MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by theshackleford | 2025-11-13 23:13:30+00:00
> From personal experience suffering from chronic pain cannabis is absolutely transformative.

Like all drugs, it’s sad it doesn’t work this way for everyone. I had to transition from cannabis to opiates and lyrica. I wish this was not the case.

They suspect it’s due to the source of the pain (spinal cord injury) and the cannabis is “exciting” my nerves in the wrong way, as it actually increases my pain; or at least my perception of it.
by Nevermark | 2025-11-13 23:13:34+00:00
You incoherently dismiss a significant measured change, against a history of responses, with significant demographic correlations, because you want some additional unmeasured information.

Then you incoherently accuse someone completely uninvolved in the measurement, of dismissing that unmeasured information.

You could have just said you would be interested in more information. As would I.
by WJW | 2025-11-13 23:13:43+00:00
What makes you believe it was his management specifically instead of other factors? AFAICT he has been at Blue Origin for only a few years, so the root of their success may have been laid much earlier and they succeeded either because or despite his influence.

Not saying he's a bad manager, just that the fact this one launch was a success is not proof of his skills. Luck is definitely still a possibility. And as a sibling comment mentions, it's not like he has a flawless track record.
by malwrar | 2025-11-13 23:13:57+00:00
We should assume sophisticated attackers, AI-enabled or otherwise, as our time with computers goes on, and no longer give leeway to organizations who are unable to secure their systems properly or keep customers safe in the event that they are breached. Decades of warnings from the infosec community have fallen upon the deaf ears of "it doesn't hurt so I'm not going to fix it" of those whose opinions have mattered in the places that count.

I remember once a decade or so ago talking to a team at defcon of _loose_ affiliation where one guy would look for the app exploit, another guy would figure out how to pivot out of the sandbox to the OS, and another guy would figure out how to get root, and once they all got their pieces figured out they'd just smash it (and variants) together for a campaign. I hadn't heard of them before meeting them, and haven't heard about them since since, and they put a face for me though on a silent coordinated adversary model that must be increasing in prevalence as more and more folks out there realize the value of computer knowledge and gain access to it through once means or another.

Open source tooling enables large-scale participation in security testing, and something about humans seems to generally result in a distribution where some nuts use their lighters to burn down forests but most use them to light their campfires. We urgently need to design systems that can survive in the era of advanced threats, at least to the point where the best adversaries can achieve is service disruption. I'd rather live in a world where we can all work towards a better future than one where we hope that limiting access will prevent catastrophe. Assuming such limits can even be maintained, and that allowing architects to pretend that fires can never happen in their buildings means that they don't have to obey fire codes or install alarms & marked exits.
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-11-13 23:14:09+00:00
> yes, they're in final validation steps, as that's just how they develop things

You're wrong, but I'm curious for the sources that lead you to think this.

> Starship is at the stage of putting random ideas on the rocket and seeing if it explodes

"Following the launch, New Glenn’s first stage attempted a landing on the recovery vessel Jacklyn, also known as Landing Platform Vessel 1, which was positioned 620 km downrange from LC-36. However, controllers lost telemetry from the stage sometime after the entry burn started and Blue Origin confirmed that the booster was lost" [1].

[1] https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2025/01/new-glenn-launch/
by Uhhrrr | 2025-11-13 23:14:22+00:00
In your comment above, you said that the less-hyperbolic version is killing all "bad" men, including the president. If one is trying to get all non-"bad" men on board with this, why would you use an alienating slogan like "Kill All Men?" It's such a big messaging fail that I can't really credit them with any thought process.

This is why I asked how you managed to extract something other than "Kill All Men" from the phrase "Kill All Men".
by taeric | 2025-11-13 23:14:53+00:00
If you are saying that mistakes will be made, I agree. People make mistakes all of the time. About things easier than schedules.

If you want to single out the idea of "shifting timezones" being how we accomplish DST. I agree that is problematic, at best. I can assume there were reasons to do it by completely changing what timezone an area is in. I struggle to understand them, myself. Especially when we don't do the same for other time shifts. (Leap years and seconds, in particular.)

I further agree that doing it in one hour jump is bad. Is literally why I suggest shortening the jump to 10 minutes would be fine. Argument being that that is far more natural for how time was felt by people for most of history. (Indeed, originally, hours were not fixed in terms of how many minutes they took.)

But no, nobody cares what time you said they clocked in yesterday. They care that you accurately pay them for how long they were clocked in for. Obviously, you have to make any system that deals with those work correctly. But, again, people make mistakes on those already, irrespective of timezone changes.

For evidence, see how little energy people expend on how incomprehensible airline tickets are. Look at a ticket and see if you can quickly say how long a flight is. It isn't like they don't know. It just doesn't matter on your ticket. (Even if I like to consider my options based on how long I'll be in the air...)

Is it a good argument to not necessarily change things? Yeah, which is why I think my suggestion of 10 minute changes is largely silly. A lot of inertia in the system we have is not necessarily a bad thing.

Getting everyone to change their operating hours just feels daft to me. And, ultimately, how is that any different?

For example, you want to get it so that schools start/end an hour earlier starting a week. Which means that we still have to deal with the idea that you have to shift your sleep. Probably wise to also go to sleep an hour earlier. And, yeah, I think people could adjust to knowing that they have to change their bedtime from 9 to 8, for example. But, there is a reason we try to keep sunrise and sunset as close to consistent times as we can. No matter where we go.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the data about how much worse the week of the hour loss is. I'd be curious to know if that is better or worse in recent years. And I genuinely don't know how to square the fact that the data dang near cancels out with how much better it is in the week we gain an hour. That, honestly, feels a bit too convenient. (And again, this just gets me back to the idea that the problem is losing a full hour.)
by KraftyOne | 2025-11-13 23:15:02+00:00
We actually wrote a blog post recently on why we chose Postgres! https://www.dbos.dev/blog/why-postgres-durable-execution

There's no technical reason why this couldn't be done with another database, and we may add support for more in the future (DBOS Python already supports SQLite), but we're not working on it right now.
by NedF | 2025-11-13 23:15:43+00:00
It would be safe overnight.

Any food can be poison including if it's sealed before a use-by, it's about a percentage which a overnight boiled egg would be lower than for the English word 'safe'.

The claim is cooked eggs don't last as long as normal eggs, what is interesting is what is the percentage/graph?

Boiled Easter eggs are a tradition. You don't hear about mass deaths around Easter unlike rice that's been left out at pre-wedding to wedding parties etc.
by josephg | 2025-11-13 23:16:03+00:00
> I cannot like Rust syntax, sorry. For me the ideal syntax is C/Go, just to be clear what I like.

I’m sorry if this comes across as dismissive, but I find it hard to take people seriously with complaints about syntax like this. Learning new syntax is really easy. Like, if you’re familiar with C & Go, you could probably learn all the syntax of rust in under an hour. The only surprising part of rust’s syntax is all the weird variants of match expressions.

Rust has some surprising semantics. Like how lifetimes work (and when you need to specify them explicitly). That stuff is legitimately difficult. But learning that if statements don’t need parenthesis is like - seriously whatever dude. If you want to spend your career never learning new stuff, software isn’t for you.

I picked up objective C about 15 years ago. The only thing most of my friends knew about it was that it had “that weird syntax”. It took no time at all to adjust. It’s just not that hard to type [] characters.
by autoexec | 2025-11-13 23:16:11+00:00
I guess it depends on what you mean by "pursue". If a person knows that somebody is not attracted to their sex and that person still asks them out or hits on them that's just plain rude. I 100% agree that's wrong. Nobody likes that.

Asking out someone before you know how they feel about you (and the rest of your sex) is perfectly normal and sometimes that's going to result in a gay man asking out a straight man and that's okay too as long as that person backs off after getting a polite decline. I personally think it'd still be weird/rude to do that to a stranger while one or both of you are naked, but it probably does happen in places where people are more comfortable in that setting.
by loloquwowndueo | 2025-11-13 23:16:37+00:00
Self hosting requires a different skill set - full blown sysadmin / SRE vs. “The application starts, just deploy it and the PaaS takes care of load balancing, scaling, healing, observability etc”.

I’m not defending cloud-esque paas here (I would totally prefer to manage VMs directly) but it should be recognized that it gives some value depending on what you’re comfortable doing with infrastructure.
by Aloisius | 2025-11-13 23:17:09+00:00
> Given the history of RSA in particular, I'm extremely skeptical of that.

Well then you might want to read about RC4 which only became public after it was leaked. Prior to being leaked, it was RSA's cash cow and one of the most popular encryption algorithms worldwide due to it's speed and the fact that it was exportable (with a 40 bit key).

Indeed, RSA was rather notorious for keeping crypto algorithms as trade secrets (RC2, SecuriID OTP, etc.)
by zbentley | 2025-11-13 23:17:14+00:00
That’s a good argument. I had not considered properties in those terms before, and have historically been skeptical of them in many languages.

I’m partly convinced now! I still worry a bit about property authors who don’t follow the “cheap, non-side-effectful, externally cacheable” rules, though. Perhaps there are linters in property-ful languages which would help with that.
by jbl0ndie | 2025-11-13 23:18:32+00:00
Ahh, I get it now. Maybe you can improve the wording around this to make it less suggestive that your value proposition is I can change one cell when it fails. That's not safe. The value prop is I can change for a new set of cells cheaply when I get a failure in my current set.

You're going from when one cell fails, change the entire battery assembly, including any management electronics, case etc

To

When one cell fails, just get a fresh set of cells, at a fraction of the cost of a new battery assembly.

In the future, you also expect working cells to be circulated back into second-life use. Your casing makes this much more likely.

Thanks for taking the time to reply.
by Mond_ | 2025-11-13 23:19:16+00:00
Pet peeves nitpick: it's not even a tuple. Go doesn't have tuples. It just has special-cased "multiple return values", which means that it's often impossible to just stuff the return of a function call (error value and all) into any data structure to aggregate them. You just can't do without first defining a struct since tuples don't exist in Go.
by wongarsu | 2025-11-13 23:20:13+00:00
Hardware failures on server hardware at the scale of 1 machine are far less common than us-east-1 downtime

The typical failure mode of AWS is much better. Half the internet is down, so you just point at that and wait for everything to come back, and your instances just keep running. If you have one server you have to do the troubleshooting and recovery work. But you need to run more than one machine to get fewer nines of reliability
by okayjustonemore | 2025-11-13 23:20:24+00:00
This seems to have been targeted especially at someone like me: I don’t like to play on PC, have no interest in building a gaming PC and I only reluctantly buy consoles because of their (kind of) plug-n-play experience.

If this thing can get me a console-like experience and allow me to play my extensive library of games (most of them classic/vintage games you can’t get on modern consoles) hassle-free, then I’m (probably) sold!

And on top of that it runs Linux. Awesome, just absolutely fantastic!
by NewsaHackO | 2025-11-13 23:21:21+00:00
Ironically, the group that hates AI-generated content the most are the SEO bros. They hate that AI summaries in search results cut into their main business of making confusing, long-winded articles to attempt to entice the largest amount of clicks or view time for a one-sentence answer. I wouldn't be surprised if they are the ones actually behind pushes like this.
by vlovich123 | 2025-11-13 23:22:19+00:00
Saccades afaik can jump to an arbitrary part of the eye which adds to the latency of finding the iris; basically the the software ends up having to look through the entire image to reacquire the iris whereas normally it’s doing it incrementally relative to the previous position.

Are you really sure overrendering the fovea region would really work?
Show HN: Audarma – LLM-powered translation for React with smart caching
by eldarsyzdykov | 2025-11-13 23:22:40+00:00
Hi HN! I built Audarma, an open-source React library that adds LLM-powered translation to any app with just a few lines of code.

Live demo: https://audarma.pages.dev (bonus: Latin, Klingon, Quenya, and Dothraki) Key features: • Smart caching - translates once, stores in localStorage/DB, instant on revisit • View-level batching - translates entire pages in one API call • Content-aware - only re-translates when English source changes • Adapter pattern - works with any LLM (OpenAI, Anthropic, Cerebras) and any database The demo uses Cerebras (free tier) to translate live Hacker News headlines into 10 languages including fantasy languages. Tech stack: React hooks, Next.js App Router, Cloudflare Pages + KV This is v0.1.0 (alpha) - would love feedback on the API design and use cases you'd want to support. GitHub: https://github.com/audarma/audarma npm: npm install audarma
by josephg | 2025-11-13 23:22:41+00:00
Yeah; generally I find CMake rules are much easier to read and modify than autotools and makefiles. With Makefiles there’s about 18 different ways to write a rule to compile something, and I find I need to go hunting through a bunch of files to figure out how this makefile in particular defined a rule for compiling this C file in particular. CMake is much higher level. I can just see all the higher level targets, and how they’re built. Then - orthogonally - I can modify the build system that CMake uses to compile C code. It makes a lot more sense.

But I’d take cargo over any of this stuff. Cargo means I don’t have to think about compiler flags at all.
by Razengan | 2025-11-13 23:23:28+00:00
About like 6-7 years I was staying in an Airbnb where the host was an Indian doctor, and one of his other guests also happened to be a coder. One evening we were sitting at the shared dining table, and the host brought up if someone could make an "AI medical app"..

He didn't say what the app would do or offer, he just said "an AI medical app hasn't been done before", he just wanted it to be "AI"

Before that I had people ask me if I could help them make a website, or an app, and they wouldn't say what the app/website would actually do, just that it would be nice to have one.
by jedberg | 2025-11-13 23:23:38+00:00
The pattern I would recommend in such cases is having one service be responsible for the overall workflow and then call the other services as steps.

So if you were for example running a website and wanted to have a "cancellation" flow, you'd have the cancellation service with the workflow inside of it, which would have all the steps defined, like

1) disable user account

2) mark user data as archived

3) cancel recurring payments

And then each step would call the service that actually does that work, using an idempotency key. Each service might have its own internal workflows to accomplish each task. In this case step 1 would call the accounts service, step two would call the storage service, and step three would call the payment service.

But then you have a clean reusable interface in each service, as well as a single service responsible for the workflow.
by radiator | 2025-11-13 23:23:52+00:00
Small example from CZMQ - High-level C Binding for ZeroMQ: http://czmq.zeromq.org/manual:zgossip . Perhaps not self-contained, one might have to read the manual of other resources, such as zactor, zsock or of the application Zyre - Local Area Clustering for Peer-to-Peer Applications https://github.com/zeromq/zyre .
by linkage | 2025-11-13 23:23:57+00:00
> I cannot see why in the face of astounding evidence like this, you would completely dismiss it.

Because it's not a silver bullet. That safety comes at a cost; Rust is much more difficult to learn than C or Zig and the compilation time for code with equivalent semantics is an order of magnitude greater. It has also added a great deal of toolchain complexity to projects like the Linux kernel.

People have decided that the pros outweigh the cons in those particular cases, but those cons exist nonetheless.
by sedatk | 2025-11-13 23:24:42+00:00
> Once this is in place, the government that owns the Digital ID system can mandate that platforms such as social networks, search engines, email providers, etc. link the users in its jurisdiction to its Digital ID via OAuth/OIDC

Governments can do that today already. Digital IDs don't contribute anything to this. They just make our lives easier, not governments'.

> but they have to do a lot of legwork to link data to specific people. They'll always get false positives, false negatives, duplicates, etc.

Those false positives/negatives, duplicates affect real people too. That's just a case for digital IDs, not against.

> and, in the process, permanently linking their Digital ID Identifier to all their social media accounts

How do you reach to that conclusion? How are they permanently linked? It's perfectly possible to verify your age digitally without permanently linking your ID with your social accounts.

> Once Australia rolls this out to social networks, it will keep expanding until virtually everything is captured.

Again, that can be done without digital IDs. You're holding the wrong front here. Privacy invading laws should be fought, but the public shouldn't be kept away from the convenience and privacy gains of digital IDs. It makes no sense.
by ajb | 2025-11-13 23:24:50+00:00
That's for long term rentals, and what gp describes was already illegal action against against a normal long term tenant . In the UK a tenancy is a property right not just a contract -it's a right to a specific property, not just a contract with a person. So if the tenancy was executed with the consent of the owner, they can't just kick out the tenants even if the management company didn't pay them . That's because the tenants right to the property isn't just via the chain of contracts between them and the owner. For a hotel room or Airbnb, or a lodger, very different rules apply
by cthalupa | 2025-11-13 23:26:03+00:00
Reduced doesn't mean remove.

Huntington-Hill is better than nothing but it is still significantly worse than getting rid of the PAA and letting the House grow based on population size. Pressing my hand down on a bullet wound will slow the bleeding more than if I didn't, but not getting shot to begin with would sure be preferable.

https://www.amacad.org/ourcommonpurpose/enlarging-the-house/...

This argues for just an increase to 700, and shows a ~5% swing in likelihood of Democrat control, and I would argue that just increasing it to 700 is still not where we want to be - a ratio similar to the UK would put us at closer to 3k representatives, and I believe this is still within reason (and is roughly the size of the equivalent chamber in China). Ideally we get rid of gerrymandering at the same time and redistricting is done apolitically by independent groups.

At 3k seats, every state is above their 1 rep minimum, representatives have 1/7th the number of constituents, population to representation at each state is much closer to 1:1, etc. Obviously not everything will end up on clean divisible lines so there's going to be some differences, but Wyoming would be more like .96:1 instead of .75:1 like they are currently.

Ideally the size should also be set to be revisited based on population on a periodic basis
by ErroneousBosh | 2025-11-13 23:26:32+00:00
> it’s like how the PS2 was one of the most popular DVD players

I worked for a Sony dealer when the PS2 launched, and they wouldn't give us one :-/

What I thought at the time was insane was that they were still selling a 200-disc carousel CD changer, and DVD version of the same thing (same box, different shade of silver grey, different drive mechanism, two chips different on the PCB) - but they had no plans to sell a 200-disc carousel PS2.

Imagine if you could have had all your movies, audio CDs, PSX, and shiny new PS2 games in one big box, tucked away out of sight, with your spiffy new 576p projector and 5.1 speakers hooked up to it!
by Dylan16807 | 2025-11-13 23:26:34+00:00
You quoted the wrong part of my post. A trade secret algorithm supports the idea that it would have been made anyway.

Looking at RC4, how widespread was it before that leak? How many users did it have? Wikipedia lists it being added to a bunch of protocols but all after the leak.

Also more recent cryptography has lots of extremely public competition between nonpatented algorithm proposals, which largely undermines this entire realm of study as a reason to continue to have software patents.