MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by mindslight | 2025-11-16 06:00:59+00:00
> Air bags, better brakes, power steering, AC - all of which make it a vastly superior vehicle. If inflation worked the way you implied, the price of it would have constantly gone up, and never would it have managed to be affordable.

You're talking about something different than what I was - improvements that make a product better without the price going up (because the cost is small enough to become the new baseline, either by market stickiness or regulation). Those don't affect CPI, and therefore make life better at the same price. So I agree with where you're coming from there.

My point is about the manufacturing/product innovations that make prices go down (regardless of whether quality gets better or worse). Take for example offshoring, which was sold as maybe your local factory will have to lay off some people but we will have less expensive items at the store so we will all win on average. But it's a trick because the Fed creates a feedback loop that makes it so prices cannot go down on average.

Wages haven't risen as fast as consumer price inflation because that new money is injected into the financial industry (the fake "fiscal responsibility" of the Republican party). And when too much newly created money finally leads to too much demand for labor and wages start rising, the Fed then tamps down on the monetary creation.
by ChrisMarshallNY | 2025-11-16 06:05:18+00:00
> This is the weirdest revisionist history I've ever heard.

I thought we were supposed to find less abrasive ways to engage each other, around these parts.

In any case, I admit that I could have phrased it better.

What I meant, was that “professionals” laughed at it (and there were a lot of them), but “customers,” did not.

I worked for a company, where they literally laughed in my face, when I told them “This thing will be trouble for us.” A few years later, their own product line was a smoking crater in the ground.
Show HN: Xeus-Haskell – a lightweight Haskell kernel for JupyterLite
by tanimasa | 2025-11-16 06:05:42+00:00
I’ve been experimenting with MicroHs, a minimal Haskell implementation, and ended up building a small project on top of it: xeus-haskell, a new Jupyter kernel.

A few things that might interest folks here:

- MicroHs has almost no dependencies, so connecting it to the Jupyter messaging protocol via xeus was surprisingly straightforward. - That minimalism also means MicroHs compiles cleanly to WebAssembly. - As a result, xeus-haskell runs on JupyterLite in the browser — no GHC, no toolchains, no local setup.

The goal is to make Haskell easier to use for scientific and technical computing. Lazy evaluation can be very effective for certain workloads (graph algorithms, recursive structures, etc.), and being able to demonstrate that interactively in a notebook feels like a natural fit.

Demo: https://tani.github.io/xeus-haskell
by hota_mazi | 2025-11-16 06:06:52+00:00
What strange choices. For example, to express the sum from i=1 to n:

sum_(i=1)^n

Why use the exponent sign to indicate the upper limit? Am I taking crazy pills here?

How about using some symmetry instead, e.g.

sum(i=1)(n) "Means: sum from i=1 to n"
by vee-kay | 2025-11-16 06:06:56+00:00
The only reason Apple ditched Lightning port and finally gave USB-C port in the iDevices, is because EU forced Apple to do so. But do you think your oh-so-common USB-C cables will work with a new iPhone?

In my country (India), Apple still doesn't sell charger and cable along with its new iDevices, even though those gadgets are exorbitantly expensive. And Apple doesn't allow custom repair here, even though my country mandated the Right to Repair, like EU did so. My old Mac Mini 2012 is gathering dust in a cupboard, because Apple service center refused to upgrade it to new RAM and new SATA SSD, citing Apple policies.
by rramadass | 2025-11-16 06:07:28+00:00
I am always bemused when i see articles like these. Do people not have an understanding of fundamental Software Engineering principles from OGs like Parnas/Liskov/etc.?

The fundamental idea is that of Abstraction which can be defined as the discovery/invention of "higher-level concepts" from more primitive "lower-level concepts" and then reasoning and manipulating at the higher-level. This abstraction is based on structure and/or behavioural attributes.

In order to manage the complexity inherent in the building of large systems certain fundamental aspects were identified as highly desirable. They are Separation-Of-Concerns, Modularization, Reuse and Information-Hiding.

The crucial point to understand is that Abstraction does not imply any of the above aspects! A good example are Mathematical Abstractions. But because for Software we desire the above aspects for our system-as-a-whole we learn to combine them with our Abstractions. This is why we have so many different styles of Programming (i.e. Imperative/OO/Functional/Logic/etc.).

Viewed in the above light the relation between Inheritance and Composition becomes clear. They are just different ways of emphasizing different combinations of the above aspects for your abstractions based on your design needs.

References:

1) Software Fundamentals: Collected Papers by David L. Parnas.

2) Program Development in Java: Abstraction, Specification, and Object-Oriented Design by Barbara Liskov and John Guttag.

3) Multi-Paradigm Design for C++ by James Coplien.
by chrneu | 2025-11-16 06:07:56+00:00
>America had no idea how good they had it, in the before times.

The downside is the insane consumption associated with that. Americans are responsible for an insane amount of pollution, far more per capita than any other people in the history of the world, much of which is tied to how easy/cheap it is to order shit we don't need. So, good if ya wanna buy cheap pollution, pretty bad if ya care about the next generation.
by linguae | 2025-11-16 06:08:06+00:00
I have a work-issued M3 MacBook Pro, and at home my daily drivers are a Ryzen 9 3900 PC (still on Windows 10) and a Framework 13 laptop with a Ryzen 5 7640U running Windows 11. The hardware on my MacBook Pro is fantastic; I get amazing battery life that lasts far longer than my Framework 13, and the performance is excellent. I also love my MacBook Pro's build quality.

However, the reason my personal laptop is a Framework 13 and not a MacBook Pro is because I value upgradability and user-servicability. My Framework has 32GB of RAM, and I could upgrade it to 64GB at a later date. Its SSD, currently 1TB, is also upgradable. I miss the days of my 2006 Core Duo MacBook, which had user-serviceable RAM and storage. My Ryzen 9 3900 replaced a 2013 Mac Pro.

Additionally, macOS doesn't spark the same type of joy that it used to; I used to use Macs as my personal daily drivers from 2006 to 2022. While macOS is less annoying than Windows to me, and while I love some of the bundled apps like Preview.app and Dictionary.app, the annoyances have grown over the years, such as needing to click a security prompt each time I run lldb on a freshly-compiled program. I also do not like the UI directions that macOS has been taking during the Tim Cook era; I didn't like the changes made during Yosemite (though I was able to live with them) and I don't plan to upgrade from Sequoia to Tahoe until I have to for security reasons.

Apple's ARM hardware is appealing enough to me that I'd love to purchase a M4 Mac Mini to have a powerful, inexpensive, low-power ARM device to play with. It would be a great Linux or FreeBSD system, except due to the hardware being undocumented, the only OS that can run on the M4 Mac Mini for now is macOS. It's a shame; Apple could probably sell more Macs if they at least documented enough to make it easier for developers of alternative operating systems to write drivers for them.
by jauntywundrkind | 2025-11-16 06:08:16+00:00
In general, rigidity of stack is a malfeasance. Over protecting the user brings fragility, un-adaptability, that curses the world. Android certainly is a rigid narrow protective stack that refuses to accommodate, again and again. Different genre, but decades latter and it still won't work on many ipv6 networks because for no clearly stated reason it won't support DHCPv6: Android is full of these weirdly unstated "principled" anti-compatibilities, and I can't excuse blaming the devices or networks for being what they are: it's the unbending rigid OS that offends me.

I do rather hope perhaps perhaps perhaps the EU & DMA or other may perhaps bend Apple off their rotten course of making non-standard bespoke systems. It seems like very recently the EU is getting ready to cave & abandon all their demands for trying to use standards, that their fear of the US is about to make them fold on insisting upon better. Demanding Apple stop doing everything in bespoke incompatible ways is something that should have happened a long time ago, imo, and it's so horrifying to see one of the only stands in my lifetime against the propeietarization & domination of systems by a bespoke corporate lord abandoned.

There's some rays of hope here & there. Seemoo Lab has a ton of amazing reverse engineering efforts, figuring out how many many many undocumented locked down Apple systems & protocols work & trying to give control back. This is the highest virtue, the best hacker nature. Here's Open Wireless Link, but they have so many other amazing projects they've similarly figured out out to pry open. Amazing best human spirit. https://github.com/seemoo-lab/owl
by deaux | 2025-11-16 06:09:03+00:00
Apple says they stopped producing minis because they didn't sell. It seems they sold relatively better than the Air, and pretty much everyone I know who still uses a device of "13" or earlier generation, is on a mini. That's about 5 people just in my social circle still on a 13 Mini, and 0 people on any other non-Mini 13th or older generation. I reckon that's the real reason they stopped making them, people who use them, are willing to stay with their phones for much longer periods. Could also be that they break less due to being smaller.
by FpUser | 2025-11-16 06:09:45+00:00
I use both where choosing what I believe is appropriate for particular case.

Frankly I do not give rat's ass about what "People have written extensively". From what I read most of it sounds like spoken by politician: look Jimmy, someone can do a bad thing with it. Well fuckin don't do a bad thing.

So much over very simple and primitive thing: John HAS a key vs dog IS an animal. Both are valid and proper.

>"you haven't mounted any defense"

Why would I bother. It does not need a defense. It is like do not use Java because it encourages FactoryFactoryFactory, 20 level of abstraction etc. Well it does not. Architecture astronauts do it and I am not one of those
by Aurornis | 2025-11-16 06:09:56+00:00
> Preparing to do the thing isn't doing the thing.

For some types of work, the work we call prep work is 90% of the work and most of what determines how well the finished product turns out.

Painting is a good example. You can grab a bucket of paint and paint brush and start “doing the thing” by slapping paint on the surface. Your paint job is going to be very poor and fail early relative to a professional who properly sands, cleans the surface, preps the work area, and does it right. You might save some time now by skipping straight to doing the thing, but you might also lose more time later when you have to repeat the job because the paint is peeling or you’re cleaning up a paint mess that spilled on to another surface because you didn’t prepare.
by Hobadee | 2025-11-16 06:10:11+00:00
At least this guy got the option to know what was happening. A few years ago I randomly got a letter from the IRS (or some other 3-letter agency - I can't recall which) demanding I pay thousands of dollars because I imported "industrial equipment". I found this odd as I'm just a normal consumer who buys crap of Amazon and whatnot - I'm not importing tens of thousands of dollars worth of industrial equipment.

I verified everything and it wasn't a scam; the government was legitimately about to take me to court or start garnishing my wages or something like that. They said that UPS or FedEx had told them I imported the equipment but never paid import duties.

I got ahold of the case worker for my case and told them it must be some error. After a week or two of back and forth, we finally figured out that it was for a laptop that a user in Canada had shipped back to me when they left the company, and it had been mis-categorized and valued on the import documents. Since we had purchased the laptop in the US in the first place and shipped it to the user, the case was dismissed and I didn't have to pay anything, but it's always a mini heart attack when you get a letter from Uncle Sam saying you owe thousands.
by jcranmer | 2025-11-16 06:10:21+00:00
It's worth pointing out that export templates were removed from C++ based on feedback from the most expert implementers of C++ on implementing the feature, which unanimously resolved to "don't": https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2003/n14....

It's also worth noting that the main claim of this article as to its advantage is in fact listed as "phantom advantage #1" in the paper arguing for its removal. The paper doesn't do a good job of explaining this for lay people, but the basic problem is that export templates actually end up working entirely backwards from the way you think they work--rather than letting you hide the implementation details from other compilation units, they actually force you to expose all of the implementation details, even implementation details not normally fronted to the user, in ways that cause the common slight differences to snowball into catastrophic errors.

The feature people want is to not put the template body in a header. But the problem with C++ templates is that template bodies are instantiated at their first point of use. As the post notes, extern templates let you have a dedicated translation unit provide the instantiations with usefully hidden definition, so long as you manually list all of the instantiations that you might need. And this is possible in modern C++, and is used in some cases where the universe of possible templated values is relatively small and self-contained (say, string libraries or numeric libraries).

Export templates theoretically allow you to delegate the expansion of a template without manually listing all of the possible expansions. But the compilation unit that contains the body doesn't know--it can't know--all of the possible expansions. So the compilation unit that uses the exported template, the only one that knows the expansions it needs, has to generate the expansion. From the body contained in the other compilation unit. Which means the first compilation unit needs to export all of the details necessary to recreate the body for an arbitrary template instantiation. And, were the feature to have lasted long enough for multiple versions of C++ to come into play, a current C++ compiler would have to figure out how to instantiate a template which is half C++26 and half C++98, and I don't mean "C++98 source code compiled with C++26", I mean "code compiled in C++98 mode with C++98 semantics."

At the end of the day, it turns out to be easier to literally include the entire source code of the template as an included header file than it is to do all of the magic required to make export templates work.
by Quarrel | 2025-11-16 06:11:41+00:00
I wonder if this is why NextDNS block the archive.today domains?

While the NextDNS company is registered in Delaware, the founders are French nationals, so may feel more exposed to such threats.

fwiw, you can use rewrites for these domains in the nextdns settings, or manage it in your local dns client, and get around this pretty easily.
by koliber | 2025-11-16 06:11:52+00:00
If you define “specifications” as a formal document with that title atop, then you’re right.

If you define it as a description of what needs to be built then by definition you can’t build what is not described.

User stories are a type of specification. “Build me a Facebook clone” is a type of specification. A well-refined Figma doc is a type of specification. They all specify what needs to be built at various levels of fidelity.

You need specifications.
Show HN: ChronoGuard–Zero-trust proxy for browser automation with temporal ctrls
by j-raghavan | 2025-11-16 06:11:57+00:00
Hi HN!

I built ChronoGuard, an open-source zero-trust proxy that provides network-enforced authorization for browser automation.

## The Problem

If you're running Playwright, Puppeteer, or Selenium agents at scale (CI/CD, K8s, VM fleets), you face two challenges:

1. **Access control**: How do you ensure agents only access approved domains? 2. **Auditability**: How do you prove WHEN and WHERE your automation accessed external resources?

Traditional approaches (SDK restrictions, code reviews, monitoring) are bypassable or lack temporal proof. Auditors and compliance teams want cryptographically verifiable, tamper-proof logs.

## The Solution

ChronoGuard is a mandatory forward proxy that sits between your agents and the internet. Every request flows through:

Agent → Envoy (mTLS) → OPA (policy check) → Target Domain ↓ Immutable Audit Log (hash-chained, time-series)

*Key features:* - mTLS authentication for agent identity verification - Domain allowlists/blocklists with time-window restrictions - Cryptographic hash chains for audit log integrity - OPA integration for policy-as-code - Multi-tenant isolation - 96%+ test coverage

## Try It Now

Zero setup needed - just click: [![Open in Codespaces](https://github.com/codespaces/badge.svg)](https://codespaces.new/j-raghavan/ChronoGuard?quickstart=1)

Or run locally: ```bash git clone https://github.com/j-raghavan/chronoguard cd chronoguard ./scripts/generate_secrets.sh docker compose up -d ```

Dashboard: http://localhost:3000 API docs: http://localhost:8000/docs

Architecture

Built with Domain-Driven Design + Clean Architecture: - 6 services: Envoy proxy, OPA policy engine, FastAPI backend, React dashboard, PostgreSQL+TimescaleDB, Redis - Tech stack: Python 3.11+, FastAPI, Envoy, Open Policy Agent, TimescaleDB - Deployment: Docker Compose (MVP), Kubernetes ready (roadmap)

Use Cases

- E-commerce competitive intelligence - Fintech market research - Healthcare data operations (HIPAA compliance) - QA/testing providers with audit requirements - Any org running browser agents with compliance obligations

What's Next

This is v0.1.0 MVP. I'm looking for feedback on: - Real-world use cases I haven't considered - Integration pain points with existing automation stacks - Feature priorities (WebSocket streaming, gRPC, advanced rate limiting)

Contributing

The project follows strict quality standards (95%+ test coverage requirement, DRY principles, mypy + ruff). Looking for contributors interested in: - Security testing and threat modeling - Kubernetes/Helm deployment - Performance optimization - Client SDKs (Python, JS, Go) GitHub: https://github.com/j-raghavan/ChronoGuard License: Apache 2.0

Happy to answer questions about the architecture, design decisions, or roadmap!

Best Regards!
by tavavex | 2025-11-16 06:12:32+00:00
At the very beginning of the article, the author immediately states that they're not using raw net worth (and explains why they chose to do so). The actual metric is

> the amount of money someone could bring to bear on a problem if they had to. If someone they loved fell deathly ill, but the treatment would cost some large amount of money, how much could they pull together in a month or two?
by themafia | 2025-11-16 06:12:50+00:00
> The delusion of recompense for damages incurred is a placation of known risk.

Negligence is separate from known and unavoidable risk.

> By that, I mean, if you think you can sue your employer for doing you dirty, then you feel safe to work there.

Maybe I just assume they're following relevant safety laws?

> But it almost never works in the favor of the harmed unless it's a violation of a protected class and that's not really harmful.

A settlement is separate from criminal charges. Settlements happen all the time. The state even provides it's own injury compensation plan.

> Get groped by your boss and you'll get millions tho.

The point of that is to prevent the company from blithely creating more victims in the same way it did the first. That's what _true_ wealth actually is.
by pear01 | 2025-11-16 06:13:35+00:00
Such a silly comment. Is your theory that everyone with any decision making authority at Apple doesn't actually use the product? Even when it comes to "glaring annoyances or shortcomings"?

So odd of you to frame this as some sort of personal outrage. Like I'm so annoyed by this "glaring issue" on my device clearly the people working on this don't even use it or "it would be fixed in a day". Lol. Maybe people who actually have to get things done at a trillion dollar company don't have the same constraints as you, or relatedly, the luxury to obsess over your so-called glaring issues.
by treetalker | 2025-11-16 06:14:13+00:00
Thesis of the video, as I understand it:

Modal text editors in the terminal, like Vim and Helix, are an evolutionary dead-end for users of non-English (non-Latin-alphabet?) keyboards because they rely on the terminal emulator to translate physical key presses, and thus they may not reliably switch away from an insert mode using a non-Latin alphabet.
by chrneu | 2025-11-16 06:16:30+00:00
yeah this is just a way for republicans to curry favors/influence from businesses they prefer.

they make everything as hard as possible, then create loopholes for their buddies.

this is what they've been claiming has been happening under democrats(projection), but in reality it's teh system they long for. Now that they're in power they can make it happen.
by chrneu | 2025-11-16 06:17:54+00:00
Lol the mental gymnastics of republicans to say "Tariffs aren't taxes on citizens, they're taxes on foreign countries"

and now trump is easing tariffs on foods because they're too expensive. he's also thinking of shipping out STIMULUS CHECKS because people are struggling to buy tariffed goods.

it's mind boggling what they must be thinking to justify this stuff.
by isoprophlex | 2025-11-16 06:17:59+00:00
From a bit further down the page

> Bluetooth DID (Device Identification) Hook > Turns out, if you change the manufacturerid to that of Apple, you get access to several special features!

I hope Apple gets slammed hard by some regulatory body. Apparently there's absolutely zero magic reasons why their airpods are unable to connect to non-Apple devices; pretend you're an iPhone and you're in.

EDIT: read "unable to connect" => "unable to expose advanced functionality", ofc they connect just fine
by themafia | 2025-11-16 06:18:01+00:00
> To benchmark LLM handwriting accuracy, last year Dr. Lianne Leddy and I developed a set of 50 documents comprising some 10,000 words—we had to choose them carefully and experiment to ensure that these documents were not already in the LLM training data (full disclosure: we can’t know for sure, but we took every reasonable precaution).

You're drawing conclusions from _this_? Let alone pretending that "it did a something else unexpected that can only be described as genuine, human-like, expert level reasoning."

Give me a break. This entire industry is impossible to take seriously.
by markburns | 2025-11-16 06:20:18+00:00
I think in this example those prep work items _are_ doing the thing.

But then telling people about a new product could also be doing the thing.

There’s definitely something to be said for defining what the thing really is being an important part of doing it, but that can also spiral out of control into not doing the thing.

I think thingness is more of a variable property of the current thing you are doing. Than a binary is or isn’t the thing.

All we can really do is regularly check how much the thingness of the current thing is aligned with the main thing’s thingness.