MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by lurk2 | 2025-10-04 18:51:21+00:00
> Its some weird myth that someone capable of being a technical leader cannot also flesh out the distribution

This idea often gets repeated here but it’s based on ZIRP from 2010s driving up developer salaries to a point where every kid with some portion of a CS degree thought he was the next Zuckerberg. “Technical” contributors became convinced they were the only contributors. Lots of stories about “idea guys” and useless upper management who Just Don’t Get It (meanwhile most guys posting things like this have never even seen a balance sheet). It’s a popular idea here because it establishes devs as the smartest guys in the room, but it doesn’t have a lot of bearing on reality. Plenty of devs have neither the aptitude nor inclination to learn the business side of things, as evidenced by some of the lifers who post here about upper management.

This attitude will change as market cools off, no code and LLM output improves, and overseas contractors become more accessible.

> Especially with the existence of AI, it really makes no sense and is some weird hierarchical system built by business people

LLM code output can be tested as it is generated, whereas its advice on accounting and contract law can only be tested by domain experts, who you can just pay for this advice without involving the LLM.
by tptacek | 2025-10-04 18:52:02+00:00
The premise of these cameras is that the operating LEOs control sharing. If you assume the federal government is going to ignore those controls extralegally, then ALPRs themselves aren't acceptable. The red line you're proposing here isn't coherent.

Again I want to be clear that there's a difference between "bad idea" or "bad public policy tradeoff" and "red line". I believe it's pretty clear that when something is a live controversy with no clear winner in a municipality like Oak Park, whatever else it is, it isn't a "red line".
by kpil | 2025-10-04 18:52:04+00:00
They where supposed to do it quicker.

I think there was a limit of something like 60 days. At least my bank apparently refused all transactions that were settled too late.

I had a job which involved a lot of taxi trips, and when I cross checked 30% of the trips where never charged my account. I suppose they just filled up the glove box with old slips until they couldn't shut it. Hotels never failed.
by giardini | 2025-10-04 18:52:53+00:00
altairprime says >"There aren’t many unintelligent economists..."<

How can you tell? Hell, with a few notable exceptions, maybe the entire field is largely a waste of time and money.

"Show me a successful economist and I'll show you a man who has not made an accurate forecast" - attributed to former United States Treasury Secretary James A. Baker III.
by PantaloonFlames | 2025-10-04 18:53:36+00:00
Judging actions taken at the time with the benefit of what we know now, is not a fair way to assess.

Sure we could say it was obvious they were pushing lots of pills. But this was a legal product.

Someone working for an NFL team trying to sell tickets , or for Starbucks trying to promote frappucinos, … these actions seem fine. We know the risks, but we acknowledge and move on.

But if it turns out that new data, 3 years from now, shows some huge uptick in head injuries among college players. Or high school. And we can attribute this to the influence of pro leagues, well…. The actions of the people participating in the enterprise now get considered in a different light.

Or if we gain new (as if we need it) data on the impact of sugar and caffeine on young people, then people who work for Starbucks or McDonald’s or basically any prepared food business, … we will judge them differently ?

People who decided to put lead additives in motor fuel had no idea that they would be causing brain disorders , generations down the road.

What do we do then? Refuse to take any action for fear of some possible future negative impact ?

It’s not appropriate to judge this way. We learn as we go, and we can say “if we knew then, what we know now…” but it’s not clear in the moment. A difficult line to draw.
by catlikesshrimp | 2025-10-04 18:54:05+00:00
Surveillance in the end is a tool, like a gun, which can be used for good or bad.

I doubt any more effort will be made against vandalism for a long time that reaquires to increase surveillance. The cameras and microphones will remain, though.

Edit: I live in a dictatorship. State surveillance and policing has helped with vandalism. But the drawbacks are obvious and nefarious. I would take more vandalism in a mediocre democracy any day.
by credit_guy | 2025-10-04 18:54:25+00:00
> As soon as we can prompt "Think about the codebase over night. Try different ways to refactor it. Tomorrow, show me your best solution." we will want as much GPU time at the current rate as possible.

That is nothing. Coding is done via text. Very soon people will use generative AI for high resolution movies. Maybe even HDR and high FPS (120 maybe?). Such videos will very likely cost in the range of $100-$1000 per minute. And will require lots and lots of GPUs. The US military (and I bet others as well) are already envisioning generative AI use for creating a picture of the battlespace. This type of generation will be even more intensive than high resolution videos.
by razoorka | 2025-10-04 18:54:28+00:00
This is the core philosophical divide in modern software development.

The "vibe coding MVP" crowd treats code as disposable—ship fast, validate the idea, and discard it if it doesn't work.

The problem: most MVPs never get thrown away. They get customers, then funding, then "we'll refactor later" becomes "we can't afford downtime to refactor."

That's how you end up with production systems built on prototypes that were never meant to handle real load.

I'm with you: if you're not willing to build it properly, don't build it at all. Technical debt compounds faster than most founders realize.

The Twitter mob defends vibe coding because it worked once for someone. However, for every success story, there are thousands of companies struggling with unfixable codebases.

Do it right or don't do it. There's no "we'll fix it later" in production.
by scoofy | 2025-10-04 18:55:10+00:00
The logic here works both ways. The number of wars prevented by mutually assured destruction, and the number of lives saved is beyond nontrivial, and likely outnumbers the lives lost.

I don't want to get into an argument about the dangers involved, I agree with Taleb about the fat tails of violence, and how standard statistics breaks down when there is infinite variance. My point is just that Tan's point is reasonable, even if there is risk. You need only look at the CCTV usage in the UK to see how you can have a reasonable society with strong surveillance.
by tptacek | 2025-10-04 18:55:31+00:00
You're misunderstanding the issue. As far as German law was concerned, ordering the deaths of millions of people wasn't a crime because of uniquely awful German law dehumanizing those people. International law was required, in part, because there was no other way to apply the obvious murder statutes to the case (you'd need to do that under German law, which was warped by the Nazis) and in part because the crimes were themselves more horrible than just murder. It was not because there was some weird bank-shot way in which knowingly operating death camps was alien to ordinary notions of criminal law.

Also: stop comparing things to the Holocaust. Still more pretzel twists. All you have to do is not pursue this dumb rhetorical strategy of depicting policy you don't like as "murder".
by techblueberry | 2025-10-04 18:55:58+00:00
One thing I’ve noticed about ChatGPT is it’s really bad at anything that allows multiple interpretations. It will have fairly unmovable positions around more scientific things like vaccines, but around politics/news, it will pretty much support whatever conclusion I ask it to, and will abandon those positions if I make counterarguments, but about the factual elements or interpretations of it. It’s become hugely noticeable problem in trusting it for anything like say; the news.
by martin-t | 2025-10-04 18:56:09+00:00
And so plebians vs patricians turns into citizens vs entrepreneurs.

It's not just about who owns the means of production anymore, it's about who owns the means of surveillance (the so called AI).

Two thousand years and humans have learned nothing. Power and money still lead to more power and money which lead to abuse, which after decades gets so bad it leads to revolution. Except this time they want to make revolutions impossible. So they _have_ learned but common people have not.
by f33d5173 | 2025-10-04 18:56:48+00:00
This is a new syntax, so it is opt-in. The new syntax can be conceived as syntax sugar that lets you rewrite

def my_func(): import my_mod my_mod.do_stuff()

as

lazy import my_mod def my_func(): my_mod.do_stuff()

Ie, with lazy, the import happens at the site of usage. Since clearly this is code that could already be written, it only breaks things in the sense that someone could already write broken code. Since it is opt in, if using it breaks some code, then people will notice that and choose not to rewrite that code using it.
by slicktux | 2025-10-04 18:56:52+00:00
You can disable the RFID by manipulating the right bits in the ECU’s anti-theft EEPROM. Something that’s done with imported engines from Japan for sports car engine swap; they usually come with wire harnesses and ECU but no key. I know how its done for the imported 3SGTE engine ECU… I’m sure it’s not too different for the 2013 4Runner. Though, Toyota makes some newer ECUs nearly impossible to open without damaging the circuit board and anti-theft bypass requires physical access to the EEPROM.

Edit: RFID should not need battery…you can reprogram your own key by jumpering the correct OBD2 pins..process takes about 20 minutes…
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-10-04 18:57:02+00:00
The server systems have that much memory bandwidth per socket. Also, that generation supports DDR5-6400 but they were using DDR5-5200. Using the faster stuff gets you 614GB/s per socket, i.e. a dual socket system with DDR5-6400 is >1200GB/s. And in those systems that's just for the CPU; a GPU/accelerator gets its own.

The M1 Ultra doesn't have 800GB/s because it's "integrated", it simply has 16 channels of DDR5-6400, which it could have whether it was soldered or not. And none of the more recent Apple chips have any more than that.

It's the GPUs that use integrated memory, i.e. GDDR or HBM. That actually gets you somewhere -- the RTX 5090 has 1.8TB/s with GDDR7, the MI300X has 5.3TB/s with HBM3. But that stuff is also more expensive which limits how much of it you get, e.g. the MI300X has 192GB of HBM3, whereas normal servers support 6TB per socket.

And it's the same problem with Apple even though there's no great reason for it to be. The 2019 Intel Xeon Mac Pro supported 1.5TB of RAM -- still in slots -- but the newer ones barely reach a third of that at the top end.
by buran77 | 2025-10-04 18:58:35+00:00
> I actually do real political work on this issue

And Catholic priests preach. Some things aren't mutually exclusive and a lot of people are capable of holding conflicting ideas in their head.

> I'm commenting in good faith from actual experience.

All good but you didn't say anything. You muddy the water by saying repeatedly how progressive and experienced you are without providing the obvious reasoning that multiple commenters here are missing: why not be against it? This industry in general (and Flock in particular as per the article) have already been shown to continuously escalate things and change the deal to their benefit again and again. Any step they take forward always proved to be an irrecoverable step backward for civil liberties.

You cracked open the door and are looking at someone on the other side opening it wider and wider, and bringing their friends in, and still believe you can close that door whenever you want. Any history book will tell you that's hubris, not qualifications.

What are your bona fides on turkeys voting for Christmas? If you can put together an argument why this isn't a red line given this evidence of escalation, I'll tell you all about my bona fides.
by rixed | 2025-10-04 18:58:45+00:00
It's the neverending debate between pragmatists and maximalists. Used to be a maximalist, but also used to see my favored causes tank and sink all the time. I do not believe there is clear winner for every situation.

What we should be convinced of though is that there are better ways to push for more openness than to shame the authors. Not sure that's what you intended to do but that's how the negative reception sounded to me.
by tehjoker | 2025-10-04 18:58:49+00:00
The wealthy people keep the poor down, then having this subpopulation that acts in messed up ways causes crime, which causes the wealthy to accept things like surveillance to "protect themselves" and continually cedes to more authoritarian policies. The middle class is the social base of fascism.

The way out is to turn on the rich and produce a more economically equal society.
by foxglacier | 2025-10-04 18:59:00+00:00
Even then, the people the money came from voluntarily chose those institutions. If you don't like risky investments, there are lower risk institutions or products you can put your money in. It's still ultimately the will of the individual what they do with their money, and the consequences of bad choices are still mostly contained to the individuals who make them. But when it's done with tax money, everyone's dragged into it and has no personal choice in the matter. Even worse, when it's tax money without democracy, even if the majority of people don't like how it's used, they even collectively have no choice in the matter.
by razoorka | 2025-10-04 18:59:01+00:00
Look at Intel—an absolute monopoly for decades, everyone said they'd never fall. But they did. The government bailed them out with billions because they're "too important to fail." Apple is even bigger. When they start truly failing, governments won't let them collapse—too much infrastructure depends on them. But "not allowed to fail" doesn't mean "allowed to thrive." Intel is a zombie now—alive but not really competing. Apple will eventually become the same: massive, declining, propped up by governments, but no longer innovating. You're right—nobody falls anymore. They simply become permanently mediocre monopolies that extract rent while quality continues to degrade.
by SvenL | 2025-10-04 18:59:41+00:00
Is it? Most of the time I read you have to create a wrapper, like here: https://docs.rust-embedded.org/book/interoperability/c-with-...

Please provide some documentation of how to use c libraries without such interop layer in rust. And while bindgen does most of the work it can be pretty tedious to get running.
by wucke13 | 2025-10-04 19:00:03+00:00
I know quite some people in the safety/aviation domain that kind of dislike the subranges, as it inserts run-time checks that are not easily traceable to source code, thus escaping the trifecta of requirements/tests/source-code (which all must be traceable/covered by each other).

Weirdly, when going through the higher assurance levels in aviation, defensive programming becomes more costly, because it complicates the satisfaction of assurance objectives. SQLite (whiches test suite reaches MC/DC coverage which is the most rigorous coverage criterion asked in aviation) has a nice paragraph on the friction between MC/DC and defensive programming:

https://www.sqlite.org/testing.html#tension_between_fuzz_tes...
by Symbiote | 2025-10-04 19:00:10+00:00
If you purchase an item on credit, it's the bank that makes the purchase. You then pay them back, 30 or 60 (or more) days later.

If there's a problem with the item, you can "return" it to the bank — after all, they own it! So in practise you can ask the shop for a refund, or you can ask the bank.

It is a stronger protection than a debit card chargeback.

As an example, I bought flight tickets from an obscure budget airline on a credit card. Months later, beyond the usual debit chargeback time limit, the airline went bankrupt — but my bank purchased that service, and isn't going to provide it! They refund immediately.

https://www.ukfinance.org.uk/our-expertise/cards/chargeback-...
by supermatt | 2025-10-04 19:00:37+00:00
Again, and as I said, DHT resolution is just one of many options.

As for “the complications”, those “complications” are just software - as implemented in dozens of libs - and already running on hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of nodes on some of the larger DHTs.

The “features” they needed were equally solved with did:web using plc.directory - which could absolutely be backed by the PLC transparently.
by knappa | 2025-10-04 19:00:48+00:00
> Institutional administrators confiscate 50, 60, 70% of every research grant.

Not even the Trump admin is alleging levels of indirect costs that high. See e.g.

https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-25-0...

"Yet the average indirect cost rate reported by NIH has averaged between 27% and 28% over time."

and a lot of that is simply because nobody wants to do the detailed accounting for things like: lab electricity usage, janitorial services, misc supplies.

> The result? 90%+ of academic science is fraud.

This is dramatic nonsense; a simple made up number.
by yobbo | 2025-10-04 19:01:10+00:00
I understand your goal. I've run this solution for more than a decade, originally with openvpn and multiple subnets.

Yes, it does require your local networks to be subnets of the VPN. If you can't control dhcp, then you can add static alias IPs to the local interfaces and thus have "another" local subnet for this purpose. In these cases, the wireguard link might need two addresses (AllowedIPs: 10.x.x.x/31) where one of them is configured on the local interface with the local subnet mask, the wireguard ip configured with the wider VPN mask.

Adding IP aliases doesn't seem to be possible on phones though ...
by ceejayoz | 2025-10-04 19:01:25+00:00
> As far as German law was concerned, ordering the deaths of millions of people wasn't a crime because of uniquely awful German law dehumanizing those people.

As far as American law is concerned, causing the deaths of many people isn’t a crime because of uniquely awful regulatory regime dehumanizing those people.

> Also: stop comparing things to the Holocaust.

It illustrates well the point that “just because a killing is lawful doesn’t necessarily mean it shouldn’t be considered murder”.
by kazinator | 2025-10-04 19:01:40+00:00
I disagree with the tacit assumption here, which is that a license plate is private information.

Driving a car on a public road is a public, social act, which requires licensing and abiding by numerous rules.

A license plate is a token of registration in a public database, required to be displayed. Registration is required because people can cause enormous harm with a vehicle directly, and also use a vehicle for fleeing from the scene of a crime. Not to mention that vehicles can be stolen.

If license plates are private information, then I'm violating privacy by writing down the license plate of a vehicle that is fleeing from a hit-and-run.

Bull. Fucking. Shit.

If you want a vehicle that lets you go wherever you want and do whatever you want without being identified by your vehicle, use a scooter or bicycle or any other unregistered, unlicensed form of transportation.

If you can't get me to care about this "privacy" issue, your narrative is screwed, because I'm in a vehemently pro-freedom libertarian demographic.
by jph00 | 2025-10-04 19:01:51+00:00
The 400 includes platform access from signup until a few weeks after course finishes. No quota - use whatever you need. You can't purchase access to the platform directly. It's not aimed at junior devs - e.g here's a post from a 25 year experience dev: https://christhomas.co.uk/blog/2025/09/24/the-human-is-the-a... . Alums from the preview course include professors, senior VPs, etc. Our approach to using AIs is very different to automated approaches like DSPy -- it is all about human-in-the-loop; the human is the agent. We do tackle head on the inherent limitations of LLMs, but not using anything like JEPA (LeCun's approach).
by erxam | 2025-10-04 19:02:07+00:00
Economists always do this shit. They talk about the unimpeded free market being some sort of saintly state of being, convince governments to implode themselves, everything goes to shit and… guess what? Apparently the economists had nothing to do with any of it?

Also, just calling the majority of economists 'Republican' doesn't explain it completely. The truth is that the Austrian School of Economics (Mises, Friedman, Hoppe) IS economics, and every single successful economist believes 100% in their gospel.
by creer | 2025-10-04 19:02:33+00:00
Sure. Let's take that idea:

> reduce vectors for bugs (which are always based on misunderstandings)

Is that really impossible to measure? (For cheap that is. Cheap measure, cheap estimate, cheap confidence). Is that really impossible to monitor?

Grab a random sample of 100 fixed bugs in the past 2 years. Go through them one by one. How many do you really seriously think would have been avoided? If it's not much more work, give it some weighting on confidence and impact or something. For how much addl work? Once you notice what you could count, restart from the top (re-randomize?) - it's only 100 bugs. Is it really 100%, or is it now that are looking at the data more like 10% at best? Was it really impossible to get data?

Now that you have an estimate, write it up and circulate it - It's risky: you could be volunteered to fix the problem and maybe you don't want that.

Would it really be impossible to monitor over the next year? (Still cheap data, cheap results - except if you really estimated 100% because now you were able to get real budget - even if too small - to attack it.)

Estimates, targets, budgets, deadlines are all different concepts. A fraught but carefully worked up estimate is rarely impossible.

Entire businesses get founded and funded on "impossible" estimates.
by rolandog | 2025-10-04 19:02:33+00:00
With WiFi even being able to detect our heartbeats [0], we'll get to enjoy dynamic pricing on our insurance on a second-by-second basis!

Remember kids, if the invasive tracking is done by the government and a couple of companies, then it's the good kind of dystopia! /s

[0]: https://news.ucsc.edu/2025/09/pulse-fi-wifi-heart-rate/
by rzz3 | 2025-10-04 19:02:37+00:00
>Powerful stakeholders are typically so stupid and dysfunctional that it’s effectively impossible for you to identify their needs and deliver solutions to them

I’m sorry, WHAT? How old is this author? “I fail to communicate effectively with anyone who isn’t an engineer because I lack the required empathy and perspective” is very different from “the average stakeholder is stupid and dysfunctional”. I stopped reading at this point because author is clearly someone who doesn’t take responsibility for their own failures in communication.
by nick__m | 2025-10-04 19:04:59+00:00
My trick is to learn the terminology/jargon of the specialists by buying meds students used textbooks. It completely changes the conversation dynamics even if initially it appears to slightly confuse them.

Sometimes it angers them but then it's a clear signal that you must see someone else ASAP. When we grilled my wife first oncologist on his protocol, he broke down and said that he was not up to date on the latest research. We requested someone else, he was a much better fit and most importantly she is still alive, her metastasis disappeared and the latest scans and bloodworks results are still NED (no evidence of disease).