MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by GMoromisato | 2025-11-30 03:07:42+00:00
There is no certainty, not about the future at least. In my experience, being able to face uncertainty without despair is one of the most important skills to have.

The interesting thing about "all it takes is for one to work out" is that it helps you face uncertainty. No matter how many times you've tried, you maintain the faith that the next time might succeed.

And it is all about faith, which is probably why it is so hard for us analytic/logic-driven people to adopt. But the opposite of faith isn't knowledge--it's nihilism. If the universe is an uncaring and even hostile place, and if there are no guarantees that everything will work out, and if the only certainty is eventual death, then why even bother, right? Nihilism is seductive because it is the philosophy most compatible with reality. It is what you're left with after entering the Total Perspective Vortex.

The only antidote to nihilism is belief. Belief that things will work out. That it's worth fighting for things, even if we often lose. That striving to be the person we want to be is worth something.

I know I've drifted far from your original point about how to deal with compromise. Again, I feel the answer depends on the circumstances. But I think a general answer is to decide what "the right one" means for you and nurture the belief that you will get there eventually. Once you know where you want to be and have the conviction that you will get there, everything else is simple.

Simple, but not easy. Maybe you've compromised for your current job. What will it take to get "the right one"? Is it more skills? Is it connections? Is it money? Is it courage? Maybe you don't know--that's okay. What's the next job that will get you closer to your goal? What do you need to get that job?

I guarantee that one of the things you need to do is simply try. Try to apply for a new job; try to learn a new skill; try to make a new professional connection.

That's when you remember "all it takes is for one to work out". Try and fail and try again.
by VerifiedReports | 2025-11-30 03:08:32+00:00
Plus the guy's thesis about "aligned interests" is glaringly contradicted by Reddit, where forums presumably coalesce around a common interest but are often toxic shitholes presided over by maladjusted mods who capriciously ban people for no legitimate reason; and even follow them to other forums and ban them there too.

The use of "toxic" to describe online behavior like this is perfect. Reddit actually and its ilk leave you feeling bad in every way.
by smeej | 2025-11-30 03:09:11+00:00
I think I probably would use a project that had a license that said "you can use this for now, but if I later decide I don't want evil people to use it, you'll have to maintain your own fork based on the last version before I made that decision."

Isn't that kind of always the bargain we're making? We can use someone's work as long as they're willing to let us, but if they change the license, we might not be able to continue using it.
by LoganDark | 2025-11-30 03:10:11+00:00
I came to this conclusion as well. The README gives off some vibes but the sheer volume and writing style of the code comments is what really sells it for me. For example:

https://github.com/grigio/network-monitor/blob/9dc470553bfdd...

// Enhanced styling with column-specific classes and alignment

This sort of marketing-speak isn't what people typically put in their code, LLMs love buzzwords. It's not just this, it's everything, but hopefully you get what I mean.
by auggierose | 2025-11-30 03:10:17+00:00
RUNTIME would not be an actual function, but a built-in construct with its own typing rules that don't give RUNTIME a type, but only its applications. That's why you need to modify the type system, obviously. That is not a problem.

Yes, RUNTIME cannot talk about the implementation of a function, because there is no such thing as a unique implementation of a mathematical function. It will never be able to, it just computes upper bounds of runtime complexity based on the best implementations in the form of equations you can come up with. That on its own is not a dead end, that is the design. If you want to talk about implementations, you will need to come up with an explicit machine model, as mentioned a few times before now.

Your examples are a bit too handwavy for me to see exactly how you would come up with counter examples for the proper functioning of RUNTIME. I've played around with it a bit as well, and while counter intuitive in some aspects (for example RUNTIME append ys [] <= 1 could also be shown) it encodes an interesting notion of "optimal runtime" of a mathematical function. I might be wrong though, but you'd need to come up with an actual concrete example to convince me of that. For example, how exactly would you "hardcode" a value for g at y such that g y = f y = arbitrary constant you choose? You can show g y = f y = my_constant, but how does that help you to prove my_constant <= 1? "y" is just a constant as well, it cannot be a variable, because otherwise your definition of my_constant would not be closed. Note that equalities including THE would not yield anything usable from the inequalities generator.

Furthermore, note that just because f x = g x may hold for some x, that does not mean you can prove RUNTIME f x = RUNTIME g x for that x. On the other hand, if you can prove f x = g x for all x, then you should be able to prove RUNTIME f x = RUNTIME g x as well, simply by noting that f = g, and x = x, and therefore RUNTIME f x = RUNTIME g x as well by the usual extensionality rule that would also apply to RUNTIME.
by bilekas | 2025-11-30 03:10:21+00:00
> On SO, it's often best if questions are somewhat version agnostic, and different answers address different questions.

Yep, this is their 'way' but what I think @fragmede is getting at is, how can you know your question will be redundant next week. I prefer the 'duplicate' idea, where the user actually links the old question and says "hey this didn't work because X Y Z", then (in most cases) people will engage with the question as it demonstrates a level of effort.
by vips7L | 2025-11-30 03:10:47+00:00
I’ve been running the same gaming setup for almost 10 years. Having to upgrade or change OS is a major thing. Don’t minimize longevity.

Currently I literally can’t find the time to convert my drive from master boot record to GPT for Windows 11. I can’t imagine having to completely switch operating systems/distros because it just disappeared. Worrying if it will still be around is legitimate.
by Telaneo | 2025-11-30 03:10:56+00:00
If you have an old one that you want to get rid of, it's a good idea to set up a controlled fire and try out your extinguisher on it. That way you can get some experience.

Really though, it mostly is just pull pin -> aim low (at the base and source of the fire) -> squeeze until extinguished. Sweep the nozzle from side to side to get proper coverage.

They're intended to be used by anyone with no training, so there's not much to go wrong (assuming you haven't bought the wrong type and use it on an oil fire, although most of the ones I see for sale for consumers are the powder kind, which work on anything. The water ones are the worst, and I've never seen one).
by oreally | 2025-11-30 03:10:58+00:00
> Seems to be something gamedevs are not commonly testing, and perhaps difficult to defend against when a game is directly interacting with the GPU.

I can guarantee you any gamedev worth his salt will have used alt-tab at some point in the game's development on windows. It's an incredibly common hotkey to use, and the devs very likely have multiple ides, notepads, image editing software running concurrently. You seem to be trying really hard.

> when a game is directly interacting with the GPU.

Most devs are using cross platform graphics APIs. OpenGL/DirectX/Vulkan. Alt-tab breaking is likely an OS issue.
by atmavatar | 2025-11-30 03:11:09+00:00
A big hurdle to proper analysis is that people are unreliable narrators.

Let's take a person who made it rich betting big on bitcoin early on. Were they a savvy investor who made their own fortune, did they merely think it sounded cool and thought why not while bitcoin prices were so low that snatching them up was super cheap, did they rely on a tip or tips from friends/family, or was it some other reason?

If you come back and ask them years later after they've become worth 10^7 or better, how likely is the person who merely got lucky to admit it was dumb luck in an environment that lionizes the wealthy as self-made superhumans?
by II2II | 2025-11-30 03:11:40+00:00
The important thing to realize is that once you have release something, you have no control over how it is used. It doesn't matter whether it is an open source license or a commercial license. You have the right to take legal recourse, may that be over copyright infringement or licensing terms, but that requires both the means and desire to pursue what may be a lengthy process with an uncertain outcome. Worrying about stuff you cannot control is going to have a far more negative impact upon your life than it will upon those who are using your software for evil.

So what can you do?

Learn how to set boundaries. If a corporation demands something that you have no interest in providing, tell them no. If you are interested in providing it, request compensation for the work or request they submit a patch or let them wait until you can do the work on your terms.

For honest leechers, choose a license that discourages them. Switching from a MIT style license to a GPL style license won't prevent people from profiting from your work, but it will discourage those who want to make proprietary extensions to your work. Also realize that this won't stop dishonest leechers.

Continue to voice your concerns. Corporations don't feel guilt, but people inside them may. Even if the people within them don't feel guilt, they may still see you as an unreliable developer to exploit.
by 0x62 | 2025-11-30 03:12:36+00:00
Huge fan of Reticulum, fixes some of my biggest gripes with Meshtastic. Shame it hasn't got as much adoption yet. For those looking for Meshtastic-equivalent things in the Reticulum ecosystem:

- Sideband: iOS/Android chat app (https://github.com/markqvist/Sideband)

- NomadNet: Desktop CLI chat app (https://github.com/markqvist/NomadNet)

- Rnode: Reference node hardware/firmware (https://unsigned.io/rnode/)
by intelec1 | 2025-11-30 03:12:59+00:00
In this video we dive into the November 2025 issue of Entrepreneur and read it not as a feel-good business magazine, but as a manual for surviving an economic dystopia. Instead of “follow your passion” and “anyone can be a founder,” the hidden message looks more like Hunger Games for the middle class: – Algorithms and platforms quietly decide which founders “deserve” to exist. – Franchise empires turn “be your own boss” into a new kind of feudal landlord system. – Veteran hiring and “resilience” rhetoric are used to build an obedient army of entrepreneurial soldiers. – Local, unique businesses survive only by becoming copy-paste franchise units. – MBA programs and startup degrees turn into a “tax on dreams” for 90% of graduates who still burn out and fail. We break down: The 3 “horsemen” of the new corporate apocalypse: the investor mindset, the franchise machine, and the algorithmic gatekeeper. How Entrepreneur’s language reframes exploitation as “opportunity,” burnout as “resilience,” and debt as “investment in yourself.” Why hope itself has become a product sold to desperate founders who will work for free while investors wait for 100x returns. This is not another motivation talk on “how to hustle harder.” It’s a critical, analytical look at how modern business media shapes our idea of success, work, and innovation — and what happens when the real game is no longer about ideas, but about funding rounds, pitch decks, and algorithms. If you care about the future of work, startups, the middle class and the real cost of “entrepreneurial freedom,” this breakdown is for you. Like, subscribe, and tell me in the comments: do you feel this new startup economy pushing you into permanent competition? #economy #startups #entrepreneurship #venturecapital #futureofwork #business2025 #mediaanalysis #intelec1
by asmor | 2025-11-30 03:13:09+00:00
Cheating creates two problems. Obvious cheats aiming to upset other players and subtle cheats that don't want to be noticed as such. Now, I'm not saying it doesn't matter if people cheat as long as nobody notices or that competitive integrity is not important, but the first category is a much more immediate threat for most games and easy to detect. On a server analyzing locally recorded sampled demos.
by bdangubic | 2025-11-30 03:13:35+00:00
Not only that, Teslas nowadays look like they belong in a museum - so fucking old and outdated. I own 2014 Tesla S, my neighbour has 2025 Tesla S, same fucking car - literally. My car was THE shit back in the day, lots of broken necks looking at it … now, 12 years later, someone (fewer and fewer) is paying $90k for exactly the same car. Tesla X was great looking - circa 2016… Tesla 3 is like a Kia and Model Y is just 3 that is blown up a bit.
by fsckboy | 2025-11-30 03:13:39+00:00
>The accounting rules say you only have to put an entity on your balance sheet if you “control” it and take on most of the risk/benefit.

Meta is a publicly traded company. If they have an agreement wherein they may have to pay substantial amounts to another company or on behalf of another company, that's a liability and they need to disclose that. Whether it's on their balance sheet doesn't really matter, this is what analysts do, back out these types of financial arrangements from the footnotes and publish thumbs up or thumbs down. People like to say "do your own research" but people should not, in general, do their own research.
by d3Xt3r | 2025-11-30 03:13:41+00:00
I get what your saying, but it's just a matter of finding the right workflow.

I'm very much like you infact, so I ended up resorting to just using an Arch Distrobox for pretty much everything. I leave rpm-ostree and Flatpaks alone as far as possible, so I only really have to worry about my Arch for updates and everything else takes care of itself.

You may ask then why not just use Arch? Well of course you can, but I like the idea of having a rock solid base where I know for a fact that I can let it happily update without breaking something. Arch still requires manual intervention every now and then (such as package migrations or some dependency conflicts). Not a big deal if you keep up with the Arch News and Discord announcements etc, but sometimes IRL gets in the way and I'm not up-to-speed with what's happening. With my Bazzite+Arch setup, I'm not super bothered with this, plus it's easy to blow my whole container and set it up again, and in fact I've got a bash script to do just that on one of my other PCs that I don't use regularly (because Arch needs to be updated regularly, otherwise you're in for a nasty surprise when you find out your keyring is out-of-date and pacman has been upgraded and nothing works... with a container, just blow it up and fetch the latest version, reinstall your packages and you're up and running in no time).
by elemdos | 2025-11-30 03:15:15+00:00
Even without believing in a life after this one, a lot of people seem to find immense value in living ethically/morally for its benefits in this life: a clear conscience, building trust, strengthening relationships, etc.

Even though life can be cruel, there seems to be an overarching goodness built into the universe that benefits those who float in its current.
by resfirestar | 2025-11-30 03:16:18+00:00
>In the case of LLMs, we have service that are aiming to replace both the browser and the search engine

Most people already experience the internet as an integrated browser+search engine (and often, OS) experience from a single advertising company, Google, and it has been this way for over a decade.

>And the result is: ad-infused, tweaked to align with investor priorities, censored by the current politics of wherever the company is based service machinery that's constantly extracting personal information so it can learn better ways to refocus its priorities.

Exactly.

This is not to say I like this outcome, but how is it not massive hyperbole to invoke apocalyptic sci-fi? I expect we'll plod along much as before: some people fiercely guarding their personal info, some people taking a "privacy is dead anyway" approach, most people seeing personal computers as a means to some particular ends (scrolling social feeds and watching Netflix) that are incompatible with thinking too hard about the privacy and information environment implications.
by wnevets | 2025-11-30 03:16:30+00:00
They had this amount of money

> As a result of this, the teenage Elon Musk once walked the streets of New York with emeralds in his pocket. His father said: “We were very wealthy. We had so much money at times we couldn’t even close our safe,” adding that one person would have to hold the money in place with another closing the door. “And then there’d still be all these notes sticking out and we’d sort of pull them out and put them in our pockets.” [1]

[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/space/elon-musk-made-money-ric...
by titzer | 2025-11-30 03:17:04+00:00
In addition to the ludicrous unworkable physics, as it turns out, datacenters need people servicing things all the time. Even if you could get those measly three racks into space, they'd function about a month before some harddisks were failing, network switches were down, some crap breaks in the cooling system, power system short, breakers trip, etc, and on and on.

So obviously we're not going to be some SREs into space to babysit the machines. Have everything fail in place? Have robots do it? What about the regular supply missions to keep replacing all the failing hardware (there's only so many spare HDDs you can have on hand).

The whole thing is farcical.
by pcthrowaway | 2025-11-30 03:17:06+00:00
I created a software license which is effectively BSD, but lists priority boycott targets and rationale from BDS (boycott-divest-sanction for Palestinian liberation), in an information-only section that has no bearing on the software freedoms and restrictions, but is nevertheless required to be copied as part of the license[1].

I don't actually recommend using this specific license yet, because the text from bdsmovement.net is not technically available under a permissive license (they told me I could use it... but I don't think the person fielding my request really understood what I was asking), but perhaps you can make something similar out of your preferred permissive software license (this is a no-go with GPL unfortunately because any derived license would be incompatible with GPL in addition to permissive-licensed software)

If you're a fan of BDS you can also just list the priority targets in your license, or give the BDS organizers another nudge via email.

I think the power of this is that such licenses wouldn't change how people might use the software. And big corps like Google, Amazon, et al may accidentally end up using such software (which is perfectly allowable via the license), but would then have to circulate a license which calls for their boycott and highlights their complicity in oppression. So I think it'd be fun if some software using this license makes its way into an end-user product of theirs

[1]: https://ossforpalestine.top/
by foobarian | 2025-11-30 03:17:12+00:00
The atmosphere is in the way even at night, and re-radiates the energy. The effective background temperature is the temperature of the air, not to mention it would only work at night. I think there would need to be like 50-ish acres of radiators for a 50MW datacenter to radiate from 60 to 30C. This would be a lot smaller in space due to bigger temp delta. Either way opex would be much much less than average Earth DC (PUE almost 1 instead of run-of-the mill 1.5 or as low as 1.1 for hyperscalers). But yeah the upfront cost would be immense.
by Aurornis | 2025-11-30 03:17:37+00:00
> Doesn't this basically just apply the same assumption in reverse, that most people can work in an office equally well?

Interacting in person and cooperating is something you start learning from a young age. Working in person in the office is a natural extension from years of schooling in person with your peers.

Working remote is a skill that must be learned. Many people have barely done it at all before their first WFH job. It doesn't come as naturally. It's not a symmetric comparison.
by cortesoft | 2025-11-30 03:17:55+00:00
The point of the HTTP verbs is to communicate expected behavior. While a server could treat POST, PUT, and PATCH the same, the point of having the verbs at all is to give a standard way to signal clients what is going to happen. While a server can ignore the expectation, it doesn’t mean the expectation isn’t valuable; it allows conforming implementers to communicate what is happening using standard language.
by smitty1e | 2025-11-30 03:18:16+00:00
> Can we prevent Nazis from using our software?

Short of engaging in equally authoritarian control-freakery? I don't see how.

I'm amused by one package author that I'll leave unnamed who has a list on his site enumerating political parties around the world at one end of the political spectrum and announcing that supporters of these parties are disinvited to use his work.

I'm all: "Dude, get over yourself. Parties ALL suck. Now, do good, and consider investing less time on posturing."
by AdieuToLogic | 2025-11-30 03:18:29+00:00
> This predates that. It's written in Ada.

Does it count if, combining the two, one could infer a musical scale[0] such as:

Ada (ay-dah), Scala (ska-lah)

Bonus points for Latin aficionados:

The word "scale" originates from the Latin scala, which literally means "ladder".

:-)

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_(music)
by fguerraz | 2025-11-30 03:18:52+00:00
So what?

Of course it’s stupid and it’s never going to work. The same is true for Carbon Capture and Storage, blue hydrogen, etc. It’s nonsense from the start, but it didn’t stop governments around the world to spend billions on it.

It works like this: companies spend a few millions on PR to market a sci-fi project that’s barely plausible. Governments who really want to preserve the status quo but are pressured to “do something” can just announce that they’re sinking billions in it and voila! They’re green, they’re going to save the world.

It’s just a scam to get public money really.
by bdangubic | 2025-11-30 03:19:51+00:00
this is same as polling data when Trump is running - no one wants to admit they will vote for DJT much like no one wants to admit these days that “AI” is doing (lots of) their work :)

jokes aside I do trust economist’s heart is in the right place but misguided IMO. “the investors” (much like many here on HN) expected “AI” to be magic thing and are dealing with some disappointment that most of us are still employed. the next stage of “investor sentiment” just may be “shoot, not magic but productivity is through the roof”
by BrenBarn | 2025-11-30 03:20:20+00:00
I think the question is do you want to actually stop certain entities from using the project, or do you just want to send a message? If you want to actually stop them then ultimately there is only one way, which is you sue them. If you're not willing to aggressively sue people who use your software in ways you don't want, then I think there's little point in taking the time to craft a license that expresses acceptable uses.

If you just want to send a message, then you can change the license and not take any further action.