MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by potato3732842 | 2025-11-06 11:37:13+00:00
EEC-1 exists because regulatory uncertainty forced OEMs to build in a place where they could cheaply change the logic around emissions effecting systems. It is a computer in the same way a modern toaster is.

Figure 5yr between "developing" and "fielding". And if you ignore the Plymouth Prowler exercises in putting cutting edge tech into low volume models to get practice doing so it adds another few years depending on what the item is and how bad the OEM wants it in the field.

In any case, by the 1990s these are computers comparable in complexity to the bare minimum it takes to run an oven from 2010 that has a digital timer and some automatic functions. They read inputs and implement simple if-then and timer logic. They don't do any communicating with other systems, and if they do they pretend to be a simple sensor or actuator (depending on which end of the connection they're on). The closest thing you're gonna get to a "bus" is a shared ground or a shared reference voltage circuit.

Take for example a hypothetical 1995ish Ford (EEC-IV, which was pretty advanced for its time) that combines every possible module you can have across the whole lineup. At best you're gonna get is five computers. ABS module reads vehicle speed (VR sensor) and does it's thing. It then sends out approximately the same voltage/frequency signal it got in to the transmission controller or ECU which does the same thing and sends the signal to the digital odometer. The ECU directs the ignition module, but the ignition module isn't really a computer, it's a bunch of solid state circuitry that implements essentially one function which is turning on and off high current in response to a low current signal but with some automatic loops in there (it's broken out from the ECU for cost reasons, on some models it's integrated). You also have a body control module but once again, just simple dumb logic that people the world over implement with analog controls every day, "if engine off then door close wait 30sec before headlights off"

At no point is there bidirectional communication nor is there any sort of bus anywhere. When there is complex feedback where A tells B to do something and then cares about the result, it's architected such that B isn't implementing any logic, it's pretending to be a sensor and an actuator, taking a "do things" signal and returning a "I did things" signal (voltage change usually).

These are not in any way comparable to a modern car where everything shits messages onto various buses and things actually listen for messages, ignore what they don't need, output messages when they've done things, etc, etc.

The only people using CAN in the 90s were Ze Germans, because they're who invented it.

>Was Toyota controlling its windshield wipers with a 4004 in 01974? Was Nissan controlling a speedometer with an RCA 1801 in 01973?

No. Toyota was using analog circuitry for that then and Nissan kept a physical cable at least into the 90s.
by xxs | 2025-11-06 11:38:18+00:00
>You can't really ascertain how good I am at speaking, for an obvious example.

That comma, gives you away. The commas (and punctuation in general) in English are rather special in a way they convey the spoken language rather than designated rules.

Edit: As for the full immersion when I was learning English (as kid, 5th grade or so), I recall visualizing the words (letters) in my head while speaking. Certain mistakes like than <> then, it's <> it, their<>there etc. are unlikely to happen while writing due to the way language was initially perceived (and b/c I leaned if-then much earlier). Still, esp. with English I'd not consider translating anything unless my spoken version of it was good enough.
by actionfromafar | 2025-11-06 11:38:20+00:00
Character based interfaces are just nice, IMHO. The Borland IDE was the pinnacle of dev interfaces IMHO. It updated to have modern language server support etc would be my dream dev environment. It would be cool to see how far a compliant web browser could be taken in text mode. It's really sad that most terminals don't have proper image support, btw.

Edit: A comment here linked to https://www.brow.sh/ It looks amazing.
by mewpmewp2 | 2025-11-06 11:38:42+00:00
This sound like Barney from How I met your mother.

But are you sure it isn't your general mental state that is able to handle it? E.g. the chemicals in your brain allow you to reconfigure yourself like that?

I haven't been able to reframe anything, even though years of therapy, however I have been in different states, that I think are clearly introduced chemically.

E.g. I go running, I get a high for 20 minutes, I feel like I can handle anything and I'm on top of the World, however after 40 minutes I get a comedown and I despair everything. Unable to fight any of it.

Similar things with drugs. If I feel bad, I feel bad. If I feel good, I feel good. If somehow I am feeling bad and feeling like I could feel good again, it's probably because my chemical state changed to allow for that...

I feel like I'm slave to my chemical state, and my thoughts whether they are productive or not productive are coming after the fact, and I'm observer to all of it. When I try to reframe or fight the thoughts consciously it just causes unease and tension and will make it worse.
by jobigoud | 2025-11-06 11:39:01+00:00
I do it all the time I'm not sure what you are talking about.

I use Tree Style Tabs extension (obviously), so maybe the feature is coming from there?

You can definitely drag and drop a tab from one window to another, target window can be in a different profile.

You can select multiple tabs with SHIFT and then drag and drop them to the other window, no problem.
by fabian2k | 2025-11-06 11:39:38+00:00
Postgres itself has no issue with 1000 simple requests per second. On normal notebook hardware you'll get easily several thousand requests per second if you're just looking up small amounts of data by the primary key. And that is without any optimization and with non-DB overhead included. The actual performance you can get is probably quite a bit higher, but I've seen ~4-6k requests per second on naive, unoptimized endpoints that just look up some data in Postgres.
by StarGrit | 2025-11-06 11:39:52+00:00
Because it is relatively expensive, totally unnecessary and decadent and probably doesn't do a particularly good job (as people have admitted in their replies to me).

Additionally much like people ubering a McDonalds when the drive through is less than a 2 minute drive away. It actually causes additional headaches (food is more likely to come col and/or incorrect) and complications that don't exist with simply just spending a few minutes not being lazy is actually easier.
by jychang | 2025-11-06 11:39:57+00:00
Well, the counterargument is that in theory, you can imagine a way to create structural color regardless of substrate. So imagine a technology that shines a laser on a car or a block of concrete and makes it blue; I'd argue that's correctly "without chemicals".

Of course, I doubt you can do that to any random substrate, since the color will depend on the properties of the material.
by crote | 2025-11-06 11:40:45+00:00
> Maybe. But that’s also assuming the worst from the get go, and that’s no way to settle a dispute.

Offering a call would've been totally fine - if the rest of the reply hadn't been a borderline-insulting cookie-cutter corporate non-apology. If they start by showing bad intentions, why suddenly assume the best for the phone call?
by galangalalgol | 2025-11-06 11:41:44+00:00
I meant was multiply two vectors point by point autovecs, because there is no order. I'm usually doing accumulated products or something like them for dsp. As long as you only use the wide it is fine. I had a bug when comparing values constructed partially from simd vs not at all. Very unusual I'm sure, but there really is a reason rust won't let you turn on ffastmath
by shultays | 2025-11-06 11:43:17+00:00
So imagine a technology that shines a laser on a car or a block of concrete and makes it blue

There is something like that for sheets of steel at least https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ncEfAxkuFA

And here is a video explains it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsGHr7dXLuI
by 9dev | 2025-11-06 11:45:35+00:00
I've been involved in bootstrapping the infrastructure for several companies. You always start small, and add more components over time. I dare say, on the projects I was involved, we were fairly successful in balancing complexity, but some things really just make sense. Using a container orchestration tool spares you from tending to actual Linux servers, for example, that need updates and firewalls and IP addresses and managing SSH keys properly. The complexity is still there, but it shifts somewhere else. Looking at the big picture, that might mean your knowledge requirements ease on the systems administration stuff, and tighten on the cloud provider/IaC end; that might be a good trade off if you're working with a team of younger software engineers that don't have a strong Linux background, for example, which I assume is pretty common these days.

Or, consider redundancy: Your customers likely expect your service to not have an outage. That's a simple requirement, but very hard to get right, especially if you're using a single server that provides your application. Just introducing multiple copies of the app running in parallel comes with changes required in the app (you can't assume replica #1 will handle the first and second request—except if you jump through sticky session hoops, which is a rabbit hole on its own), in your networking (HTTP requests to the domain must be sent to multiple destinations), and your deployment process (artefacts must go to multiple places, restarts need to be choreographed).

Many teams (in my experience) that have a disdain for complex solutions will choose their own, bespoke way of solving these issues one by one, only to end up in a corner of their own making.

I guess what I'm saying is pretty mundane actually—solve the right problem at the right time, but no later.
by wongarsu | 2025-11-06 11:46:46+00:00
In the sense that everything is chemicals, yes. But you typically wouldn't describe a butterfly growing a wing or a welder making a blue weld from metals that are normally very much not blue as "growing from chemicals". I guess you could argue about the butterfly, but I think few people would say that chemicals are involved in welding steel, despite iron, carbon and tungsten being chemical elements
by elric | 2025-11-06 11:47:47+00:00
> Maybe "open a communication channel" is what Mozilla should have done BEFORE they turned on this thing.

This right here is the crux of the matter. But it seems to be how Mozilla operates. They frequently show a lack of awareness and consideration towards their long time supporters. I doubt this particular incident will lead to any changes, but I really wish they'd do some introspection...
by XorNot | 2025-11-06 11:48:24+00:00
Definitely not the case in Australia e.g. https://www.gio.com.au/know-more/insuring-your-home/things-t...

Insurance for damage due to building works is separate and required to be carried by the principal contractor for work over $20,000.

Which is to say, if I don't check they actually hold a policy, the residential insurance is not going to pay out.

I am extremely skeptical you have interpreted those policies accurately. For example, the one above doesn't require anything of anyone renovating stuff: but it also just won't pay for any associated damages.
by 9dev | 2025-11-06 11:48:30+00:00
> Having secret management or CI (pretty much mandatory!) does not dictate the architecture of the application at all.

Oh, it absolutely does. You need some way to get your secrets into the application, at build- or at runtime, for one, without compromising security. There's a lot of subtle catches here that can be avoided by picking standard tooling instead of making it yourself, but doing so definitely shapes your architecture.
by snickmy | 2025-11-06 11:49:02+00:00
AC makes power distribution easier (because you can have modulated phases). So it's correct to say it's easier to move it over a long distance. Additionally, and i'm really simplifying, at parity of nominal voltage, you can move a lot more power, at a lower dissipation cost. This has resulted in few high power electronics to be AC native (ie.: no AC - DC - AC conversion). Think about motors in the various appliances, etc. It doesn't need to be like that, investment in DC car motors have pushed the industry to optimizes design, and get similar power output of the motor at lower energy consumption.

That said, if you are a manufacturer of an appliance and you have an addressable user base of billions with AC, and a 'potential new user base' with DC... you might just want to swallow the cost and add a DC / AC converter for the sake to not have to produce two variants of the most complex / costly item (the motor in this case).
by throwaway290 | 2025-11-06 11:49:12+00:00
how did I misstate your position? you say this style is annoying. I say the whole point of this article is style, being an interesting read not just rehashing facts. just like many good books. and I chose a well known book as an example for my point.

there was tons of news rehashing facts of what happened (phones banned yadda yadda), why not just read that instead if you want it
by kragen | 2025-11-06 11:50:07+00:00
That makes sense, thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-board_diagnostics says:

> 1981: General Motors introduced its "Computer Command Control" system on all US passenger vehicles for model year 1981. Included in this system is a proprietary 5-pin ALDL that interfaces with the Engine Control Module (ECM) to initiate a diagnostic request and provide a serial data stream. The protocol communicates at 160 baud with Pulse-width modulation (PWM) signaling and monitors all engine management functions. It reports real-time sensor data, component overrides, and Diagnostic Trouble Codes. The specification for this link is as defined by GM's Emissions Control System Project Center document XDE-5024B.[4][5]

This is still a far cry from modern cars using CAN buses for all kinds of things, but it's at least digital communication over a bidirectional data link. And then OBD-I is from 01988.
by Ekaros | 2025-11-06 11:50:35+00:00
Wasn't there already a perfectly fine and seemingly fully functional communication channel in place? The one they answered in. I see absolutely zero reason not communicate in it.

On other hand, it seems that early reply had zero effort or attempt to communicate. That is to identify what had happened and gather information and example themselves. But the absolute tiniest bit of effort in I would expect.
by gwd | 2025-11-06 11:50:58+00:00
> If the MT-generated revision isn't reviewed within a set timeframe (which will be communicated later), it will be automatically approved and published, clearly labeled to indicate that it was translated by AI translation was used.

The complaint seems to indicate this "set timeframe" was 72 hours. Add to the fact that there's decent likelihood of an avalanche of articles "that haven't been updated in 6 months", this seems pretty ridiculous to have put into place before at least getting sign-off from senior maintainers that the translations were of sufficient quality.
by energy123 | 2025-11-06 11:51:13+00:00
Google's system is like any other optimizer, where you have a scoring function, and you keep altering the function's inputs to make the scoring function return a big number.

The difference here is the function's inputs are code instead of numbers, which makes LLMs useful because LLMs are good at altering code. So the LLM will try different candidate solutions, then Google's system will keep working on the good ones and throw away the bad ones (colloquially, "branch is cut").
by looofooo0 | 2025-11-06 11:51:22+00:00
Laptops, TVs and other electronics already run from DC. Also, there are a lot of appliances for camper vans, boat which run on 12v or 24v DC. On Alibaba you can buy a stove for a few bucks: https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Solar-DC-12V-24V-Batt...
by crote | 2025-11-06 11:51:23+00:00
I do. My written English is orders of magnitude better than my spoken English - simply because I practice it a lot more.

I have no problem "hopping on a call" if it's a casual conversation between friends, but when stakes actually matter it would be stupid to put myself in a worse position than strictly necessary. Native speakers have a habit of talking a lot, talking fast, and talking with a lot of subtleties, nuances, and hidden meanings. In written conversations I can read a sentence twice and think a second about the right phrasing to use in response, but in face-to-face conversations this is simply not possible.

It would be like a professional debater like college kids "debating" with late Charlie Kirk: no wonder they end up "getting owned" - they are punching way above their weight class!
by silentsanctuary | 2025-11-06 11:51:58+00:00
I like using ghcs for this as well! Or at least, I liked to - it's deprecated now, in favor of the new CLI which doesn't provide the same functionality.

https://github.com/github/gh-copilot/commit/c69ed6bf954986a0...

https://github.com/github/copilot-cli/issues/53
by qlm | 2025-11-06 11:52:39+00:00
It isn't a generational thing. The choice of emoji is a generational thing, but people of all ages do it. AI most certainly does not use emoji in the same way a young person does (unless you encourage it to, but even then it comes across as cringeworthy). If anything it's closer to how a middle-aged person uses them.

I'd also say the use of text emoticons has all but died out in anything other than ironic usage, or in situations where it's difficult to use unicode emoji (e.g. games or this very site)

When text is very obviously generated by AI it communicates to the reader that there is nothing of value to be read. It always writes in the same vapid, overly enthusiastic, overly verbose way. It's grating and generally conveys very little information per word. It's a cliché at this point, but if nobody bothered to write it then why would I bother to read it?
by Jemm | 2025-11-06 11:53:10+00:00
In my opinion the reason that intelligent people aren't happier is because we live in a world that caters to lower intelligence crowds. Think being above above average height and living in a world where everything is designed for people who are below average height.

The second reason is that society not only does not value intelligence; society values sub average intelligence. Most intelligent or even diligent people learned quickly that they will be harassed and bullied.

The last refuge of intelligence was academia, but academia does not want intelligent people. Academia wants people who will comply and play the funding game without rocking the money boat. Just ask Sabine Hossenfelder.
by 9dev | 2025-11-06 11:53:35+00:00
You don't. When your server crashes, your availability is zero. It might crash because of a myriad of reasons; at some times, you might need to update the kernel to patch a security issue for example, and are forced to take your app down yourself.

If your business can afford irregular downtime, by all means, go for it. Otherwise, you'll need to take precautions, and that will invariably make the system more complex than that.
by defrost | 2025-11-06 11:54:02+00:00
The few people that would say that chemistry is part of welding "steel" (what type of steel? what type of metal? how about aluminium? etc) includes welders.

eg: https://youtu.be/nfNvuTMDXNg?t=1420

In which a good machinist from Queensland, Australia discovers a crack and states he'll have to get the metal tested before he can repair the crack.

You know, to match the chemical composition, expansion rates, etc.
by cluckindan | 2025-11-06 11:54:29+00:00
To me, cache invalidation is not strictly about either replacing or removing cache entries.

Rather, cache invalidation is the process of determining which cache entries are stale and need to be replaced/removed.

It gets hairy when determining that depends on users, user group memberships AND per-user permissions, access TTL, multiple types of timestamps and/or revision numbering, and especially when the cache entries are composite as in contain data from multiple database entities, where some are e.g. representing a hierarchy and may not even have direct entity relationships with the cached data.
Show HN: A minimal timezone tracker, no Framework, no back end, no ads
by atbrakhi | 2025-11-06 11:55:28+00:00
How many times have you Googled “what time is it in [city]?" Yeah me too!

For some reason, I never really liked existing tools and let’s not forget how bloated or annoying some of them are to use.

so here we go: https://whattimeisit.io/

No logins. No ads. No tracking. No Framework, No Backend, Just time.
by mk89 | 2025-11-06 11:55:41+00:00
It's all because of something that started years ago: the move to the cloud.

Companies started to move to cloud like there was no tomorrow.

Their on-prem products became maintenance or zombies.

Now you want the self hosted? Good luck.

What's the alternative for a SaaS provider? Support all the possible cloud alternatives? That's nearly impossible, so some companies (mainly big organizations) provide their software/SaaS in AWS gov regions and so be it.

(Or... be smart, see the trend and start selling your software again in self-hosted solutions!)

For a consumer (gov, for example) this means: you don't have that feature, you give in, or you build it/let it build (open source).

This is the only reason why we saw the recent announcement of the Austrian govt that was able to migrate from MS to Nextcloud. Without an alternative, ... they couldn't have done anything.
by kragen | 2025-11-06 11:55:47+00:00
Maybe we can find better abstractions. Software transactional memory seems like a promising candidate, for example. Sawzall/Dremel and SQL seem to also be capable of expressing some interesting things. And, as RoboToaster mentions, in VHDL and Verilog, people have successfully described parallel computations containing billions of concurrent processes, and even gotten them to work properly.
by Sharlin | 2025-11-06 11:56:21+00:00
No, because as I commented in another subthread, `-ffast-math` is:

1. dangerous assumptions hidden behind a simple, attractive-looking option [1]. It should be called -fwrong-math or -fdangerous-math or something (GCC does have the funnily named switch -funsafe-math-optimizations – what could go wrong with fun, safe math optimizations?!)

2. Translation-unit scoped, which means that dependencies not consented to "fast math" can break your code (as in UB land) or make the optimizations pointless, and your code can break your dependencies' semantics too via inlining. On the other hand, a library author must think very carefully what float opts to enable in order to be compatible with client code.

Deciding how the scoping of non-IEEE float math operations should work is a very nontrivial question. The scope could be a translation unit, a module, a type, a function, a block, or every individual operation, and none of those is without issues, particularly regarding questions like inlining and interprocedural and link-time-optimization, as well as ergonomics. In other ways, it's yet another function coloring problem.

There are currently-unstable "algebraic_add/mul/etc" methods for floats for letting LLVM treat those particular operations as if floats were real numbers [2]. They're the first step towards safe UB-free float optimizations, but of course those names are rather awkward to use in math-heavy code, and a wrapper type overloading the normal operators would be good to have.

---

[1] See, eg. https://simonbyrne.github.io/notes/fastmath/

[2] In terms of associativity and such, not in eg. assuming the nonexistence of NaNs, which would be very unsafe.