MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by ericb | 2025-11-17 00:01:14+00:00
> the tech is real and has great promise.

This was very true of the dotcom bubble. The entire "web" was new, and the promise was everything you use it for today.

Pets.com was a laughing stock for years as an example of dotcom excess, and now we have chewy.com, successfully running the same model.

Webvan.com, was a similar example of "excess" and now we have Instacart and others.

I looked up webvan just now--the postmortem seems relevant:

"Webvan failed due to a combination of overspending on infrastructure, rapid and unproven expansion, and an unsustainable business model that prioritized growth over profitability."
by protocolture | 2025-11-17 00:01:53+00:00
>"Wait To Play"[0].

Yeah I used to enjoy those games. But I dont think thats necessarily what they are referring to here.

>Another common in-game timer is related to "harvesting" or "research". You may send your character off to harvest some resources, but you have to wait an arbitrary amount of time before this task is completed. This forces you to stop playing and wait for the timer to expire. Often there is a way to pay money or watch an advertisement to accelerate or skip the timer.

>Games that prevent you from playing them whenever you want are trying to get you to space out your playing throughout the day. This is a much better way for you to develop a habit of playing the game, and also a way to prevent players from reaching the end of a short game or getting burnt out on a repetitive game in a relatively short amount of time.

In a modern wait to play, you can bypass the restriction by spending money, or you are simply bounced back into ads multiple times during the day as you log in at every increment to press the next button.
by drumhead | 2025-11-17 00:02:34+00:00
Berkshire is sitting on nearly $350 billion in cash. One of the ratio's that Buffet uses to measure overvaluation, Wilshire 2000 Market Cap as a % of GDP is at an all time, 220%. Its usually a good indicator of a market top. He's making a few small investments, but he's just waiting until there's more of sell off before heading back in. He's under no pressure to buy anything.
by pabs3 | 2025-11-17 00:02:48+00:00
Does OpenBSD have Bootstrappable Builds from source without any binaries? I'm guessing not yet, since GNU Guix (Linux distro) pioneered that, and I haven't seen any BSD distro interested in the related Reproducible Builds project.

https://bootstrappable.org/ https://reproducible-builds.org/
by terminalshort | 2025-11-17 00:03:33+00:00
The Senate has investigated ticket scalping at a Taylor Swift concert in Washington DC. That means nothing beyond "it's expensive and that makes me angry!" Yes, they could have priced it lower. 10% lower. (Of course that would have meant $10 billion less for other research and potential disease cures, but who has time to think about that!) And you know what would have happened? The Senate would have investigated because "that's still expensive and it makes me angry!"

I do agree with your point that curing diseases is profitable.
by protocolture | 2025-11-17 00:03:55+00:00
Yeah war thunder gives you lots of early progress for free, and then slows it down until you are tempted to purchase currency to progress.

Its not "Pay to Win" until you reach max level. Because the matchmaking always ensures theres some people of lower level, and some people of higher level (if they exist) in every match. This means that you want upgrades to overcome obstacles, but even if you buy progress, you still hit obstacles requiring upgrades. Its an infinite grind treadmill.
by stego-tech | 2025-11-17 00:03:56+00:00
I feel kinda bad for the writer, because it's a good question: no, curing patients is not a good business model, just like public transit is not a good business model.

What a lot of folks neglect are N+1-order effects, because those are harder to quantify and fail to reach the predetermined decision some executive or board or shareholder has already made. Is curing patients a bad business model? Sure, for the biotech company it is, but those cured patients are far more likely to go on living longer, healthier lives, and in turn contribute additional value to society - which will impact others in ways that may also create additional value. That doesn't even get into the jobs and value created through the R&D process, testing, manufacturing, logistics of delivery, ongoing monitoring, etc. As long as the value created is more than the cost of the treatment, then it's a net-gain for the economy even if it's a net loss for that singular business.

If all you're judging is the first-order impacts on a single business, you're missing the forest for the trees.
by redrix | 2025-11-17 00:04:03+00:00
Yes. The acronym is “ZTNA” (Zero Trust Network Access).

It is an alternative to a traditional corporate VPN that addresses a few architectural issues; namely:

- L3 connectivity (which allows for lateral movement) to the corporate network. - Inbound exposure to the VPN gateway (scaling can become a challenge, not to mention continuous vulnerabilities from… certain vendors) - Policy management can get convoluted if you want to do micro-segmentation properly.

ZTNA is essentially an “inside-out” architecture and acts (kind of) like a L4 proxy. I’m going to butcher this explanation, but:

1. Company installs apps/VMs/containers throughout their network. These must have network reachability to the internal apps/services the company wants to make available to its users.

2. These apps/VMs/containers establish TLS tunnels back to the company’s tenant in the vendor’s cloud.

3. Company rolls out the vendor’s ZTNA client to user devices. This also establishes a TLS tunnel to the vendor’s cloud. Hence the vendor’s cloud is like a MitM gatekeeper.

4. Company creates policies in the vendor’s cloud that says “User A can access App X via app/VM/container Z”

5. Even if App X is on the same LAN segment as App Y, App Y is invisible to User A because connectivity to the internal apps happens at L4.

It is an interesting architecture. That being said, ZTNA solutions have their own issues as well (you can probably already spot some based on my explanation above!)

(Note: I worked for a security vendor that sold a ZTNA solution as part of their ~4-5 years ago. Things could be different now.)
by FpUser | 2025-11-17 00:04:05+00:00
>"The fact that John has a key in real life does not suggest that this relationship should be represented by an object"

Exactly and that is my point. If you came up with the set of real business entities, their interaction rules and constraints we would have something to discuss and as a curious person and former scientist I would enjoy it. However blanket statements like "one should not use XYZ some abstract community thinks so" to me have near zero value. I do not waste my time on abstract statements taken out of any real life context

>"This is the same rationale used to defend memory-unsafe languages."

Total BS. What one has to do with the other. And even with memory safe languages it is extreme generalization on your side. Come to a company whose life depends on software running their business that had worked for years without problems and was written in say C++ and tell them that they're "holding it wrong" and must "rewrite it in Rust".

>"If we take our craft seriously, we need to be able to discuss the merits and drawbacks of our tools without getting defensive and refusing to engage"

I do take my craft seriously and my craft is to design and implement robust solutions for clients, bring them value and get paid for delivering said value. I do not find arguing abstract concepts disregarding of particular situation having much value.
by josephg | 2025-11-17 00:04:40+00:00
So your claim is that sufficiently careful C is just as safe as rust?

Seems like a pretty wild claim to make in the comment thread of this article. Google has some of the most careful engineers in the business. They use valgrind & ubsan & friends religiously. And yet this is their conclusion:

> Our historical data for C and C++ shows a density of closer to 1,000 memory safety vulnerabilities per MLOC. Our Rust code is currently tracking at a density orders of magnitude lower: a more than 1000x reduction.

C is not as memory safe as rust. And it cannot be made as safe as rust with a few bolted on tools and programming tricks.
by KPGv2 | 2025-11-17 00:04:59+00:00
It's not NPM. It's JS culture. I've done a lot of time programming in TypeScript, and it never fails that in JS programmer circles they are constantly talking about updating all their packages, completely befuddled why I'd be using some multiple year old version of a library in production, etc.

Meanwhile Java goes the other way: twenty-year old packages that are serious blockers to improved readability. Running Java that doesn't even support Option (or Maybe or whatever it's called in Java).
by anonymouskimmer | 2025-11-17 00:06:16+00:00
I'm vouching just to comment that substack seems to be stripping out the hyphens in your URL name. When I click on your link I get this: https://yoursubstackname.substack.com/p/who-are-you-allowed-...

"Not Found

The page you are attempting to access is not found.

If you want to claim this URL you can start a Substack today

Start a Substack

Search Substack for "yoursubstackname""

To answer your question, not having read what you've written, yes, I compartmentalize, just as I would on a food blog, or a sports forum. What belongs on LinkedIn is work or vocational related stuff. I consider this being authentic, as this is a compartmentalized part of my authentic self. This will vary between people, as some people have political jobs and their work stuff should be political, for example.
by kristianp | 2025-11-17 00:06:50+00:00
I always look forward to reading a post by Lemire, they're usually about getting the best performance out of modern processors using SIMD.

This is a test of AVX-512 code, using the simdutf library. The AMD processor manages 11GB/s against Intel's 6GB/s. The AMD chip also retires 4 Instructions per cycle vs intel's 2.6.

About the simdutf library:

> It is used by major browsers and JavaScript runtimes like Node.js or Bun. A common operation that matters is the conversion from UTF-16 to UTF-8. Internally, JavaScript relies on UTF-16, thus most characters use 2 bytes, whereas the Internet defaults on UTF-8 where characters can use between 1 and 4 bytes.
by stego-tech | 2025-11-17 00:07:54+00:00
Oh, don't mistake my "time for him to go" opinion with my opinion of his tenure as a whole. By the major measures, Cook has done a phenomenal job steering the company through its post-Jobs era, creating a lot of growth in the organization and making immensely successful pivots ahead of the market attitude (like its pivot to in-house hardware and away from Intel/Qualcomm). I have a myriad of critiques, sure, but even a layman like me acknowledges that he's done an A-level job running this juggernaut to its current peaks.

I just think he can't steer/lead it through the tumultuous next decade, is all, and that a newer leader with a clearer vision is needed to run the show at this juncture.
by ForOldHack | 2025-11-17 00:08:08+00:00
I would like to have a xt and at and 386 in this tiny form factor, to play Rogue on the X T and try to compile nethack on the 286 version of Xenix and the 386 version of Xenix. I know from experience it will never compile on the 8088 version of Xenix. It will wreck your OS and filesystem.
by p1necone | 2025-11-17 00:08:20+00:00
Solo/single player games are common now, but looking at pre computer history the majority of games are sports where you're competing against others either alone or in teams and board/card/dice games where you are competing against others (and probably gambling too).

Sure there are some solitaire card games, and toys like yo-yos, kendama and the like that could be classified as games. But competition defines most of what we consider "games" up until computers were able to simulate the other players in the form of hostile/friendly npcs, computer controlled 'players' etc.
by toast0 | 2025-11-17 00:08:27+00:00
You just need a clever advocacy group name. Something like Making Cents of our Currency or No Noncents. Or, something along the lines of If the Mint is losing money, it doesn't make cents.

But yes, our system is biased towards those with sustained focus. That does lead to some wrong decisions, but it's probably better than a system biased to action, or biased towards chaos.
by mtlynch | 2025-11-17 00:08:35+00:00
The recordings don't prove anything about what Coinbase knew.

I stand by my statement that the title is clickbait, as it's misleading on two fronts:

- It's the email, not the call recording that proves what Coinbase knew, but "recordings prove" sounds more sensational

- The email proves that Coinbase was aware of a sophisticated attack against a single user. You didn't have enough information to prove that there was a large scale leak of Coinbase customer data. There are sophisticated attacks against individual Coinbase users all the time due to the value of the accounts there.
Show HN: CUDA, Shmuda: Fold Proteins on a MacBook
by geoffitect | 2025-11-17 00:08:50+00:00
Alphafold3 used to be fodder for HPC clusters; now I've got a port running smoothly on Apple Silicon. If you have an M-series Mac (~2023-present), you can generate protein structures from sequences in minutes. Give it a try!

GitHub repo: https://github.com/latent-spacecraft/openfold-3-mlx
by rybosome | 2025-11-17 00:09:20+00:00
Others have pointed it out, but it’s the juxtaposition of the fact that she’s definitely not an expert in this subject with a lesson in the subject.

There’s some subtle bits to the humor depending on how charitable you’re feeling. It might just be absurdist, as in “Blackbeard’s guide to astrobiology”, or it may be more mean spirited and playing on a belief that she is not intelligent.

TL;DR - the joke formula is just:

subject=…

person_not_familiar_with_subject=…

joke=“${person_not_familiar_with_subject}’s guide to {subject}“

And the amount of implied cruelty in the comparison is variable.
by criemen | 2025-11-17 00:09:27+00:00
Assuming you earn enough, throw money at your problems. Many problems can be solved, or made significantly easier by money.

Don't do the research yourself, pay a specialist instead. Missing a winter wardrobe? Find a personal stylist (okay, requires some research to find, but much less than finding fitting wardrobe yourself). They will guide the shopping process, the outcome is most likely better than what you can come up with even with weeks of research. Costs a pretty penny, might feel funny, but it's effective.

Not happy with your art? Get a personal tutor for drawing. Learning a language, but struggling with it? Tutor it is. Learning is so much faster with personalized feedback and accountability, a good tutor provides both.
by anonym29 | 2025-11-17 00:09:35+00:00
If your password is comprised of three emojis that each take up 24 bytes, then yes, a 72 byte truncation dramatically reduces the search space for a brute force against these hypothetical 24-byte-emoji-only passwords.

There are far fewer possible combinations of any three emojis than there are any 72 ASCII characters.

This is x^3 vs y^72, where X is the total number of distinct emojs and Y is the total number of distinct ASCII characters.

24 bytes of data is not 24 bytes of entropy if there are only a couple thousand different possible inputs to produce all of the possible 24 byte sequences produced by those inputs.

For simplicity: picture having only two possible input buttons. Each one produces 1000 bytes of random-looking data, but each one always produces the exact same 1000-byte sequence, respectively. You have a maximum password of 1 button press. The "password" may contain 1000 bytes, but you only have one bit of entropy, because the attacker doesn't need to correctly guess all 1000 bytes, they only need to correctly guess which of the two buttons you pressed.

Of course, in practice, not all emojis are 24 bytes, and I'd assume few people are using emoji-only passwords, but the distinction between bytes of data and bytes of entropy is worth clarifying, regardless.
by badlogic | 2025-11-17 00:09:41+00:00
Also not disagreeing with your argument. Just want to point out that you can achieve the same by putting minimal info about your CLI tools in your global or project specific CLAUDE.md.

The only downside here is that it's more work than `claude mcp add x -- npx x@latest`. But you get composability in return, as well as the intermediate tool outputs not having to pass through the model's context.
by mmooss | 2025-11-17 00:09:58+00:00
This rounds physical currency to the nearest $0.05, effectively. Why not round everything to the nearest $0.1? The math and adjustments (changes to every printed price, etc.) would be simpler. How much for the wine? "$19.9". It seems much simpler to me, though I'm sure it's been discussed ...

Is there some item that would be problematic to round to $0.1? I suppose anything that is fractionally priced at ≤$0.05 is now would have a minimum purchase of 2. Items bought in bulk could be priced fractionally.

We already round off fractional pennies all the time, e.g. in securities market prices, tax calculations, gasoline prices, etc. That's not a problem. And any electronic purchase could be for fractional amounts - but why?

(Once upon a time, you probably could sell the idea to IT people by pointing out how much memory and bandwidth it would save.)
by dehrmann | 2025-11-17 00:10:13+00:00
Meta: https://ai.meta.com/blog/next-generation-meta-training-infer...

They don't sell it, but they could if Nvidia started charging too much, and some of these are going into Meta datacenters instead of Nvidia.

Intel makes the Arc. It's probably the least viable competitor in that list, but the fundamentals are there, so some about of focus and investment could result in a viable competitor.
by lkey | 2025-11-17 00:10:42+00:00
I don't benefit from the 'dominant narrative' let me assure you, nor am I sure 4 is a gotcha here on the orange website... but I'd be happy to be wrong.

But yes, I was expecting to hear 'anti-woke' AI being first and foremost in Josh's mind.

More important to me though would be things like, 'unchained' therapy, leading to delusions and on-demand step-by-step instructions on suicide and/or plotting murder.

This is not an idle concern, I have family and friends that have come close and with an extra push things would not have ended without harm. I am almost certain that "AI help" ended the marriage of a close friend. And I am absolutely certain that my boss's boss is slowly being driven mad by his AI tools, morality filter be damned.

Most concerningly, things like role play and generation of illegal and non-consensual sex acts, including CSAM, and instructions for covering it up in real life. Other commenters here have mentioned that this is already happening with this tool.

Mandatory reporting is a good thing. I don't want "now with AI!" or "but online!" or "in an app" to allow end-runs around systems we agreed as a society are both good and minimize harm.
by weitendorf | 2025-11-17 00:11:01+00:00
HTTP/HTML are legitimately not good designs for building networked applications besides those actually intended to be rendered as hypertext by a browser.

IPv4 is not a good protocol for obvious reasons, and IPv6 isn’t for political/bureaucratic reasons on top of the baseline inertia (try getting a block and using it IRL). IP is used as a kind of proxy for physical identity that is very ill suited for the task (but the best option available to Internet users outside the application layer) and DNS/CA is in practice captured and centralized by people charging Bob’s Restaurant $10 for a name.

The IANA is captured by both because renting IP addresses and domain names are basically their business model, which they franchise out through multiple layers of hierarchy to business that turn profit off of renting numbers and names to end users and do the dirty work, then contribute back up its governance structure.

Domain ownership, DNS, and IP block assignment are probably the most legitimate possible applications of NFTs to date. One day LEO satellite “Internet” adoption might be good enough for non-IP global networking but until then we have even-worse centralized NFTs rented out by a bureaucracy. Works great if you want true participation at the Internet level to be too expensive, time consuming, and complex for 99% of people. Facebook and Reddit for the plebes to deal with the lack of usability/what they want elsewhere, Cloudflare for us!
by mrsvanwinkle | 2025-11-17 00:11:34+00:00
"other people's same problem easier" i see, but have never seen messiness as example at least in communities w adhd comorbid with depression. personally the concept of other people cleaning my private mess, even/especially if they are close family/friends is terrifying and already overloads my head and i can only project the same sentiment (and some extrapolation of my own experience helping friends/family with cleaning... it is super hard, we are talking about intruding on what the person values as trash or not trash, and that itself can be a source of great shame i.e. my mother who lived to much worse abject poverty than the children she helped raise with a better life. sorry for being dramatic about an otherwise straightforward point but yes in my experience that "cold" reduction of the problem into something actionable would be key, though people arrive there differently i noticed, e.g. me and my "armchair courage" that any unseen sideeffect is not my problem, for my mom (okay sometimes for me as well) it is about being able to forget that she has problems just by the appearance of having the luxury to give advice
by viraptor | 2025-11-17 00:11:43+00:00
I totally get the tradeoffs, but that's not what I'm talking about. For example the popular Hey article was 10 years into their operations and they were spending multiple millions with AWS. That's not a startup anymore, and they don't need to optimise for unexpected 10x growth. At some point for new companies it transforms from "good decision" to "total cost is comparable" to "we should notice cloud doesn't make sense now" to "we're years late and failed at planning".
by zamadatix | 2025-11-17 00:12:00+00:00
The problem was never whether people should discuss the value of AI (from either side even, as much as I don't want to hear about it myself) in the right places, it was how AI conversation constantly gets dragged outside its box! Recall the original comment which responded to you, being in a thread completely unrelated to AI:

> The real slop is dragging AI into every conversation.

By all means - debate AI in an AI thread or make thread about how much AI sucks and discuss it there. Just don't insist on bringing AI into even more places it shouldn't be as if that's going to solve the very problem of AI discussion being too common to avoid! It's easy enough to avoid an entire AI thread and its hundreds of comments at a glance but, thanks to people like you who don't respect the point of separating discussions of different topics into different places, it's impossible to feel you can go read something and know you'll avoid hearing about how great/horrible AI is in ANY conversation! 100% possibility annoyance in any place on HN sure is a lot worse to deal with than seeking out and posting links just to show actually easy to avoid annoyance is not exactly 0%.

This is why you're continued use of additional links to more AI trite in this thread is so ironic/opposing to the goal, not because I think AI needs fewer critics pointing things out in the relevant discussions.
by spankibalt | 2025-11-17 00:12:31+00:00
> "Is curing patients a sustainable business?"

The question is: If a capitalist (or agent in a capitalist system) has a choice between a) investing to produce/producing a cure, or b) investing to produce/producing a more-or-less working symptomatic relief, how many agents/capitalists (in decision-making positions) go for choice B, which essentially turns them into legal drug pushers with a money-printing license?