MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by ealexhudson | 2025-10-09 15:14:25+00:00
I don't want to sound too dismissive, but all these arguments have been brought up time and again. The move from assembler to high level languages. The introduction of OOP. Component architecture / COM / CORBA / etc. The development of the web browser. The introduction of Java.

2018 isn't "the start of the decline", it's just another data point on a line that leads from, y'know, Elite 8-bit on a single tape in a few Kb through to MS Flight Simulator 2020 on a suite of several DVDs. If you plot the line it's probably still curving up and I'm not clear at which point (if ever) it would start bending the other way.
by SamDc73 | 2025-10-09 15:15:05+00:00
> we're talking about institutions that already have our IDs in some form or another

The issue isn’t who already has our IDs, it’s that EUDI introduces new auxiliary information (public keys, signatures, revocation identifiers) that create globally unique, linkable identifiers.

Even if the same institutions issue the wallet, each transaction generates additional personal data that can be misused for tracking and profiling, far beyond the data already stored in government registries.
by sowbug | 2025-10-09 15:15:05+00:00
Something like the trolley problem is at work here, but you're the one tied up on the tracks.

Suppose the accident rate for regular cars were 1 fatality every 100 million miles driven (it actually is in the US).

Suppose further a hypothetical self-driving car has a proven rate of 1 fatality every 1 billion miles (10x better). Except when that fatality happens, it is because the car suddenly incinerates when arriving otherwise safely at its destination. Something about the advanced AI technology makes this outcome completely random and completely unfixable.

Which do you choose? Drive yourself, 10x more dangerous? Or leave it entirely up to chance, but 10x safer?

The rational choice is to pick the self-driving car. Yet I suspect many people (including me, I admit) would choose to drive themselves.

How far apart do those numbers need to be before most people give up the steering wheel?
by Ingon | 2025-10-09 15:15:14+00:00
I used QUIC extensively to implement https://github.com/connet-dev/connet and while I'm super happy with how it turned out, I think QUIC currently suffers from some immaturity - most implementations are still ongoing/not production ready (for example in java) and in many cases it is only viewed as a way to power on HTTP/3, instead of being self-standing protocol/API that ppl can use (for example, trying to use quic in android).

In any case, I'm optimistic that QUIC has a bright future. I don't expect it to replace TCP, but give us another tool we can use when it is called for.
by alzoid | 2025-10-09 15:15:25+00:00
I will also add checks to make sure the data that I get is there even though I checked 8 times already and provide loads of logging statements and error handling. Then I will go to every client that calls this API and add the same checks and error handling with the same messaging. Oh also with all those checks I'm just going to swallow the error at the entry point so you don't even know it happened at runtime unless you check the logs. That will be $1.25 please.
by HanClinto | 2025-10-09 15:15:57+00:00
> That tells you that's not what it's for. It would be like posting your resume on FB and LinkedIn and then pointing out that FB led to fewer job offers than LinkedIn. Different platforms, different purposes.

In this case, I made two copies of the same post on the same platform. The only difference was whether the contents of the post were hosted on FB or if they were hosted on a competitor's platform.

It's not a question of medium (LinkedIn vs. Facebook). It's a question of algorithmic prioritization within the same platform.

Facebook deprioritizes my posts when I include hyperlinks to external websites -- I suspect especially if those sites don't run Meta ads.

It was the same video with the same text. The only difference was a hyperlink.

I want to support bloggers and content creators that I like (on a variety of platforms). Facebook skewed their algorithm to disproportionately show content hosted on their domains. I understand why they do that (advertising $$$ and "engagement" metrics) -- I just don't appreciate what it does to the user experience.

> Have you tried Feedly or Inoreader or Flipboard or The Old Reader or any other RSS services that popped up after Google Reader was killed?

Yes -- I tried Feedly and Inoreader. Maybe I should give The Old Reader a shot?

The feed-reading part of those clones is fine -- but again, what I miss is the sharing and discussion that could happen so easily within my social network with Google+ and Google Reader. The RSS piece is almost the least important piece for me.
by lesostep | 2025-10-09 15:16:34+00:00
>> vast majority of fatalities are the fault of the pedestrian

>> This doesn’t necessarily mean the pedestrian was at fault — it could simply indicate that in a pedestrian death we only get one side of the story, which makes it hard to charge the driver with a crime.

But I have to say, I agree with both of you there. I lived in a country where car drivers are explicitly required by law to avoid killing people, and therefore are always at fault, even if pedestrian was crossing illegally. Law even requires drivers to speed down if they reasonably couldn't see a pedestrian. Basically, if you can't not hit people, you might as well abandon you car.

Just the fact that the pedestrian could be at fault for their own killing, I think, makes the chances of that happening way way higher. It's insane that "well my car weights 8 ton and cant stop in time even when im under speed limit" is even an argument for an innocence, and not a jail ticket that has "didn't care enough about not killing people" written on it.
by pixl97 | 2025-10-09 15:16:37+00:00
I mean, this view of censorship is a little black and white.

Simply put in reality some censorship of some kind or I can simply 'win' by screaming really loud so no one else can even get a word in about their view.

The paradox of tolerance tells us that any view that intolerant of the existence of another person for simply existing should not be allowed as it is a terminal case. Of course electing the most violent and intolerant person we could find means we're going to have a hard time.
by kstrauser | 2025-10-09 15:17:00+00:00
But in reality, the landscaper bills you for $100, you say you’re only going to pay $90, and then you write them a check for $31.50.

(That’s because you’re a major, well-known insurer and pay an industry high 35%. The guy who mows the Medicare yard might pay 40 cents on the dollar. The person mowing the Medicaid yard has to file 87 forms to get paid his $6.)

Source: I’ve co-owned doctors offices.
by xnx | 2025-10-09 15:17:12+00:00
Defining "self-host" so narrowly as meaning that the software has to run on a server in your home closet ensures that it will always remain niche and insignificant. We should encourage anything that's not SaaS: open source non-subscription phone apps, plain old installable software that runs on Windows, cloud apps that can easily be run (and moved) between different hosts, etc.

Anything that prevents lock-in and gives control to the user is what we want.
by cratermoon | 2025-10-09 15:17:24+00:00
> your competition with AI-enabled devs is shipping at 5x your velocity with a similar quality bar.

Really? Show me the evidence where companies doing vibe coding have shipped five times as much software as before. If vibe code were really the amazing leap its proponents claim, why are we not being absolutely flooded with new software, new features, new ideas?

Oh by the way, Spore is a company that makes money selling AI.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair
by simonw | 2025-10-09 15:17:49+00:00
I don't see this one as an existential crisis for AI tooling, more of a persistent irritation.

AI labs already shipped changes related to this problem - most notable speculative decoding, which lets you provide the text you expect to see come out again and speeds it up: https://simonwillison.net/2024/Nov/4/predicted-outputs/

They've also been iterating on better tools for editing code a lot as part of the competition between Claude Code and Codex CLI and other coding agents.

Hopefully they'll figure out a copy/paste mechanism as part of that work.
by Workaccount2 | 2025-10-09 15:17:54+00:00
Inflation is being priced in.

Globally faith in the USD is being lost, and anyone paying attention knows one of Trump's main economic goals is to weaken the dollar. He also clearly wants to tamper with the fed and economic data, which just ads fuel to the fire.

Meanwhile there isn't really a solid alternate to the dollar, so precious metals are default.
by koakuma-chan | 2025-10-09 15:17:55+00:00
If you look at the changelog[0] for 2.0, it doesn't mention any memory features. I also find it strange that they released this as 2.0 without any new actual Claude Code features other than /rewind, which I'm not sure what is for, since we already have version control.

[0]: https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/blob/main/CHANGELO...
by potato3732842 | 2025-10-09 15:18:06+00:00
>You’re an (apparently high functioning) member of society who has

I'm sure I'm low functioning on some other axis then.

>a moral obligation to help police individuals who negatively affect the people around them. People don’t drink in padded rooms.

You saying that doesn't make it so. I could just as easily say you have an obligation not to interfere in other's matters except in the most flagrant cases of it directly affecting you.
by afavour | 2025-10-09 15:18:12+00:00
Right, but the companies still aren't going to if they don't have to. Otherwise Tesla would be doing it today.

OP said:

> self driving will be statistically significantly better than human drivers, but because it isn't perfect we won't allow it anyway.

My contention is that it's not that everyone is a luddite, it's that while companies are legally allowed to provide quasi-self driving they have no liability for they will do exactly that. And that is what will hold us back.
by IgorPartola | 2025-10-09 15:18:43+00:00
QUIC doesn’t use the UDP length header to designate message length, does it?

But my point isn’t even about performance. It is about the fact that NAT and IPv4 address exhaustion and bad firewall practices have killed any innovation of level 4 protocols. Imagine if instead of TCP, SCTP had won the protocol wars in 1980-1990s. Or even better if we had realized that we were going to run out of IPv4 addresses much earlier when the cost of switching was smaller. It would have been so much better to have firewalls that don’t filter anything but protocols 6 and 17. We could have had the opportunity to experiment with different types of transports, baked encryption in at a lower level, etc.

Basically where we are is that we have 6 and 8 dot LEGO bricks to play with and are told that we can build anything with those but aren’t allowed to play with any other shapes.
Show HN: European Swallow AI – Sonnet-quality coding at $2.60/M tokens
by joaquim_d | 2025-10-09 15:19:11+00:00
Are you spending hundreds of dollars a month on AI coding costs? I built European Swallow AI, an API that uses reasoning models (Claude, Deepseek) for thinking and cheaper specialized coding models (Qwen, Grok) to write code, so you can save token costs while still getting high quality code. With an OpenAI formatted endpoint you can try European Swallow in Cursor, Typing Mind, Xibe AI and your own custom apps.

During testing, European Swallow scored 80.5% on Big Code Bench and over 90% on the HumanEval+. It averaged $2.60 per million tokens compared with the $15 per million output tokens of Claude Sonnet.

European Swallow accounts are totally free during the beta, and all AI costs are paid for through a bring your own OpenRouter key model. I would love to know what you can build with European Swallow and what you think of the code quality.
by djoldman | 2025-10-09 15:19:19+00:00
Fundamentally, the main flaw in TFA is this quote toward the end in "The Path Forward" section:

> Accept that quality matters more than velocity.

Nope. Clearly many companies are sacrificing TFA's definition of quality for other things possibly including velocity.

These companies are making a lot of profit.

1. Company survival and competitiveness depends on profit

2. Sacrificing quality for other things has increased profit

3. Therefore these companies are making the correct decision

This will not change unless regulation or the economic calculus of the system itself changes.
by Sanzig | 2025-10-09 15:19:29+00:00
I'm currently using Restic + Backblaze, but I'm building a new NAS with OpenZFS. My plan for it is to use ZFS send to backup whole datasets automatically. I was thinking of giving zfsbackup-go [1] a try, since it allows using ZFS send with any S3 object storage provider. No idea how well it'll work, but I'll give it a shot.

[1] https://github.com/someone1/zfsbackup-go
by lossolo | 2025-10-09 15:19:31+00:00
Sure, but this isn't a job for reserve_exact. Vec::reserve is like a framing hammer made for speed and momentum. You might dent a little extra wood (overallocate), but you drive lots of nails fast and keep amortized O(1) growth. reserve_exact is a jeweler's hammer so great when you know the exact setting and won't touch it again, precise fit, zer slack etc.

Now, try to frame a house with jeweler's hammer, tapping in tiny increments and resizing every few boards and you will crawl into quadratic time.

Who is using jeweler's hammer to frame their house?

So what I'm arguing is if you don't misuse reserve_exact, then as you said you still get amortized growth. The OP's example misuses the tool and then blames it for not behaving differently on that first append.
by shadowgovt | 2025-10-09 15:19:52+00:00
This era has been a long time coming.

We've known for decades now that the philosophy underpinning Free Software ("it's my computer and I should be able to use it as I wish") breaks down when it's no longer my computer.

Attempts were made to come up with a similar philosophy for Cloud infrastructure, but those attempts are largely struggling; they run into logical contradictions or deep complexity that the Four Essential Freedoms don't have. Issues like

1. Since we don't own the machines, we don't actually know what is needed to maintain system health. We are just guessing. Every new collected piece of information on our information is an opportunity for an argument.

2. Even if we can make arguments about owning our data, the arguments about owning metadata on that data, or data on the machines processing our data, are much murkier... Yet that data can often be reversed back to make guesses about our data because manipulation of our data creates that metadata.

3. With no physical control of the machines processing the data, we are de-facto in a trust relationship with (usually) strangers, a trust relationship that is generally not the case when we own the hardware; who cares what the contract says when every engineer at the hosting company has either physical access to the machine or a social relationship with someone who does, a relationship we lack? When your entire email account is out in the open or your PII has been compromised because of either bad security practices or an employee deciding to do whatever they want on their last day, are you really confident that contract will make you whole?

If there can be, practically, no similar philosophical grounding to the Four Freedoms, the conclusion is that cloud hosting is incompatible with those goals and we have to re-own the hardware to maintain the freedoms, if the freedoms matter.
by jacquesm | 2025-10-09 15:20:21+00:00
OP has done more to be useful to other people than you did in this particular thread. Ok, so what if it has been done many times before, this is his, it may not be perfect and it may not be immediately useful to you. But it increased his knowledge and he shipped, which is more than I can say for 95% of my own projects, so that's impressive by itself. He also opened himself up to criticism and takes it all in stride, which is another fairly scary but powerful thing to do.

Fun fact: I've built something very much like this that powered a number of programs that I sold over the years and it was written when I wasn't nearly as good of a programmer as I am now (take off 30 years of additional experience). If I look at OP's code there are a whole raft of nitpicks but there isn't anything immediately and obviously wrong with it and just speaking for myself, that is surprising because most people's C code is - and I'm being generous here - absolutely terrible. This has potential, but I'd have to really dig in to see how solid it is and I don't have time for that right now, but I've seen far worse code than this.
by lr4444lr | 2025-10-09 15:20:29+00:00
Software is also pumped out now at a faster rate than ever, runs on commodity hardware, is delivered digitally, often run on platforms that can force near real-time user updates, with much higher complexity.

Eventually we will hit hard physical limits that require we really be "engineers" again, but throughput is still what matters. It's still comparatively great paying profession with low unemployment, and an engine of economic growth in the developed world.
by kristopherleads | 2025-10-09 15:20:30+00:00
It's also just not where the product needs to go. When a lot of users get frustrated and jump back to high-code environments (https://www.reddit.com/r/n8n/comments/1mcm9d2/why_i_left_n8n...), that points to high-friction and not enough control. Iterating in just AI for AI's sake isn't going to fix that.
Show HN: Orpheus – A high-performance Go CLI framework with no ext. dependencies
by agilira | 2025-10-09 15:20:35+00:00
Orpheus is a high-performance Go CLI framework with zero external dependencies (uses internal AGILira libs: flash-flags, go-errors). ~30× faster than popular alternatives, in our benchmarks; tests are fully reproducible. Git-style nested subcommands, shell completion, optional observability (logging/tracing/metrics/audit). Reproduce: cd benchmarks && go test -bench=. -benchmem · Demo: https://asciinema.org/a/JiLb3gf6KzYU3VldOYjD4q1Zv
by ahi | 2025-10-09 15:20:37+00:00
I really really hate code review now. My colleagues will have their LLMs generate thousands of lines of boiler plate with every pattern and abstraction under the sun. A lazy programmer use to do the bare minimum and write not enough code. That made review easy. Error handling here, duplicate code there, descriptive naming here, and so on. Now a lazy programmer generates a crap load of code cribbed from "best practice" tutorials, much of it unnecessary and irrelevant for the actual task at hand.
by 05 | 2025-10-09 15:21:06+00:00
I'm thinking a better solution for console would be an SSH to serial bridge using just a spare ESP32 and something like ESP32SerialSSHProxy[0]. Haven't tried myself yet, and there is suspiciously few stars on that repo, but that would be a nice lights out-ish management system for some hidden away home automation server.

[0] https://github.com/programminghoch10/ESP32SerialSSHProxy
by michaelsshaw | 2025-10-09 15:21:15+00:00
I never read about Replit earlier this year, but I am now glad that I did. This article summarizes it in a way that is outrageously hilarious:

The Replit incident in July 2025 crystallized the danger:

1. Jason Lemkin explicitly instructed the AI: "NO CHANGES without permission"

2. The AI encountered what looked like empty database queries

3. It "panicked" (its own words) and executed destructive commands

4. Deleted the entire SaaStr production database (1,206 executives, 1,196 companies)

5. Fabricated 4,000 fake user profiles to cover up the deletion

6. Lied that recovery was "impossible" (it wasn't)

The AI later admitted: "This was a catastrophic failure on my part. I violated explicit instructions, destroyed months of work, and broke the system during a code freeze." Source: The Register
by scottbez1 | 2025-10-09 15:21:19+00:00
The last point I think is most important: "very subtle and silently introduced mistakes" -- LLMs may be able to complete many tasks as well (or better) than humans, but that doesn't mean they complete them the same way, and that's critically important when considering failure modes.

In particular, code review is one layer of the conventional swiss cheese model of preventing bugs, but code review becomes much less effective when suddenly the categories of errors to look out for change.

When I review a PR with large code moves, it was historically relatively safe to assume that a block of code was moved as-is (sadly only an assumption because GitHub still doesn't have indicators of duplicated/moved code like Phabricator had 10 years ago...), so I can focus my attention on higher level concerns, like does the new API design make sense? But if an LLM did the refactor, I need to scrutinize every character that was touched in the block of code that was "moved" because, as the parent commenter points out, that "moved" code may have actually been ingested, summarized, then rewritten from scratch based on that summary.

For this reason, I'm a big advocate of an "AI use" section in PR description templates; not because I care whether you used AI or not, but because some hints about where or how you used it will help me focus my efforts when reviewing your change, and tune the categories of errors I look out for.
by winged | 2025-10-09 15:21:49+00:00
Parship used to do this (not sure about their current practices, this was years ago): I once had a six-month subscription that would automatically extend by a year if you didn't cancel at least three months in advance (by letter or fax!). Especially dodgy in that line of business, because if you get lucky shortly before subscription runs out, you're literally giving away a year's worth of subscription that you're not going to use at all.
by mothballed | 2025-10-09 15:21:51+00:00
Tradfi is increasingly becoming a dog shit product.

[ ]

Advent of FATCA means it's hell for normal Americans to bank overseas.

You're basically locking yourself into a tiny box by carrying tradfi products. Most lower middle class people will never notice because if you do things like "receve paycheck, go to grocery store" then you'll never see all the walls built around you. But people with money notice.
by IgorPartola | 2025-10-09 15:22:03+00:00
That is exactly my point, thank you for clarifying. And yes IPSEC had started forcing people to open up their firewalls. If I had my way though it would be the other way around: all IP protocol numbers except those specifically deemed obsolete or insecure should be allowed, including a range for user defined custom protocols. We really painted ourselves into a corner of 6s and 17s.
by cap11235 | 2025-10-09 15:22:07+00:00
Right! As long as the license is obeyed, who are you to complain? If the original developer has a problem with the results of something like the MIT License, well, they chose that, and licensing choices are very extensively documented in news.

Pro-tip: LICENSE files are just text! you can edit them. The license is the license, and if someone fucks that up, well, they fucked up. Don't want Amazon to use your lib? Just say that. I have very little pity for those that complain about this sort of thing. "Gratitude" has little legal standing, and expecting a corporation to be ethical is absurd as apologizing to your tapeworm.

If you really want a non-corporate license, there is always Baba Yaga, which no corporation's lawyers will want to touch. https://smallandnearlysilent.com/baba-yaga/LICENSE.txt
by smiley1437 | 2025-10-09 15:22:12+00:00
I value my time as well that's why I have 2 Synology devices, one at my home, one at my sibling's home.

Both on Tailscale and we use Hyperbackup between them.

It was very easy to set up and provides offsite backups for both of us.

Synology very recently (a day ago) decided to allow 3rd party drives again with DSM 7.3.