MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by beej71 | 2025-10-13 20:42:04+00:00
If you give me blue examples that are bad, I'll condemn them. So go for it all you want.

You perhaps think that doing so would make Trump's behavior more acceptable to me, but that is untrue and certainly doesn't logically follow. Or maybe you think you can get me with some kind of hypocrisy, but that won't work because I'm not loyal to any political parties, nor am I registered into one. I'll rip on them all.

But if you want to know what I don't appreciate:

* Saying it's allowable to terminate the articles of the Constitution.

* Deliberately trying to undermine confidence in the election system.

* Sending the National Guard to Portland under false pretenses when they're not wanted there.

* Using the DOJ as the president's personal attack organization.

* Deporting people without hearing.

* Arresting people based on their racial backgrounds.

* Controlling what people at universities are allowed to say.

* Controlling what people online are allowed to say.

* Controlling what websites are allowed to publish.

* Controlling Republicans in Congress.

* Potentially controlling SCOTUS. (I don't have evidence, but SCOTUS is behaving irrationally exactly like a corrupt SCOTUS would behave. I would say the exact same thing if the parties were reversed.)

* Controlling what the media is allowed to publish.

* Using Army Talk Orientation Fact Sheet #64 as a playbook.

And I'm sure plenty more.

I'm unaffiliated, but come out strongly on the Constitution and civil liberties. And, frankly, I've never seen it remotely this bad. My gut feel is that we have about a 70% chance of ending up in a Hungary-style dictatorship within 5 years. And my further gut feel is that a very significant portion of conservative America ill-advisedly wants exactly that.

And that has me, a strong proponent of the Constitution and liberty, just a little upset.
by matthews3 | 2025-10-13 20:43:00+00:00
> Seems like I loaded the film incorrectly and nothing was on them, so I hate my life right now. Let’s skip this part then.

That's a shame! It's a mistake almost everyone that has used a film camera has made, though.

On these older SLRs, one thing you can do to check that the film is loaded properly is to watch the rewind crank as you advance to the next frame. If everything is loaded and the film is engaged properly, you should see it turn.
by HarHarVeryFunny | 2025-10-13 20:43:13+00:00
As best I can understand (which is barely, and poorly!), it seems that this new, and interesting, field of optical thermodynamics allows the behavior of non-linear optical systems to be predicted, in this case allowing them to design a "photonic lattice" - some sort of system of waveguides - so that light behaves in a predictable way and can effectively be steered without having to use any active switching components.

What is even less clear than the above is how is this being used.. Presumably it's not just about routing light to some fixed location, but rather allowing it to be switched, so perhaps(?!) the phototic lattice has multiple inputs that interact resulting in light being steered to one of many outputs? Light being used to switch light?

I dunno - it was clear as mud. I'm basically just guessing here.
by echelon | 2025-10-13 20:43:23+00:00
You clearly aren't familiar. These "universities" are a step above DeVry. They might be worse in that they cost an arm and a leg to attend.

I used to tutor CS students at several different universities during my first two years at college. I would bet my arm that none of the ones I taught from KSU wound up with a career in software.

The student perspective at these schools is that they're there for the credential, not for the learning. Even at the risk of false negatives, I would actively filter out resumes listing schools like these. I would much sooner interview a non-degree holder.
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-10-13 20:43:34+00:00
> What's quintessential quant finance? Black-Scholes and no-arbitrage pricing

This is a bad model to pick to exemplify physics envy given it’s based on thermodynamic dispersion.

The term “physics envy” broadly applies to all social sciences lacking a mathematical basis. It’s a criticism of using math where it doesn’t belong. That hasn’t really fit (until very recently) with economics. It’s been a classic complaint about quantitative finance’s loftier visions of universality.
by jauntywundrkind | 2025-10-13 20:43:48+00:00
Nexperia makes quite a line-up of parts. Huge range of pretty low level things, various logic and bus small devices, mountains of transistors. https://www.mouser.com/manufacturer/nexperia/featured-produc...

They have a not huge but very nice line-up of GaN fet devices too. I'd been looking through their line-up here just lack week!

Just fun to see what's on offer here. I couldn't find a latest listings by manufacturer for Nexperia, which is one of my favorite Mouser views.
by lucasfdacunha | 2025-10-13 20:44:27+00:00
Still working on https://greatreads.dev/

Essentially, a platform to access articles from developer blogs.

I've been slowly adding new sources to the website. Any suggestions would be great.

I'm considering adding a feature that allows searching using vectors. Basically, you could search for something like "How to make sure your PostgreSQL database is configured correctly". And it would return the closest articles using vector search compared to your query. Is this something that sounds interesting?
by Lerc | 2025-10-13 20:45:27+00:00
I never even thought about the possibility that the t-shirt inside the box might not be my size. I was probably in my late teens, just left home at the time, such considerations were life-knowledge yet to be learned.

The T-Shirt was just the right size. I suspect the standard deviation for late-80's early-90's teen geek body type was smaller than one might expect today.
by kube-system | 2025-10-13 20:46:49+00:00
If that actually were the case, the iPhone would've died in 2007.

In reality, most people don't even know what sideloading is. Those are the people who are buying phones and supporting the market for their existence.

The 0.001% of people who want to side load applications onto their phone, can clamor for a new OS all they want, but unless they put the resources in place to make that happen, it won't.
by mallowfram | 2025-10-13 20:46:53+00:00
The bottleneck is epistemology via semantics. It's inherent to words which many things to different people. LLMs have no chance against semantic diffusion and chaos. They're subject to them unless some status-bearer decides the semantic.

Politics is over until we solve the initial condition, by placing syntax above grammar. Action over meaning etc.

Tech accelerated, horizontalized and automated units that could barely keep their meaning loads stable at printed paper, radio and TV.

Everyone should have seen this coming.
by tliltocatl | 2025-10-13 20:46:58+00:00
Containers and namespaces are not about security. They are about not having singleton objects at the OS level. Would have called it virtualization if the word wasn't so overloaded already. There is a big difference that somehow everyone misses. A bypassable security mechanism is worse than useless. A bypassable virtualization mechanism is useful. It is useful to be able to have a separate root filesystem just for this program - even if a malicious program is still able to detect it's not the true root.

As about SEL4 - it is so elegant because it leaves all the difficult problems to the upper layer (coincidentally making them much more difficult).
by Marsymars | 2025-10-13 20:47:07+00:00
Well I have some audiobooks downloaded to my phone. The progress is saved on my phone, and because they're downloaded I don't need cell service to listen to them. I just did a 3000 km road trip with intermittent cell service, using an app on my phone via Android Auto to play my audiobook files, and was able to easily transition to hotel rooms with speakers, and different vehicles, and continue the books where they'd been paused.

How would that even work in a Tesla?
by arjie | 2025-10-13 20:48:31+00:00
I really enjoy reading about these group dynamics. Usually people interpret the "it makes sense that people would do this" as meaning "self-interest dominates compassion" but I actually think the meaning is "those groups which did these things survive" and so over time you get these things built-in. "Compassion" isn't something I constructed for myself from rationality. I can do that, but it is a back-formation - an explanation for a behaviour I was already going to do. I'd say it's more of a property of my ancestry than my reason since I had it as a child in more or less the same form as I have it today and I recall my younger brother come back crying after going to help an anthill survive a storm (the ants were unreceptive to this Anti-Ender's assistance). At 4 years or younger he had no capacity for the kind of reason required to reach compassion tabula rasa.

I model mankind as self-similar to man. Allocare makes sense between individuals in the same way that a T-cell 'cares for' other cells in the body. And Lawrence Oates's "I am just going outside and may be some time" seems akin to apoptosis: knowing the cost on the rest of the organism, the individual has programmed escape hatches that preserve the entire operation. It seems natural and adaptive that individuals will attempt to exploit the structures (care for the injured and elderly) that so arise. And counter-adaptations to that form as well.

But evidence that agrees with one's model is usually not as useful as the evidence that disagrees with it and so the thing that I find most interesting is the chap with the massive hip dislocation. That's a debilitating injury or disability and for a tribe on the move it must have been a massive expenditure of resources to bring along this individual. If encountered in childhood, perhaps the net increase in resources is not that high. If encountered in adulthood, perhaps it was a prized member of the community or perhaps the group anticipated recovery.

On the other hand, we do find good reasons to "protect the team". Knowing that you will be cared for means you give more to the operation. The classic "No Man Left Behind!" stance probably has a huge effect on morale.
by Supermancho | 2025-10-13 20:48:48+00:00
> It’s not a simple game of who-wastes-theirs-first.

For the wealthiest nation, it certainly is. Anything technological advantage that is developed can be bought. While there is a first mover advantage, excess capital has always trumped it (serious apologies, as no pun intended). Long term thinking has dominated US behavior in certain respects. Resource conservation, couched as environmentalism at times, is one of them. I could be wrong, but it makes sense to me.
by o11c | 2025-10-13 20:48:50+00:00
Mostly unrelated, but does anyone know how are you supposed to make path-less module specifiers work for Node if you are not using npm but rather system-installed JS packages (Debian etc. install node-* packages into /usr/share/nodejs/)? With `require` it just works, but with `import` it errors and suggests passing the absolute path (even though it clearly knows what path ...).

For some reason everybody in the JS world takes "download and execute random software from the Internet" as the only way to do things.
by tomwphillips | 2025-10-13 20:49:30+00:00
Not that surprising. How many millions has been piled into dbt Labs?

dbt Cloud is an uncompelling product. Fivetran is convenient but absurdly expensive. Now dbt core development is just another marketing cost for Fivetran.

I'd really love to see everyone move on from the "modern data stack". dbt is a sticking plaster to a problem caused by orgs aggressively adopting SaaS products and choosing distributed software architectures without any thought about how to deal with the problem that your data models don't fit together and data is stored in 30 different places.
by fair_enough | 2025-10-13 20:49:56+00:00
All you did was link to the main page of a wikipedia article and copy and paste the first sentence. Your response is so lazy, it doesn't even deserve a response, but I'm putting this out here for the benefit of the general public:

https://www.icrc.org/en/article/grave-breaches-defined-genev... GC 4 Art. 147. "Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, UNLAWFUL DEPORTATION OR TRANSFER OR CONFINEMENT OF A PROTECTED PERSON, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."

1. Foreign heads of state are definitely protected persons.

2. Foreign heads of state transiting to and from diplomatic meetings are engaged in a protected activity.

3. If these laws apply between enemy nations engaged in declared war, they are even more applicable to countries at peace with one another.

It turns out I'm even more right that I initially thought: this was not only a breach of the spirit of the Geneva Conventions, it was also a breach of the very letter of the law! Regardless, someone doesn't understand the purpose of the Geneva Conventions in the first place, so I'll elaborate...

Edward Snowden himself is irrelevant, it doesn't matter if Osama Bin Laden was on that plane. The fact is that the US and its allies used deception to illegally ground a diplomatic flight, detain a foreign head of state, and engage in an illegal search and seizure.

Furthermore, whether or not the countries involved were even at war is irrelevant. The purpose of the Geneva Conventions are to maintain a minimum set of international ethics that make diplomacy safe for diplomats. If a foreign head of state can be detained or imprisoned, and if his property can be searched or seized, then diplomatic negotiations for anything are now impossible.

It doesn't matter if the reasons for breaking these rules are justifiable or not, the fact is that you're not trustworthy even in a basic capacity that allows for diplomatic negotiation. You're in the same perfidious bucket as Japanese Emperor Hirohito, Saddam Hussein, or Ruhollah Khomeini (Iranian Hostage Crisis).

"Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across."

-Sun Tzu

P.S. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations explicitly forbids detaining diplomats. See articles 27 and 29:

https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventio...

YOU LOSE! YOU GET NOTHING! GOOD DAY, SIR!
by theshrike79 | 2025-10-13 20:50:01+00:00
The problem here is that now the ones who can't advertise are the people actually running as well as the parties.

"Influencers" CAN advocate for anyone and their ads will show just fine.

So now the one with the most powerful and popular influencers will win. Hint: it's not the left wing people who have far-reaching popular podcasters and tiktokers in the EU...
by anteloper | 2025-10-13 20:50:07+00:00
Great article, I'm a cofounder of Clearspace and think about this a lot.

> I'm an adult, I know how to circumvent these limits, and I will if motivation is low.

It's impossible to build systems that perfectly prevent you from doing this, but it is possible to build systems that can perfectly deter you from doing it. You could set up one - for example - that texts your spouse if you delete it. Or charges your bank account. Or whatever other doomsday device you want to rig up.

> Time limits don't affect the underlying addiction. You don't quit smoking by only smoking certain hours of the day.

Yeah but if you could encode cigarettes to ween you off of them by force, that'd be a big help. Also cigarettes don't have any real utility, so cold turkey is a reasonable strategy. Unfortunately the social media platforms have real utility, so a guardrail strategy makes more sense.

> The companies that build these apps have tens of thousands of really smart people (and billions of dollars) trying to get me hooked and keep me engaged. The only way to win this game isn't by trying to beat them (I certainly can't), but by not playing.

When it's all said and done, someone is going to build the right set of digital environment modification tooling that does beat them. It has to be possible, the internet is intrinsically customizable
by stackskipton | 2025-10-13 20:50:32+00:00
Greed. When China was becoming manufacturing powerhouse, it was incredibly cheap, and Chinese government seemed extremely willing to play ball by making sure there was no government caused slowdowns. This obviously worked until it didn't but even now, it's so expensive to change, corporations are screaming about their quarterly stock price and US being so financialized, US in a real gordian knot.
by alphazard | 2025-10-13 20:50:37+00:00
Yes, totally agree that's a contributor too. I should expand that by namespaces I mean user, network, and mount table namespaces. The initial contents of those is something you would have to provide when creating the sandbox. Most of it is small enough to be shipped around in a JSON file, but the initial contents of a mount table require filesystem images to be useful.
by Anamon | 2025-10-13 20:50:40+00:00
I more or less disagree with two points this article makes.

You don't have to go with a major mail hosting service to prevent deliverability issues. Any one of the hundreds of thousands of small local hosting providers should do. I've been with two tiny, local, "boutique" hosters for over 20 years and never noticed any issues. I also have it on good authority that entirely self-hosted e-mail is not as tricky as some like to claim. Set up your SPF, DKIM, and DMARC properly, and obviously don't send any spam or be an open relay, and even Google and Microsoft should have no worries doing business with you. Heck, if abuse scores were that important, Google and Microsoft would be the first hosts anyone would ban.

Also, catch-all is a terrible idea. I used to do it in the mid-2000s. Think about your current spam levels and multiply it by a thousand when every spammer can try jack@, john@, joe@, etc., and everything is delivered. Add to that all the spammers that use something@your-domain as a fake sender, so you get all the non-delivery reports. Ugh.

I used to do this to track leaks and non-consensual passing on of my address (the old registering at Company X with company-x@). This worked a few times, but after a few years I noticed that the amount of breaches and leaks soon make it useless. At this point, according to HaveIBeenPwned, most of the addresses I ever used have been in 20+ leaks each. It just not worth the effort anymore.
by dropbear3 | 2025-10-13 20:50:46+00:00
There are the following codepoints:

U+0049 I LATIN CAPITAL LETTER I U+0069 i LATIN SMALL LETTER I U+0130 İ LATIN CAPITAL LETTER I WITH DOT ABOVE U+0131 ı LATIN SMALL LETTER DOTLESS I

While the names of the first two don't explicitly state that they should be dotless and dotted, respectively, the Unicode standard section on the block containing those two [0] does contrast them with the dotted and dotless versions, at least implying that they should be rendered dotless and dotted, respectively.

Unicode has historically been against adding a separate codepoint for every single language's orthography when the glyphs are (almost) identical to an existing one ("allographs"). Controversy arose when the consortium proposed considering Han characters, which do have language variants, to be allographs, which led to what is known as "Han unification".

[0]: https://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0000.pdf
by Qem | 2025-10-13 20:50:51+00:00
Such a system would make easy[1] for any civilization living nearby to launch spaceships at a large fraction of the speed of light. But the tricky part would be braking at the destination, unless your destination is a similar and suitably aligned system.

[1] https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2023/06/08/freeman-dysons-gr...
by HiPhish | 2025-10-13 20:50:57+00:00
> I'm not sure why this is

I think a big reason was customers' ignorance. The manufacturers can come up with whatever they want, if no one buys it it does not matter. People accepted locked-down smartphones because they saw them a phones first and foremost. If I recall correctly the iPhone released without any app store, so it was really not that different from a dumb cell phone. If you had offered those same people a desktop PC or laptop that you could not install your own programs on, that had no file explorer, that could barely connect to anything else no one would have bought it. But because they say smart phones as telephones first it flew over their head. How many of the people who are upgrading to Windows 11 now because of lack of security support are still running an outdated smartphone? The phone probably has more sensitive data on it than the PC by now.

People are willing to accept restrictions when they come with newer technology. Why is that? I don't know, I'm just reporting on what I see.
by mcv | 2025-10-13 20:51:24+00:00
I get it. You don't really know what social democracy is. So let me give you the briefest definition: social democracy tries to balance the best parts of socialism and capitalism, while trying to avoid the worst parts. Those worst parts include that blood-steeped history. Social democracy explicitly tries to avoid that, by regulating corporations and protecting people's rights. The corporations can still make profit, but not by any means; not by hurting people.

That is something that didn't happen during that blood steeped history. The VOC had no meaningful restrictions. They could wage war, kill people, enslave people. They could sentence their own employees to death. These are the kind of excesses you want to prevent.

Social democracy is something that was invented about a century and a half ago, although in the early days, the difference with socialism and anarchism wasn't very well-defined yet; those three terms were used fairly interchangeably much of the time. But at least it was explicit about democracy, and it grew to become the dominant form of socialism in capitalist democratic countries. And there it grew to be what it became over the course of the 20th century: a balance to capitalism, instead of an outright rejection of it.

It hasn't always been perfect; there have been slip ups and poor decisions, but it doesn't have the kind of blood-steeped history that capitalism and totalitarian communism have. It's been fairly effective at what it tries to do. More so than any other ideology, except maybe liberalism. But they go fairly well together.