MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by rs186 | 2025-11-08 12:53:40+00:00
Sadly, not much. My shitty job working on legacy systems doesn't really allow me to use it professionally. Still, I got a much better perspective on concurrency and systems in general, and when I occasionally see articles/videos about system design questions I could understand what they are talking about, which probably will be handy when the day arrives.

I have a colleague who suggested that I could look at open source projects on distributed systems and get my hands wet, although I haven't had a chance to do that due to time constraints. Maybe something you could consider.
by pzo | 2025-11-08 12:54:14+00:00
Looks in concept very similar to React Native. So now we have React Native, Lynx.js (ByteDance/Tiktok) and Valdi all based on React. I think competition is good for devs. But not sure if any of those will create ecosystem and community big enough and fast enough to React Native.

React Native grew a lot this year and a lot of things got or will be improved and copied from Lynx or Valid:

- 3 modes of compilation (AOT, JIT) from Valdi will be in static hermes (RN) in coming months.

- native binding generation -> RN already have such official generator and also nitro/nitrogen, they also working on Node-API

- executing animation and JS code in different thread (Lynx.js) -> worklet library in RN from swmansion

- tailwindcss support (Lynx) -> uniwind in RN land.

I think Lynx.js maybe have better shot at React Native since they want to support other frameworks instead of only React.
by tharkun__ | 2025-11-08 12:55:05+00:00
No. And yes.

Yes it's meant sarcastically. Personally I agree with you that you want to look at pros and cons, both sides.

But there are many, oh very very many people out there who would literally do exactly what I wrote. They do it all the time. That's why we have these echo chambers everywhere. And AI as we can see here is not making it better.

And it's not just the "general population". I see it on a technical level too at work. Developers just trusting the AI output. It sounded confident when it said it found the root cause, fixed the bug and added tests. So it's good to commit, right?
by ExoticPearTree | 2025-11-08 12:55:43+00:00
Greed. The shortest explanation.

There is this idea in Europe (and I think it is taking shape in other parts of the world) that content providers should also pay the ISPs for the traffic to/from them. Basically ISPs want to double-dip in making money from both sides of the pipe.

And this needs to be put to rest, otherwise we'll pay for the Internet access like we pay for cable TV: Netflix - $5/mo extra, HBO - $3/mo extra, Facebook - $2/mo extra.

I am all for capitalism, but greed needs to have a hard cap at some point.
by imtringued | 2025-11-08 12:56:29+00:00
This doesn't work because you can't prove the origin of a single bit of data without the associated identity and the origin of the data can only be verified by matching the biometric image on the ID against your real face with a camera.

Otherwise a single person could donate their ID card and let everyone else authenticate with it.

Now you might counter and say it would be enough to give each card a sequential number independent of the person's identity, but then you run into another problem. Each service might accept each card only once, but there are many services out there, so having a few thousand donations could be enough to cover exactly the niche sites that you don't want kids to see.

There is no way to implement this without a complete authoritarian lockdown of everything. There will always be people slipping past the cracks. This means all this will ever amount to is harm reduction, but nobody is selling it on that platform. Nobody is saying that they are okay with imperfect compromises.
by hbiner | 2025-11-08 12:56:43+00:00
I agree. For example, I can think of creative people that have been successful that just produced what they loved, without a customer in mind. If they had started off by thinking “how can I optimize for theoretical customer X?”, they never would’ve been as successful.

Don’t make a product for others. Make one for yourself that you can dogfood. If you can’t do that, you’re on shaky ground.
by hjort-e | 2025-11-08 12:56:56+00:00
Both the things you mention have been possible on web and widely supported for a while.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Share_A...

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Push_API

And not having to wait a week between bug fixes being deployed is a major selling point that native just can't compete with.
by saghm | 2025-11-08 12:57:09+00:00
The obvious difference between UNIX tools and LLMs is the non-determinism. You can't necessarily reason about what the output will be, and then continue to pipe into another LLM, etc., and eventually `eval` the result. From a technical perspective you can deal do this, but the hard part seems like it would be how to make sure it doesn't do something you really don't want it to do. I'd imagine that any potential deviations from your expectations in a given stage would be compounded as you continue to pipe along into additional stages that might have similar deviations.

I'm not saying it's not worth doing, considering how the software development process we've already been using as an industry ends up with a lot of bugs in our code. (When talking about this with people who aren't technical, I sometimes like to say that the reason software has bugs in it is that we don't really have a good process for writing software without bugs at any significant scale, and it turns out that software is useful for enough stuff that we still write it knowing this). I do think I'd be pretty concerned with how I could model constraints in this type of workflow though. Right now, my fairly naive sense is that we've already moved the needle so far on how much easier it is to create new code than review it and notice bugs (despite starting from a place where it already was tilted in favor of creation over review) that I'm not convinced being able to create it even more efficiently and powerfully is something I'd find useful.
by pastor_williams | 2025-11-08 12:57:33+00:00
Reminds me of Babbage making allowance for meter.

"""

... it is said that he [Babbage] sent the following letter to Alfred, Lord Tennyson about a couplet in "The Vision of Sin": Every minute dies a man, Every minute one is born I need hardly point out to you that this calculation would tend to keep the sum total of the world's population in a state of perpetual equipoise, whereas it is a well-known fact that the said sum total is constantly on the increase. I would therefore take the liberty of suggesting that in the next edition of your excellent poem the erroneous calculation to which I refer should be corrected as follows: Every minute dies a man, And one and a sixteenth is born I may add that the exact figures are 1.167, but something must, of course, be conceded to the laws of metre.

"""

Charles Babbage and his Calculating Engines
by tmtvl | 2025-11-08 12:57:42+00:00
SDDM is garbage and I've switched to using lemurs now (for whatever reason graphical display managers are terrible. GDM doesn't allow changing the mouse cursor theme, SDDM doesn't show battery percentage, LightDM doesn't do fonts properly,... the KDE people are apparently working on a new DM, but the info I got was vague as anything and may as well have been referring to the KDE LightDM greeter).
by IndrekR | 2025-11-08 12:58:22+00:00
Few things for starters:

- you have to look at it in frequency domain as well;

- speed of light is too slow;

- often capacitors are inductors, even more so when mounted on PCB;

- capacitance is not what is written on the component.

I am teaching this to robotics and computer engineering MSc students. Quite nice intro book into the topic that I recommend to my students: https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/principles-of-power/978...
by drysart | 2025-11-08 12:58:31+00:00
The length of time notarization takes depends primarily upon how large and complicated your app is, and how different is from previous versions of the same application you've previously notarized. The system seems to recognize large blocks of code that it's already analyzed and cleared and doesn't need to re-analyze. How much your binary churns between builds can greatly influence how fast your subsequent notarizations are.

A brand new developer account submitting a brand new application for notarization for the first time can expect the process might take a few days; and it's widely believed that first time notarizations require human confirmation because they do definitely take longer if submitted on a weekend or on a holiday. This is true even for extremely small, trivial applications. (Though I can tell you from personal experience that whatever human confirmation they're doing isn't very deep, because I've had first time notarizations on brand new developer accounts get approved even when notarizing a broken binary that doesn't actually launch.)

And of course sometimes their servers just go to shit and notarizations across the board all take significantly longer than normal, and it's not your fault at all. Apple's developer tooling support is kinda garbage.
by torginus | 2025-11-08 12:59:03+00:00
You are right, you can absolutely cause memory leaks with Rc, I haven't considered that. However that kind of raises an interesting point - Rc<T>::clone clearly mutates something under the hood as the reference counter is shared, however its not mut. Having something in the core language that breaks the rules and causes actual problems in practice is kind of an ill omen.

And I meant data races, I have stated in my previous post, that race conditions due to issues existing outside of the language, like external libraries or network requests are not the fault of Rust. Neither are logic mistakes a programmer makes.
by neilv | 2025-11-08 13:00:26+00:00
Thanks, I looked at some of those examples. Several I saw were suspiciously similar, and I wonder how they got that way. Others didn't look suspicious to me.

I wonder whether the similar ones were the result of something innocent, like a shared writing prompt within the workshop both writers were in, or maybe from a group exercise of working on each others' drafts.

Or I suppose some could be the result of a questionable practice, of copying passages of someone else's work for "inspiration", and rewriting them. And maybe sometimes not rewriting a passage enough.

(Aside relevance to HN professions: In software development, we are starting to see many people do worse than copy&revise a passage plagiarism. Not even rewriting the text copy&pasted from an LLM, but simply putting our names on it internally, and company copyrights on it publicly. And the LLM is arguably just laundering open source code, albeit often with more obfuscation than a human copier would do.)

But for a lot of the examples of evidence of plagiarism in that document, I didn't immediately see why that passage was suspect. Fiction writing I've seen is heavily full of tropes and even idiomatic turns of phrase.

Also, many stories are formulaic, and readers know that and even seek it out. So the high-powered business woman goes back to her small town origins for the holidays, has second-chance romance with man in a henley shirt, and she decides to stay and open a bakery. Sprinkle with an assortment of standard subgenre trope details, and serve. You might do very original writing within that framework, but to someone who'd only ever seen two examples of that story, and didn't know the subgenre convention, it might look like one writer totally ripped off the other.
by wffurr | 2025-11-08 13:01:05+00:00
Go and even TinyGo aren't a great fit for Wa because they have to bring along their own runtime including a GC. Go can't use WasmGC because it lacks support for interior pointers and unboxed heap primitives: https://github.com/WebAssembly/gc/issues/59

So you'll never get Go Wasm binary sizes down to something reasonable, alas.
by falcor84 | 2025-11-08 13:01:21+00:00
I think it's actually a really funny and naive assumption that had led them to having an "accepted answer" at all. For a q&a platform that focuses so much on avoiding duplicates, thinking that the first person to ask a particular type of question is an authority not just on accepting an answer at that point in time, but to have it be accepted forever - it just doesn't make any sense.
by rpdillon | 2025-11-08 13:01:28+00:00
You're pointing out a bunch of high capex costs (hardware, SRAM), but then concluding that their opEx is greater than their revenue on a per unit basis. Are they really losing money on every token? It seems that using hardware acceleration would decrease inference costs and they could make it up on unit economics over time.

But I'm just reasoning from first principles. I don't have any specific data about them.
by IlikeKitties | 2025-11-08 13:02:50+00:00
>As I mentioned, before, I had imagined the network learning some fancy combination of logic gates to perform the whole addition process digitally, similarly to how a binary adder operates. This trick is yet another example of neural networks finding unexpected ways to solve problems.

My intuition is that this solution allows for some form of gradient approach to a solution, which is why it's unintuitive. We think about solutions as all or nothing and look for complete solutions.
by drysart | 2025-11-08 13:03:13+00:00
Azure Trusted Signing is a crapshoot. If you can get running, it's easy and fast and great. But if you run into any problems at all during the setup process (and you very well might since their onboarding process is held together with duct tape and twine), you're basically left for dead and unless you're on an enterprise support plan, you're not going to get any help from them at all.
by imiric | 2025-11-08 13:03:34+00:00
> What does "vast majority" mean? 9 out of 10? Did/do you double-check the accuracy regularly? Or did you stop verifying after reaching the consensus that X/Y were accurate enough?

I don't verify the accuracy regularly, no. And I do concede that I may be misled by the results.

But then again, this was also possible before "AI". You can find arguments on the web supporting literally any viewpoint you can imagine. The responsiblity of discerning fact from fiction remains with the user, as it always has.

> Just open that imgur link. Or try it for yourself. Or maybe you are just good at prompting/querying and get better results.

I'm not any better at it than any proficient search engine user.

The issue I see with that Imgur link is that those are not search queries. They are presented as claims, and the "AI" will pull from sources that back up those claims. You would see the same claims made by web sites listed in the results. In fact, I see that there's a link next to each paragraph which will likely lead you to the source website. (The source website might also be "AI" slop, but that's a separate matter...) So Google is already doing what you mentioned as a good idea above.

All the "AI" is doing there is summarizing content you would find without it as well. That's not proof of hallucinations, sycophancy, or anything else you mentioned. What it does is simplify the user experience, like I said. These tools still suffer from these and other issues, but this particular use case is not proof of it.

So instead of phrasing a query as a claim ("NFL viewership is up"), I would phrase it using keywords ("NFL viewership statistics 2025"). Then I would see the summarized statistics presented by "AI", drill down and go to the source, and make up my mind on which source to trust. What I wouldn't do is blindly trust results from my biased claim, whether they're presented by "AI" or any website.

> it already IS killing web traffic to a great degree because 99% of users believe the summaries. I really hope you are right, and the web is able to weather this onslaught.

I don't disagree that this feature can impact website traffic. But I'm saying that "killing" is hyperbole. The web is already a cesspool of disinformation, spam, and scams. "AI" will make this even worse by enabling website authors to generate even more of it. But I'm not concerned at all about a feature that right now makes extracting data from the web a little bit more usable and safer. I'm sure that this feature will eventually also be enshittified by ads, but right now, I'd say users gain more from it than what they lose.

E.g. if my grandma can get the information she needs from Google instead of visiting a site that will infect her computer with spyware and expose her to scams, then that's a good thing, even if that information is generated by a tool that can be wrong. I can explain this to her, but can't easily protect her from disinformation, nor from any other active threat on the modern web.
by Lukas_Skywalker | 2025-11-08 13:03:44+00:00
The exclamation mark has a reason: if the newly created records fails validations, an exception is raised. Without the exclamation mark, the error is silenced (and the method returns a falsey value). This is a convention across Rails.

Ruby itself mostly uses it for mutating methods (e.g. #gsub("a", "b") replaces the character a with b in a string and returns a new string, but #gsub!("a", "b") mutates the original.
by tmtvl | 2025-11-08 13:04:39+00:00
OpenSUSE has traditionally done a bunch of work on making sure other software works well with KDE (for example patching Firefox to use the KDE file chooser). Much of that work is no longer needed with new tech like the XDG desktop portal stuff, but Tumbleweed is still a fairly solid system (up to date, stable, GUI system administration tools, automatically installs packages with AVX3 if your CPU supports it,...).
by watwut | 2025-11-08 13:05:45+00:00
The teenage sex complaint is coming from socially conservative people, the ones that also simultaneously create as punishing conditions for young single moms and blame them for host of social issues. They are not complaining that teenagers are not being pregnant enough.

They are complaining that young males are not having easy one night stands. They also dont like that girls are empowered to say no. In their minds, the dynamic is all wrong when a young man is not complete pressuring jerk and she can say no.

They dont care about underclass of 16 years old with a life destroyed and a baby.
by ozeranskii | 2025-11-08 13:06:55+00:00
I built httptap to understand why certain API requests were slow. Existing tools like httpstat only show total duration, not where time is spent. httptap measures each phase (DNS, TCP, TLS, TTFB, Transfer) using httpcore trace hooks, provides TLS details (protocol, cipher, expiry), and exports full JSON metrics. It’s written in pure Python with minimal dependencies and works on macOS, Linux, and Windows. Useful for API debugging, performance regression tracking, TLS audits, and network diagnostics.
by talideon | 2025-11-08 13:07:36+00:00
True, but writing imperative code in OCaml feels quite right. Maybe it's just me, but it always feels significantly clunkier than the functional equivalent. I've had things I've been implementing and though "this works be easier to express imperatively", and almost invariably I've gone and rewritten the code to be functional because of how ungainly the imperative implementation ended up being. It feels a bit too much like somebody embedded a subset of Rexx or Pascal awkwardly into an otherwise perfectly reasonable functional language
by ceejayoz | 2025-11-08 13:07:51+00:00
There was a whole mobile.twitter.com simplified interface for devices like that. Removed in 2020.

Plus this: https://www.nintendo.com/en-gb/Support/Nintendo-3DS-2DS/Usag...

> As of 25 October 2022, it is no longer possible to use Nintendo 3DS Image Share or Wii U Image Share to post images on Facebook and Twitter.
by mejutoco | 2025-11-08 13:08:39+00:00
This is interesting exactly because making everything come from the server (like htmx) saves oneself from having to do another frontend, but it has a disadvantage: it does not work offline. While many traditional SPA fail miserably at working offline, there is no such limitation in SPA land. It is a valid concern for htmx, and it is good that there are options. Addressing the limitation is precisely the point.
by Lukas_Skywalker | 2025-11-08 13:09:17+00:00
We can't really tell that without knowing where the code is used, no? It's not hard to imagine a test that checks the following:

bill = FactoryBot.create(:bill, products: []) expect(bill.currency).to eq("USD")

It doesn't cover all possibilities of all currencies, but it doesn't need to. It covers the one case it needs to test.
by txrx0000 | 2025-11-08 13:09:43+00:00
> Phrase things with the blame assigned accordingly. Your phrasing blames people for not becoming parents. A more accurate phrasing is '....because their wealthy elites are so greedy they make having children unaffordable'

OP has identified the problem more accurately than you have, though.

AI is a symptom, not a cause. We have to fill the labor gap with immigrants and AI because people are having fewer children.

Do you think modern institutions are less efficient at suppressing human greed than medieval ones? Obviously they are more efficient.

The problem you mention is not the wealthy elite, but rather the unproductive parasites, rich and poor. And this is a somewhat separate problem from the birth rate collapse. Indeed, it doesn't help the birth rate, but it's also not the main reason people aren't having children. The main reason is people wanting to have sex without having children, and we've given everyone the ability to do so with the birth control pill.
by ChrisMarshallNY | 2025-11-08 13:10:03+00:00
> worst community on the planet

I wouldn't say that, but it is a pretty annoying community, and one that I'm happy to leave behind, in favor of LLMs.

I think you may be right about the "doubling down." The Meta discussions seemed to get a lot nastier, as time went on. Might have something to do with centrists being driven out by zealots. Happens all the time, especially in communities in crisis.
by mikepurvis | 2025-11-08 13:11:36+00:00
Regular Python bindings / c extensions don’t depend on a pypi-packaged instance of gcc or llvm though. It’s understood that these things are provided externally from the “system” environment.

I know some of it has already happened with rust, but perhaps there’s a broader reckoning that needs to occur here wrt standards around how language specific build and packaging systems handle cross language projects… which could well point to phasing those in favour of nix or pixi, which are designed from the getgo to support this use case.
by dgacmu | 2025-11-08 13:13:07+00:00
The original Paxos paper was termed "The Part-Time Parliament", and was explained -- I'm serious here -- not as a distributed systems protocol, but as a discussion about how electors on a Greek island could vote despite wandering in and out of the room. (Lamport). It set the stage for a series of papers using that theme. We continued on that theme when picking the title for the EPaxos paper, and these folks built on that. So yeah, it's a bit of a thing specifically in the paxos literature.

And wait until I tell you about the Byzantine Generals Problem. :-)
by crazygringo | 2025-11-08 13:13:16+00:00
> Given the amount of megapixels in any camera

It's not just that. It's the resolution of the display device too. It's brightness and whether that is causing bloom. If it's printed small, users may instinctively put the camera too close and it won't be able to focus. People have shaky hands and the image will have motion blur. Glare is a persistent problem with bikeshare apps, where the app turns on your phone's flashlight while scanning for nighttime use, but the QR code is glossy. Codes get scratched up, and the smaller the blocks are, the more they are degraded.

There really are tons of ways QR codes degrade no matter how many megapixels you have, and smaller codes are always going to be more resistant given the same overall physical size.