MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by EvansWilson | 2025-11-17 01:19:57+00:00
This is a great start! One feature that I think would be a game-changer is moving beyond a single-fund view to see what the 'smart money' is thinking collectively. For instance, have you considered a dedicated 'Star Manager' page? You could track the latest moves from top investors like Buffett, Dalio, and Ackman. The real killer feature wouldn't just be showing their portfolio changes, but also integrating summaries of their public letters or recent interviews. That way, users could connect the what (the trade) with the why (their thesis) all in one place.
by corysama | 2025-11-17 01:19:58+00:00
"Hare Brain Tortoise Mind" is a great book that goes into how this works and how to work with/against it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB_4YU6UtCw

tldr: There is a background, non-verbal process in your brain that has the advantage of a larger working set size than your foreground verbal thinking. It is able to observe and consider more stuff at once and find associations better than your conscious thought process.

But, it has several disadvantages. It takes time to do its processing. You can't will it into action. It communicates non-verbally with your foreground process. It doesn't work under pressure (thus the need for relaxed, unfocused time). The non-verbal understanding is difficult to deconstruct, generalize and reapply. It can lead to you solving a problem, not understanding how and not being able to solve a variant of the same problem.

So, the general recommendation is: If you have a complex problem to solve, first absorb as much information about the problem as your brain can hold. But, do not try to solve anything. Then, go take a break. A walk in a natural environment is preferable. Don’t think about the problem. Relax in a low stress environment. Let your background brain have a chance to chew on it and maybe bubble up some suggestions.
by chasd00 | 2025-11-17 01:22:04+00:00
At the time she was ground zero for all of pop culture and pretty much every single man’s crush. When that website came out it was funny because we were all looking at pictures of Britney anyway so may as well learn some physics at the same time.

Btw, she really went downhill once she fell out of popularity. I think she has a life put back together finally but she got a raw deal. I’m rooting for her.
by IgorPartola | 2025-11-17 01:23:53+00:00
I have read a number of programming books but the only two that really stood out to me and that I still remember are The Pragmatic Programmer and K&R The C Programming Language. They are obviously very different but foundational in ways that enabled me to get a lot of things done.

I do still encourage people to learn C only because you could understand how the language works or a long weekend and it will help you appreciate just how things actually work under the hood (and a bit above the assembly instructions level). And TPP is great for helping you understand what to do when actually working on a deliverable project and not just the exciting parts. It’s the difference between building a toy that runs on your machine and a project others can run and use.
by varenc | 2025-11-17 01:24:17+00:00
There's a fuzzy line between an agent analyzing the content of a single page I requested, and one making many page fetches on my behalf. I think it's fair to treat an agent that clicks an invisible link as a robot/crawler since that agent is causing more traffic than a regular user agent (browser).

Just trying to make the point that an LLM powered user agent fetching a single page at my request isn't a robot.
by RossBencina | 2025-11-17 01:24:26+00:00
> but I don’t get the “hate”

I will put forward some arguments. I do not believe all of them:

GC is for lazy programmers who do not know how to manage memory.

GC takes aspects of memory allocation out of my control. If I control all the things I can get the best performance.

If you care about performance: when your program does not need GC, GC is is pure overhead.

If you care about performance: if you must use GC then you must have a high-performance GC available. So the question is not just GC/no-GC but you have to worry about details of the GC -- it's a leaky abstraction.

If you care about average latency: if you must use GC then you must have a low-latency GC available (i.e. a GC with low and bounded pause times)

If you care about meeting real-time deadlines: if you must use GC then you must have a GC that is guaranteed to meet your timing constraints.

Corollary of the previous three points: GC is not just GC. Someone else's GC is often not the GC you want. Your program requirements can impose strong requirements on the GC algorithm, and you don't always have the necessary control over the GC.

For a particular language, GC algorithm and/or implementation can be a moving target. If the GC developer's goals don't stay aligned with your requirements then you are hosed.

GC results in unpredictable memory allocation performance. Ironing out these performance issues (e.g. by avoiding allocations, pooling objects, etc.) is just as much work as using manual memory allocation, so why bother with GC.

Unless you have allocation patterns or other requirements that really need GC[0], it's easier to just avoid GC.

[0] e.g. some lock-free algorithms depend on the presence of GC
by bluGill | 2025-11-17 01:24:57+00:00
Most of the real world is about manipulating the real world. For algorithms it is fine to say depend on the pure inputs/outputs. However what we care about is that global state is manipulated correctly and so the integration tests that verify that are what are important. In most cases your algorithm shouldn't be unit tested separately since it is only used in one place and changes when the users change: there is no point in extra tests. If the algorithm is used in many places comprehensive unit tests are important, but they get in the way when the algorithm is used only once and so the tests just inhibit changes to the algorithm as requirements change (you have to change the user, the integration tests, and the unit tests that are redundant).

As such I disagree. Global state is what you should be testing - but you need to be smart about it. How you setup and verify global state matters. Don't confuse global state above with global state of variables, I mean the external state of the program before and after, which means network, file, time, and other IO things.
by rjzzleep | 2025-11-17 01:25:53+00:00
You can get really cheap boards on taobao, for sofle, lily58, corne(all 3 are open source/open hardware) keyboards. You can of course also get prebuilt ones with or without switches for cheap if you want to. But in today's world, if you have tools and access to a 3d printer you can get a board for a few bucks some components and finish the whole thing with good switches and keycaps for 20-30 dollars.

It's a fun experience, and a nice reason to play around with SMD soldering techniques. I had my daughter (4 years) solder the hotswap sockets.

Worth checking out the miryoku layout, which is optimized for small keyboards, where I recently added sensor bindings for ec11 encoders[1].

[1] https://github.com/manna-harbour/miryoku_zmk/pull/116
by jesseb34r | 2025-11-17 01:25:57+00:00
This source is really hard to trust. AI or not, the author has done no work to really establish epistemological reliability and transparency. The entire book was published at once with no history, no evidence of the improvement and iteration it takes to create quality work, and no reference as to the creative process or collaborators or anything. And on top of that, the author does not seem to really have any other presence or history in the community. I love Zig, and have wanted more quality learning materials to exist. This, unfortunately, does not seem to be it.
by martin-t | 2025-11-17 01:26:16+00:00
I was gonna say the last few percent might increase the size disproportionally as the last percent tend to do[0] but looks like boa passes fewer tests (~91%).

This is something I notice in small few-person or one-person projects. They don't have the resources to build complex architectures so the code ends up smaller, cleaner and easier to maintain.

The other way to look at it is that cooperation has an overhead.

[0]: The famous 80:20 rule. Or another claiming that each additional 9 in reliability (and presumably other aspects) takes the same amount of work.
by kibibu | 2025-11-17 01:28:05+00:00
Reading his recent "Greta Thunberg Is The Antichrist" stuff leads me to believe the Peter Thiel:

- Is deeply unscientific, coming across as a highfalutin paranoid QAnon; and

- Has zero self-awareness

That said, he has plenty of money and connections, so moves like these are likely well justified.
by jasperry | 2025-11-17 01:28:18+00:00
The unity of the block of cheese is circumstantial, but nonetheless we define a piece of cheese defined on the presence of actual matter. The article goes to some trouble to devise a definition of holes that's also based on matter rather than its absence. But only a strict materialist would feel the need to do that, assuming they didn't want to outright deny existence to holes.
by cycomanic | 2025-11-17 01:28:24+00:00
These posts are getting old.

I had a discussion on some other submission a couple of weeks back, where several people were arguing "it's obviously AI generated" (the style btw was completely different to this, quite a few explicitives...). When I put the the text in 5 random AI detectors the argument who except for one (which said mixed, 10% AI or so) all said 100% human I was being down voted and the argument became "AI detection tools can detect AI" but somehow the people claim there are 100% clear telltale signs which says it's AI (why those detection tools can detect them is baffling to me).

I have the feeling that the whole "it's AI" stick has become a synonym for I don't like this writing style.

It really does not add to the discussion. If people would post immediately "there's spelling mistakes this is rubbish", they would rightfully get down voted, but somehow saying "it's AI" is acceptable. Would the book be any more or less useful if somebody used AI for writing it? So what is your point?
by lkey | 2025-11-17 01:29:57+00:00
When asked why they captured and locked up their daughter, twice, they replied "We suffered a lot too". They expressed only rage at their loss of status when confronting her initially.

Based on disclosed facts, actions taken (that are not in dispute), and statements by the perpetrators themselves before and after the fact, we can conclude that her parents do in fact care more about their own 'suffering' and 'status', more than their daughter's physical and emotional well-being.

You, on the other hand, just made shit up from whole cloth, but are too pathetic to stand on business and disagree directly.

If I could assign remedial reading comprehension lessons to anyone on Earth, today, I would choose you.
by benjiro | 2025-11-17 01:32:10+00:00
Yep ... its like people never read some of the main dev's motivations. The ability for people to be able to read each others code was a main point.

I don't know but for me a lot of attacks on Go, often come from non-go developers, VERY often Rust devs. When i started Go, it was always Rust devs in /r/programming pushing their agenda as Rust being the next best thing, the whole "rewrite everything in Rust"...

About 10 years ago, learned Rust and these days, i can barely read the code anymore with the tons of new syntax that got added. Its like they forgot the lessons from C++...
by missedthecue | 2025-11-17 01:33:29+00:00
Of course it's sustainable. Gilead Sciences is a $155B company originally built on a single drug (Sovaldi) that literally cures Hepatitis C. Now they are more diversified and have a stacked pipeline. The business model just changes to one like oil or mining exploration where you find a deposit with a limited lifespan and you have to keep the treadmill going to find new ones before the mother lode that funds your firm is all tapped out and you go bust.

But while it makes for amazing ragebait and threads full of grievances aired against the healthcare system in general, I think the question isn't very relevant because in Biotech, this is dynamic already essentially forced, cure or not, because of *patent life*. A perfect example of this is Lipitor and Pfizer. Lipitor was not a cure. Statins do not cure you. But it was the most profitable drug of all time. But it eventually went off-patent and now the average price on GoodRX for a 30 day supply is only $6. Pfizer stock has never recovered from that success, though they certainly have a sustainable business.

The modern-day Pfizer is Merck. Merck has probably the most profitable drug in world history (Keytruda) which is far more profitable than Lipitor, and which has massively increased remission rates for a wide range of cancers, so it's somewhat of a cure as well. But that patent life is about to expire, and 46% of Mercks revenue will disappear with it. Of course, new people are diagnosed with cancer every day, and Keytruda will continue to be prescribed in the millions, but Teva and others will sell the generic version and Merck will lose out on the revenue. So the race is on to get more things through their pipeline, acquire some promising assets, and keep the treadmill going. There are 100+ year old mining and oil companies. None are mining the same asset they had one day one, but this doesn't make the industry unsustainable.
by cyberax | 2025-11-17 01:33:42+00:00
Ideally, it needs to be "from", then arbitrary number of something like `let` statements that can introduce new variables, maybe interspersed with where-s, and then finally "select".

"select" can also be replaced with annotations, something like: `from table_1 t1 let t1.column_1 as @output_1 where ...` and then just collect all the @-annotated variables.

I need to write a lot of SQL, and it's so clumsy. Every time I need a CTE, I have to look into the documentation for the exact syntax.
by cycomanic | 2025-11-17 01:36:02+00:00
But all those "it's AI posts" are about the prose and "style", not the actual content. So even if (and that is a big if) the text was written using the help of AI (and there are many valid reasons to use it, e.g. if you're not a native speaker) that does not mean the content was written from AI and thus contains AI mistakes.

If it was so obviously written by AI then finding those mistakes should be easy?
by RossBencina | 2025-11-17 01:36:08+00:00
Graphs are common. But you don't have to represent each edge as a pointer. For example you can represent them using (sparse) adjacency matrices. Or you can represent edges using a pointer in each direction (even for a directed graph) or some other data structure (as is commonly the case in triangle mesh data structures). Lots of options. Most do not require GC.
by trashface | 2025-11-17 01:38:40+00:00
Been using windows since 3.11, dos 5 and 6 before that, when I was a pre-teen. Still have windows 10, but when this computer dies, the next one is running linux. It may suck kind of, but at least I will own the suck, rather than have the suck be forced upon me by a shark-jumping company that is now only concerned about some ceo-crack-dream "AI".
by kcplate | 2025-11-17 01:40:52+00:00
Parks need to be landscape maintained, so does new development—-often in very similar ways that a golf course is (water, chemical, maintenance). Unless around you simply doesn’t have the open land space to support the area’s park and development needs, what is actually wasted?

I think folks get caught up on golf course water usage, but every course around me uses reclaimed water. If houses were built there, that would no longer be reclaimed water, but potable water. Also I am convinced that landscape chemical usage would go up as well.

I have close family and friends in the business, I guarantee that huge efforts go into making sure not a single drop of irrigation isn’t used unless it’s needed. I can tell you that my neighbors don’t pay that much attention to their exact irrigation needs—simply watering for as long as they can, when they can. I doubt seriously that replacing a golf course with more homes would net much water savings…at least around me.
by xeonmc | 2025-11-17 01:41:10+00:00
https://www.zigbook.net/chapters/45__text-formatting-and-uni...

The repetitiveness of the shell commands (and using zig build-exe instead of zig run when the samples consist of short snippets), the filler bullet points and section organization that fail to convey any actual conceptual structure. And ultimately throughout the book the general style of thought processes lacks any of the zig community’s cultural anachronisms.

If you take a look at the repository you’ll also notice baffling tech choices not justified by the author that runs counter against the zig ethos.

(Edit: the build system chapter is an even worse offender in meaningless cognitively-cluttering headings and flowcharts, it’s almost certainly entirely hallucinated, there is just an absurd degree of unziglikeness everywhere: https://www.zigbook.net/chapters/26__build-system-advanced-t... -- What’s with the completely irrelevant flowchart of building the zig compliler? What even is the point of module-graph.txt? And icing on the cake in the “Vendoring vs Registry Dependencies” section.)
by 113245 | 2025-11-17 01:42:33+00:00
1 - Can you elaborate? To what standard do you hold "work well"?

2 - Can you back that up? Generally [[likely]] is for the codepath that you want to be faster, where common path = fast path. It is a specific HFT use case to desire the fast path to be the uncommon path. [[likely]] is definitely intended to be the fast path per https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/attributes/likely
by vladdoster | 2025-11-17 01:44:27+00:00
Location: Nashville, TN Remote: true Willing to relocate: boston || nashville Technologies: Python, Django, IaC, Terraform, Golang, CI/CD, Azure/AWS, {ba,z}sh, Lua, Springboot, Redis, K8s, Open Service Broker, {,non}relational & vector dbs, shared services, SOA Email: mvdoster@gmail.com

resume: http://linkedin.vdoster.com

sr. cloud software engineer @ Mastercard (5 years)

Designed and built Platform-as-a-Service for microservice workloads running on Azure and AWS to migrate on-prem workloads to the cloud. The platform operates globally, allowing teams to deploy to several Azure-backed regions worldwide. Helped plan and create regional landing zones in Azure for application teams wanting to perform globally. Designed platform components using Terraform, Go, and Node; developed support tooling using Bash, Python, and Azure CLI. De-risk the platform by addressing security vulnerabilities and ensuring the platform is PCI compliant.

api/devops software engineer @ Harvard Medical School (2 years)

Worked as part of the DevOps team to manage a 15k core CentOS HPC cluster. Designed and implemented Python-based security scanning pipeline to securely deploy & run Apptainer images via SLURM. Coordinated cross-team emergency patching eﬀorts. Collaborated with researchers and engineers across 3-letter institutions to deliver secure research infrastructure. Built CI/CD Pipelines with GitHub, Jenkins, to automate code builds, testing, and deployments. Wrote Puppet modules to manage configuration of HPC fleet. Wrote custom Puppet module & Python scripts to automatically remediate Tenable findings.

full-stack software engineer @ Global Prior Art (3 years)

Used Django, Celery, Selenium grid, and AWS API Gateway for IP rotation to scrape USPTO patent PDFs, apply CV for data extraction, and generate reports with relevant claims, saving employees 4-5 hours daily. Wrote E2E black-box/fuzzing unit tests. Automated on-premise deployment via Github Actions and Ansible.

maintainer @ Zinit (5 years)

Develop and maintain a zsh plugin manager on Github with 4k stars. Implemented unit tests, containerization, bug fixes, and new features. See: https://github.com/zdharma-continuum/zinit

contributor @ Open-source documentation (5 years)

Contributed hundreds of documentation corrections and enhancements to various open source projects. See: https://github.com/vladdoster
by rstuart4133 | 2025-11-17 01:44:42+00:00
Some of the things that makes Rust hard to wrap you head around are the very things this post elucidates.

The principles exposed by the language, like lifetimes and mutability, are easy enough to understand. Yet despite understanding them, you get into epic battles with the borrow checker where the new shiny rules you've just learnt turn out to be little help in figuring out why the compiler accepts some code but rejects something similar.

You can't figure it out because these inconceivable types are not written down or explained anywhere. Instead if you are lucky you get examples of what works and what doesn't along with a hand wavy description of why, but usually it's just you versus the compiler error message. Since you don't have a concrete description of what is going to help you reason about what it likely to be accepted, you resort to experimentation to try and find what the compiler does accept. The experimental route takes ages.

If you survive enough bruising rounds of this, you will build up an empirical list of ways of working in Rust. If not, you give up on the language. To be fair, I don't think it takes a huge amount of time in the scheme or things, certainly less time than it takes to know your way around a languages standard library as that can take a month or two. However for those of us with a few languages under our belts, the time it does take comes as a shock. I'm used to it taking a few hours to become acquainted with the syntax and semantics or a new language, not finding myself still having battles with the compiler weeks later.

IMO, if the Rust doco did explain the language things the way this post does, it would make the learning it much easier.
by pests | 2025-11-17 01:47:21+00:00
The cname is just a normal domain. That DNS entry is a real entry. The CNAME is real. You can go directly to that address too. If someone else knows the cname destination they could go to it or cname their own domain to it literally like any other domain.

The only specially handling is cloud flare has a mapping from subdomain to your private network via it's agent and that's it.

I don't get what's the wrong or complicated about this.
by inferiorhuman | 2025-11-17 01:48:16+00:00
Hard disagree. AI summaries are useless for the same reason AI summaries from Google and DDG are useless: it's almost always missing the context. The AI page summaries typically take the form of "here's the type of message that the author of this page is trying to convey" instead of "here's what the page actually says". Just give me the fucking contents. If I wanted AI slop I'd ask my fucking doorknob.
by cagataycali | 2025-11-17 01:48:39+00:00
select * from protocols # ipc, tcp, http, websockets, ...?

MCP and A2A are JSONRPC schemas people follow to build abstraction around their tools. Agents can use MCP to discover tools, invoke and more. OpenAPI Schemas are good alternatives to MCP servers today. In comparison to OpenAPI Schemas, MCP servers are pretty new.

my fav protocol is TCP, which I am a proud user of nc localhost 9999.

but not everyone have same taste of building software.

https://github.com/cagataycali/devduck
by evolighting | 2025-11-17 01:48:46+00:00
The web of every age has certainly died, but only to be replaced by a new form of "web". We have had Web1.0, web2.0, or even web3.0, and waht more -- the AI;

The web that people were familiar with and loved back then had already died at that time. The new web is fundamentally different in both underlying technology and business models.