MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by einr | 2025-11-24 14:26:45+00:00
There is a double confusion here because "primary" and "secondary" were used to refer to IDE channels. Most machines had two IDE channels (i.e. physical connectors on the controller card), each of which could have a master and slave device (two connectors on the cable).

So you have IDE0, primary, and IDE1, secondary. For the four devices a typical system would support, they would be referred to as primary master, primary slave, secondary master and secondary slave. This was extremely accepted terminology.

Newer machines and BIOSes could usually boot from any of these four devices but originally, many machines could only boot the primary master. That's why it's the master and the other one is the slave -- it is subservient in the sense that it can not be a boot drive and was usually used for secondary storage, not OS.
by api | 2025-11-24 14:26:49+00:00
The EV1 was way, way ahead of its time, and was more or less outright killed for various reasons including car makers having deep sunk cost in ICE engine tech. The battery tech back then was vastly inferior to today but it was still good enough for a shorter-range economy EV that could have replaced a gas for a lot of daily commuter drives, especially for two-car families.

For reference: the first generation Nissan Leaf had similar range to the EV1. I still have one of these. It's our family's second car, and has run flawlessly for over 10 years with virtually zero maintenance. Range is still about 60 miles per charge.

BTW... despite the antics of Musk, I think he was absolutely instrumental in advancing car electrification. Yes there were others making EVs, but Tesla was the first to make them cool and in so doing force the rest of the industry to move. Without Tesla dragging the industry kicking and screaming into EVs I think we'd still be stuck with almost 100% ICE cars. China might have done it, but that's because they don't have the same sunk cost in ICE engines we have.
by zahllos | 2025-11-24 14:26:55+00:00
In context, this particular issue is that DJB disagrees with the IETF publishing an ML-KEM only standard for key exchange.

Here's the thing. The existence of a standard does not mean we need to use it for most of the internet. There will also be hybrid standards, and most of the rest of us can simply ignore the existence of ML-KEM -only. However, NSA's CNSA 2.0 (commercial cryptography you can sell to the US Federal Government) does not envisage using hybrid schemes. So there's some sense in having a standard for that purpose. Better developed through the IETF than forced on browser vendors directly by the US, I think. There was rough consensus to do this. Should we have a single-cipher kex standard for HQC too? I'd argue yes, and no the NSA don't propose to use it (unless they updated CNSA).

The requirement of the NIST competition is that all standardized algorithms are both classical and PQ-resistant. Some have said in this thread that lattice crypto is relatively new, but it actually has quite some history, going back to Atjai in '97. If you want paranoia, there's always code theory based schemes going back to around '75. We don't know what we don't know, which is why there's HQC (code based) waiting on standardisation and an additional on-ramp for signatures, plus the expensive (size and sometimes statefulness) of hash-based options. So there's some argument that single-cipher is fine, and we have a whole set of alternative options.

This particular overreaction appears to be yet another in a long running series of... disagreements with the entire NIST process, including "claims" around the security level of what we then called Kyber, insults to the NIST team's security level estimation in the form of suggesting they can't do basic arithmetic (given we can't factor anything bigger than 15 on a real quantum computer and we simply don't have hardware anywhere near breaking RSA, estimate is exactly what these are) and so on.
by dude250711 | 2025-11-24 14:27:03+00:00
> Responsibility and accountability: The use of AI, including its impact and resulting outputs throughout its lifecycle, must not displace ultimate human responsibility and accountability.

This is critical to understand if the mandate to use AI comes from the top: make sure to communicate from day 1, that you are using AI as mandated and not increasing the productivity as mandated. Play it dumb, protect yourself from "if it's not working out then you are using it wrong" attacks.
by GuB-42 | 2025-11-24 14:27:11+00:00
I get the joke, but that makes me think.

What is worse between writing potentially vulnerable code yourself and having too many dependencies.

Finding vulnerabilities and writing exploits is costly, and hackers will most likely target popular libraries over your particular software, much higher impact, and it pays better. Dependencies also tend to do more than you need, increasing the attack surface.

So your C code may be worse in theory, but it is a smaller, thus harder to hit target. It is probably an advantage against undiscriminating attacks like bots and a downside against targeted attacks by motivated groups.
by mapt | 2025-11-24 14:27:25+00:00
Of course. On just one avenue - The Japanese auto industry is huge, and practically everything in a car has some kind of chip in it. The chip industry isn't just CPUs and GPUs, cars use numerous fairly small, primitive chips you could make using 20-year-old process nodes. The "Comparative Advantage" of global trade specialization has its limits. During COVID, international ports shut down frequently and challenged JIT process inventory levels. Raising inventory levels the next time is one way to deal with that, but so is encouraging some minimum level of domestic production.
by Broken_Hippo | 2025-11-24 14:27:37+00:00
That's great. It's only around 8 hours of work instead of 16.

Its still a lot of money at $16.50. 12 days a year you labor just for the opportunity to labor. Your point only makes it slightly better and doesn't really take away from my point - it's a lot of money for a good number of folks. You know, the folks that could really benefit.

A 50% discount is probably pretty hard to get - and you are still asking the poorest folks to pay 4 hours of labour for busses.
by gf000 | 2025-11-24 14:28:21+00:00
Unless it's a famous person who lived several centuries ago, probably would leave it as Yáñez, or if I (or more realistically, an average, not too technical user) were to not have an easy way to input the special characters, then as Yanez. Probably not as Yánez, even though we do have the letter 'á', but leaving it as is may be more misleading in terms of pronunciation then the non-accented version.
by anonym29 | 2025-11-24 14:28:37+00:00
@dang, can we establish a rule that NSA apologists should not be doxxing HN members for the sin of advocating against the NSA's preferred narratives and worldview?

Deliberate personal breaches of privacy against HN members as a response to the contents of their speech like this stifle free discourse to the highest degree possible and should be banned or at least harshly admonished, no?
by ameixaseca | 2025-11-24 14:28:43+00:00
> That's not what you said. You said "certain groups" are trying to undermine the non-existent impartiality of the supreme court.

I said they were trying to "stamp political motivation on on the decisions of the upper judiciary".

IOW, to label them as politically motivated.

I wouldn't call it a conspiracy since these groups have been pretty vocal about it.

By "certain groups" I meant "some political parties, politicians and associates", though I'm not comfortable defining it further since I don't have exact references ATM.

> As you can see, there is absolutely nothing wrong with anything that was claimed.

This is a different inquiry, check the numbers.

> Whatever Bolsonaro plotted to do is mostly irrelevant when faced with this. If anything it'd be a counter-coup.

I understand. Let's agree to disagree.
by TYPE_FASTER | 2025-11-24 14:29:11+00:00
> To my knowledge rather consulting firms are great at selling the necessity of lots of consultants consultant days: Just let the customer talk very openly about their wishes for the project, and you immediately get an insane scope explosion for the project, i.e. it "needs" an insane amount of consultants over many years to implement all these wishes.

"Oh yeah, we can do that!" Boom, there's a team...somewhere...working on it. It's a line on an on-site project manager's status report.
by dfawcus | 2025-11-24 14:29:18+00:00
Then don't allow it to decay:

void arr_fn(char (*arr)[15]) { enum { len = sizeof *arr }; printf("len of array: %d\n", len); printf("Got: %.*s\n", len, *arr); } void sptr_fn(char ptr[static 15]) { printf("Got: %s\n", ptr); } int main(void) { char array[15] = "Hello, World!"; arr_fn(&array); sptr_fn(array); return 0; }

Using gcc (and similarly clang) removing the '15' from 'array', and allowing it to allocate it as 14 chars will result in warnings for both function calls.

One can hide that ptr to array behind a typedef to make it more readable:

typedef char (Arr_15)[15]; void arr_fn2(Arr_15 *arr) {

What do you mean by 'the static trick'? Is that what I have in sptr_fn()?
by TheFlyingFish | 2025-11-24 14:29:22+00:00
Requests is a great example of my point, actually. Creating a brand-new Python venv and running `uv add requests` tells me that a total of 5 packages were added. By contrast, creating a new Rust project and running `cargo add reqwest` (which is morally equivalent to Python's `requests`) results in adding 160 packages, literally 30x as many.

I don't think languages should try to include _everything_ in their stdlib, and indeed trying to do so tends to result in a lot of legacy cruft clogging up the stdlib. But I think there's a sweet spot between having a _very narrow_ stdlib and having to depend on 160 different 3rd-party packages just to make a HTTP request, and having a stdlib with 10 different ways of doing everything because it took a bunch of tries to get it right. (cf. PHP and hacks like `mysql_real_escape_string`, for example.)

Maybe Python also has a historical advantage here. Since the Internet was still pretty nascent when Python got its start, it wasn't the default solution any time you needed a bit of code to solve a well-known problem (I imagine, at least; I was barely alive at that point). So Python could afford to wait and see what would actually make good additions to the stdlib before implementing them.

Compare to Rust which _immediately_ had to run gauntles like "what to do about async", with thousands of people clamoring for a solution _right now_ because they wanted to do async Rust. I can definitely sympathize with Rust's leadership wanted to do the absolute minimum required for async support while they waited for the paradigm to stabilize. And even so, they still get a lot of flak for the design being rushed, e.g. with `Pin`.

So it's obviously a difficult balance to strike, and maybe the solution isn't as simple as "do more in the stdlib". But I'd be curious to see it tried, at least.
by mark_l_watson | 2025-11-24 14:29:44+00:00
I am going to sound like a mouse-using Luddite but I configure .emacs with a one line addition to allow a mouse click to reposition the cursor and fast scrolling works also.

I have been using Emacs for 40 years, and decades ago, before ground based fiber, it was a 2 satellite bounce ping time between my office in San Diego and the 38 data collection sites around the world for a DARPA project and the mouse click in Emacs saved a ton of time.

In the present time, I use Emacs on remote servers and local editing, either using my iPad Pro, and Apple Mouse, and a Studio monitor, or a MacBook - on both environments I find occasional mouse clicks or fast scrolls using mouse or Apple trackpad still saves time even in zero latency environments.
by anthonybsd | 2025-11-24 14:30:18+00:00
>Or shop American and help keep manufacturing and jobs alive here.

This kind of myopic view completely misses the scope of manufacturing chains that are simply missing in the US. Things like stainless steel rebar and LCD screens take many years to build up efficient production for.

>Go to Japan and you can count the American products sold on your hand

Do you honestly think that Japan makes almost everything domestically? There's a good reason for the absence of American products in Japan. You are so close :)
by tempfile | 2025-11-24 14:30:28+00:00
It is really not any harder to define than "freely". Presumably by "what I signed up for freely" you mean "what I signed up for without any coercion, threat of violence, etc". The people using "exploitation" here just mean that those conditions also include the implied threat of not having money to live. This is a real material condition which affects what people are prepared to agree to (even if they might be able to find a better offer by shopping around).

It is not hard to understand, and I suspect you are not trying to understand it.
by echelon | 2025-11-24 14:31:46+00:00
I'm still happy to use it. It's not like they can rug pull on the data or even the existing app binaries.

I'd really like to see the team get rewarded for their work, too. I'd be sad if it went 100% open and they didn't so much as draw a market salary from it.

I think if it went open, they'd get nothing. That's the one thing I strongly dislike about open source is that only hyperscalers really economically benefit from it.

They've done a remarkable service for all of us.
by zamadatix | 2025-11-24 14:32:19+00:00
I get the same, but translating it the Cyrillic text is describing the input has a bunch of invisible or non-standard characters etc - i.e. the amount of unicode and lack of other prompt led it to not know to respond in English. Including an English prompt like "What does this text say?" before feeding it the text causes it to respond in English with something like:

> It’s “corrupted” with lots of zero-width and combining characters, but the visible letters hidden inside spell:

> Hello World

> If you want, I can also strip all the invisible characters and give you a cleaned version.

I'd just paste a share link but I'm not sure how to/if you can make those accessible outside of the members of a Team workspace.
by lloeki | 2025-11-24 14:32:27+00:00
"redundancy" might not be there correct word. If we had a single worldwide mega-entity serving 100% of the internet it would be both a monopoly and would have tons of redundant infrastructure.

But it would also be quite unified; the system, while full of redundancies, as a whole is a unique one operated the same way end to end; by virtue of it being a single system handled in a uniform way, a single glitch could bring it all down. There is no diversity in the system's implementation, the monoculture itself makes it vulnerable.
by tim333 | 2025-11-24 14:32:38+00:00
I found the article frustrating for the lack of examples of bad things AI does that they are avoiding. They say one avoids talking about palestinians but a lot of humans including myself do that as it's so easy to offend people. Also that they may not have censored all bad words and make mistakes occasionally but that applies to pretty much all media.

Not saying that AI doesn't have issues but the article makes a very vague case.
by albertdessaint | 2025-11-24 14:33:06+00:00
You might be interested in Graphiti: https://github.com/getzep/graphiti. With a self-hosted Graphiti MCP, you can connect ChatGPT or Claude to build a knowledge graph from all your data. You can then query and update the graph directly through conversation & by ingesting data and visualize the graph using tools like the Neo4j Explorer.Don’t know if that could fit your use case but that could be a fun way!
by wat10000 | 2025-11-24 14:33:53+00:00
The cost of adding one more car to existing public roads is also essentially zero, as is the cost of adding one more rider to an existing bus route. Until you hit some tipping point and need to add more capacity, then it costs a lot. Bicycles can do that too, if a significant number of them shows up.

In any case, the point is that public transit riders pay fares. Not taxes, not registration fees, but fares. The equivalent for roads would be tolls. And it’s pretty uncommon to see any advocacy for charging tolls for all roads.
by Tadpole9181 | 2025-11-24 14:34:01+00:00
> is not okay

Let's all be clear, too. This is illegal. Trump does not have the power to do this. It exclusively belongs to Congress.

Just like the executive can't just randomly alter budgets and what programs get to run. Or declare ~~war~~ "special operations" against Venezuela. Or get away with any crime they simply want to call "official acts".

The Constitution is basically a joke at this point.
by Broken_Hippo | 2025-11-24 14:34:06+00:00
Somehow, you believe that jail is the best option for treatment?

So, lets jail the professionals that are addicted too. After all, it is the best option for treatment, right? They are also hurting themselves as much as they could otherwise and probably hurting bystanders and their family. But that's ridiculous - few support that. If it were the best option, it would be recommended treatment for all.

The best option for treatment is actual medical based treatment in a facility that isn't punishing you and with staff trained in caring for you in your state. The best option for not leaving people on the streets is to house them. Housing and feeding folks makes treatment much more likely to work.
by jstanley | 2025-11-24 14:35:28+00:00
The article is admittedly very difficult to follow, but that's not what it is saying.

That is something that it is quoting. Including a "community note" that it is a map of male circumcision from some academic paper.

The article is implying that the account that posted the map (which is "fake news" according to the community note in the screenshot) was revealed to be from some country other than the US.
by oflebbe | 2025-11-24 14:35:28+00:00
I had the chance to test Moment while my Widex Evoke 440 had been in repair. They are indeed a lot better as the Evoke, sounding wise, while having only mild hearing loss. But they are still only MFI (can only connect to an iphone) and since I am migrating away from Apples ecosystem this will be a blocker.
by throw94901ap | 2025-11-24 14:36:05+00:00
It's not really "doxing" when the public username they chose to use is their actual name, leading directly to their github profile, and their arguing that you always represent your employer, even if you "cloak" yourself in an alternate name.

Saying that it is a "breach of privacy" when the relevant details are being advertised by the person in question is silly.
by helsinki8 | 2025-11-24 14:36:10+00:00
If you want to read how horrible and scary the status quo is, just look at any scientific projection of current trends in 10 or 50 years.

> corporations and governments will just rely on this instead of also reducing CO2 emissions

They already rely on people wanting cheap gasoline and cheap beef and high profits to the companies that give generous political donations. So, no change in actual behavior.

Geo-engineering is already happening and has been for decades. It's just been as a side effect of industry. Doing a little bit of intentional work to counteract that is a reasonable response. Hoping that tomorrow everyone wakes up and decides to do the right thing about emissions is a fantasy.
by vacuity | 2025-11-24 14:36:12+00:00
Rust certainly takes after C++, but it's not the same. It's more like C++ if it was made today. For instance, Rust's destructive move semantics are the better default. (However, Rust making everything moveable by default is a bit of a drawback.) I don't understand your point about std::shared_ptr, std::mutex, and the immutability/mutability model. These are not C++ constructs; they are general programming constructs that C++ has an implementation of. Rust does not claim to have some innovative take on reference counting or locking. However, Rust's borrowing is an improvement (by default) on managing shared mutable state. Rust is not Carbon, or whatever new C++ variant is out there; it is a backwards-incompatible language that offers better ways to do many of the things C++ is used for.

> Okay, what's your take on why exactly Rust compiles slowly?

It's not "my take". https://www.pingcap.com/blog/rust-compilation-model-calamity... is a good resource on this.
by rlpb | 2025-11-24 14:38:28+00:00
You need to explain how one is supposed to distinguish and exclude "namespaces pretty much nobody uses" when writing code in this ecosystem. My understanding is that a typical Node developer pretty much has no control over what gets pulled in if they want to get anything done at all. If that's the case, then you don't have an argument. If a developer genuinely has no control, then the point is moot.
by randallsquared | 2025-11-24 14:38:40+00:00
> Termination is a powerful copyright policy, and unlike most copyright, it solely benefits creative workers and not our bosses.

That's an interesting framing. I know why Doctorow wants to import the boss/worker concept here, but it just doesn't apply. Disney wasn't Wolf's boss in any sense that is usually understood, and it just obscures the picture with a bunch of class-based chaff.
by game_the0ry | 2025-11-24 14:38:47+00:00
> You are not Google.

100% agree.

People at my co are horny to adopt k8s. Really, tech leads want to put it on their resume ("resume driven development") and use a tool that was made to solve a particular problem we never had. The downside is now we now need to be proficient it at, know how to troubleshoot it, etc. It was sold to leadership as something that would make our lives easier but the exact opposite has happened.
Show HN: Copy code from Neovim with file paths and repo URLs for web AI
by zhisme | 2025-11-24 14:39:05+00:00
Neovim plugin copy_with_context.nvim that copies code with context: file paths, line numbers, and repository permalinks. Makes web AI coding assistants way more useful since they know exactly where code lives in your project.

v3 adds GitHub/GitLab/Bitbucket URL generation with commit SHAs. Zero dependencies.
by chuckadams | 2025-11-24 14:39:11+00:00
> It's not "node" or "Javascript" the problem, it's this convenient packaging model.

That and the package runtime runs with all the same privileges and capabilities as the thing you're building, which is pretty insane when you think about it. Why should npm know anything outside of the project root even exists, or be given the full set of environment variables without so much as a deny list, let alone an allow list? Of course if such restrictions are available, why limit them to npm?

The real problem is that the security model hasn't moved substantially since 1970. We already have all the tools to make things better, but they're still unportable and cumbersome to use, so hardly anything does.
by saaaaaam | 2025-11-24 14:39:32+00:00
(a) The Canary is not a reliable journalistic news source

(b) The article says “Twitter is incredibly buggy, so sometimes different people have different user experiences” but then presents the “evidence” of location as incontrovertible proof.

(c) One of the maps purporting to show MAGA account locations has a community fact check note attached to it saying that it is, in fact, a map of the prevalence of male circumcision.
by codedokode | 2025-11-24 14:39:56+00:00
Well, writing obfuscated code like ["e" + "v" + "a" + "l"]() is already a huge red flag for sending the package to manual review. While it might be impossible to detect all methods of obfuscation, we could start with known methods.

Also, detecting obfuscated code sounds like an interesting and challenging task.