MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by raptor99 | 2025-11-25 18:15:18+00:00
The main reason that finally pushed me to move over was that Plex works local only (no internet connection) for only so long and then you are done for without a beacon/login home I guess. Dumbest "feature" ever but I guess I get why they do it.

We had our power and internet go out for an extended amount of time earlier this year and shortly after I converted us over to Jellyfin vs Plex. Quite easy and painless setup. Mostly just recreated my libraries in Jellyfin and good to go.
by Dylan16807 | 2025-11-25 18:16:15+00:00
> The caller here is what is violating the contract.

"The caller" of the unsafe function is the unsafe block in make_slice. And yes it's violating the contract.

> How would you fix this by only editing the code inside the unsafe block? Because you said the problem is the lifetime. That's outside of the unsafe block.

If it's locked into returning a static lifetime, then the only fix is to return a slice into a static allocation.

Is this the functionality you wanted? Probably not. But an unsafe block having an awkward API isn't an excuse to violate safety. Sometimes the only answer is to say no. Calling from_raw_parts this way is a clear bug.

> How could it? It's just making a slice, it doesn't know what from.

It could know more if you added more to the unsafe block outside the call to from_raw_parts.

> It can't guarantee a slice it makes is ANY kind of lifetime. If it could, it wouldn't require unsafe.

> as long as you change your function so much you can basically remove unsafe, you can fix it from the function.

from_raw_parts exists for situations where the coder can guarantee that the lifetime is valid (no matter what safe code does), but the compiler can't guarantee it (because it's not smart enough).

It's not there for situations where you make the safe code promise to behave.

It does have a lot of uses, in places that do need unsafe. You just happened to make an example that doesn't need it.
by vorpalhex | 2025-11-25 18:16:23+00:00
Just practice it.

I realize that sounds silly but it really does work. A lot of emotional behavior is muscle like and setting aside intentional practice will lead to longterm change.

1. Set a trigger to engage in the practice like "When I hang out with my kids immediately after the work day"

2. Do the practice. Try to be empathetic to your kids small daily issues. At first, like all newish things this will feel silly but over time it will feel natural.

Obviously try to be genuine. If your kids plight of someone snatching their favorite toy or whatever doesn't move you, don't force it. Just try to practice visualizing yourself in their place. Don't go "fake empathetic kid tone".
by x0x0 | 2025-11-25 18:16:32+00:00
The article is kind of dumb. eg it hangs its hat on the Phoenix payroll system, which

> Phoenix project executives believed they could deliver a modernized payment system, customizing PeopleSoft’s off-the-shelf payroll package to follow 80,000 pay rules spanning 105 collective agreements with federal public-service unions. It also was attempting to implement 34 human-resource system interfaces across 101 government agencies and departments required for sharing employee data.

So basically people -- none of them in IT, but rather working for the government -- built something extraordinarily complex (80k rules!), and then are like wow, it's unforeseen that would make anything downstream at least equally as complex. And then the article blames IT in general. When this data point tells us that replacing a business process that used to require (per [1]) 2,000 pay advisors to perform will be complex. While working in an organization that has shit the bed so thoroughly that paying its employees requires 2k people. For an organization of 290k, so 0.6% of headcount is spent on paying employees!

IT is complex, but incompetent people and incompetent orgs do not magically become competent when undertaking IT projects.

Also too, making extraordinarily complex things they shouting the word "computer" at them like you're playing D&D and it's a spell does not make them simple.

[1] https://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201711_0...
by echelon | 2025-11-25 18:16:43+00:00
Image models are more fundamentally important at this stage than video models.

Almost all of the control in image-to-video comes through an image. And image models still needs a lot of work and innovation.

On a real physical movie set, think about all of the work that goes into setting the stage. The set dec, the makeup, the lighting, the framing, the blocking. All the work before calling "action". That's what image models do and must do in the starting frame.

We can get way more influence out of manipulating images than video. There are lots of great video models and it's highly competitive. We still have so much need on the image side.

When you do image-to-video, yes you control evolution over time. But the direction is actually lower in terms of degrees of freedom. You expect your actors or explosions to do certain reasonable things. But those 1024x1024xRGB pixels (or higher) have way more degrees of freedom.

Image models have more control surface area. You exercise control over more parameters. In video, staying on rails or certain evolutionary paths is fine. Mistakes can not just be okay, they can be welcome.

It also makes sense that most of the work and iteration goes into generating images. It's a faster workflow with more immediate feedback and productivity. Video is expensive and takes much longer. Images are where the designer or director can influence more of the outcomes with rapidity.

Image models still need way more stylistic control, pose control (not just ControlNets for limbs, but facial expressions, eyebrows, hair - everything), sets, props, consistent characters and locations and outfits. Text layout, fonts, kerning, logos, design elements, ...

We still don't have models that look as good as Midjourney. Midjourney is 100x more beautiful than anything else - it's like a magazine photoshoot or dreamy Instagram feed. But it has the most lackluster and awful control of any model. It's a 2021-era model with 2030-level aesthetics. You can't place anything where you want it, you can't reuse elements, you can't have consistent sets... But it looks amazing. Flux looks like plastic, Imagen looks cartoony, and OpenAI GPT Image looks sepia and stuck in the 90's. These models need to compete on aesthetics and control and reproducibility.

That's a lot of work. Video is a distraction from this work.
by WhitneyLand | 2025-11-25 18:17:05+00:00
I think we may not be disagreeing much…

Agree fMRI doesn’t tell us for sure what information is in electrical activity. I only mean to imply it’s suggestive.

But we still can get a lot of information from electrodes. Do words count as thoughts? I’d say so.

Definitely don’t think electrical signals are all there is to thought.

They’re definitely part of it, but I think time will show unlike with computer parts, it’s hard to make clean separation of responsibilities in the brain.
by OptionOfT | 2025-11-25 18:17:26+00:00
But but but we have to keep traffic on our website! Engagement!

That's why when you click on a link you see 1/10th of the article, and then a video, and 3 other irrelevant inlays for other links.

Oh and the video auto plays with sound.

And every word in the article that is remotely a 'tag' links to other parts of the website.
by graemep | 2025-11-25 18:17:28+00:00
One of the problems is scale.

Large scale systems tend to fail. large centralised and centrally managed systems with big budgets and large numbers of people who need to coordinate, lots of people with an interest in the project pushing and lobbying for different things.

Multiple smaller systems is usually a better approach, where possible. Not possible for things like transport infrastructure, but often possible for software.
by jama211 | 2025-11-25 18:17:31+00:00
Yeah I can’t find a reason why but I’m put off and uneasy reading all this for some reason . Also the detail in this “how we built the app” article is basically… too detailed? Like a new developer who comments every line of logic in their code. Perhaps it was also generated with AI with a prompt that was looking at the codebase?

I wish them all the best but perhaps this just isn’t for me.
by lelandfe | 2025-11-25 18:17:40+00:00
It’s cloaking when it’s Bad. It’s Good when it’s Google that’s let through the gates:

https://developers.google.com/search/docs/essentials/spam-po...

> If you operate a paywall or a content-gating mechanism, we don't consider this to be cloaking if Google can see the full content of what's behind the paywall just like any person who has access to the gated material
by hamdingers | 2025-11-25 18:17:41+00:00
I do not believe schooling is purely an exercise in knowledge transfer, especially grade school.

School needs to provide opportunities to practice applying important skills like empathy, tenacity, self-regulation, creativity, patience, collaboration, critical thinking, and others that cannot be assessed using a multiple choice quiz taken in silence. When funding is tied to performance on trivia, all of the above suffers.
by theragra | 2025-11-25 18:17:48+00:00
I wonder if OP used "octets" because physical pattern in the CD used to represent a byte is a sequence of 17 pits and lands.

BTW, byte size during the history varied from 4 to 24 bit! Even now, based on interpretation, you can say 16 bit bytes do exist.

Char type can be 16 bit on some DSP systems.

I was curious, so I checked. Before this comment, I only knew about 7 bit bytes.
by HHalvi | 2025-11-25 18:18:04+00:00
I really love to hate Safari (extensions, ad blocking, dev tools amongst many other reasons) but love using a non chromium browser.

I discovered Orion a few years back and it has been my go-to standalone browser but never strong enough to be my primary browser.

So many daily drivers of mine refuse(d) to work from time to time (1P, Netflix, Youtube, Slack, Gmaps, Hey & the list goes on). I eventually started relying on Orion RC instead of Orion to band-aid fix these problems.

I truly hope they succeed but a few hours of driving the 1.0, it doesn't feel like a 1.0 yet.
by GeekyBear | 2025-11-25 18:18:16+00:00
At the time, the argument for Chrome was that Firefox and IE were bloated and their memory requirements were too high.

A system with less than 64 Megabytes of RAM (most computers of the time) would have to lean heavily on spinning rust virtual memory, making everything slow.

However, since then Chrome has become one of the biggest memory hogs that people commonly run.
by mixmastamyk | 2025-11-25 18:18:29+00:00
When you are doing multiple operations to multiple variables, and need to see it all at once, math-like syntax still has benefits.

But this is not the common case for most programming, which is about detailing business rules. Explicit and verbose (though not excessively) has been shown to be the most readable/maintainable. For example, one character variable names, common in math, are heavily discouraged in professional development.

There’s another level to this as well. To me, calculus notation looks quite elegant, while Perl and (parts of) Rust look like trash. Since they are somewhat similar, the remaining angle is good taste.
by unethical_ban | 2025-11-25 18:18:45+00:00
For your specific example, I would buy the $20 because I would assume the $50 is just as bad.

Having built computers casually for some time, I never recall being told by the marketing department or retailer that one kind of SSD was more reliable than another. The only thing that is ever advertised blatantly is speed and capacity. I saw the kind of SSD sometimes, but it was never explained what that meant to a consumer (the same way SMR hard drives were never advertised as having slow reads)

If I saw "this kind of SSD is reliable for 10 years and the other one is reliable for 2" then I may have made a decision based on that.
by philodeon | 2025-11-25 18:19:00+00:00
At least in terms of the Bada55 paper, I think he writes in a fairly jocular style that sounds unprofessional unless you read his citations as well. You seem to object to his occasional jocularity and take it as prima facie evidence of him being “batshit”. Given that you are well known for a jocular writing style, perhaps you should extend some grace.

The slides seem like a pretty nice summary of the 2015-era SafeCurves work, which you acknowledge elsewhere on this site (this thread? They all blend together) was based on good engineering.
by philodeon | 2025-11-25 18:19:28+00:00
Very very incorrect.

EDIT: Adding more to my post here because it would be hypocritical for you to complain:

1. I feel like given how I can make accurate predictions about Henry’s sphere of influence, that might gain me a little credibility: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45495180

2. The reason I insulted you is because I know for a fact that when the mob came and demanded you shun and persecute someone, you caved.
by saltcured | 2025-11-25 18:19:49+00:00
I'm not sure I'd have phrased it as "lies I've been telling myself", but I have a similar experience from a cross-cultural relationship, from mid 20s to early 50s. We had to work through conflicts more explicitly, with a lot more communication. Many things may be misunderstanding due to divergent assumptions, expectations, and even different body language signals.

I guess the "lie" exposed here is the way people can automatically believe they're seeing the truth of a social situation. It is easy to project false experience and motivation onto others. A more truthful approach recognizes windows of uncertainty around many encounters.

I think this applies to basic single-culture contexts too. Even in the same culture or the same family, we don't really know exactly what another person is experiencing.

Many seem cocksure that their social read is correct, and any grief is the other party's deliberate action. It takes a certain detachment to realize that your misreading of a situation may well be the genesis of a negative spiral, rather than a justified response...
by austin-cheney | 2025-11-25 18:20:04+00:00
Nonsense. JavaScript developers will also tell you everything is framework. What these things really mean is that the person making the statement has only 1 perspective and so everything they see matches the only single lens through which they view the world.

All definitions of OOP in common use include some form of inheritance. That said I do OOP 0% of the time in my programming. Most developers I have worked with never do OOP unless the given language or employer forces it.
by mcflyin619 | 2025-11-25 18:20:17+00:00
I appreciate your concern and can understand your suspicion of when my account was made and when this post was posted. I am in their discord, because I have used their product for about 6 months now, and they mentioned hackernews, and I was curious because I have never heard of it. Now does that mean my comment about how the product has helped me in my projects is now not valid? Have a great day, and either try it or dont, but no need to try and bring me down for supporting a company that has made my job easier.
by rtkwe | 2025-11-25 18:20:29+00:00
Generally this is the answer when there's an announcement like this. Some early paper or analysis showed some (often weak but potentially very interesting) correlation between $new_drug and $scary_disease/$scary_disorder. Doctors and scientists go off and study that in more depth with better controls or more data points and we learn a little more about the world, if you miss the initial paper(s) the follow up can seem a little random.
by inetknght | 2025-11-25 18:20:35+00:00
> Integration tests are still tests.

I didn't say they're not. Integration tests definitely help towards "being tested".

> There are definitely cases for tools where you can largely get by without unit tests in favor of integration tests.

Very strong disagree. I think there are no cases where a strong integration test regime can allow a software project to forego unit tests.

Now, that said, we're probably talking the same thing with different words. I think unit tests with mocks are practically useless. But mocks are the definition of most people's unit tests. Not to me; to me unit tests use real code and real objects. To me, a unit test is what a lot of people call an integration test. And, to me, what I call an integration test, is often what people call system tests or end-to-end tests.
by mindslight | 2025-11-25 18:20:59+00:00
Yeah, the movie is definitely a product of a simpler time when we uniformly expected politicians to at least nominally have the interests of the country at heart rather than merely being reality TV stars whose only real value is upsetting the other tribe.

My earlier comment was substantive and well received, but eventually flagged - a heckler's veto that doesn't even require coming up with anything intelligent to yell. The only thing remotely close to violating comment guidelines was using some colorful language to describe a public figure, so I am just going to repeat the substantive points without those apparently-triggering words.

> President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho had better leadership, speaking ability, policy planning, honesty, work ethic, intelligence, humility, and outright patriotism than the [self-censored] currently [self-censored] our White House could ever hope for. He also didn't [self-censored] trafficked underage girls or pardon Upgrayedd for a bribe. It turns out that movie was kind of idyllic.
by swatcoder | 2025-11-25 18:21:01+00:00
Far from unprecedented, just radically different than what people are used to in computing.

There are a lot other domains whose history (and present) on semi-informed stumbling into something effective and then spending decades (or lifetimes) trying to reverse engineer how it works, when it doesn't work, what the peripheral consequences are, and how impactful those consequences are.

Metallurgy and material science, agriculture, chemistry, pharmaceuticals, psychology, etc etc

20th century discrete/digital computing and computer science, having hewn close to mathematics and logic for most of its life, is actually the more unprecedented history as far as practical sciences go.

The flipside of all this is that all those other practical sciences have come with really very messy histories in terms of unintended consequences and premature applications, and (for better or worse) we can anticipate the same here.
by georgebcrawford | 2025-11-25 18:21:15+00:00
> This relegates the use of AI to personal choice of learning style and any misuse of AI is only hurting the student.

I'm a teacher. Kids don't have the capacity to make this choice without guidance. There are so so many that don't (can't?) make the link between what we teach and how they grow as learners. And this is at a rich school with well-off parents who largely value education.
by MattRogish | 2025-11-25 18:21:18+00:00
The lesson from “big software projects are still failing” isn’t that we need better methodologies, better project management, or stricter controls. The lesson is "don't do big software projects".

Software is not the same as building in the physical world where we get economies of scale.

Building 1,000 bridges will make the cost of the next incremental bridge cheaper due to a zillion factors, even if Bridge #1 is built from sticks (we'll learn standards, stable, fundamental engineering principles, predicable failure modes, etc.) we'll eventually reach a stable, repeatable, scalable approach to build bridges. They will very rarely (in modernity) catastrophically fail (yes, Tacoma Narrows happened but in properly functioning societies it's rare.)

Nobody will say "I want to build a bridge upside-down, out of paper clips and can withstand a 747 driving over it". Because that's physically impossible. But nothing's impossible in software.

Software isn't scalable in this way. It's not scalable because it doesn't have hard constraints (like the laws of physics) - so anything goes and can be in scope; and since writing and integrating large amounts of code is a communication exercise, suffers from diseconomies of scale.

Customers want the software to do exactly what they want and - within reason - no laws of physics are violated if you move a button or implement some business process.

Because everyone wants to keep working the way they want to work, no software project (even if it sounds the same) is the same. Your company's bespoke accounting software will be different than mine, even if we are direct competitors in the same market. Our business processes are different, org structures are different, sales processes are different, etc.. So they all build different accounting software, even if the fundamentals (GaaP, double-entry bookkeeping, etc.) are shared.

It's also the same reason why enterprise software sucks - do you think that a startup building expense management starts off being a giant mess of garbage? No! IT starts off simple and clean and beautiful because their initial customer base (startups) are beggars and cannot be choosers, so they adapt their process to the tool. But then larger companies come along with dissimilar requirements and, Expense Management SaaS Co. wins that deal by changing the product to work with whatever oddball requirements they have, and so on, until the product essentially is a bunch of config options and workflows that you have to build yourself.

(Interestingly, I think these products become asymptotically stuck - any feature you add or remove will make some of your customers happy and some of your customers mad, so the product can never get "better" globally).

We can have all the retrospectives and learnings we want but the goal - "Build big software" - is intractable, and as long as we keep trying to do that, we will inevitably fail. This is not a systems problem that we can fix.

The lesson is: "never build big software".

(Small software is stuff like Bezos' two pizza team w/APIs etc. - many small things make a big thing)
by astura | 2025-11-25 18:21:41+00:00
>eventually all of the additional positives of the drug will resolve to obesity is bad and reducing obesity has health benefits.

This is not true.

Ozempic appears to affect the brain's rewards system and its known to decreased cravings and urges for a range of unhealthy behaviors, from alcohol consumption and smoking to gambling and shopping to nail biting and skin picking.

Beyond that, Ozempic appears to lower the risk of heart attacks and strokes in overweight people well beyond what weight loss alone would explain. Maybe due to the above (less drinking and smoking) or another unknown mechanism of action.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weight-loss-drug-...
by ThierryAbalea | 2025-11-25 18:21:49+00:00
Durable execution feels underrated. It lines up almost exactly with a Process Manager: track state, pick the next step, orchestrate calls, no hand-rolled state machines or persistence glue. You can hack a demo in a few hours, but getting the guarantees right in production is a totally different game, so seeing an OSS implementation from people who have actually done this before is interesting
by JuniperMesos | 2025-11-25 18:22:07+00:00
The syntax has relatively little to do with how easy or hard it is to maintain a rust system at scale. If you get something wrong the compiler will alert you, and most of the syntax is there for good reasons that anyone maintaining any kind of software system at scale needs to understand (and indeed the syntax helps you be clear about what you mean to the compiler, which facilitates helpful compiler error messages if you screw something up when modifying code).