MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by throwaway2037 | 2025-11-21 04:16:56+00:00
What a ridiculous article. The author makes zero mention of politics. In many cases, you are forced to choose the least worst person to fire. Then, politics plays a huge role. If you are the manager forced to choose one (and you have no bad ones), then you choose the one who you like the least (personally). Big investment banks cut roughly 5% of their lowest performers each year. You always can see a few people that should not have been cut, but their politics was too weak to save them.

I've seen this written about before... roughly, after a few years into your corporate career, your job splits into two parts: the skill part (your effort and ability to get stuff done) and the political part (navigating humans in a corporate hierarchy). Say what you like about the political part, for most people, it is unavoidable.
by degamad | 2025-11-21 04:18:42+00:00
Yep. My reaction to this line:

> the unspoken reality is that our regulatory morass is the deathbed of thousands of hardtech companies that could be drastically improving our lives. We must unleash them.

was "the unspoken reality is that our regulatory morass is also the deathbed of tens of thousands of hardtech companies who have no concern about destroying our communities in the interests of making a dollar", and that's what the regulations are there for.
by mmsimanga | 2025-11-21 04:20:28+00:00
In my country in Africa there is a huge shortage of homes in cities where building is regulated. Not enough homes are being built and many people live in shacks. Building in the villages has literally no regulations and amazing houses are being built at an amazing pace in the villages because you don't need any regulatory approval.

I don't think all building regulations should be put aside but we have a crisis something needs to give.
by dluan | 2025-11-21 04:21:59+00:00
This is incorrect. There are 9 parties. You are likely saying "well it's functionally a singe party system" yet you can't even read Chinese to understand what the policy positions of the different factions within the committees are.

Here's a good primer if you're interested in learning more: https://progressive.international/blueprint/cb7dbaf4-b106-41...
by Hannah203 | 2025-11-21 04:22:06+00:00
The post shows a common issue with Wayland. The protocol is there, but each compositor handles things a bit differently, so tools like xdotool end up running into gaps or inconsistent behavior.

Wayland is improving, but there is still a difference between what the spec supports and what developers can rely on across the ecosystem.

A good look at why automation on Wayland still feels rough for some users.
by VerifiedReports | 2025-11-21 04:22:59+00:00
Thanks for the reply. I like FC a lot and use it frequently! And yes, I pretty much use Part Design exclusively... except when I'm importing a shape from an SVG. Then I have to use a combination of workbenches.

The combo of tracing a bitmap (from a scanned drawing) with Inkscape and then saving the result as SVG to bring into FreeCAD has been a frequent workflow for me. It generally works very well.

To clarify about the "active body" though: This problem occurs even when there's only one active body and the shape upon which you've supposedly draw the sketch is part of it. So why is FC complaining?
by marc-h38 | 2025-11-21 04:23:03+00:00
If you ignore Matt for a moment (really hard, I know), the page https://techrights.org/wiki/Matthew_J_Garrett/ is the most stunning demonstration of how NOT to react to trolling. The "documentation" effort behind it made the trolls harassing that couple more successful than I thought was ever possible.

"Don't feed the trolls": yet that site is a city-size open buffet giving the trolls massive exposure and encouraging them to come again and again for more. Which they kept doing because they were getting exactly what they were after: an amazing amount of attention, time and hurt. Unbelievable.

Why didn't they restrict access their IRC server / channels for a while? If IRC can't do that, then it's a good thing it died. Or was that server left wide open out of some extreme (and: very naive) "freedom" ideology maybe? No, you can't just leave your door wide open to everyone using the Internet = billions of random people. How much more evidence of that do people need?
by anovikov | 2025-11-21 04:23:58+00:00
But this is how it should be. Very best of the best start their own startups. Second best, start their own consultancies. Next on, work independently. Next on, are principals in small firms - they are the irreplaceable singular employees that the owner of a small firm wholly depends on. And then the mediocre and the bad ones, that work in largest firms. This is how it's always been.
by specialgoodness | 2025-11-21 04:26:31+00:00
The Nelson-Oppen simplifier is a great piece of work, but it is not the first SAT solver. Boyer and Moore published their formally verified SAT solver in their 1979 A Computational Logic, the first book on the Boyer-Moore Theorem Prover, though it was first implemented I believe in 1973. This algorithm, based on IF-normalization and lifting, was also a core part of the original Boyer-Moore prover. One interesting note is that it actually was almost an earlier discovery of BDDs - they have the core BDD data structure and normalization algorithm but were just missing memoization and the fact that orderings on variables induce canonicity for checking boolean equivalence! But in any case, Boyer-Moore had a (formally verified, even!) implemented and used SAT solver long before Nelson and Oppen.
by smaudet | 2025-11-21 04:27:41+00:00
> Programs will have to know where this "virtual" path

Not at all. You can read `XDG_CONFIG_HOME` to know where the config path actually is.

Or, if you're lazy, just hard code to `.config`.

I think maybe you are unfamiliar with how paths work on *nix.

All paths are virtual, meaning they are provided by something. Part of the "everything is a file" nix thing. Normally, files are provided by your file system, which (usually) examines stuff like inodes and partition bits, but they are also provided by processes, sockets, pipes, etc.

Everything is a file. So .config is just another "file", if you move the whole disk directory aside, it still exists, provided by the driver.

So your program has to do exactly nothing, other that use either a path, or maybe the env var (maybe useful if you move the physical location of the folder, e.g.)
by 01HNNWZ0MV43FF | 2025-11-21 04:28:02+00:00
43FF's Law: You can measure software complexity by the number of nested for-loops.

The first for-loop appeared around in 1957 in FORTRAN.

In 1975, Smalltalk having two nested for-loops was a grand breakthrough.

Now in 2025, our most advanced AIs run on for-loops nested 6 or 7 deep. Who knows what the future may hold?
by SanjayMehta | 2025-11-21 04:28:26+00:00
Most CEOs and VPs in these companies are nepotistic and political. They are happy to take credit but will never allow their direct reports to become a threat to them. In general the structure looks like this

CEO

VP (usually a family member or a "chamcha" literally spoon, but means sycophant.)

Directors (all yes-men chamchas)

Worker bees

Not very different from most companies, in my experience.
by rootusrootus | 2025-11-21 04:28:37+00:00
> If I can capture photons with my eyes, but then I try to do it with a machine, and you say, "hey, you can't use a machine for that!" then you are telling me that I can't engage in general purpose computing.

You can capture photons with your eyes, and you can use an image sensor to capture photons. Seems pretty equivalent.

But your brain cannot store images or recall them in the future (even for yourself, it is a very lossy recall), or transmit them to another person, etc. That is all completely separate functionality that is not equivalent to what your brain can do.
by raw_anon_1111 | 2025-11-21 04:31:16+00:00
I haven’t watched CNN in years and occasionally go over to Fox News’ website to see what type of fake outrage they are coming up with now.

I went over to cnn.com thinking it might be less distasteful. It’s like Fox News lite - just as shallow but not as good at it.

I have found The Hill to be the one place that seems to not have an agenda.

The WSJ seems to be the only true traditional conservative paper that will still call out Trump on his foolishness when it comes to economic policies and doesn’t get into the social wars.
by wredcoll | 2025-11-21 04:32:44+00:00
I think this specific thing is more an effect of human brains trying to stereotype complicated things.

"all regulations are bad" is a much simpler premise than "rule #3.70.66.345 should be adjusted to consider multiple drive trains with the same engine to pass the same tests".

Like, if you found a specific regulation that was badly designed and advocated for it to change, no one would argue against it, but you wouldn't get any internet engagement either.
by jMyles | 2025-11-21 04:33:23+00:00
Well, the question is: where is the actual harm?

If the case is that the movements of people are plainly observable, but that observing them advances the ability of an organizing like CBP to victimize them, then it seems to me that the logical conclusion is to abolish CBP. Which I think is actually a far more logical position and also a far more popular one among Americans, though many are now afraid to say it out loud.

> It's sort of like saying "what, so I can't assemble a simple contraption of metal and explosive powder, and use it as I see fit?" to elide the fact that what you're actually talking about is shooting a gun.

Shooting? Or building? Of course you have a right to fabricate a gun in your own home. Is this in dispute (at least, in the USA)? Equally obvious, you do not have a right to discharge it in a way that endangers others.
by tomnipotent | 2025-11-21 04:34:07+00:00
OP said "do well", not top performer. Thinking you're a top performer isn't the same as the company thinking you're a top performer. I've never seen someone put on a PIP that didn't deserve, even if they thought differently.

Most people struggle just to keep their head above water nonetheless come up with elaborate conspiracies of sabotaging other peoples careers. No one is thinking about you that much.
by locknitpicker | 2025-11-21 04:34:27+00:00
> The people who object are the people trying to start a new business, because nobody is paying them to do things that don't make sense and all they want is to get on with what they're actually trying to accomplish instead of paying one fee after another or waiting on unaccountable regulators who have no reason to say no to something but still take excruciatingly long to say yes.

This is an extremely disingenuous opinion, which causally omits the whole reason regulations are necessary and exist to start with.

The problem with your laissez-faire fundamentalism is that it ignores the fact that what these organizations claim to "actually trying to accomplish" is actually harmful and has considerable negative impact on society in general.

Regulation is absolutely necessary because these orgs either don't care or are oblivious to the harm they are causing, and either way have absolutely no motivation to right their wrongs.

Look at the way you chose to frame your fundamentalist opposition to regulation: "paying them to do things that don't make sense". Why do you think that preventing you from doing harm to society "don't make sense"? Is it too much of an inconvenience?

It's perfectly fine to expect regulators to streamline their processes. What is not ok is to frame regulations as whimsical rentism from bureaucrats. They are accountability mechanisms designed to proactively prevent bad actors from causing harm to society as a whole, and they work by requiring that organizations proactively demonstrate they aren't causing said harm.

Why is this all necessary? Because said organizations already have a long track record of causing that very harm to society. Why is this fact ignored?
by biophysboy | 2025-11-21 04:34:58+00:00
I would highly recommend listening to any of his fugues. The great thing about them is you do not need any training to appreciate the complexity. All you need to do is listen to the starting melody.

That melody will repeat itself again and again, if you listen closely. It will harmonize with itself as more voices are added. It will be modulated into different keys and durations.

In a way, you can kind of think of Bach as the first electronic musician, in the sense that his works consist of "discrete tracks" that get layered on to each other. I'm sure there are youtube videos out there that demonstrate this visually.
by davidw | 2025-11-21 04:35:47+00:00
Beautiful, but I bet those things cost a boatload.

Also, I don't know how much 'environmentalism' is the goal there, but most Americans' CO2 output on a personal level involves heating their homes and transportation, and building isolated housing where you have to drive a lot to get to anything doesn't help. You're better off with shared walls in a walkable city if you really want to lower your impact.

Still, that's a really beautiful part of the world and it looks well done.
by SanjayMehta | 2025-11-21 04:36:20+00:00
Yes and no.

The real cause of our dysfunctional system is the debris of nehruvian socialism (he was a covert communist masking himself as a Fabian socialist).

He didn't reform the British divide and control mechanisms but continued them and in fact made them worse. If you think your bureaucracy is bad, wait till you see ours.

These are "one exam wonders." They clear one exam, and with zero life experience at the age of 25 can sabotage almost any enterprise with their clerical behaviour.

Our own deep state.

It's much better in the private sector but this mindset is pervasive.
by FireBeyond | 2025-11-21 04:36:30+00:00
"Y.T.’s mom pulls up the new memo, checks the time, and starts reading it. The estimated reading time is 15.62 minutes. Later, when Marietta does her end-of-day statistical roundup, sitting in her private office at 9:00pm, she will see the name of each employee and next to it, the amount of time spent reading this memo, and her reaction, based on the time spent, will go something like this: Less than 10 min.: Time for an employee conference and possible attitude counseling.

10-14 min.: Keep an eye on this employee; may be developing slipshod attitude.

14-15.61 min.: Employee is an efficient worker, may sometimes miss important details.

Exactly 15.62 min.: Smartass. Needs attitude counseling.

15.63-16 min.: Asswipe. Not to be trusted.

16-18 min.: Employee is a methodical worker, may sometimes get hung up on minor details.

More than 18 min.: Check the security videotape, see just what this employee was up to (e.g., possible unauthorized restroom break).

Y.T.’s mom decides to spend between fourteen and fifteen minutes reading the memo. It’s better for younger workers to spend too long, to show that they’re careful, not cocky. It’s better for older workers to go a little fast, to show good management potential. She’s pushing forty. She scans through the memo, hitting the Page Down button at reasonably regular intervals, occasionally paging back up to pretend to reread some earlier section. The computer is going to notice all this. It approves of rereading. It’s a small thing, but over a decade or so this stuff really shows up on your work-habits summary."

--Neal Stephenson, _Snow Crash_
by anovikov | 2025-11-21 04:36:37+00:00
Logical approach i think here, is to develop and first deploy tech in a less regulated country, just pick based on where regulation is the weakest and/or corruption works better in overcoming it. Use VC dollars to buy the officials to fast-track everything. Then if it works and brings benefit, it will be the nations' problems themselves on who will be ahead of others to adapt their regulations for faster deployment.
by jhancock | 2025-11-21 04:36:42+00:00
China has in recent years built apartment blocks for the unhoused. From pics I've seen, the units are one room studio like apartments. I'm told they rent for around $15 per month. It seems to work for a large set of the unhoused. China's leadership has a mantra of "no welfarism". This is an example of how they achieve it...by enabling even the poorest to have a way to support themselves.

Good article. Thanks for sharing.
by mindcrime | 2025-11-21 04:37:05+00:00
So much this. The entire experience around using Google's AI API's is a complete shit-show. I was (stubborn|obstinate|stupid|whatever) enough to keep dicking around until I actually got some stuff working (a few weeks ago) but I still feel dirty from the whole process. And I still don't know what I'm using (Gemini? AI Studio? Vertex? GCP? Other??) or how all of this crap relates.

And FSM forbid I have another time when my debit card number gets compromised and I have to try changing it with Google. That was even MORE painful than just trying to get things working in the first place. WTF am I editing, my GCP account or my Google account? Are those two different things? Yes? No? Sort of? But they're connected, somehow... right? I mean, I disable my card in one place, but find that billing is still trying to go to it anyway. And then I find another place on another Google page that mentions that card, but when I try to disable it I get some opaque error about "can't disable card because card is already in use. Disable card first" or whatever.

I can't even... I mean, shit. It's hard to imagine creating an experience that is that bad even if you were trying to do so.

Let me just say, I won't be recommending Google's AI API's, or GCP, or Vertex, or any of this stuff to anybody, anytime soon. I don't care how good their models are.

At least chatting with Gemini at gemini.google.com works. So far that's about the only thing AI related from Google I've seen that doesn't seem like a complete cluster-f%@k.
by rootusrootus | 2025-11-21 04:37:45+00:00
> Require a warrant for law enforcement to poll these databases.

This seems so uncontroversial I don't know why we haven't collectively decided to implement it. Though I get that the folks in power probably don't support it. We could easily decide that law enforcement data gathering warrant requirements are not so simple to circumvent. Maybe we should largely abolish third party doctrine.
Gesture Control for Smartwatches: Would Anyone Use This?
by WayneFung1992 | 2025-11-21 04:37:56+00:00
I'm prototyping a gesture recognition app for smartwatches that would let you control devices with hand gestures - like skipping videos while cooking or answering calls with dirty hands. I'm building it for current premium watches but hoping the concept could eventually work on affordable devices if manufacturers open up their platforms.

The technical challenges seem manageable with today's sensors, but I'm less sure about the actual user demand. Do people really want gesture control on their watches, or is this solving a problem that doesn't exist for most users?

I've found the "greasy hands while cooking" scenario useful in my own testing, but I'm wondering if that's too niche. Are there other everyday situations where touchless control would be genuinely helpful? Maybe for accessibility use cases, or for workers in specific fields?

Also curious if people would tolerate the likely battery impact. Continuous gesture detection probably cuts battery life significantly - is that tradeoff worth it for most users?

If you've tried similar gesture features on existing devices, what was your experience? Did you find yourself using them regularly, or did they feel more like a gimmick?
by willtemperley | 2025-11-21 04:38:12+00:00
The organisational bottleneck still remains though. People need to discuss and coordinate at human speed.

I think AI will likely create more fragmentation initially, if a 10x developer is forced to run at 0.1x they're going to fork a project.

I believe in the AI 10x developer, but I suspect it only works for individuals or small teams at the moment.
by metadope | 2025-11-21 04:38:40+00:00
Yeah well there is definitely something going on, a coordinated effort to condemn GrapheneOS with faint praise (and outright scare-mongering). Here I have posted a video url I'd downloaded and watched a few days ago. It's TTS slop narration, but it makes an attempt to characterize GrapheneOS as a 'double-edged sword', because, you know, criminals. Just like the hatchet job from France.

'GrapheneOS Update 2025 Privacy Savior or Hacker’s Paradise'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCgi6bJy-qo

I get all my utube from the bash-prompt (and never have to deal with algorithm or see who is who and what else is there), so I don't know who posted this video to YouTube, but maybe there's more?

This could be a case study in an amateur low-grade half-ass influence operation.

On the other hand, it could simply be a grudge, a coordinated personal attack on the lead dev.

There are a slew of other videos by YouTube personalities who, at various times, seem to be disparaging the guy, including a very upset Grossman (right-to-repair guy).

Or hey, maybe it's just coincidence. C'est la vie!
by petesergeant | 2025-11-21 04:39:10+00:00
> But we can take it even further; what if we allow any real number as an index?

How can an uncountably infinite set be used as an index? I was fine with natural numbers (countably infinite) being an index obv, but a real seems a stretch. I get the mathematical definition of a function, but again, this feels like we suddenly lose the plot…
by takeshi_sakamo | 2025-11-21 04:39:11+00:00
PolyAgora is an experiment in building a structured multi-agent reasoning system entirely through natural language — no code, no scripts.

It evolved into a 6-agent cognitive architecture (Arc / Ann / Saku / Kanzaki / Yui / Kou), each representing an orthogonal reasoning vector.

The goal isn’t to create “characters,” but to test whether an OS-level reasoning frame can emerge from constraints written purely in natural language.

Happy to explain the architecture or the constraint design.
by jMyles | 2025-11-21 04:39:16+00:00
Well, there are two clear things to be teased out here:

* What Flock does is _not_ consistent with the use of a camera in a fashion that is identical to an eyeball - they are not standing and watching cars go by, or even recording them and logging it. I think it's essential to support the right of individuals to to this. But putting a camera on a fixture? That's a little different. But even if we support that - and I think I can be convinced...

* The custody of this data in secret, and the sharing of it with criminal elements in society, let alone those committing crimes under color of law like CBP, is the harmful part.

Imagine if there were a network of cameras covering all the commons across the land (ie, every street), and there were a way to view their perspective in real time. This gives every person the ability to record and follow any other.

Is this, in itself, an affront?

What if an alien on mars has such a powerful telescope that they too can follow someone in this way. Is this criminal? Do the rights of a person to police how certain photons - those which bounce off their skin - can be captured... extend to the ends of the universe?

I hope the answer is 'obviously not'.

The problem here is that CBP exists in the first place. We need to complete the incomplete struggle for abolition that fizzed in the middle of the 19th century. We need to rid the land of the power structures wherein some people can exact violence under color of law and others cannot even defend themselves, even as all the cameras in the land capture this injustice.

_That's_ the problem, not that somebody saw it happen.
by falcor84 | 2025-11-21 04:40:18+00:00
In the case of consulting companies like McKinsey, there's another very rational factor: a top performer with a strong ability to climb the corporate ladder might actually be worth less as a consultant than as a director at an external company who would then hire McKinsey. And of course, the partners there have industry connections, to get these to performers hired where they would be likely to generate the best future deals.