MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by RyJones | 2025-11-20 09:29:10+00:00
One of my friends, Matt, owned Seattle's Metrix Create:Space. He had a pick and place and a problem: Qualcomm had nice chips, but he couldn't buy them on tape, and he couldn't get data sheets.

The CEO of QCA? QCE? Don't remember. Was coming up to Seattle to rub elbows; there was to be a Q&A session afterwards. I told my friend Joe that if none of the employees would ask any hard questions, I would. They didn't and I did: you talk about open source, you talk about how important getting hardware into the world is, but my pal Matt can't get open data sheets or parts on tape. WHO DO I TALK TO?

He gave me someone, after many weeks of going around, they pointed me to the multi-thousand dollar IoT dev kits as the best option. Minimum order was like 1000 units.
by noir_lord | 2025-11-20 09:29:40+00:00
They have the volume as well, if you do carve out a niche they’ll just add it and roll over you.

That’s held for decades though I think it only really worked when computers where doubling in speed every 12-18 months, for a while they scaled horizontally (more cores) over radical IPC improvements so we might see the rise of proper co-processors again (but nothing stops the successful ones getting put on die, like Strix Point is already heading).
by 1bpp | 2025-11-20 09:29:46+00:00
I just asked this myself:

"No. There has never been a U.S. President whose first name was “Bob.” A few presidents had names that could be shortened to Bob—most commonly Robert—but no U.S. President has had the first name Robert, either. (There have been presidents with middle name Robert, such as James Earl “Jimmy” Carter Jr., but that’s different.) So: no Presidents named Bob, and none named Robert as their first name.

> Jimmy?

(generic summary of who Jimmy Carter is)

> So he also isn't a Robert.

Correct — there have been no U.S. Presidents with the first name Robert.

A few had middle name Robert (e.g., James Robert “Jimmy” Carter does not have Robert as a middle name, for clarity — his middle name is Earl), but no president’s given first name has been Robert.

So your original statement stands: No “Bob” No “Robert”

Want a list of presidents by first name to double-check?"

My favorite part is it desperately inserting a Robert into Jimmy Carter's name to appease the context. I wonder if a diffusion based LLM would avoid that kind of failure.
by codeflo | 2025-11-20 09:30:45+00:00
Logical contradictions in AI slop? Unthinkable!

But to address the serious question: We can't have all three of: a simple language, zero-cost abstractions, and memory safety.

Most interpreted language pick simplicity and memory safety, at a runtime cost. Rust picks zero-cost abstractions and memory safety, at an increasingly high language complexity cost. C and Zig choose zero-cost abstractions in a simple language, but as a consequence, there's no language-enforced memory safety.

(Also, having a simple language doesn't mean that any particular piece of code is short. Often, quite the opposite.)
by piva00 | 2025-11-20 09:30:57+00:00
Anti-cheat is the only reason why I had to build a Win11 machine for games, and only games, some months ago.

Hadn't touched Windows in more than 10 years, and it's as bad as I remember it, everything is clunky, badly designed, no polish whatsoever.

The moment developers find a way to get their anti-cheat working in Linux I have absolutely no reason to ever boot a Windows machine again...
by spwa4 | 2025-11-20 09:31:00+00:00
The main issue is what the Soviet government did before the disaster even happened. Someone, in the series it is implied it was a student, in Legasov's institution wrote a paper about what the risks was when AZ-5 was pressed. Apparently there was even a suggested redesign for the rods that would mitigate the risk (but it required lowering the maximum power output for the reactor, and thus required building more reactors, and so would increase the cost of the nuclear program by maybe 10-20%)

The Soviet government did something to shut that person up (and in the series Legasov implies he was part of that, I can't even find what he did exactly), repressed the knowledge (declaring it a state secret) ... and then a decade later Chernobyl exploded.

In other words: what happened is that the Soviet government refused to fix their nuclear reactors due to cost, and then that decision blew up Chernobyl, making tens to hundreds of thousands of victims.

Then, during the cleanup of the disaster, the KGB took additional measures to keep it hidden.

So yes it was oppression ... oppression is the cause of the disaster in the first place. And you can't forget that Legasov is not a hero: his career was built on oppression, not scientific accomplishment (there was a Soviet program to make sure Jewish students would fail at the institute. Legasov was the one implementing that). So of course Legasov can't be trusted.

Who knows, maybe the student who wrote that AZ-5 would blow up the reactor in the first place was one of the Jewish students whose career Legasov sabotaged.
by gmac | 2025-11-20 09:31:06+00:00
This is such a dangerously naïve view. Anyone who's any good at all at politics has learnt that this heuristic is widely applied, and is therefore careful to make a huge fuss irrespective of how well or badly things are going for them.

(Well, I say anyone; I guess I mostly mean bad people, who aren't restrained by fairness or honesty).
Show HN: Cllavio – Email Marketing and Email API platform built from scratch
by vullnetsahiti | 2025-11-20 09:31:07+00:00
Hi HN,

I'm the solo founder of Cllavio, an email marketing + email API platform that I built from scratch. My goal was to create a simpler, faster, and more transparent alternative to typical email tools that hide essential features behind expensive tiers.

Cllavio includes: - Email campaigns - SMTP + REST email API - Deliverability tools (SPF, DKIM, DMARC) - Bounce tracking - Analytics (opens, clicks) - Contact management - High-deliverability Postfix infrastructure on AWS

If you’re into email infrastructure, Spring Boot, Postfix, or scalable messaging systems, I’d love your feedback or questions.

Link: https://cllavio.com
by charcircuit | 2025-11-20 09:31:35+00:00
That's already happening today.

https://grapheneos.org/

But for the reason an antiquated os like postmarketos are suggested is that the project is being opportunistic thinking this is a chance they can be relevant. Additionally, the population of HN has more sentimental view on these legacy operating systems and view it as a chance to go back to the past and use software they are familiar with.
by ares623 | 2025-11-20 09:32:02+00:00
I’m sure LLMs actually do produce usable code at an unprecedented rate. But that only matters when you remove all obstacles to shipping that code. Strange how these same companies that mandate its usage don’t put the same effort or fervor into removing those obstacles. I want to see removal of code review, ci/cd, etc. Really go full steam ahead, just ship as much code as fast as possible. Raw firehose from agent to end user production usage.
by adrian_b | 2025-11-20 09:32:14+00:00
There are many years since I have switched to cooking only with microwaves, due to minimum wasted time and perfect reproducibility. And I normally eat only food that I cook myself from raw ingredients.

Attempting to roast a full chicken or turkey is not the correct way to use microwaves. You must first remove the bones from the bird, then cut the meat into bite-sized chunks. After using a boning knife for the former operation, I prefer to do the latter operation with some good Japanese kitchen scissors, as it is simpler and faster than with a knife.

If you buy turkey/chicken breasts or thighs without bones, then you have to do only the latter operation and cut them into bite-sized pieces.

Then you can roast the meat pieces in a closed glass vessel, without adding anything to the meat, except salt and spices (i.e. no added water or oil). The microwave oven must be set to a relatively low power and long time, e.g. for turkey meat to 30 minutes @ 440 W and for chicken to less time than that, e.g. 20 to 25 minutes. The exact values depend on the oven and on the amount of cooked meat, but once determined by experiment, they remain valid forever.

The meat cooked like this is practically identical to meat cooked on a covered grill (the kind with indirect heating, through hot air), but it is done faster and without needing any supervision. In my opinion this results in the tastiest meat in comparison with any other cooking method. However, I do not care about a roasted crust on the meat, which is also unhealthy, so I do not use the infrared lamp that the microwave oven has for making such a crust.

Vegetable garnishes, e.g. potatoes, must be cooked at microwaves separate from the meat, as they typically need much less time than meat, usually less than 10 minutes (but higher power). Everything must be mixed into the final dish after cooking, including things like added oil, which should better not be heated at great temperatures.

Even without the constraints of a microwave oven, preparing meat like this makes much more sense than cooking whole birds or fish or whatever. Removing all the bones and any other inedible parts and also cutting the meat into bite-sized pieces before cooking wastes much less time than when everybody must repeat all these operations every time during eating, so I consider that serving whole animals at a meal is just stupid, even if they may look appetizing for some people.
by squigz | 2025-11-20 09:32:18+00:00
Aye, the fast-paced editing is extremely jarring. Another variable that makes these discussions so difficult to reach a conclusion! :( We need to consider stuff like this - content and subject matter, not just format - when it comes to figuring out what is harmful about this stuff, not just say "short form videos are bad!"

Very similar to social media. What is it about social media that's harmful? Is it the connecting with other humans - which seems to me to define social media? Or is it the algorithms? The infinite scrolling? Something else?

(I'm not denying we're facing very serious issues that are certainly being exacerbated if not entirely caused by popular uses of online platforms; I want to solve those issues. I just want to solve them in a productive and non-reductive manner. Taking correlations and running with them is not that, and will not only not solve the problems, but will lead to massive privacy and security issues (see: ID verification))
by troupo | 2025-11-20 09:32:35+00:00
Again. You could literally try and read the law. After all, it's only been around for 9 years.

--- start quote ---

(1) The protection of natural persons in relation to the processing of personal data is a fundamental right.

...

(6) Rapid technological developments and globalisation have brought new challenges for the protection of personal data. The scale of the collection and sharing of personal data has increased significantly. Technology allows both private companies and public authorities to make use of personal data on an unprecedented scale in order to pursue their activities. Natural persons increasingly make personal information available publicly and globally.

...

(14) The protection afforded by this Regulation should apply to natural persons, whatever their nationality or place of residence, in relation to the processing of their personal data.

...

(15) In order to prevent creating a serious risk of circumvention, the protection of natural persons should be technologically neutral and should not depend on the techniques used. The protection of natural persons should apply to the processing of personal data by automated means, as well as to manual processing, if the personal data are contained or are intended to be contained in a filing system.

...

(26) The principles of data protection should apply to any information concerning an identified or identifiable natural person.

...

(32) Consent should be given by a clear affirmative act establishing a freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject's agreement to the processing of personal data relating to him or her, such as by a written statement, including by electronic means, or an oral statement. This could include ticking a box when visiting an internet website, choosing technical settings for information society services or another statement or conduct which clearly indicates in this context the data subject's acceptance of the proposed processing of his or her personal data. Silence, pre-ticked boxes or inactivity should not therefore constitute consent. Consent should cover all processing activities carried out for the same purpose or purposes. When the processing has multiple purposes, consent should be given for all of them. If the data subject's consent is to be given following a request by electronic means, the request must be clear, concise and not unnecessarily disruptive to the use of the service for which it is provided.

--- end quote ---

etc.
by SideburnsOfDoom | 2025-11-20 09:32:44+00:00
As an employee who has to interact with workday, I can assure you that it sucks so badly since you are not the person that Workday is sold to. It is sold to c-suite and head of HR. In that context, you as an employee using workday are the product not the user, and usability to you just does not matter.
by w-m | 2025-11-20 09:33:29+00:00
This is a good resource. But for the computer vision and machine learning practitioner most of the fun can start where this article ends.

nvcc from the CUDA toolkit has a compatibility range with the underlying host compilers like gcc. If you install a newer CUDA toolkit on an older machine, likely you'll need to upgrade your compiler toolchain as well, and fix the paths.

While orchestration in many (research) projects happens from Python, some depend on building CUDA extensions. An innocently looking Python project may not ship the compiled kernels and may require a CUDA toolkit to work correctly. Some package management solutions provide the ability to install CUDA toolkits (conda/mamba, pixi), the pure-Python ones do not (pip, uv). This leaves you to match the correct CUDA toolkit to your Python environment for a project. conda specifically provides different channels (default/nvidia/pytorch/conda-forge), from conda 4.6 defaulting to a strict channel priority, meaning "if a name exists in a higher-priority channel, lower ones aren't considered". The default strict priority can make your requirements unsatisfiable, even though there would be a version of each required package in the collection of channels. uv is neat and fast and awesome, but leaves you alone in dealing with the CUDA toolkit.

Also, code that compiles with older CUDA toolkit versions may not compile with newer CUDA toolkit versions. Newer hardware may require a CUDA toolkit version that is newer than what the project maintainer intended. PyTorch ships with a specific CUDA runtime version. If you have additional code in your project that also is using CUDA extensions, you need to match the CUDA runtime version of your installed PyTorch for it to work. Trying to bring up a project from a couple of years ago to run on latest hardware may thus blow up on you on multiple fronts.
by jaouanebrahim | 2025-11-20 09:33:53+00:00
eXo Platform, a provider of open-source intranet and digital workplace solutions, has released eXo Platform 7.1. This new version puts user experience and seamless collaboration at the heart of its evolution.

The latest update brings a better document management experience (new browsing views, drag-and-drop, offline access), some productivity tweaks (custom workspace, unified search, new app center), an upgraded chat system based on Matrix (reactions, threads, voice messages, notifications), and new ways to encourage engagement, including forum-style activity feeds and optional gamified challenges.

eXo Platform 7.1 is available in the private cloud, on-premise or in a customized infrastructure (on-premise, self-hosted), with a Community version available here

For more information on eXo Platform 7.1, visit the detailed blog

About eXo Platform :

The solution stands out as an open-source and secure alternative to proprietary solutions, offering a complete, unified, and gamified experience.
by xwolfi | 2025-11-20 09:34:07+00:00
Why would it know anything better than a bunch of 12 yo given the same question ? LLM don't know things very well, they don't cross concepts in their mind. Give you an example, made $1500 yday trading nvidia:

I followed the curve for the last month, scalping a few times - I get a feel like panic point is ~180$, hype point ~195$, it's like that most swings. There were earnings yday, people are afraid that the company is over its head already and prefer to de-risk, which I do too sometimes on other stuff. It is true that nvidia is overpriced ofc, but I feel we have maybe a few good runs and that's where the risk, therefore the potential reward, is. I enter around 184, and a bit more around 182. I go to sleep (Im in China), and when I wake up I sell at 194. I got lucky, and I would not do it again before I understand why would nvidia be swinging again.

Is an LLM gonna be any better ? My brain did a classic Bayes analysis, used the recent past as strong signal to my prediction of the future (a completely absurd bias ofc, but all traders are absurd humans), I played a company that wasnt gonna burn me too much, since Im still happy to own shares of nvidia whatever the price, and the money put there was losable entirely without too much pain.

Do I need AI ? Meh. For your next play, do you trust me or chatgpt more ? I can explain my decisions very coherently, with good caveats on my limits and biases, and warnings about what risk to afford when. I experienced losses and gains, and I know the effect and causes of both, and how to deal with them both. I prefer me, to it.
by skydhash | 2025-11-20 09:34:09+00:00
> Modern AI tools are just the next step to abstracting away syntax as a gatekeeper function, but the need for precise systemic thinking is as glaringly necessary as ever.

Syntax is not a gatekeeper function. It’s exactly the means to describe the precise systemic thinking. When you’re creating a program, you’re creating a DSL for multiple subsystem, which you then integrate.

The subsystem can be abstract, but we usually define good software by how closely fitted the subsystem are to the problem at hand, meaning adjustments only need slight code alterations.

So viewing syntax as a gatekeeper is like viewing sheet music as a gatekeeper for playing music, or numbers and arithmetic as a gatekeeper for accounting.
by atleastoptimal | 2025-11-20 09:34:16+00:00
I feel people were much more sensible about AI back when their thoughts about it weren't mixed with their antipathy for big tech.

In this article we see a sentiment I've often seen expressed:

> I doubt the AGI promise, not just because we keep moving the goal posts by redefining what we mean by AGI, but because it was always an abstract science fiction fantasy rather than a coherent, precise and measurable pursuit.

AGI isn't difficult at all to describe. It is basically a computer system that can do everything a human can. There are many benchmarks that AI systems fail at (especially real life motor control and adaptation to novel challenges over longer time horizons) that humans do better at, but once we run out of tests that humans can do better than AI systems, then I think it's fair to say we've reached AGI.

Why do authors like OP make it so complicated? Is it an attempt at equivocation so they can maintain their pessimistic/critical stance with a effusive deftness that confounds easy rebuttal?

It ultimately seems to come to a more moral/spiritual argument than a real one. What really should be so special about human brains that a computer system, even one devised by a company whose PR/execs you don't like, could never match it in general abilities?
by gpderetta | 2025-11-20 09:35:37+00:00
Not if you have multiple schedulers. Case in point: asio.strand or execution::on [1].

And even with one scheduler it makes sense to explicitly mark your critical sections.

Really, at the end of the day the primary purpose of a mutex is serialization of all operations on some data. The blocking behaviour is just a way to implement it.

[1] https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/execution/on.html
by neciudan | 2025-11-20 09:36:02+00:00
Matching URLs in JavaScript used to mean juggling regex and edge cases. The URL Pattern API fixes that — giving you a clean, browser-native way to match routes, extract parameters, and handle paths, queries, and hashes without brittle parsing logic.

In this video, we walk through:

The pain of traditional URL parsing with regex

How to use URLPattern for readable, declarative matching

Real examples with test() and exec()

Why it’s finally safe to use in production

Available in Chrome, Firefox, and Safari — and part of Baseline 2025.

Docs & References: [MDN URL Pattern API](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/URL_Pattern...)
by jimangel2001 | 2025-11-20 09:36:11+00:00
I installed PmOS on my old Xiaomi redmi note 9 with KDE Plasma Desktop. It works remarkably well, with the exception of sound. I am using it as a full Linux PC when I am on the go with my large power bank and a full sized folding keyboard/track pad.

For my use case it's beyond great, albeit the small screen and the aarch architecture I can develop small projects as if I was on my PC.

My current phone OP13r doesn't is supported yet by PmOS, when someone does it Im gonna try to install it on one of the slots.
Show HN: I made a drop-in Voice Mode for AI startups
by andupotorac | 2025-11-20 09:36:22+00:00
Text inputs are too slow for complex prompting if you're vibe coding or generating media. I built a full-stack Voice Mode component (UI + logic + transcription) for React/Next.js. It handles the awkward browser audio stuff so you don't have to.

Also used Gemini 3 to generate that entire page in one prompt. :-)
by RyJones | 2025-11-20 09:36:29+00:00
We were working on Windows on ARM for the Surface tablets (funny story: I worked in the office of the CTO of Microsoft in 2008? 2009? and we had a couple of the original Surfaces. Cool machines to demo) and we had a couple of the tablets. We needed like 20 to do testing. We were able to get a couple more. I think the chargeback was on the order of $50k each.

None of them were the same. One of the best engineers I ever worked with, who I'll call Bill, had to reverse-engineer how to JTAG each one to re-flash them, since each tablet was slightly different and undocumented.

Bill was one of the guys in the late 90s, early 2000s that was cracking satellite cards for fun. He also reverse engineered a bunch of CANBUS stuff for another product group. Good times.

Anyways, we all knew it sucked.
by phplovesong | 2025-11-20 09:36:59+00:00
PHP should REALLY focus on getting the core stuff in shape.

Its still so annoying that you have to use mb_real_uppercase($name) for unicode. The other gripe is that the stdlib is SO messy. With PHP 5.3 they had a once in a lifetime opportunity to cleanup the stdlib and introduce a new namespaced API for builtins, and optionally introduce a uniform function call syntax:

"foo"->strtoupper();

Whenever doing PHP the time for concurrency will come sooner or later. Having no way of doing ANY concurrency is a letdown. The Fiber API does nothing on its own, and you are forced to use some third party runtime, that is usually a non-starter for legacy projects.

PHP has come a long way from the PHP 4.0 era, but is still lacking in multiple areas, and i dont see it being a pick for greenfield projects in 2025.
by wiz21c | 2025-11-20 09:36:59+00:00
I'm like you. I'd say my productivity improved by 5-10%: Claude can make surprinsgly good code edits. For these, my subjective feeling is that claude does in 30 min what I'd have dont in one hour. It's a net gain. Now, my job is about communicating, understanding problems, learning, etc. So my overall productivity is not dramatically changing, but for things related to code, it's a net 5-10%