MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by tehjoker | 2025-11-24 22:36:14+00:00
The people most vociferously for conservative values are middle class, small business owners, or upper class, though the true upper class are libertine (notice who participated in the Epstein affair). The working class is filled with all kinds of very diverse people united by the fact they have to work for a living and often can't afford e.g. expensive weddings. Some of them are religious, a whole bunch aren't. It's easy to be disillusioned with formal institutions that seem to not care at all about you.

Unfortunately, a lot of these people have either concluded it is too difficult to vote, can't vote, or that their votes don't matter (I don't think they're wrong). Their unions were also destroyed. Some of them vote against their interests, but it's not clear that their interests are ever represented, so they vote for change instead.
by astrange | 2025-11-24 22:36:19+00:00
There isn't really a HW part of SV. Hardware engineers aren't paid well enough to live there in droves like programmers. There are some of course, but the ones I know are in San Diego or Bremerton or Israel.

Also, it's completely normal to run a factory 24/7. I think people are just impressed because TSMC is the only one they've read about?

(However, it's correct that a TSMC fab is the most advanced and complicated process on the planet.)
by ramnivasl | 2025-11-24 22:36:36+00:00
That is also the approach we took with Exograph (https://exograph.dev). Here is our reasoning (https://exograph.dev/blog/exograph-now-supports-mcp#comparin...). We found that LLMs do a very good job of crafting GraphQL queries for the given schema. While they do make mistakes, returning good descriptive error messages make is easy for them fix queries.
by vacuity | 2025-11-24 22:36:40+00:00
Thank you for engaging. I'm having a good time talking with you.

Maybe I ought to read older texts more often...I do not fully understand what Butler means by terms such as "plain"! But that was a good read.

I do wonder which instances Butler imagines "sudden anger" to be useful in. I would think it rare that immediate action without consideration is good, but where it is good, I do not think the actor is acting in anger so much as he is acting in a justified instinct. It is probably more correct that the actor acts in anger when the action is bad. To be precise, I am talking about the actor's intention, whereas his action may turn out to be good or bad in that split-second. I don't believe that people should be judged on what occurs but only what they tried to do, while keeping in mind that "ideal intention" and "actual intention" are distinct (as good intentions pave the road to Hell!).

I do like how Butler described "deliberate anger" and its role in addressing wrongs committed unto people. I had to ponder what I myself meant when I brought up emotional-logic, because I have not understood it so well that I never confuse myself, but I suppose that is what Butler is describing: logic that addresses emotions, or allows emotions. In fact, if logic is not subservient to "cold-bloodedness", emotions are presumably a major component of the logic we perform every day, at some level or another.

I'm not religious, nor atheist or the like. I consider myself agnostic, but I think to be a proper agnostic one has to work to earn the title. Extending the notion of agnosticism to its logical conclusion, I find that we should all be agnostic in all matters: never professing knowledge to anything that we are ignorant of (which ultimately must be everything, because who knows anything nontrivial?). That's an extreme position, and would require a dense discussion, but it can be moderated to suit the circumstances. It suffices to say that, on momentous matters such as God, we must be ignorant. This doesn't preclude positing axioms, accepting them on faith, and performing logic, however. Indeed, we all require faith in some way or another. Anyways, I've found that freeing myself of the expectation of believing a certain way has helped me better appreciate all manner of religious, spiritual, mystic, etc. schools of thoughts. God is the greatest of the unknowable things, so any way we discuss Him shines light on some mode of life.
by free_bip | 2025-11-24 22:36:41+00:00
Person or painting is not relevant in this argument by analogy. It's the commonality of "more than meets the eye", or "don't judge a book by its cover", or "appearances can be deceiving" between the two situations. There's dozens of idioms for this situation because it's so common.

I could just as easily make a painting analogy. You go to an art gallery and a piece immediately catches your eye. The composition, colors, you even think you can see a rosy meaning behind it all.

Then the curator comes by and explains that it was painted by David Duke, grand wizard of the KKK, and that the piece represents his deeply racist hatred of black people and his desire to murder innocents.

What you feel after having that explained is not "post hoc rationalization" - you're just recontextualizing your previous feelings towards the piece now that you have new information. That is the argument.
by mmh0000 | 2025-11-24 22:36:48+00:00
Um.... There's no law doing what now? [0]

Loi no 2001-1062 du 15 novembre 2001 relative à la sécurité quotidienne, article 30 (Law #2001-1062 of 15 November 2001 on Community Safety) allows a judge or prosecutor to compel any qualified person to decrypt or surrender keys to make available any information encountered in the course of an investigation. Failure to comply incurs three years of jail time and a fine of €45,000; if the compliance would have prevented or mitigated a crime, the penalty increases to five years of jail time and €75,000.[22]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#France
by jaggederest | 2025-11-24 22:36:55+00:00
Interesting etymology:

https://www.etymonline.com/word/lachrymose

Greek dakryma

"-d- to -l- alteration in Latin"

"The Medieval Latin practice of writing -ch- for -c- before Latin -r- also altered anchor, pulchritude, sepulchre. The -y- is pedantic, from the former belief that the word was pure Greek."
by mavhc | 2025-11-24 22:37:24+00:00
4. Use AI to talk to the student to find out if they understand.

Tests were created to save money, more students per teacher, we're just going back to the older, actually useful, method of talking to people to see if they understand what they've been taught.

You weren't asked to write an essay because someone wanted to read your essay, only to intuit that you've understood something
by dragonwriter | 2025-11-24 22:38:03+00:00
Oddly enough, its also an issue in California, which is one of four states with no minimum age for marriage (despite an 18 year minimum age for divorce.)

And, even more bizarrely, when there was a recent push to abolish it, it was resisted by, among others, the ACLU and Planned Parenthood branches on California (despite the same organizations national and relevant state organizations not opposing moves to ban child marriage in other states.)
by munk-a | 2025-11-24 22:38:42+00:00
The better practice is, if it isn't a one-off, being introduced to the tool (perhaps by an LLM) and then just running the tool yourself with structured inputs when it is appropriate. I think the 2015 era novice coding habit of copying a blob of twenty shell scripts off of stack overflow and blindly running them in your terminal (while also not good for obvious reasons) was better than that essentially happening but you not being able to watch and potentially learn what those commands were.
by roncesvalles | 2025-11-24 22:39:01+00:00
It's because attention dilution stymies everything. A new chat window in the web app is the smartest the model is ever going to be. Everything you prompt into its context, without sophisticated memory management* makes it dumber. Those big context frameworks are like giving the model a concussion before it does the first task.

*which also pollutes the attention btw; saying "forget about this" doesn't make the model forget about it - it just remembers to forget about it.
by jabberwhookie | 2025-11-24 22:39:37+00:00
Plenty of social problems are fixed without tackling them head on. The entire concept of the economic advantage of capitalism lifting all boats is an attempt to ignore the details of social problems, accurate justice and all those other annoying details that make it hard to cash in on stealing shared resources. Why fox anything without seeing what the surplus might wash away is not so stupid, but that theory must be lazy?

Your thinking is entirely lazy. You don't want to do something so you need to find a "tough question" and a cheap policy.

Every country needs a next generation and if it isn't getting one it is because it is a miserly society that thinks it can poke and prod parents and still expect them to do all the work that is actually a shared responsibility.
by littlestymaar | 2025-11-24 22:39:40+00:00
> Human societies existed for ages without, for example, any welfare state to speak of, while also being much more collectivist in a way distinct from modern statism. So what?

Calling anyone a “collectivist” as you did is akin to calling someone an “evolutionist” or a “round-earther”. Like it or not, but we're all the product of collective structures. And if you're not a “collectivist” then you are just the kind of science denial type you despite.

> As of the time frame relevant to the discussion, welfare state still grows nearly non stop

No it didn't. Just quoting social security spendings isn't going to change the fact that the welfare state framework has been replaced by a new one during the 80s.

> living standards for most are improving nearly non stop

If, as CPI does, you value mobile phones the same way you value healthcare and housing, then yes. Otherwise it unfortunately did not (hence Trump or Mamdani)

> I'm still right and you are still saying nothing but vibes, vague insults and platitudes

You've been the only one insulting the other in this discussion. And I unfortunately can't say you've reached above platitudes level either.

> Like nearly all modern left/rightist

Funny how anyone not agreeing with you must be either a socialist or a MAGA. At least your inability to perceive nuances in political opinions is coherent with your inability to understand the nuances of the economy and society you live in.

You certainly like to write, but you should read more.

Good day.
by matheusmoreira | 2025-11-24 22:39:54+00:00
It's not necessary to "label" anything. They have publicly confessed. One of the judges went to a public event and bragged about it in public. "We defeated Bolsonarism!" were his exact words.

You cannot possibly witness that and then continue believing in the so called impartiality of the court.

He's been regretting those words ever since for obvious reasons. He's even resigned from his position.

There's no need to debate this further. I could enumerate even more examples of impartiality and persecution, but if a judge publicly bragging about persecuting a political candidate fails to convince, what's the point?
by adinisom | 2025-11-24 22:40:03+00:00
Addressing comments on hearing aid technology:

Often people who lose their hearing want to be able to hear in social situations such as restaurants and family gatherings. In this context, the signal and noise have similar properties and are coming from the same direction. Directionality helps but can only do so much. Noise reduction can make hearing aids more comfortable to wear but don't necessarily improve comprehension in challenging situations. Progress here is fantastic -- at the same time it helps to have realistic expectations.

Putting the mic on the person speaking sidesteps the problem -- it's like the rest of the room isn't there.
by skydhash | 2025-11-24 22:40:05+00:00
No. By NPM not allowing any package to run code on the developer's machine. I can trust npm (the software), but not the library. It's a very weird choice to just allow any package to run post install script. Especially when there's little to none verification done on npmjs side.

Developers can feel free to not secure their computer or sell their keys. But that not means npm should allow straight code push from their computers to everyone that has downloaded their library.
by cadamsdotcom | 2025-11-24 22:40:11+00:00
The requirement to reboot is documented, and it’s an order of magnitude away from being a regular problem - ie. 51 days instead of every 51 minutes.

This puts it in the same maintenance bucket as parts that need regular replacement.

To use the “part needing regular replacement” analogy - the bug could be fixed for an extra $Y. But everything in engineering is a trade off. Choosing not to fix the bug might bring costs down to something competitive with the market.

Plus, like any part that could be made more reliable for extra cost, there might be no benefit due to service schedules. Say you could design a part that is 60% worn at service time vs a cheaper part that’s 90% worn - it they will both need replacing at the same time, you’d go for the lower cost design.

Eg. if some service task requires resetting the avionics every 40 days, that’s less than 51 days so there may as well be no bug.
by vessenes | 2025-11-24 22:40:32+00:00
There is a LOT under the surface. custom routes, bidirectional streaming choices (it started as a "local first" protocol). Implementing an endpoint from scratch is not easy, and the spec documentation moves very quickly, and generally doesn't have simple-to-digest updates for implementation.

I haven't looked in a few months, so my information might be a bit out of date, but at the time - if you wanted to use a python server from the modelcontextprotocol GitHub, fine. If you wanted to, say, build a proxy server in rust or golang, you were looking at a set of half-implemented server implementations targeting two-versions-old MCP specs while clients like claude obscure even which endpoints they use for discovery.

It's an immature spec, moderately complicated, and moving really quickly with only a few major 'subscribers' to the server side; I found it challenging to work with.
by Jtsummers | 2025-11-24 22:40:40+00:00
That's what the supporters said. The problem was, and is, a complete lack of deliberation, which his process doesn't provide room for.

As mentioned in one of the linked discussions by ChrisArchitect, they didn't go out and actually talk to the groups they were cutting (or not cutting). The people in the field know where a lot of waste is, and having an organization, theoretically, at the level of DOGE take interest in it would have gotten things moving that just don't happen when you're 10-20 levels from those with actual authority to change policy.
by lxgr | 2025-11-24 22:41:03+00:00
> I've played around with Gemini 3 Pro in Cursor, and honestly: I find it to be significantly worse than Sonnet 4.5.

That's my experience too. It's weirdly bad at keeping track of its various output channels (internal scratchpad, user-visible "chain of thought", and code output), not only in Cursor but also on gemini.google.com.
by robocat | 2025-11-24 22:41:29+00:00
> when the 'extra' funds run out, and benefits will only be covered in cashflows

The issue is that the necessary delivered services is a kinda fixed amount that the economy should deliver. The economy can't really "save" money. A government can choose to change taxes, change benefits, sell assets (to who?), or burden the next generation with debts (e.g. via mortgages).

Talking about money between generations is often just fictional accounting.
by cogman10 | 2025-11-24 22:41:50+00:00
The US has done something about it, they raised the retirement age to 67. But that was more of a band aid.

The real solution is to raise the maximum SSA payment or eliminate it all together.

That said, even if the government does nothing, it's not as if SSA goes away. Instead, the payments are reduced (Last I saw, it was around 75% of current payments). That'd suck, for sure, but it's not the all or nothing framing.
by HeyLaughingBoy | 2025-11-24 22:41:58+00:00
That's interesting. As the article says, ANT's main use case is in commercial gym equipment. What the article doesn't say is the reason: it excels at gathering data for "group fitness". ANT is a connectionless protocol so in a situation where you have two dozen transmitters and you need to get data from all of them, your receiver simply has to listen and record whatever devices it sees and let the user software (possibly managing a gym leaderboard for a spin class) decide which ones to track.

Contrast with BLE where you would have to make a connection to each device. The overhead of connecting and disconnecting, in addition to being power-prohibitive, takes too long. Some manufacturers have workarounds to enable use of their BLE products in a group fitness environment, but they are pretty much lacking.

It'll be interesting to see how the problem is solved if indeed ANT+ does go away.
by mavhc | 2025-11-24 22:42:13+00:00
Agreed, the Gutenberg method is preferred:

1. Assume printing press exists 2. Now there's no need for a teacher to stand up and deliver information by talking to a class for 60 mins 3. Therefore students can read at home (or watch prepared videos) and test their learning in class where there's experts to support them 4. Given we only need 1 copy of the book/video/interactive demo, we can spend wayyyyy more money making it the best it can possibly be

What's sad is it's 500 years later and education has barely changed
by ChrisArchitect | 2025-11-24 22:42:30+00:00
[dupe]

'Suddenly exposed' DOGE employees fear prosecution after Musk abandoned them

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46024983

Doge 'doesn't exist' with eight months left on its charter

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46028721
by gruez | 2025-11-24 22:42:31+00:00
How does this increase security? The actual code is distributed over github and is digitally signed. Same goes for the installers/updates. Attempts to replace the contents would be easily detected, and would won't do much, aside from maybe compromising someone installing in that short time frame. Moreover darknet sites have an identity problem. It's easy to validate that "grapheneos.org" is the official site, not least because there's no grapheneos.com or similar. If you're using a hidden service you'll get an address like graphenenlhxh74dsi1kk1k8se0wutcc2v4f7bnohqe8zxbkfk8z3wp8.onion. How do you know whether that's the official site, or graphenenlhxr1uvl0i8oiuzx587fpgcesik0apij5axd1a0xbdvj5eg.onion?
by KaiserPro | 2025-11-24 22:43:16+00:00
Its one of those things that's a hard lesson to learn; ideology isn't greater than experience.

One of the biggest lessons I learnt when I was a younger dev is a living allegory that my manager told me:

"one day the new boss came in to a budget meeting. The boss was out to make a good impression, and come out winning. The boss looked for any 'useless spend'.

Looking at the budget, the Boss saw how much was being spent on cleaner.

Looking around, the Boss boomed 'The place is spotless, why the fuck am I paying for cleaners. There's nothing to clean'

The underlings laughed and clapped. Oh how clever the Boss was, saving such a big amount at the first budget.

Needless to say the Boss was most put out when the invoice for pest removal, food standard violation and toilet cleaning landed in the next budget. "

There's a reason why things are done that way. It might not be a good reason, but its still a reason. You need to find and evaluate the reason for something existing, before you fuck it up. Yes, before you ask, I did fuck up, more than once.
by gigatexal | 2025-11-24 22:43:22+00:00
Love the competition. Gemini 3 pro blew me away after being spoiled by Claude for coding things. Considered canceling my Anthropic sub but now I’m gonna hold on to it.

The bigger thing is Google has been investing in TPUs even before the craze. They’re on what gen 5 now ? Gen 7? Anyway I hope they keep investing tens of billions into it because Nvidia needs to have some competition and maybe if they do they’ll stop this AI silliness and go back to making GPUs for gamers. (Hahaha of course they won’t. No gamer is paying 40k for a GPU.)
by vacuity | 2025-11-24 22:43:27+00:00
I do not understand how you justify your claims. Should I link any number of instances where Rust team members admit to compile times being a major issue, one which prompts significant effort to improve? Perhaps you are right about 10x speedups, but then that clearly isn't enough, reading the room.

I also do not understand how you see hostility in my comment. For one thing, I did not downvote you. Rather, your original comment is dismissive, even if the article it replies to is dubious. For another, it would also be trivial to see that I am both highly supportive and informed about Rust. Your comments simply do not help, certainly not with the common perception of Rust fans as zealots.
by cvoss | 2025-11-24 22:43:31+00:00
The article addresses your concerns directly.

> In one of our early fixits, someone picked up what looked like a straightforward bug. It should have been a few hours, maybe half a day. But it turned into a rabbit hole. Dependencies on other systems, unexpected edge cases, code that hadn’t been touched in years.

> They spent the entire fixit week on it. And then the entire week after fixit trying to finish it. What started as a bug fix turned into a mini project. The work was valuable! But they missed the whole point of a fixit. No closing bugs throughout the week. No momentum. No dopamine hits from shipping fixes. Just one long slog.

> That’s why we have the 2-day hard limit now. If something is ballooning, cut your losses. File a proper bug, move it to the backlog, pick something else. The limit isn’t about the work being worthless - it’s about keeping fixit feeling like fixit.
by ggm | 2025-11-24 22:43:52+00:00
Not a physicist, just here to observe single photons weren't reliably emitted until the modern era. like the 1970s. The double slit experiment pre-dates this. it's from 1801. The one which confirms "self interaction" was 1974. I was in high school 1973-78 so the stuff we did, was comparatively "new" physics in that sense. Not a message I remember receiving at the time.

From the pop-sci history reading I do, "detecting" reliable generation of single photon STREAMS in the early days depended on using mechanisms which inherently would release a sequence of photons on a time base, over time, and then gating the time sufficiently accurately to have high confidence you know the time base, and can discriminate an "individual" from the herd.

I don't doubt quantum theory. I only observe it's mostly for young students (like almost all received wisdom) grounded in experiments which don't actually do what people think they do. The ones you run in the school lab are illustrative not probative.

What people do in places like the BIPM in Paris, or CERN, isn't the same as that experiment you did with a ticker-tape and a weighted trolleycar down a ramp. "it's been confirmed" is the unfortunate reality of received wisdom, and inherently depends on trust in science. I do trust science.

Now we have quantum dots, and processes which will depend on reliably emitting single photons and single electrons, the trust has moved beyond "because they did it in CERN" into "because it's implemented in the chipset attached to the system I am using" -QC will need massive amounts of reliably generated single instance signals.