MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by nebula8804 | 2025-11-30 07:38:12+00:00
>Another example of bad gen X / boomer advice is to knock out core credits in community college and transfer to university later. They don't understand that your only shot at getting significant scholarships and financial aid is when you enter as a 1st time freshman. I know someone with brilliant kids who made National Merit Scholar this year who is already setting their kids aims low by advising them to do this when there are so many good universities, both private and state, where their kids have a good shot at getting a full ride.

I'll have to push back on this. I'll give NJ as an example but other states have similar systems. In NJ If you are in the top 15% of your graduating school you are covered for full tuition provided for the first two years at community college. You are also given a guaranteed spot at whatever public college/program you want. (EDIT: I am not sure if this is still the case im trying to sift through the documentation but now I think it may also require minimum GPA in CC) Imagine getting that university degree and starting your professional career with potentially 0 debt.

Furthermore a variation of this program extends to families making less than 65k. If you meet that criteria. The community college degree is 0$. From there you are given a course schedule that if you follow will transfer 1:1 to a university and if you do well academically there you can be eligible for reduced or waived tuition at the public college of your choosing. This system helps people who did poorly in high school or just didnt make the cut aid wise get a second chance at tuition free college.

If you make more than 65k, you still get reduced tuition on some sliding scale. And again excellent grades translates to more savings.

At least for NJ, Community college really sets many people up for an excellent start in their career by not having any college debt.
by globular-toast | 2025-11-30 07:38:23+00:00
I agree about body positivity, but the big difference is we are talking about relationships here. Whenever it's a relationship, whether it's professional, platonic or romantic, sometimes it really is just them. But more often than not it's a bit of both, it's up to you to decide whether you want to make it about them or make it about you. If it's always about them then you'll be that person who only ever meets assholes. We all know the truth: you're the asshole.

So yes, reflect and think about what you could do better, but don't compromise on your principles or try to be a person you're not.
by conductr | 2025-11-30 07:40:58+00:00
I definitely like the flexibility our system provides. I changed majors a couple times before I found what I could tolerate (can't say it's a passion). I do not think the kids today are as comparable to the kids of yester*. I think in past, people desired those things in a day dreamy way, but knew it wasn't realistic. They also knew they'd get disciplined for poor grades; perhaps even harshly. We just culturally have really relaxed on being stern parents and I feel we have transitioned to wanting to be friends with our kids. That's a great thing too but it needs a balance IMO, there are advantages to being stern. But we're a nation of lazy parents who have high expectations of teachers, but don't pay them, and won't even help them out at home by being a parent and taking responsibility for our kids. (My rant on this topic is too verbose for HN but I firmly believe it's lazy parenting at the core of how we view education systems performance/lack of)

> Techies are the boss now

I think it's more accurate to say that more socially adept people have infiltrated the tech scene due to the loot. Sure tech no longer equates to nerd like it did back then, and bullying is managed differently now, but let's not pretend that the same type of kids that were into tech back then are ruling the world today. The normalization of tech has opened it up to average joe's that wouldn't have touched it back then due to the social stigma it had. This is why I chose the words "bookworm" and "studious" because those things do not necessarily mean tech. But kids that value their studies over their social lives, or just like to have conversations about something more intellectual than video games and the trending tiktoks, are still likely outside the fold whatever the contemporary take on that is. Social norms, bullying, cliques have all changed but being a teenager in a group setting isn't yet a democratic affair.
by magic_hamster | 2025-11-30 07:42:11+00:00
I am still surprised to see people making any connections between HN to actual hacker culture. While this message board has great content and moderation, it is sponsored and operated by one of the largest VCs in silicone valley. This is not your underground garage BBS running on a borrowed landline. HN is about making it in the tech industry and making money for shareholders.
by helsinkiandrew | 2025-11-30 07:42:11+00:00
> All free LLM chat apps will need to support ads or they will eventually die due

That’s the issue OpenAI has: Gemini is “free” with google search and other google services. If Apple get their act together they can provide a “privacy respecting” AI free with every iPhone.

I’ve recently switched from OpenAI as my daily ‘helper’ chatbot to Gemini (I’ve done it with Claude in the past and still use that for coding) and don’t miss ChatGPT. Sure each has quirks and one will release a new version and it becomes the best LLM briefly but to the majority of public and businesses they are interchangeable and the winner is the one that can deliver the functionality for free (because it’s paid for by another service) or into an existing product.
by dijit | 2025-11-30 07:42:21+00:00
You’re probably thinking of UX as being user interfaces and desktop environments.

But sometimes a user is an api consumer.

There’s plenty of horrible kernel functions with footguns in Linux, but they won’t be improved due to “never break userspace”

theres lots if examples if you need specifics. readdir, epoll, futumesat (and ufutumesat), etc.
by kumarvvr | 2025-11-30 07:42:40+00:00
> I will switch and never look back

You are at the extreme tail end.

For most average users, that includes your average mothers, fathers, uncles, aunts, cousins etc, chatGPT is a magical all knowing tool that mostly spits out good answers to their mundane questions. Just like Google does. But better. Instead of more clicking action and more load and more brain actions required in google, chatGPT simply gives you the answer.

We have to wait and watch if the product is going to be good. If so, there is going to be some drop in Google's value.
by compsciphd | 2025-11-30 07:42:57+00:00
not really.

I have assets that have a single cost basis of $1

they are now worth $100.

I take a loan secured against 10% of them. I have now taken a tax event against 10% of them.

I now pay taxes on a capital gain of $90 on 10% of them.

I now have an asset split into 2 parts. one with a cost basis of $1 (90% of my assets) and one with a cost basis of $100 (as I paid taxes on a capital gain to $100).

One can perhaps argue that when levaraging unrealized assets for loans, one always uses the lowest cost basis assets for determining taxable event, or perhaps first in first out of taxable events (and therefore paying tax, is an out then an in).
by thaumasiotes | 2025-11-30 07:44:43+00:00
As I mentioned in the thread on Peanuts two days ago, "pre-Snoopy Peanuts" consists of two total comic strips, which are neither excellent nor deep. There's not enough material for either to be possible.

There's a lot of Peanuts. Whatever you like or don't like about it, you can find examples of at any point in its history.
by delaguardo | 2025-11-30 07:46:40+00:00
From the spec: about symbols - "Symbols are used to represent identifiers" about keywords - "Keywords are identifiers that typically designate themselves."

more than that: in this reader implementation nil, true, false are also valid identifiers with special handling to turn them into nil and bool.

I encourage you to reread original specification and then continue after "this insanity" :)
by roenxi | 2025-11-30 07:46:49+00:00
The US military isn't that scary; the evidence to date is that it's ability to destroy counties ends somewhere around Iran's strength. The modelling I've seen is that any US-China war will take place in Asia and China will probably win it unless the US gets a lot of help (always possible). And the US has already been undermined by the likes of China, Russia and India and there isn't a lot they can do about it in the short term. They certainly don't have a military option to use against that grouping. At least not one that hasn't already been used in the case of Russia and failed to coerce them into cooperating.
by cyberax | 2025-11-30 07:47:47+00:00
> which it couldn't be.

And why? Perhaps a good king could have worked at creating institutions rather than "uniting Europe" or other such nonsense?

If you study history, then you'll notice how preciously few people were focused on making the lives of regular people better. With kings and other nobles, the "good things" also tend to be historical accidents. Something that was typically done to gain more power and influence but accidentally ended up being a positive influence.

Regarding Charlemagne, right in the Wikipedia:

> Charlemagne's reign was one of near-constant warfare, participating in annual campaigns, many led personally.

> Any moral judgment has to take into account what can reasonably be expected.

Then why do we worry about slavery, colonialism, racism, and so on?
by testdelacc1 | 2025-11-30 07:48:53+00:00
But he isn’t. He’s just writing an AI slop book about Zig. Surely there’s nothing legally wrong with that? He never said it’s an official book or backed by the Zig project.

The trademark cudgel is used on people who release an incompatible language that they insist on calling Zig, confusing people who want to try Zig. Or people who add malware to the Zig tool chain and try to distribute that.

Trademark can’t be used to control bad actors like zigbook.
by seec | 2025-11-30 07:49:02+00:00
At least the good part about the US situation is that people are still free to choose for themselves. The cost isn't redirected to the whole population at large via taxation. In the EU it's much worse, because the same reality is materialising, but it is still advertised as "free". Of course, this is the path to a form of soft communism and all systems are becoming dysfunctional and unable to create real value at the same time. The "solution" has been to create ever more taxation and even more debt that is to be paid by the next generation.

It seems that the US will course correct but the EU seems to be declining into authoritarianism and proto-communism.
by jackfranklyn | 2025-11-30 07:49:35+00:00
Thanks for the link - typestate is exactly the kind of compile-time guarantee I wish we had in JS/TS land. The pattern would be perfect for enforcing "you can't call postToAccounting() until validateTotals() has been called" at the type level.

We're in Node.js so the best we can do is runtime checks and careful typing. I've experimented with builder patterns that sort of approximate this - each method returns a new type that only exposes the valid next operations - but it's clunky compared to proper typestate.

The real benefit isn't just preventing out-of-order calls, it's making invalid states unrepresentable. Half our bugs come from "somehow this transaction reached step 9 without having the field that step 5 should have populated."
by jackfranklyn | 2025-11-30 07:50:03+00:00
Fair point on structs - the context object itself isn't the problem, it's what ends up inside it. When the struct is a clean data container (transaction, amounts, dates, account codes) it works great.

Where I've seen it go sideways is when it accumulates process state: wasTransferDetected, skipVATCalculation, needsManualReview, originalMatchConfidence. Now you have a data object that's also a control flow object, and understanding the code means understanding which flags get set where and what downstream checks them.

Your point about discrete success/failure conditions is well taken though. We moved toward exactly that - each phase either returns its result or an explicit error, and the orchestrator handles the failures instead of stuffing error flags into the context for later. Bit more boilerplate but much easier to reason about.
by jackfranklyn | 2025-11-30 07:50:33+00:00
The testability angle is the deciding factor for me. Business logic that can be tested without the full pipeline context goes in sub methods. Orchestration decisions stay in the primary method.

Concrete example: "is this a transfer between accounts?" is pure business logic - takes a transaction and a list of bank accounts, returns true/false. That gets its own function with its own tests.

But "if it's a transfer, skip VAT calculation and use a different account mapping" is orchestration. Pushing that into the transfer detection function means it now needs to know about VAT and account mapping, which breaks isolation. Keeping it in the primary method means you can see all the skip/branch decisions in one place.

The spaghetti risk is real. What helps: keeping the orchestrator as declarative as possible. "if transfer detected, result = handleAsTransfer()" rather than inline logic. The primary method becomes a readable list of conditions and delegations, not nested logic.
by ggm | 2025-11-30 07:50:38+00:00
Inside Microsoft they must have workshopped this. I'm going with "it's good for everyone in the supply chain" thinking.

I also believe tpm and related trust hardware aside, it was a decision which could have gone the other direction.

But that trust issue, is now cross (commercial) industry. OSX and iOS and android all now depend on hardware trust chipsets which aren't in older technology, I would think W11 might run without but not officially. The version of secure execution has a version dependency. TPM 2.0 nothing earlier.

Virtual TPM make this all a bit meta. Maybe older kit exists which can't run W11 native but can under a hypervisor? It might be hypervisor capable chipsets wind up having suitable TPM support anyway.
by flawi | 2025-11-30 07:50:43+00:00
> Do note that they make it very, very, very clear that their results are preliminary,

Yeah, I'm not entirely convinced some of the results they're seeing aren't caused by their methodology. I don't think they are either.

I moved a gaming pc with a 4070Ti from Win10 to Cachy 3 weeks ago and have been purposefully testing out various games to see if it's workable; I'm about 50 hours and 15 games deep now and the only thing that doesn't work reliably is HDR. Outside of that I haven't run into any issues I haven't seen on Windows as well.
by psychoslave | 2025-11-30 07:52:29+00:00
This wasn't to mean that ending up in the top percentile of whatever metric is a good outcome, simply that those who advocate the game and its rules will generally tell what is supposed to be valuable and praised as part of the game framing. My point wasn't to tell that taking blindly this or that outcome as a desirable one is advisable.

For the second paragraph, we seem really aligned on the developed points.
MasonEffect update (1.0.30): faster particle morphing and improved stability
by fe-hyunsu | 2025-11-30 07:53:37+00:00
I’ve shipped a small performance update to MasonEffect, my lightweight particle-morphing text engine. The focus was reducing Canvas readback overhead and improving frame stability across devices. Internal loop cleanup and better caching helped make morphing animations more consistent, especially at higher particle counts.

A simple performance log option is also available for anyone who wants to validate frame timing or inspect update costs.

Demo: https://masoneffect.com

npm: https://www.npmjs.com/package/masoneffect

GitHub: https://github.com/fe-hyunsu/masoneffect (a would be greatly appreciated!)

Happy to hear feedback or further optimization ideas.
by gaigalas | 2025-11-30 07:54:30+00:00
I'm assuming the case here is lots of query params. Stuff like `?foo=bar&lorem=ipsum...`.

Most likely, you would benefit from making a cirurgical mini-resource on the server.

Introduce `/report/{id}`, and make it into a POST.

The user POSTs to `/report`, and the answer is 201 (Created) or 202 (Accepted), with a `Location: /report/123` (generated short id). The thing you changed on the server, is that now that long list have a short id. Just that.

Then, the user `GET /report/123` (auto redirect). It all happens within the same socket (keep-alive) and it has almost zero overhead (one refresh without this probably has thousands of times more overhead than the redirect).

By doing that, it seems that you are wasting stuff, but you're not.

Now the user doesn't have to transfer huge amounts of query data when GETing the results again, cache layers will have an easier time, and you can even use that mini-resource as a shortcut to solve things like racing conditions (two users doing the same humongous query at the same time).

Realistically, unless you're some query-by-image type of thing (trying to search images that match an existing one), you'll never actually have to face URL limits. If you are one of those cases, then you probably already have other architectural constraints that would justify introducing the extra intermediate resource.
by billti | 2025-11-30 07:54:35+00:00
This reminds me of the whole Lerna debacle a few years back.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/open-source-devs-reverse-dec...

That aside, even if something like this was “legally enforceable”, it adds enough friction, risk, and uncertainty to downstream consumers compared to a “vanilla” open source license that I expect most folks would choose an alternative to the “bespoke” license project where they could. Fine if you don’t care about getting usage, but that defeats much of the value that open source brings.
by wafflemaker | 2025-11-30 07:57:15+00:00
I'm actually buying a D³+K²+magnesium combo (as both k2 and magnesium are recommended when taking d3) - just because it's pretty much the same as buying the d3+k2 combo.

Also h I chug it down with a solid portion of tran/cod liver oil. D3 is supposedly best ingested with fats.
by mrkeen | 2025-11-30 07:58:17+00:00
> People just got fed up with the push toward pure FP and the complexity. Pure FP and category theory

Amen. My eyes start to glaze over whenever I read about covariance.

It's one thing if a feature works because of category theory, but if you just "feel like arrays should be covariant", and then the actual category theorists come along and can't work with its limitations, maybe give it a miss.
by baubino | 2025-11-30 07:58:39+00:00
> But if there is no afterlife, why does building caring and just society matter?

Because some (most?) of us are empathetic and compassionate people. We care about others and hurt when they hurt. We want to live in a just society and want to leave behind a just society for others after us.

The fact that it requires „training your conscience“ to „trample on the lives of others“ suggests that such an outlook is not a default state of being.
by apparent | 2025-11-30 07:58:44+00:00
The numbers look very different for a private school, which could run up to $100k for tuition, room, and board. It is almost unimaginable that attending a private college could have a positive expected value at that cost. For one thing, the incoming students will typically have stellar credentials and abilities. This means that they would not have the average outcome of a high school grad who gets no further education.

If I were faced with spending $100k/yr for my kid to go to college, I would strongly consider offering 5 tranches of $50,000 that we would together invest in business ideas over the next 5 years. Humanities and social sciences could be learned in parallel, while trying to launch businesses that bring value to the world.

The lessons learned would not be the same as those one learns in college, and the social aspects would be very different/lacking. This would clearly not work for all teenagers, but for some, it could be a much better opportunity and use of funds.
by card_zero | 2025-11-30 07:59:30+00:00
Fair point, it would have been physically possible to suddenly implement the electronic age in the 800s. So it could have been, technically, but this is a lot to expect from people steeped in their times.

I don't know why we worry about historical bad deeds, and seek reparations from people's descendents. If the idea is "I should have been born into better circumstances" - well, the meaning of "should" there is very complicated, in how it relates to blame and justice. More generally, we worry about the past bad deeds by modern standards just to assert what our standards are.
by DiscourseFan | 2025-11-30 07:59:58+00:00
And the opposite is true as well. I had a friend who had no idea how to market her labor, uncomfortable even with the idea of making a linkedin profile. She has an undergraduate degree, she did eventually find something, but it was a tiresome process. On the other hand, I had just finished a Master's degree, I had made up a linkedin profile to apply to a startup I thought looked interesting--no response, but, about a month later a recruiter messaged me on linkedin to work a short term contract that turned into the job I have now. There was practically no effort on my part for a job search.
by simoncion | 2025-11-30 08:00:04+00:00
> It's a bit sad that [we're parsing output] ... generated by a 6000-line C program[2] ...

> That's something I miss from Windows, at least PowerShell has built-in commands that give you structured output.

It sure is something to disparagingly point to the LoC of 'ss' in one sentence, then pine for both PowerShell and the Windows infrastructure that supports it in the next.

You mentioned processing the output with regexes. That's definitely a code smell, but this is one line of the data from the 'ss' command in question, with fancily-aligned header line included, but with vast tracts of whitespace removed. The regex you pointed out is processing the column whose comma-separated data is enclosed in parens:

Netid State Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address:Port Peer Address:Port Process tcp LISTEN 0 666 [::]:22 [::]:* users:(("sshd",pid=1337,fd=7)) ino:1338 sk:2024 cgroup:/openrc.sshd v6only:1 <->

They definitely didn't have to use a regex to process that, but chose to.

You could argue that a system that let you write client code that goes something like

socket[i].process.users[0].cmd, socket[i].process.users[0].pid, socket[i].process.users[0].fd

is superior to one that requires writing something that makes use of the moral equivalent of 'cut'. I'd argue two things, one of them informed by my professional experience with PowerShell

1) What happens when the "structured" data you rely on changes shape? When that system that produces that "structured" data changes 'users' to 'user_list', 'cmd' to 'local_command', or deletes 'process' and moves 'users' up into its place, you're just as screwed as if 'ss' changed its output format in a way that wasn't backwards-compatible.

2) The core Microsoft tools might all produce "structured" data, but -in my professional experience- so, very, very little "community-provided" PowerShell code does. Why? I don't know for sure, but probably because it's notably more difficult to make a script or library produce that sort of data than it is to just emit regularly-formatted text.