MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by iLemming | 2025-11-17 23:05:12+00:00
In what sense? I apologize if I offended you. Just to be clear - don't share your config, experiments, packages or whatever with me specifically - simply consider making them public. Don't let the years of accumulated wisdom (whatever it adds up to) go waste. Emacs is not "a product", it's a "shared enterprise" and collective endeavor. Of course, it's not really "free" - just like everything, it has a price - it requires patience, dedication and time from every participant. You've mentioned using it for years, which means you've contributed to the cause. You've decided to move on - your reasons are your own. I'm not asking you to donate, volunteer, or speak about it either way. Do what you want. But for a moment, perhaps consider this with wonder: how many remarkable things have we humans collectively created that require no payment whatsoever, yet grant us the freedom to do things on our own terms? Projects like Emacs and Vim/Neovim are like free-for-all, unrestricted gardens. And that's why I get vexed seeing stuff like: "used it for years - getting tired of it...", etc. Reflections like that are akin to shitting all over the neck of those imaginary gardens, making them less desirable places for curious newcomers. I'm not telling you to not criticize, please do, but perhaps with consideration - tell it with constructivism. Allow those gardens to grow. They will most likely outlive your pondering - positive or otherwise, and mine and those of many more generations.
by shadowgovt | 2025-11-17 23:05:35+00:00
Then the server should supply the right format based on the `Accept` header, be it `application/rss+xml` or `application/atom+xml` or `text/xml` or `text/html`.

Even cheaper than shipping the client an XML and an XSLT is just shipping them the HTML the XSLT would output in the first place.
by shevy-java | 2025-11-17 23:06:14+00:00
I always found the steps to assembler harder. I'd wish we could have both a hardware interface that is resembled at the same level as the software - but super simple. With that I mean super-simple to understand and write; assembler is simple but not easy to understand. The complexity scales quickly. That's why C was successful - it was much easier to reason about the system in C than it was in assembler/assembly.
by Fabricio20 | 2025-11-17 23:07:05+00:00
Just because SOME ASNs don't have it in place doesn't mean it's not uncommon. In the link provided, 80% of all tracked network blocks for ipv4 are blocking spoofing. Though they only track 1000 ipv4 /24 blocks and their data is highly biased towards having spoofable ranges, considering their end goal is identifying spoofable networks!
by minimaxir | 2025-11-17 23:07:10+00:00
Most LLMs, particularly OpenAI's and Anthropic's, will refuse requests even with jailbreaking to help it avoid requests that may be dangerous/illegal. Grok 4/4.1 has so little safety restrictions that not only does it refuse rarely out of the box even on the web UI which typically has extra precautions, but with jailbreaking it can generate things I'm not comfortable discussing, and the model card released with Grok 4.1 only limits restrictions on certain forms of refusal. Given that sexual content is a logical product direction (e.g. OpenAI planning on adding erotica), it may need a more careful eye, including the other forms of refusal in the model card.

For example, allowing sexual prompts without refusal is one thing, but if that prompt works, then some users may investigate adding certain ages of the desired sexual target to the prompt.

To be clear this isn't limited to Grok specifically but Grok 4.1 is the first time the lack of safety is actually flaunted.
by quickthrowman | 2025-11-17 23:08:24+00:00
You don’t need to consider any of that, it’s simple arithmetic. Take the amount natural gas burned for heat, convert to kWh (100,000 BTUs or 2.83 cubic feet is 29.3kW), and divide by 3 to approximate the heat pump size you’d need to replace the boiler or furnace.

A 3 million BTU boiler will consume 85 cubic meters of gas in one hour running at max, or about 300kWh of electricity for the same amount of heat from a heat pump over one hour, assuming a COP of 3. It’s 360 amps of current at 480V three-phase (300kW/480/1.732 = 360.8A), or ~400 horsepower. Divide the above units by 30 for a large 100,000 BTU furnace in a home.

Where I live, 85 cubic meters of gas costs about $9 and 300kWh of electricity costs about $45. Natural gas still wins in cost even if your NG heater is only 25% efficient. Even though the heat pump is 3 times more efficient, it costs 5x as much to run vs an HE condensing boiler (at maximum, variable speed compressors will make the COP of the heat pump in practice better than 3 but it will still cost more to operate.)

Anyways, the above is why virtually every building in Minnesota (and similar climates) uses natural gas for heat: cost.
by HeinzStuckeIt | 2025-11-17 23:08:26+00:00
I have, it’s an originally online meme that has been taken up by some of the people in my life, frankly as a shibboleth for the progressive values they want to be seen as holding. But anecdote aside, a search for "abolish policing slave patrols" will get you plenty of advocacy, e.g. [0] (as well as critique from the opposing end of the ideological spectrum).

[0] https://criticalresistance.org/abolish-policing/
by counters | 2025-11-17 23:08:30+00:00
I mean - you don't need any ML for that. Just go grab random samples from a ~30 day window centered on your day of interest over the region of interest from a reanalysis product like ERA5. If the duration of ERA5 isn't sufficient (e.g. you wouldn't expect on average to see events with a >100 year return period given the limited temporal extent of the dataset) then you could take one step further and pull from an equilibrium climate model simulation - some of these are published as part of the CMIP inter-comparison, or you could go to special-built ensembles like the CESM LENS [1]. You could also use a generative climate downscaling model like NVIDIA's Climate-in-a-bottle, but that's almost certainly overkill for your application.

[1]: https://www.cesm.ucar.edu/community-projects/lens
by cogman10 | 2025-11-17 23:09:37+00:00
I think it was a stats class where I learned this, but as it turns out bad weather is less common than good weather. To be a fairly accurate weather person, you merely need to say "there will be no precipitation" and you'll be right like 90% of the time anywhere on earth.

What makes that funny is that historically, weather forecasters have been less than 90% accurate.

Now, I will say that today's weather models are pretty dang amazing. The 10 day forecast rarely wrong for me.
Ask HN: How do you contact Meta's biz support if your biz page gets restricted?
by gemmy | 2025-11-17 23:10:12+00:00
A family member has decided to start running Meta ads for their small biz. However, their Business Portfolio account got restricted back in 2021 for unknown reasons so it now can't run ads. I'm trying to get the restriction lifted, but Meta's automated support tells me to click a "Request review" button that doesn't work (clicking the button does nothing). And since the business is restricted, I don't seem to be able to sign up for the paid Meta Verified for Business service, which offers chat and email support. So I'm currently stuck in a situation where I can't access any form of support to initiate a review of the restriction.

Does anyone have advice on how to get in touch with Meta Business support in this situtation? Thanks
by josephg | 2025-11-17 23:10:35+00:00
> I've few qualms about writing the server in C.

Bad Unicode support. Lack of cross platform system libraries. Needing to deal with CMake / autotools / whatever. Poor error handling. No built in string, list or map types. No generics. Nullability. No sum types. No option, tuples or multi returns. Generally worse IDE support than a lot of languages. No good 3rd party package ecosystem. The modern idiocy of header files. Memory bugs. Debugging memory corruption bugs. …

I mean, yeah other than all those problems, C is a great little language.
by pat_shaughnessy | 2025-11-17 23:10:58+00:00
That's the magic of YJIT, and what I'll describe in the rest of Chapter 4. YJIT uses a "wait-and-see" approach, and often defers compilation of the block/function until the actual types are provided by your program. And YJIT then keeps track of separate block versions based on the operand types, and can call the appropriate block version as needed.

This basic algorithm is called "Basic Block Versioning." Maxime Chevalier-Boisvert from Shopify has some great presentations online about this; for example [1].

I believe ZJIT, the newer JIT engine, uses a different approach. I'm exploring that now.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO9_uTaELCw — RubyConf 2021 - YJIT - Building a new JIT Compiler inside CRuby by Maxime Chevalier Boisvert.
by Eddy_Viscosity2 | 2025-11-17 23:11:07+00:00
I would say the problem with EA is the "E". Saying you're doing 'effective' altruism is another way of saying that everyone else's altruism is wasteful and ineffective. Which of course isn't the case. The "E" might as well stand for "Elitist" in that's the vibe it gives off. All truly altruistic acts would aim to be effective, otherwise it wouldn't be altruism - it would just be waste. Not to say there is no waste in some altruism acts, but I'm not convinced its actually any worse than EA. Given the fraud associated with some purported EA advocates, I'd say EA might even be worse. The EA movement reeks of the optimize-everything mindset of people convinced they are smarter than everyone else who just say just gives money to a charity A when they could have been 13% more effective if they sent the money directly to this particular school in country B with the condition they only spend it on X. The origins of EA may not be that, but that's what it has evolved into.
by scottlamb | 2025-11-17 23:11:32+00:00
I'm surprised the section about retries doesn't mention correlations. They say:

> P_{total}(Success) = 1 - P_{3rdParty}(Failure)^{RetryCount}

By treating P_{3rdParty}(Failure) as fixed, they're assuming a model in which each each try is completely independent: all the failures are due to background noise. But that's totally wrong, as shown by the existence of big outages like the one they're describing, and not consistent with the way they describe outages in terms of time they are down (rather than purely fraction of requests).

In reality, additional retries don't improve reliability as much as that formula says. Given that request 1 failed, request 2 (sent immediately afterward with the same body) probably will too. And there's another important effect: overload. During a major outage, retries often decrease reliability in aggregate—maybe retrying one request makes it more likely to go through, but retrying all the requests causes significant overload, often decreasing the total number of successes.

I think this correlation is a much bigger factor than "the reliability of that retry handler" that they go into instead. Not sure what they mean there anyway—if the retry handler is just a loop within the calling code, calling out its reliability separately from the rest of the calling code seems strange to me. Maybe they're talking about an external queue (SQS and the like) for deferred retries, but that brings in a whole different assumption that they're talking about something that can be processed asynchronously. I don't see that mentioned, and it seems inconsistent with the description of these requests as on the critical path for their customers. Or maybe they're talking about hitting a "circuit breaker" that prevents excessive retries—which is a good practice due to the correlation I mentioned above, but if so it seems strange to describe it so obliquely, and again strange to describe its reliability as an inherent/independent thing, rather than a property of the service being called.

Additionally, a big pet peeve of mine is talking about reliability without involving latency. In practice, there's only so long your client is willing to wait for the request to succeed. If say that's 1 second, and you're waiting 500 ms for an outbound request before timing out and retrying, you can't even quite make it to 2 full (sequential) tries. You can hedge (wait a bit then send a second request in parallel) for many types of requests, but that also worsens the math on overload and correlated failures.

The rest of the article might be much clearer, but I have a fever and didn't make it through.
by Aachen | 2025-11-17 23:11:33+00:00
I don't doubt there will have been sporadic examples of this, but what points to this "often" being the case? It seems like a tactic that wouldn't often pay off, since DDoS mitigation rarely involves relaxing security systems

Mistakes can be made during reconfigurations but you'd have to catch those while the issue is still live. Sounds like an advanced threat actor and not the run of the mill ransomware people (not that they're necessarily unsophisticated, but why'd they bother with these odds when there's low-hanging fruit to reliably exploit)
by ggm | 2025-11-17 23:11:40+00:00
Debt is a problem but also is useful. I think this is a problem in analytics as much as a societal problem that we've moved life into perpetual debt funding.

To me, the problem here isn't really the debt, the problem is the debt isn't part of the normal financial reporting cycle. So it's contribution to the economy is being estimated, not measured.

I think drawing a bow from consumer sentiment around debt funding lifestyle to the fintech and tech bro JV/IPO sector and debt is a strech. But maybe he has a point?
by nullhole | 2025-11-17 23:12:22+00:00
I had an idea for survey planes once. During calibration, they fly grid patterns, basically like a hashmark (#), to get overlapping data for comparison.

Doing that kind of flight at night (makes sense for lidar! not so much for photo..), against a clear sky with at least some stars, and stacking the resulting photos, would give you a grid pattern of green/red/white aircraft running lights in front of the heavens.
by killme2008 | 2025-11-17 23:12:35+00:00
Yeah, that’s true — Microsoft’s report (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/msrc/blog/2019/07/why-rust-f...) says the same thing, and Google’s recent post on Rust in Android (https://security.googleblog.com/2025/11/rust-in-android-move...) backs it up too.

We’ve been using Rust for about seven years now, and as long as you stay away from fancy unsafe tricks, you really can avoid most memory safety bugs.
by nullc | 2025-11-17 23:12:41+00:00
This article is about movies skimping out on the communication skills of their characters as a narrative device-- it's a lot like the fact that many pre-cellphone movies would have been over in 60 seconds if only the characters had a cellphone. We live in a world with cellphones now, so they're usually expected in movies. We still don't live in a world where people know how to communicate.

Movie logic-- or more generally "narrative bias"-- taints people's thinking in ways far beyond failures to communicate. I've encountered a lot of people who fall for scams or believe conspiracy theories for reasons that ultimately amount to "if life were a story, this is what would happen".
by jameshilliard | 2025-11-17 23:12:49+00:00
There are interviews with the Mossad agents that ran the operation that clarify how the operation was carried out: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-former-mossad-agents-det...

The claims made in the interview align with various other sources, including videos of the explosions showing that bystanders were unaffected. Likewise none of the spicy pagers were found to have been sold to the general public.

You claim:

> “sold exclusively to terrorists” - false.

> “used exclusively by terrorist organizations for communications” - false.

> “weren't any non-terrorist affiliated medics ” - false.

From the interview

> Lesley Stahl: Did people other than Hezbollah want to buy this based on what was being said about it online?

> Gabriel: Yes. We received several request from regular potential customer. Obviously we didn't send to anyone. We just quote them with expensive price.

You claim:

> “bystanders were essentially unaffected due to the design of the explosive payload” - false.

From the article:

> In order to put explosives inside. But not too much. Using dummies, Mossad conducted tests with the pager in a padded glove to calibrate the grams of explosive needed to be just enough to hurt the fighter -- but not the person next to him.
by vablings | 2025-11-17 23:13:32+00:00
"Valve apparently contractually forbids games to be sold at a lower price outside Steam." This quote is based on one email from a valve employee circa 2017.

Furthermore, is it not Valves right to say if you wish to offer the same product at a lower price, we reserve the right not to sell your product anymore. Keep in mind in most cases when a game is not freely purchased through steam anymore you can still download the game from the CDN, you can also still use all of the online features for the game. You just cannot purchase a new copy

I really don't understand why price parity requirement is a bad thing. If you want to take a bigger slice of the pie you can eat up the infrastructure costs yourself or take your business elsewhere, EOS, Xbox, PlayStation store ect

"There are only a few hundred people working at Valve, with 79 working on Steam, but they are making 6.5 billion USD yearly. That's extreme. One of the highest revenues per employee ratios in the world. They are spending almost nothing. The 30% are almost pure profit."

You are absolutely right. that is far too much money and to which I simply ask the question why no other serious competition? Companies have poured millions into this and always miss the first stop gap of consumer rights first meaning any attempt they have to eat away at the market share fails so hard its actually embarrassing. Anyone arguing against the current system is just arguing against capitalism.

Out of all the companies in the gamer space hardware/software Valve are the only one who actually care for their customers and have regularly extended rights that go well beyond the legal minimum requirement, this is just a fraction of a reason why they have been and will continue to be first class in the gaming space
by JohnBooty | 2025-11-17 23:13:50+00:00
It is truly a marker of good vs bad people as far as it comes to participating in a high trust society.

Here's an even better test, if you ask me.

Do you ever grab one of those "stranded" shopping carts on the way in to the store?

A lot of societal issues can't be cured merely by doing the right thing ourselves. Littering can't be solved merely by not littering - somebody has to pick up litter. (A lot of litter is the result of wind blowing over trashcans and such, so even in a society where nobody intentionally litters, there will be litter)

Murder can't be solved merely by not murdering people - if you witness a murder, you need to do something about it, not just think "well, at least I don't murder people" and continue with your day.

Shopping cart logistics are obviously many orders of magnitude less serious than murder, but I think it's a similar class of problem/solution.
by hackingonempty | 2025-11-17 23:14:02+00:00
I don't think this is a great article but if you hit Google Scholar and look for papers concerning OOP you'll be hard pressed to find any recent ones. Almost every programming language research paper is about functional programming. Recent practical crypto papers seem to use Go a lot but that isn't OOP.

OOP was a dead end and academia has moved on if they were ever interested in the first place. It is strange that industry is 180 degrees out of phase here even as they stress the importance of "computer science fundamentals" like data structures and algorithms.
by tekkk | 2025-11-17 23:14:13+00:00
Never thought of that. Probably a bit too generous given that it could be just as well waste of time and resources, nevermind the bias of the voodoo doctor. Most of it was just weirdly provided therapy I suppose to relieve stress.

But it is funny that humans put a great lot of weight on social contracts and being given explicit orders, maybe even publicly, must help pursuing action instead of rumination. Especially in a world where things seemed to happen randomly anyway.
by hahamaster | 2025-11-17 23:14:23+00:00
The shopping centre where I shop frequently (Europe) has a large outdoor parking space and every 20 meters or so there's a little kiosk where you can return the cart. People do because it's actually easier to return it than to worry about crashing into it when you're getting out of the parking spot. From time to time an employee goes out and collects all the carts from kiosks and gets them back to the shop. I don't know if it's the same way in the US, maybe some people don't return it simply because they parked too far from the entrance.
by socalgal2 | 2025-11-17 23:15:36+00:00
> Communication failures like these make for good storytelling ...

No, they make for horrible story telling and make the movies feel fake and the conflicts contrived. It's bad lazy writing. Bad because it's fake. Lazy because the writer should have come up with an actually valid conflict.

I'm not saying I agree with the examples though. I didn't feel Good Will Hunting nor La-La Land were examples of this personally.
by dylan604 | 2025-11-17 23:15:37+00:00
> So they're quite out of date.

"More specifically, it is an electronic edition published on CD in the first decade of the 2000s"

So no telling when the data was actually gathered/acquired before being "frozen" for publication.

Also, if this is on something released to the NK public, then I'd imagine they are highly sanitized to make the rest of the world less impressive to those NK citizens that are allowed access to it. I'd strongly hope they provide their military better information, yet we know militaries are often lied to by their command.
by bnchrch | 2025-11-17 23:16:13+00:00
Absolutely is.

Modern OOP (not the original OOP by Alan Kay) is a human anti pattern.

It commits the cardinal sin to easy to understand systems: It hides state, and breaks data lineage.

In otherwords:

1. You cannot just go back up the stack to see if anyone has changed data you depend on. You also need to follow all parent and sibling branches.

2. And in the case of inheritance you cannot reason about Child A without understanding Parent 1..N

As a result OOP systems quickly hit the limit of context one developer can hold in their brain when developing and debugging.

FP on the other hand encourages and in some cases enforces you to encapsulate the inputs and outputs of your system to the arguments and values of a function. Making the system easy to reason about at any level.

Powerful composability and more thorough and easy testing are just beautiful by products.

Next on the list of worst things to happen to programming is Python's popularity as a CSC101 language, and its toe hold in mathematics with the rise of ML.
by otikik | 2025-11-17 23:16:38+00:00
If I didn't do it on purpose, I will never do it, with anyone, including my own family. It does not happen "automatically" for me. I have to be mindful about it. "Force" myself to do it. Do it "on purpose".

Your proposed course of action would leave me with no friends or relationships.

To me, the phrase "relationships take effort" - means literally that. Because every single interaction takes effort.

Perhaps this is one of those "introvert vs extrovert" things.