MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by palata | 2025-11-29 23:39:14+00:00
I was first a big fan of Scala, and while I still like it, I am now really into Kotlin.

I don't find it disappointing: I tend to consider that Scala was an inspiration for Kotlin. Maybe Kotlin won by being simpler, and definitely because of the tooling and community: being backed by JetBrains and Google helps.

For a long time, the tooling was very limited with Scala, which must have slowed its adoption, right?
by Cthulhu_ | 2025-11-29 23:39:26+00:00
I feel like I need to ask; did you write this comment and the code example yourself, or did you ask an AI to generate it? If it's AI, why didn't you disclose it? If it's the former, why the weird formatting etc instead of linking to one of the official examples at https://github.com/landlock-lsm/go-landlock/blob/main/exampl... ?
by amluto | 2025-11-29 23:39:48+00:00
I think you can make a nice zero-knowledge interactive protocol to prove knowledge of an RSA secret key. First, the prover and the verifier jointly agree on a random number m between 1 and n-1. [0] Then the verifier signs that number, and tells the prover the signature. (The signature is d^m mod n.) The verifier verifies the signature, which, critically, is exactly the same as verifying that the signature encrypts to m.

Why is this zero-knowledge? Because the verifier could invent an entire transcript of the protocol without the prover’s help: choose a random signature and encrypt it to generate the “random message”. So the ability to work with the prover to generate random pairs of (message, signature) accomplishes nothing at all except to convince the verifier that the prover knows the secret key.

This, by the way, is one of many footguns involved in using raw RSA: you cannot assume that a private key was used properly just because someone presents the signature of some message. Better signature schemes built on top of RSA avoid this problem.

[0] This is fairly straightforward using cryptographic hashes. The verifier could instead choose freely, but then the protocol isn’t zero-knowledge.
by anon291 | 2025-11-29 23:40:11+00:00
> The “great man” theory leads to the idea that 99.999% of humans are mediocre at best and we all exist to serve a tiny number of greats

I feel this take says more about the person saying it then it does about the great men theorists.

Believing that revolutions often happen due to a few individuals does not mean that you believe most people are there to serve anyone. That's a non sequitur
by SOLAR_FIELDS | 2025-11-29 23:40:17+00:00
Python is multi paradigm, but does several things really well that other ecosystems do not. Javascript as well. Java as well. What claim to fame does Scala have in this regard, aside from being the best supported language for Spark for several years before PySpark overtook it? Perhaps Akka before the boneheaded decision to paywall that ecosystem?
by fragmede | 2025-11-29 23:40:41+00:00
> for some reason

That reason is repeated elsewhere on this thread but since you're feigning ignorance I'll repeat it here. Basically he wrote some hateful racist shit that ever so barely can be interpreted as not being hateful racist shit, so the resulting controversy is "was that actually racist hateful shit?" Some of the people who read it as hateful racist shit are rich and pulled funding from various places associated with him, because they don't want to be affiliated with hateful racist shit.
by 01100011 | 2025-11-29 23:41:55+00:00
Yeah this.

The argument for years has been something like:

> Tesla will solve self-driving and everyone will be left unable to compete. Also, AI is advancing rapidly and will solve all kinds of problems for society.

But apparently it will not solve self-driving for anyone else but Tesla.

I gave up trying to argue with Tesla fans years ago. They are immune to logic which invalidates their priors.
by moleperson | 2025-11-29 23:42:03+00:00
The way I read this is that there are many "games" in life (applying for schools, jobs, dating, etc) where the odds of "winning" each instance are not in your favor, but you only need to win once to win overall. If you treat every absence of a positive outcome as a failure, then you're inevitably going to lose hope and give up.

This is in contrast to gambling where you actually do need to win more often than not to win overall.
by anon291 | 2025-11-29 23:42:46+00:00
Many kings were strong and admirable. Not sure why you are so down on individual kings even if monarchy is not a great system of governance and prone to tyranny.

Good kings provided protection from the very real threat of foreign barbarians, provided a common legal framework, and eased commerce, and thus human flourishing. Good kings deserve commendation even if monarchy has issues.

Ascribing only vices (chopping heads off) to monarchs is wrong.

To be clear, I am a staunch republican and believe king Charles and other European monarchs need to step down. However you are engaging in revisionism
by analog31 | 2025-11-29 23:42:51+00:00
I don't know if this is exactly the same as what I learned in high school as "integration by substitution."

A number of years after I finished school, I was in a new town without a job, and got hired to teach a freshman algebra course at the nearby Big Ten university. About halfway into teaching the class, I was struck by the realization that virtually every problem was solved in the same way, by recognizing the "form" of a problem and applying an algorithm appropriate for that form, drawn from the most recent chapter.

In the TFA, the natural log in the integrand was a dead give-away because it only comes from one place in the standard order of topics in calculus class.

Is this what we call intuition?

The students called this the "trick." Many of them had come from high school math under the impression that math was subjective, and was a matter of guessing the teacher's preferred trick from among the many possible.

For instance, all of the class problems involving maxima and minima involved a quadratic equation, since it was the only form with an extremum that the students had learned. Every min/max problem culminated with completing the square. I taught my students a formula that they could just memorize.

The whole affair left me with a bad taste in my mouth.
by kattagarian | 2025-11-29 23:43:10+00:00
While i don't doubt the chinese market is incredibly regulated, this car handle is a terrible trend started by tesla. Many cases were people couldn't open their cars because because it's eletronic was damaged. There is open investigations open in the US about the same thing too. If frozen, the thing becomes impossible to open too. And the manual handle inside is also known for being easily forgotten in cases of panic.
by aeonfox | 2025-11-29 23:43:11+00:00
So three instances in the EU for the year. I suppose that's something. All I know is I don't see people with angle grinders taking down local infrastructure in Australia. Maybe if we matched in population it would be the same? I don't know.

But I'm checked out of this argument, because I'm certain anyone who's lived in the US and, say, comes to Australia, would recognise the stark difference in social outcomes and crime levels. But why reflect on that at all? It's far easier to quibble over minutiae.
by roarcher | 2025-11-29 23:44:09+00:00
What level of analysis would you consider "complete"? Certainly if we accounted for every neuron in their brain we could reduce their achievements to whatever configuration of gray matter produced the thoughts and actions that led to their success, and whatever external events produced that configuration. But then we would be at a level of analysis that regards us all as automatons, where nobody, including the group, is accountable for anything at all. This may or may not be technically correct, but I would argue that it is not useful. The question of who gets "credit" for an achievement would be entirely moot, as would the achievement itself and everything else any human has ever done.

I would think the correct level of analysis for this conversation is the lowest one that still allows people to be accountable for their own actions. Lower than that, and the central question of this thread is irrelevant.
by hammock | 2025-11-29 23:44:43+00:00
Then let’s control for that. Among people with a decent safety net, can we correlate eventual success with number of tries?

The answer seems self evident, but idk for sure, and I would like to know the Gini coefficient of successes vs failures among safety netters be that of non-safety netters. Wouldn’t we expect the successes within the safety net to be massively larger on average than those of the non-safety netters, given that a safety net affords you so many more swings to take? Your comment suggests that this is not the case, driven by the selection/survivor effect within non-safety net
by Atlas667 | 2025-11-29 23:44:44+00:00
> Is that the traditional meaning of 'great' in "great men theory"?

It isn't, though I may be tangentially speaking about Great Man Theory, I wasn't focusing on it.

> If so, why not just say "strong men" or "powerful men" instead?

I thought using "great men" gives space for virtue and a spiritual/intellectual worth, not just a morally ambiguous "power".
by pkd | 2025-11-29 23:44:44+00:00
Of course, but I know people who live in the UK who are not white. Some have lived there all their lives, even. Perhaps this drivel doesn't upset them but I can imagine how it might.

Unfortunately DHH is not going to be focused on the UK only. He'll lend his voice to the next rightwing ragebait without consideration of people who he works with on the daily. He had some very strong but entirely misinformed opinions about my hometown a few years ago and it was extremely annoying to read that from an ostensibly intelligent person while being in the middle of everything.

If he was some random guy, it wouldn't be such an issue but given he's the leader of a big open source project, everything he says gets a lot of publicity and frankly causes a lot of distraction for people just trying to do work on or with Rails.
by Telemakhos | 2025-11-29 23:44:48+00:00
The degree to which an individual is responsible for his own success, and the degree to which fortune enables it, is as old as time. In ancient Greek philosophy (and poetry), a person's life is divided into soul, body, and fortune: one exerts control over one's soul and body, but not over one's fortune, the sum total of things external to him, such as his family and friends and money. Virtues reside in the soul, and external blessings like wealth and the support of others outside the body, and the ancient Greeks were clear in this distinction, of which both halves are necessary but insufficient to achieve great benefits for one's people. Hence the idea that happiness is the exercise of vital powers along lines of virtue within a life affording them scope: the "lines of virtue" are internal elements of character, but "a life affording them scope" is the external support necessary. A virtuous hermit living in poverty alone on an island and a ruinously depraved criminal in the midst of civilization, the one virtuous but lacking fortune and the other fortunate but lacking virtue, are equally ill-suited to achieving great benefits for mankind.
by sofixa | 2025-11-29 23:45:01+00:00
For a cool practical example, check out Nomad's (flexible workload orchestrator) exec2 task driver: https://github.com/hashicorp/nomad-driver-exec2

It allows running non/semi-trusted workloads with isolation. Pretty useful to onboard applications into a proper scheduler with all bells and whistles without having to containerise, but still with decent levels of isolation between them.
by soraminazuki | 2025-11-29 23:45:31+00:00
> All criticism I see is

* My criticism is

> Nobody is denigrating the goals of the initiative.

You're flooding this thread with your tangent about Clippy, which is diverting focus from the main issue regardless of your intentions.

> I was around when Clippy was introduced.

FWIW, so were many people on this forum and definitely the people behind this movement.
by Cheer2171 | 2025-11-29 23:45:40+00:00
> why would you go to grade school and high school at institutions that produce graduates like that?

Do you not know how U.S. K-12 public schools are funded by local property taxes, which means the quality of a child's education is a direct causal relationship of the wealth of their neighborhood?

Why don't these children just grow up in richer neighborhoods?
by 01100011 | 2025-11-29 23:46:18+00:00
Optimizing costs while producing a safe, reliable, durable vehicle isn't exactly simple and requires an entire supply chain to be in place, not just a single company. Look at how many auto mfgs there are in the world that turn out terrible cars. EVs dramatically lower the parts count which helps but you still a lot of expertise to make a safe, reliable car.
by cadamsdotcom | 2025-11-29 23:47:35+00:00
Love the idea but getting people to move to another platform requires both

- "nothing about the new thing is worse"

and

- "some things are better".

Any migration must also defeat social network effects ("I'll wait for everyone else before I migrate")

Still it is exciting to see energy for this.

Would be great to know what (if any) alternatives exist with a similar UI to Stack Overflow - open source or other.
by jackfranklyn | 2025-11-29 23:47:53+00:00
You're not missing much - what you describe is roughly what I do. My original comment was pushing back against the "70 lines max" orthodoxy, not against splitting at all.

The nuance: the context struct approach works well when steps are relatively independent. It gets messy when step 7 needs to conditionally branch based on something step 3 discovered, and step 12 needs to know about that branch. You end up with flags and state scattered through the struct, or you start passing step outputs explicitly, and the orchestrator becomes a 40-line chain of if/else deciding which steps to run.

For genuinely linear pipelines (parse → transform → validate → output), private functions + orchestrator is clean. For pipelines with lots of conditional paths based on earlier results, I've found keeping more in the orchestrator makes the branching logic visible rather than hidden inside step functions that check context.flags.somethingWeird.

Probably domain-specific. Financial data has a lot of "if we detected X in step 3, skip steps 6-8 and handle differently in step 11" type logic.
by yieldcrv | 2025-11-29 23:48:02+00:00
Universities survived half a millenium being networking grounds for the upper class, and they will survive another millenium being networking grounds for the upper class

The last century will be a mere footnote in a case study of folly, where 100% of the university's problems came from dealing with the underclass at all with a side helping of federal funny money. It will be comedic relief amongst starry eyed business majors, waiting to satisfy a condition of their trust fund

The employment sector's decision to require degrees is mere happenstance and something that sector will need to reconcile on its own.
by jhealy | 2025-11-29 23:48:55+00:00
At a previous employer we did this with our docs repo.

The public docs site was managed and deployed via a private GitHub repository, and we had a public GitHub repo that mirrored it.

The link between them was an action on the private repo that pushed each new man commit to the mirror. Customer PRs on the public mirror would be merged into the private repo, auto synced to the mirror, and GH would mark the public PR as merged when it noticed the PR commits were all on main.

It was a bit of a headache, but worked well enough once stag involved in docs built up some workflow conventions. The driver for the setup was the docs writers want the option to develop pre-release docs discretely, but customer contributions were also valued.
by heybrendan | 2025-11-29 23:49:24+00:00
I see that you're parsing `ss` output in 'src/services/network.rs' (L22-L31) [1]. I find this to be a rather shaky foundation as any future drift or deviation in the `ss` utility's output could potentially yield unforeseen consequences.

I'm vaguely aware that there are crates available in the Rust ecosystem for interrogating and manipulating sockets much more directly as well as high level abstractions for all things netlink (read: AF_NETLINK). Is wielding Rust's socket/netlink libraries unsuitable in some way, or was it merely deemed out of the design scope?

Very cool project, please keep going!

[1] https://github.com/grigio/network-monitor/blob/master/src/se...
by bigbadfeline | 2025-11-29 23:49:57+00:00
> Either way I imagine step one there is research. Which costs money.

To quote myself, the important part here is "how much voluntary tax you're going to contribute" and "what sort of tax scheme you'd recommend for the rest"

On the flip side Quick, the sky is falling, tax everybody for "research" is going to fly like a lead balloon.

Don't fret at the messenger, it's politics 101...

> “Don’t spend a penny until an incredibly detailed step by step plan arrives from nowhere”

"Don’t spend a penny" and "don't propose a tax increase by an unspecified amount and undefined distribution of tax load" are two vastly different statements, I did not author the first one of these.

In other words, solving the problem does not start with calls for raising taxes, nor are people "selfish" for rejecting such calls.
by amluto | 2025-11-29 23:50:51+00:00
Dear GitHub Actions: what the heck?

There are so many things about GitHub Actions that make no sense.

Why are actions configured per branch? Let me configure Actions somewhere on the repository that is not modifiable by some yml files that can exist in literally any branch. Let me have actual security policy for configuring Actions that is separate from permission to modify a given branch.

Why do workflows have such strong permissions? Surely each step should have defined inputs (possibly from previous steps), defined outputs, and narrowly defined permissions.

Why can one step corrupt the entire VM for subsequent steps?

Why is security almost impossible to achieve instead of being the default?

Why does the whole architecture feel like someone took something really simple (read a PR or whatever, possibly run some code in a sandbox, and produce an output) of the sort that could easily be done securely in JavaScript or WASM or Lua or even, sigh, Docker and decided to engineer it in the shape of an enormous cannon aimed directly at the user’s feet?
by watwut | 2025-11-29 23:50:51+00:00
I have seen quite a few Americans saying "nobody ever gave me anything" while they were literally from upper class and their parents/families gave them a lot. And actually most people who are born rich stay rich. Some do squander it, but it takes a lot more effort to squander stuff for them then for someone who starts poor.

The "failing upwards" is an actual thing and who is around you massively influences whether you are failing upwards or downwards.
by bolangi | 2025-11-29 23:52:14+00:00
I've been there since the DOS days when it was all dark mode, green phosphor characters on a black CRT. I was there when amber monitors were the new thing. (I still love sunglasses with brown lenses.) And I watched the early Apple computers with graphics and black-characters-on-white display style that has been the rage ever since... well since the recent new thing being dark mode.

It reminds me of fashion trends, miniskirts then maxis, up and down past the knee like tides.

Fads, that's the word.
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-11-29 23:52:34+00:00
> Zohran reminds me so much of the former District Attorney of San Francisco, Chesa Boudin

As a former New Yorker who grew up in the Bay Area, I disagree.

Chesa had zero public experience prior to his run, and he never moderated his position, not even after being ousted from office. In the end, he was elected by fewer than 90,000 people [1]. (Smaller than the population of Manhattan’s Chinatown [2].)

Mamdani has some experience as a city legislator. And he moderated between his primary and the general, the latter which he won with more than a million votes [3].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_San_Francisco_District_At...

[2] https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/manhattan-neighborhoods-...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_New_York_City_mayoral_ele...
by nine_k | 2025-11-29 23:53:23+00:00
If your energy is finite (which is normally the case), the effect may also depend on the energy per shot you spend. A birdshot allows you to hit great many possible targets, but only very weakly. A buckshot hits fewer targets, but packs a bit more punch. A FMJ bullet shot from a sniper rifle allows you to hit an exact target with a great force, but you have to choose carefully.

What worked for me best was looking around a lot, identifying a few worthy targets, and aiming well.
by saimiam | 2025-11-29 23:54:04+00:00
My wife and I are starting to test this theory. We are putting our kid in an expensive school, then starting a business to support our lifestyle. If we fail, our kid’ll have to go to a cheaper school and we’d have lost a few years of school fees. If we succeed, yay.

By the time, our are faced with the choice, our kid will be embedded in school so ripping them out of it is going to be a tough choice.

So, yeah, we’re essentially burning our boats and fighting to survive.
by lunar-whitey | 2025-11-29 23:54:26+00:00
Illiterate incoming freshman are the product of the public middle and high school systems, not the university system.

For reference:

> Beginning in Fall 2022, the number of students placed into Math 2 began to grow rapidly. Math 2 was first created in 2016, and it was originally designed to be a remedial math course serving a very small number of first-year students (less than 100 students a year or around 1% of the incoming class) who were not prepared to start in our standard precalculus courses [...] In Fall 2024, the numbers of students placing into Math 2 and 3B surged further, with over 900 students in the combined Math 2 and 3B population, representing an alarming 12.5% of the incoming first-year class (compared to under 1% of the first-year students testing into these courses prior to 2021).

https://senate.ucsd.edu/media/740347/sawg-report-on-admissio...

These are students that even middling American public schools would have failed to pass from high school in decades past, or would have later failed to meet standardized test requirements prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.
by giancarlostoro | 2025-11-29 23:54:56+00:00
Its a nice distro, though personally I've been using EndeavourOS (Arch based but easier, think of it as the Ubuntu to Debian but for Arch). I wanted to try one of the Fedora Atomic distros but it just didn't boot correctly no matter what I tried, Endeavour just booted and worked and I havent looked back for over a year now...

One insanely underrated Linux software is Lutris, if you have non-steam games, it is phenomenal at helping you wire them up for Wine, especially when Steam itself behaves weird (like installing third party things is not exactly done intelligently by Steam).
by jeroenhd | 2025-11-29 23:55:21+00:00
The lack of a C API should not stop any C developers from using it, hopefully. The wrapper libraries are relatively simple (i.e. https://codeberg.org/git-bruh/landbox) and both Rust and Go can expose a C FFI in case developers would rather link against a more "official" library instead.

The Linux kernel has a relatively simple example on how to use the syscall even if you can't find a library to deal with it for you: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin...

There is no "liblandlock" or whatever, though there totally could be. The only reason Rust, Go, and Haskell have an easy-to-use API for this syscall is because someone bothered to implement a wrapper and publish it to the usual package managers. Whatever procedure distros use to add new libraries could just as easily be used to push a landlock library/header to use it in C.