MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by kalaksi | 2025-10-05 12:02:44+00:00
I don't think it's so black-and-white. There are multiple forces at play simultaneously.

I agree that people don't care enough about owning their data for it to matter more than what the companies want to push, which is of course monetizing the data and maximizing user lock-in.

Similarly, I think it's in the companies' interests to use non-swappable batteries: simpler and cheaper to manufacture (I think this is the main reason) and the device is made obsolete earlier which is an added bonus. Maybe small improvements in size etc., but that's a very small difference. Modern phones are already larger even with non-swappable batteries so I'm not sure it mattered. But again, having a non-swappable battery has to be weighed against other features, and availability of alternatives. In the end, people just care more about the other features, even though swappable battery would be a good thing.

Just to conclude: I don't believe markets work to fully cater to what customers actually want. It's more like customers (and other parties) get a compromise between what different parties in the market want.
by WillAdams | 2025-10-05 12:03:07+00:00
You will want the Wacom Movink 13 and 14 and MovinkPad 11 for that.

For Wacom at least, it's not that bad, there are product lines (which are further sub-divided into generations):

- Pro: Intuos/Cintiq

- consumer

- specialized mobile/folding

and the styluses are specific to each, except for products which straddle a divide such as the Movink, or the strange case of a folding phone where the stylus uses the same frequency as the eraser of the consumer line (I suspect to prevent folks from damaging the hinge with a hard tip).

That said, it's pretty easy to gut a Wacom stylus and place the innards in any shell one wants.

That said, I miss some of the older products --- esp. the tracing pucks and the "airbrush" handles and the stylus ID which allowed one to assign different tools in Painter to different physical styluses and switch by putting one down and grabbing another.

That said, it's just magical that I can: take a note on my Kindle Scribe, switch to drawing on my Wacom One or Samsung Galaxy Book 3 Pro 360, and _not_ have to switch tools, since they all use the same stylus technology --- best of all, I'll never have to spend a weekend at my mother-in-law's w/o a stylus, since the stylus in my Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ serves as a backup (and for expressive drawing on the go I can get the Lamy Wacom Stylus out of my bag).
by testdelacc1 | 2025-10-05 12:03:27+00:00
That makes sense, but it seems to add latency? Let’s say we’re currently reading the transactions from Cassandra with latency t. If TB is the source of truth, but we need an additional read from Cassandra for every transaction, the read latency is strictly worse now. Similarly with writes, especially since you recommend writing to TB last.

If what I’m saying is correct, we won’t actually see any performance benefits, only possible regressions. And if we’re already happy with Cassandra’s record keeping, what does TB add here?

Correct me if I’m missing something though! Like maybe we could rework how we write to Cassandra.
by Loughla | 2025-10-05 12:03:29+00:00
Correct. The faculty at my institution do not want any use of LLM or 'AI' technology. End of sentence. If they learn that a student used an LLM, regardless of how it was used, they send a formal academic discipline complaint to administration. It's a fucking joke.

I'm not saying throw the doors open and let loose. I'm saying that we need to find places where using these tools makes sense, follows a sense of professional ethics, and encourages (rather than replaces) critical thinking.

And the problem with your cited paper is that people who kick and scream the loudest about this at my institution (again, this is just at mine and is in no way indicative of any other institution) are the ones who have not updated their courses since I was in college. I mean that quite literally. I attended the institution I currently work at. Decades later and I could turn in papers that I wrote for their classes my freshman year and pass their classes.

Three of them sent me that same linked article. But instead of seeing the message "we need to think about how to use these things responsibly" they just read "you can do what you've done for years and nothing needs to change."

That "research" article isn't as impactful as the faculty at my institution thought.

I'm all for the thoughtful integration or rejection of these technologies based on sound pedagogical practices rooted in student learning theory. At my institution, and I want to stress n=1, they literally do not want to take time updating lessons, regardless of the reason. Llm's are just a convenient scapegoat right now.

I would argue that it's more unethical to not update your classroom lessons in over 2 decades than it is to use llm's to supplement learning.
by eqvinox | 2025-10-05 12:04:25+00:00
> SFP transceivers are just that- transceivers, they will spit out what you put in

This is only valid for ≤10Gbaud SFP(+) transceivers. SFP28 have CDR chips in them that will balk at doing anything other than supported rates, e.g. {25.78125, 26.5625, 27.952…} Gbd. Even supporting 10.3125Gbd is not a given.

(You can put other things on them, but you need to match a supported rate.)
by majkinetor | 2025-10-05 12:04:58+00:00
Nothing is preventing it, but 3rd party operates on a copy. You are still owner of the data and it is on one place which makes it easier for you to access it, share it, backup it, analyze it. So, this doesn't prevent reselling in general but prevents data locking. From there, I guess its not that hard to demonstrate which 3rd party sold your data and sue them. It also mandates nonproprietary data formats.

All that is much, much better than what we have now.
by zeroCalories | 2025-10-05 12:05:28+00:00
I find the ideas of data coops to be very appealing. I don't want to depend on faceless mega-corps like Google to host stuff like my email, but I also don't find the idea self-hosting to be realistic. I wouldn't mind paying for the security since losing access to certain accounts would be a disaster, but I'm already locked in, and the benefits of existing services would be marginal compared to the cost of moving.
by mike_hearn | 2025-10-05 12:05:34+00:00
I'm one of the thankfully few people in the world who worked on an implementation of DCOM (in my case, for Wine, although by coincidence I had a university lecturer who did the same for QNX). They're very similar systems. I think some of that is true and mattered, some of it is true and didn't matter much, and there's some aspects missing.

Neither DCOM nor CORBA worked well over the internet. DCOM was designed in an era when Bill Gates was publicly shitting on the internet and saying the future was closed BBS networks like CompuServe, AOL and MSN. Microsoft didn't have a reasonable internet strategy back then, even TCP/IP support was kinda ropey. So DCOM assumed an entirely flat network in which every machine had a unique network address, was up all the time, there were no firewalls anywhere and encryption wasn't needed. As a consequence passing a callback to an object - a very OOP and idiomatic thing to do - meant the server would try to connect back to the client. Every RPC system back then made this mistake, also in the UNIX world with Java's RPC system (RMI), Sun RPC etc. Thus every client in these architectures was also a server. This idea was just about tenable up until the DSL rollout and teenagers started noticing that every Windows XP box on the internet was also a server with a bunch of exposed RPC interfaces, all of which was connected to piles of crappy old C++ riddled with memory safety bugs. After a few megaworms Microsoft pushed updates that added a firewall and closed the entire RPC port by default, instead of providing any kind of finer grained support for firewalling at the object exporter level, and that was the end of any chance of using this 90s generation of RPC.

HTTP, on the other hand, had a very clear notion of what was a server and what was a client. It also had SSL/TLS, developed by Netscape for the web, which was one of the first cryptographic protocols. We take it for granted now but stuff like DCOM had no equivalent and no effort to develop any. After all, objects are exported over wired ethernet ports at your office, right? Why would you need any encryption? The need for it on the web was driven by eCommerce but nobdy used DCOM or CORBA for exporting shops over the network.

Systems like DCOM did have object capabilities and lifecycle handling, but that wasn't terribly useful because the default timeout on pings was absurdly high, like 20 minutes or something, and so in practice the ability to hold references to stateful objects could cause memory leaks accidentally and of course the moment anyone wanted to DoS attack you it was all over.
Show HN: Simple Photo Gallery – CLI to turn folder of photos into static gallery
by vladoh | 2025-10-05 12:05:42+00:00
Hey HN! I started building a free and open-source tool out of frustration with how difficult it is to share vacation photos and pictures of our son with friends and family. There was no tool that let me create a shareable web gallery with a great mobile experience, the ability to add detailed descriptions, and no login required.

I launched the initial version written in Python 5 years ago, and it got some traction (200+ on GitHub). This is now a full rewrite in TypeScript - a more modern, much faster, and better-looking version!

The CLI scans a folder and all sub-folders for photos and videos, generates thumbnails optimized for speed and finally creates a static web site to showcase the photos and tell their story. As the gallery is static, you can easily self-host it on any static hosting provider like Vercel, Netlify, Cloudflare Pages or GitHub Pages. Everything is written in TypeScript that the site is generated with Astro.

Happy about any feedback or questions :)
Show HN: Is-Kit – Lightweight TypeScript Guard and Validator Toolkit
by nyaomaru | 2025-10-05 12:05:44+00:00
Hi HN, I built is-kit, a lightweight, zero-dependency toolkit for TypeScript type guards and composable validators.

I made this because I was tired of writing repetitive value is Foo guards and wanted a clean, type-safe alternative.

GitHub: https://github.com/nyaomaru/is-kit Docs: https://is-kit-docs.vercel.app/en

Would love your feedback on design trade-offs and naming!
by tpm | 2025-10-05 12:06:45+00:00
I have worked in the betting industry for several years. And the reason I'm writing is to tell you that while (2) sound logical, it was not used during my time in the industry. Or to be more precise, of course the odds are adjusted all the time to balance the market, prevent arbitrage etc, but it was also very common to have a 'loss leader bet', usually on the favourite, where the betting company would take a loss or make very little money if the favourite wins (but if that happens the customers still don't make a lot, because the odds are already low, and betting on a favourite is not a winning strategy because the real fav loss probability is higher than the odds would suggest). OTOH what is also often done is when 'real odds' are very high (low probability), the odds that are offered are way lower than the probability would suggest. So if 'real odds' are 100:1, the company would offer 50:1, so, even taking into account the company margins, you as a customers are never offered anything close to the real probability and as a consequence unless you are exceptionally good can never make money (and if you do your are banned).
by zhulien | 2025-10-05 12:06:52+00:00
Instead of encrypting data, ZOSCII encodes messages as addresses pointing to characters in a shared ROM file (any binary file - photo, song, game ROM). Non-deterministic selection from multiple matching positions creates ~10^millions possible encodings.

Security comes from combinatorial explosion, not mathematics. No encryption = no export controls, quantum-proof by design.

Open source, working implementation available.
by lotsofpulp | 2025-10-05 12:07:08+00:00
95% of Americans had shitty upload bandwidth until very recently, since coaxial broadband is all they have at home. It still probably sucks for most.

There was no choice but to use someone else’s computers for moving around large files. Plus CGNAT and whatnot making people have to use dynamic DNS. If a turnkey solution could have existed 20 years ago, maybe a market for it would have developed before the big companies locked it down.
by CodesInChaos | 2025-10-05 12:08:01+00:00
No cryptographer cares about time-complexity on its own. Even the naive asymptotic cost-model is `t * (P + M)`, where P is the number of processors and M the amount of memory (including ROM/code-size). And a more serious cost-model is `t * A` where A is the chip area (~transistor count). This considers less obvious costs, like the size of the memory access circuitry, which can be substantial when you have a large number of parallel processors.

In any of these models the time would be multiplied with the size of the lookup table, resulting in a cost much higher that number-field-sieve.

Plus you need to consider the (amortized) cost of populating the lookup table.
by johannes1234321 | 2025-10-05 12:08:23+00:00
> Regarding confidentiality, coincidentally not even 2 weeks ago a friend was telling me about a case of hos company sending an invoice, and being man-in-the-middle'd so the attacker just changed the bank account number and the customer thus paid to the wrong account.

That sounds like a quite sophisticated attack. By far most Mail these days should be transport encrypted. The attacker thus must have control (legal or illegal, at least to fake a wrong MX DNS record) over either side and then manipulate the invoice and then need a bank account which can receive the payment, while hiding their traces. Seems quite sophisticated and targeted as an attack.

> Nobody uses GPG, sadly.

User experience there was never good. Signal/WhatsApp probably are the most userfiendly e2ee systems around: automatic key exchange with ability to verify. (While proprietary clients require trusting those, which is a big ask especially with Whatsapp/meta)
by dotnet00 | 2025-10-05 12:08:23+00:00
I think this varies a lot depending on the person and the relationship. When I was younger, I couldn't put up with ribbing at all. I always took it as bullying. I still think very negatively of some of the people I was "friends" with at the time due to that.

On the other hand, I have ~3 friends I made as an adult that I have been talking to very frequently (with some, daily), for a decade or so, and there, any level of ribbing is fine.

I don't think it's about us knowing each other's worst qualities and being fine with it, as a lot of our banter is on things we can't change about ourselves. I think it's just a matter of trust.
by zby | 2025-10-05 12:08:41+00:00
It is quite frustrating that we have these discussions over and over again. Asynchronous communication is great - but it is not better than synchronous communication in some universal way. It depends. Personally I am very sensitive to interruptions - so I lean towards asynchronous. But when you are doing something and you really need to get some information from someone to proceed - then getting his response immediately means that your work is not interrupted. The other person is - but it is a trade off. In a team you have to make these trade-offs. It can be hard - because it takes from one side and gives to the other - people would like to be able to interrupt others and not be interrupted themselves. And it is even more complicated by the fact that some jobs and some people are more sensitive to interruptions and others are less - so it is hard to make fair rules about it. But it is a real trade-off to be made.

UPDATE: Or take interactivity - a conversation is really powerful way of communicating. How a computer geek could even claim that asynchronous communication is always better - is he still using batch processors to run his jobs typing everything upfront and they waiting for the full run before he can fix his syntax errors?
by greatgib | 2025-10-05 12:08:42+00:00
As said by others, first it will be hard to find smartphones without that, especially if it is a requirement to be android certified and be allowed to have the play store running.

But, the biggest trap that we can easily expect is that a lot of apps like banking apps will use Google API to check that they can only run on devices with the check for signatures. Same as the check for rooted devices.
by crazygringo | 2025-10-05 12:09:34+00:00
> From there, I guess its not that hard to demonstrate which 3rd party sold your data and sue them.

But it doesn't? Obviously every site's TOS will say that by providing them with your data they can use it for all sorts of purposes. If you sued, you'd lose.

And you're generally going to want to make your data available to the various services requesting it, because otherwise most people won't see your posts and comments on their preferred platform.
by hopelite | 2025-10-05 12:10:15+00:00
New internet rule: When the name of a service/software is a common word in any language that already has a meaning, we must escape it if the context is lacking that would indicate it’s title property.

Examples: /Serendipity, /Sheets, /News /Numbers, /Files, /Drive, /Translate, /Play, etc.

Exceptions: If the context is clear, i.e., in a text talking about Google assets where News, Sheets, Drive, Play, are mentioned; or one prefixes the context with “The software Serendipity…”.

We should not assume everyone in the world knows every single title of every single software and service.
by GlibMonkeyDeath | 2025-10-05 12:10:33+00:00
Email still has its use cases in the modern workplace. Sometimes you need a slower, more detailed communication channel, especially when inter-company communications are involved.

But most of the things the OP likes about email make it a nightmare from a legal perspective. Once a company gets sued over labor/trade secret/IP related things, one result is a strict email (and other electronic communication) retention policy. Some retention periods can be as short as 6 months. Apps are deployed that scour your local storage to make sure you aren't archiving emails off-line. This removes many (most) of the archival advantages of email.

Emails are often front-line evidence in lawsuits. A good example: https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-google-recruitment-ema...
by CharlieDigital | 2025-10-05 12:10:40+00:00
You are missing the forest for the trees.

C# has increasingly become more terse (e.g. switch expressions, collection initializers, object initializers, etc) and, IMO, is a good balance between OOP and functional[0].

Functions are first class objects in C# and teams can write functional style C# if they want. But I suspect that this doesn't scale well in human terms as we've encountered a LOT of trouble trying to get TypeScript devs to adopt more functional programming techniques. We've found that many devs like to use functional code (e.g. Linq, `.filter()`, `.map()`), but dislike writing functional code because most devs are not wired this way and do not have any training in how to write functional code and understanding monads. Asking these devs to use a monad has been like asking kids to eat their carrots.

Across much of our backend TS codebase, there are very, very few cases where developers accept a function as input or return a function as output (almost all of it written by 1 dev out of a team of ~20).

> ...it is build upon OOP design principles and a bunch of “needless” abstraction

Having been working with Nest.js for a while, it's clear to me that most of these abstractions are not "needless" but actually "necessary" to manage complexity of apps beyond a certain scale and the reasons are less technical and more about scaling teams and communicating concepts.

Anyone that looks at Nest.js will immediately see the similarities to Spring Boot or .NET Web APIs because it fills the same niche. Whether you call a `*Factory` a "factory" or something else, the core concept of what the thing does still exists whether you're writing C#, Java, Go, or JS: you need a thing that creates instances of things.

You can say "I never use a factory in Go", but if you have a function that creates other things or other functions, that's a factory...you're just not using the nomenclature. Good for you? Or maybe you misunderstand why there is standard nomenclature of common patterns in the first place and are associating these patterns with OOP when in reality, they are almost universal and are rather human language abstractions for programming patterns.

[0] https://medium.com/itnext/getting-functional-with-c-6c74bf27...
by anonbuddy | 2025-10-05 12:10:56+00:00
But those who actually want to do this should be allowed by law to practice their ownership over their data.

I, and many like me, would pay for centralised service or any other service if it meant that we own our data and can tune the algorithms to our own preferences. I wont pay for doom scrolling, but would gladly pay for algorithm to serve me content that would better my human experience.

Governments have given corporation to much power, people need to rise up agains that, if it remains the same in AI age, we humans, and our collective mind would erode to the point of no return.
by crazygringo | 2025-10-05 12:12:24+00:00
> If I can clearly assert origin and personal ownership of my data, I can forbid further reselling of it.

Can you? A site's TOS will say that by sharing your data, you grant them the right to display, reuse and redistribute it, the same as you do now. And that would take precedence because your host provided the data. They requested and you provided.

The only thing that would change that is actual legislation. But then the legislation is orthogonal to personal data storage. If you want legislation for that, pursue legislation for that. Personal data storage is completely separate, and the two shouldn't be confused with each other.
by exodust | 2025-10-05 12:12:59+00:00
It's a shame when resigning is the only way out. Before reaching that point, the usual strategies should be attempted:

Picking your battles; Negotiate rather than fight; Be better at analytics and research than anyone else. So you have the data to measure or predict success about a particular feature or direction. Armed with your data, you must carefully communicate findings without shaming others.

It's a fine line between fostering a positive work environment in the face of misguided decisions, and being condescending or derisive towards other team members. There is no silver bullet, but a touch of self-deprecating humour never hurt. If you advice isn't taken, you'll have a non-snarky receipt. Any email written with an irritated tone, will look twice as bad months later.
by redbell | 2025-10-05 12:14:36+00:00
Great summary for beginners like me! Definitely bookmarking it.

One negative feeling however is that the author didn't mentioned Coolify in the article while being stated in the title :(

Another good article on the same topic that I have already bookmarked is: Setting up a Production-Ready VPS from Scratch (https://dreamsofcode.io/blog/setting-up-a-production-ready-v...)

To expand my knowledge on this topic, generally, after I finish reading this type of content, I copy the article link, put it in an LLM and prompt it:

"here's an article on 'topic name/article title': https://article.link. Grasp it, analyze it then expand each section mentioned from your own knowledge. Add additional sections relative to the subject"