to the Scaled Agile Framework. I treat it exactly as intended, as a framework. It’s a strawman to adapt based on context, and what I value most is how it led me to explore deeper source material and form my own conclusions.

Over the years, I’ve learned that true success starts with clearly understanding why you’re building something. Without clear goals, it’s impossible to prioritize or even know where to start. That clarity drives better sequencing, and sometimes the wisdom to not build something at all.

The next critical factor is empathy. You have to see through your customer’s eyes and validate that what you’re building actually solves their problem. That doesn’t mean giving them everything they ask for, but rather understanding their pain points well enough to deliver real value.

Ultimately, most projects go over budget or underdeliver because teams spend too much time building the wrong things. If we instead focused on continually steering toward desired, valuable functionality (things people genuinely want or will pay for), more software projects would appear like successes.
by magnio | 2025-10-10 17:33:50+00:00
While the current climate is not comparable, I find the actions and general attitude of the current US government similar to that during the McCarthy era.

Which led me to this very interesting article from 1965: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1965/6/17/the-university-...

In it, the author described the attacks on specific personnels and public villainification of Harvard. More tellingly though, the author wrote the article for students in the 60s, who, growing up a mere decade after, most likely considered the events "an aberration which could not have lasted", and that, "the whole [McCarthy] period has an air of unreality".

Those who did not know history are bound to repeat it. Unfortunately, no amount of textbooks and historical resources seems to be sufficient to impart lessons to subsequent generations, and we are bound to repeat it after a few cycles.
by UncleOxidant | 2025-10-10 17:34:20+00:00
> Either way, in retrospect, him winning an election is in the long term arguably, and to no fault of his own, a catastrophe.

Due to the right-wing backlash against a black president?

I don't view his winning as the catastrophe, I view it as leading to a revelation about what was just under the surface. The catastrophe has been caused by others.
by rasengan | 2025-10-10 17:34:57+00:00
Getting on the public suffix list is easier said than done [1]. They can simply say no if they feel like it and are making sure to be able to keep said rights as a "project" vs a "business," [2] which has its pros and cons.

[1] https://github.com/publicsuffix/list/blob/main/public_suffix...

[2] https://groups.google.com/g/publicsuffix-discuss/c/xJZHBlyqq...
by badsectoracula | 2025-10-10 17:36:37+00:00
I didn't notice that, but TBH is this a realistic concern? Is there an actual platform nowadays where realloc (and malloc, for that matter) ever fails, at least outside (small) embedded environments? I've being using realloc for decades and the only time i had to worry about it failing was in DOS.

Nowadays it feels like worrying about realloc failing is similar to worrying about fclose failing.
Show HN: GitHub for Robotics?
by victor_24 | 2025-10-10 17:37:09+00:00
I’m trying to build it, and I need a bunch of feedback. Robotics should be visual, 3D, and easy to explore. Here we feature projects from Hugging Face, Innate Inc., Human Computer Lab, and more. You can make both private and public projects, and I'm exploring ways to better integrate hardware, sotware, and electronics versioning.
by leg100 | 2025-10-10 17:37:31+00:00
> Calling datastar's pro features "necessary" is a bit disingenuous

I didn't. I said:

> * Datastar has a paid-for Pro edition, which is necesssary if you want certain behaviours. HTMX is completely free.

I don't need to spell out why this means something very different to what you think it means.

I'll happily concede on the other two quibbles.
by zackmorris | 2025-10-10 17:37:48+00:00
One thing that might help is that state space explosion is mainly caused by mutability. Because each mutation potentially creates branching that can be difficult or impossible to statically analyze.

In other words, imperative programming with const is directly transpilable to/from functional programming.

Using modern techniques like higher order methods, scatter-gather arrays (similar to map-reduce), passing by value via copy-on-write, etc, code can be written that works like piping data between unix executables. Everything becomes a spreadsheet basically.

Which also has implications for multiprocessing. When all data is const, many of the async edge cases that we're normally forced to deal with go away. Loosely that means that we can use techniques similar to double buffering to create new mutated copies where only the part that changed was actually copied. The rest of the data can reference one source of truth. In practice, this turns out to most closely approximate optimal algorithms, where the best-effort imperative code may paint itself into a corner because logic design choices get dictated by the realities of the runtime instead of the problem domain itself, so the optimizer loses opportunities to simplify it.

I find that in my daily work, nearly all of my time is spent untangling highly-imperative mutable code. Because I must hold the entire state in my mind when mutable references (mostly to objects) are passed between functions. My higher-order method solutions often end up shorter, more readable, faster, even more efficient, but harder to explain to junior developers. So I would really like a compiler that implicitly converts imperative code like for() loops and references into const/functional code whose intermediate code (i-code) can be reduced to its simplest form.

This is also my main concern about Rust and other mainstream imperative languages like C# and even Javascript, that they encourage bare-hands methods that go away with const/functional code if the user is willing to accept a doubling or more of memory usage. Which becomes less of an issue over time as memory cost decreases.

Edit: I maybe should have said fork-join instead of scatter-gather, but they are related concepts.
by 65 | 2025-10-10 17:38:16+00:00
I disagree with the reading part, as that's a major component of learning.

Programming only clicked for me when I had a goal in mind and started reading documentation: change the color of the button when I click it. How to do something on click? How to change the color of an element? Etc. From there my goals became bigger and reading documentation and examples along the way got me to where I am today.

Video is the true deception. I was trying to design patterns for sewing recently, and as a novice I watched a few videos. And none of them ever stuck with me on how to design something myself. It was only when I read a book about pattern design that the concepts stuck. I think the friction of reading, parsing the info, and then acting on it is what allows learning to happen.
by whycome | 2025-10-10 17:38:31+00:00
I think you missed the point.

Presenting information in different ways is useful (and the method of display can offer informational insights itself). And for different users it might help parse larger connections. And by using the LLM to summarize just that one facet of the problem (itinerary and sequence) and sharing it here, they’ve contributed in a meaningful way. It may not have warranted a response. But it added to overall understanding of the problem space to help facilitate discussion. And they did well enough by citing that the info came from an LLM. They didn’t bypass the intent of the site. They added to it and fell right in line with that intent.
by nitwit005 | 2025-10-10 17:38:49+00:00
> It will also be possible to compare an organization's percentage of active Copilot users with other companies. The numbers are calculated using randomized mathematical models, according to Microsoft, so no one company's data is used, and it isn't possible to work out who is in the benchmark against which your own company's Copilot adoption is being measured.

Somehow, I'm confident the result will almost always be that other companies are using it more.
by hn_acc1 | 2025-10-10 17:38:49+00:00
>(And no, that earlier 120Gbps figure isn't a lie.)

Is that 120 Gbps or 120 GB/s as the previous poster stated? 120 GB/s is on the order of DDR5 throughput - I doubt we have any kind of cheap cable tech that can carry that kind of bandwidth right now - while 120 Gbps is more like NVME 5 SSD speed.
by ETH_start | 2025-10-10 17:39:04+00:00
I think the big picture here is much more important. If tunneling technology is radically improved, we're going to see massive improvements in urban living, including:

• Cleaner air at street level because vehicle exhaust stays underground and can be filtered, which would have massive health and environmental benefits

• Quieter cities with most traffic noise eliminated

• Cooler temperatures since asphalt and vehicle heat are removed from the surface (urban heat island effect)

• More space for trees, parks, and gardens, improving urban greenery.

• Lower stress levels thanks to quieter, greener surroundings.

• Better physical health from more walkable, pedestrian-friendly spaces.
by macartain | 2025-10-10 17:39:12+00:00
Agree this is very inspiring - I suspect many folks out there might respond to a simple approach like this. I have fallen off several wagons in this regard, Convict Conditioning and the Busy Dad Routine most recently - generally because, although fun and encouraging initially, they are just too much faff from an administrative perspective!

I am up for this! One question: do you accrue push-ups during the day in a 'greasing the groove' type approach and then stick in the total at end of day? Or more of a session? Just curious what was successful for you...