MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by gusgus01 | 2025-11-25 03:16:12+00:00
A slight non-sequitur, but I always hate when people talk about the increase in a "chance". It's extremely not useful contextually. A "4x more likely statement" can mean it changes something from a 1/1000 chance to a 4/1000 chance, or it can mean it's now a certainty if the beginning rate was a 1/4 chance. The absolute measures need to be included if you're going to use relative measures.

Sorry for not answering the question, I find it hard because there are so many differences it's hard to choose where to start and how to put it into words. To begin with one is the actions of someone in the relationship, the other is the actions of a corporation that owns one half of the relationship. There's differing expectations of behavior and power and etc.
by lp0_on_fire | 2025-11-25 03:16:44+00:00
It is simply the soft bigotry of low expectations rearing its ugly head…again.

“Well OBVIOUSLY”, says the white knight, “some people are too stupid to understand the context and nuance of a langue like mine English. We just HAVE to adjust it because they won’t understand.”

It says much more about the people pushing such things than it does about the perceived slight.
by m0dest | 2025-11-25 03:16:50+00:00
So, product idea: A powered "cold storage box" for M.2 SSDs. 2 to 8 M.2 slots. Periodically, an internal computer connects one of the slots, reads every byte, waits for some period of time, then powers off. Maybe shows a little green light next to each drive when the last read was successful. Could be battery-powered.
by lalitmaganti | 2025-11-25 03:18:58+00:00
Since the fixit just finished on Friday, I don't have hard numbers from this one I'm afraid :)

Historically though, I would guess maybe 5-10% end up needing some followup fix which is itself usually smaller than the original (maybe a typo in some documentation or some edge case we spot when it hits prod etc).

The smaller the original fixes, the less likely you are to need followups so another reason to prefer working mainly on them!
by cryptonector | 2025-11-25 03:20:47+00:00
> One other factor which comes in to play, some people can't stand his communication style. When disagreed with, he tends to dig in his heels and write lengthly responses that question people's motives, like in this blog post and others. Accusing the chairs of corruption may have influenced how seriously his complaint was taken.

The IESG though is completely mishandling it. They could discipline him if need be (posting bans for some amount of time) and still hear the appeal. Instead they're sticking their fingers in their ears. DJB might be childish and annoying, but how are they that much better?
by sershe | 2025-11-25 03:20:51+00:00
Repeating the same things doesn't make them true. Do tell me what data I should peruse on welfare spending or living standards.

Housing, again is easy to disprove for the relevant timeframe - price to income ratios were not much higher than in the past before covid (after trump 1 and way after Reagan or Clinton). The size of the houses was steadily increasing too, indicating increased demand for bigger houses due to increased incomes and living standards. But the vibes among recent college grads wanting a house in SF specifically is certainly pretty gloomy.
by johnsillings | 2025-11-25 03:21:03+00:00
It was a pretty iterative process to get to something that felt 'real' – I was going for 90% accuracy, with a little extra abrasiveness since I thought it would be funny.

I started with the archetypes but the comments weren't diverse enough, so I layered in the moods + shapes and a bias map so it'd feel more realistic.
by gus_massa | 2025-11-25 03:21:46+00:00
Nice examples! With a few tricks, I made the Racket program x5 faster. I think you tried to use the simplest program, so I tried to add as few cheats as possible. I added a happy path for fixnums and keep the slow path in case the iterations gets too big:

(define (count-collatz n [cnt 1]) (if (fixnum? n) (cond [(= n 1) cnt] #;[(zero? (unsafe-fxremainder n 2)) (count-collatz (unsafe-fxquotient n 2) (+ 1 cnt))] [(zero? (fxand n 1)) (count-collatz (unsafe-fxquotient n 2) (+ 1 cnt))] [else (count-collatz (+ (* 3 n) 1) (+ 1 cnt))]) (cond [(= n 1) cnt] [(even? n) (count-collatz (/ n 2) (+ 1 cnt))] [else (count-collatz (+ (* 3 n) 1) (+ 1 cnt))])))

My program has two versions, the version with `fxand` is slightly faster than the versions with `fxremainder`. I have to used two `unsafe-` functions, but a smart enough optimizer should have fixed them. So I'm adding this example to my wishlist.

I think it would be very hard for the optimizer would be to replace `/` with `quotient`, but the rest look possible.
by saalweachter | 2025-11-25 03:22:39+00:00
Buddy, pal, even if it wasn't absolutely craven to attack a country for fear they'd join a defensive pact because they were afraid you'd attack them, you're already begging the question that Ukraine was about to join NATO, which has been shelved for two decades, and even more off the table for the last decade since joining NATO would have required relinquishing its claim on Crimea.

There was a 0% chance of Ukraine joining NATO in the next N years prior to Russia's invasion of them in 2021.

Even if by some twisted logic that were pretext for a quote-unquote "just war", it cannot be a justification for the land grab Russia is making in Ukraine today, killing civilians and committing various war crimes on the daily to do it.
by cryptonector | 2025-11-25 03:23:37+00:00
> I don't have context on this other than the linked page, but if what he's saying is accurate, it does seem pretty damning and corrupt, no?

It's complicated. You'd have to know the rules and read the list archives, and make up your own mind. DJB might be overselling it, so you really do have to check it yourself. I think the WG chair had enough cover to make the call they made. What _I_ would have done is do a WG consensus call on the underlying controversial question once the controversy started, separate from the consensus call on adopting the work item. But I'm not the chair.
by tptacek | 2025-11-25 03:24:39+00:00
No it didn't. The problem with Dual EC was published in a rump session at the next CRYPTO after NIST published it. The widespread assumption was that nobody was actually using it, which was enabled by the fact that the important "target" implementations (most importantly RSA BSAFE, which I think a lot of people also assumed wasn't in common use, but I may just be saying that because it's what I myself assumed) were deeply closed-source.

None of this applies to anything else besides Dual EC.

That aside: I don't know what this has to do with anything I just wrote. Did you mean to respond to some other comment?
by binary132 | 2025-11-25 03:24:47+00:00
I share your concerns about the risks of over-reliance on AI companions—here are three key points that resonate deeply with me:

• Firstly, these systems tend to exhibit excessively agreeable patterns, which can hinder the development of resilience in navigating authentic human conflict and growth.

• Secondly, true relational depth requires mutual independent agency and lived experience that current models simply cannot provide autonomously.

• Thirdly, while convenience is tempting, substituting genuine reciprocity with perfectly tailored responses may signal deeper unmet needs worth examining thoughtfully. Let’s all strive to prioritize real human bonds—after all, that’s what makes life meaningfully complex and rewarding!
by johncolanduoni | 2025-11-25 03:25:18+00:00
I mean have a bunch of competent teams that (importantly) didn’t design the algorithm read the final draft and write their versions of it. Then they and others can perform practical analysis on each (empirically look for timing side channels on x86 and ARM, fuzz them, etc.).

> If instead you mean "figure out after some period of implementation whether the standard itself is good", I don't know how that's meant to be workable.

The forcing function can potentially be: this final draft is the heir apparent. If nothing serious comes up in the next 6 months, it will be summarily finalized.

It’s possible this won’t get any of the implementers off their ass on a reasonable timeframe - this happens with web standards all the time. It’s also possible that this is very unlikely to uncover anything not already uncovered. Like I said, I’m not totally convinced that in this specific field it makes sense. But your arguments against it are fully general against this kind of phased process at all, and I think it has empirically improved recent W3C and IETF standards (including QUIC and HTTP2/3) a lot compared to the previous method.
by kelseyfrog | 2025-11-25 03:26:39+00:00
>People idolize the arists, while pretending to be idolizing their works.

100% in agreement. No judgement for idolizing or at least appreciating hard work, talent, or skill. Just don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. Be honest about that reasoning otherwise it sounds like lies because that's what it is.
by cryptonector | 2025-11-25 03:26:40+00:00
No, because in this hypothetical you have some authority to discipline that someone. That's what's going on here: DJB is calling out people in the IETF leadership -- people who can dole out posting privileges bans and what not. DJB is most likely going to skirt the line and not go over it, which is what's really tricky here, but the IESG could say they've had enough and discipline him. The trouble is that the underlying controversy does need to be addressed, so the IESG doesn't have completely free hand -- they can end up with a PR problem on their hands.
by tptacek | 2025-11-25 03:26:48+00:00
I tried a couple searches and I forget which calculator-speak version of "BADASS" Bernstein actually used, but the concept of the paper† is that all the NUMS-style curves are suspect because you can make combinations of mathematical constants say whatever you want them to say (in combination), and so instead you should pick curve constants based purely on engineering excellence, which nobody could ever disagree about or (looks around the room) start huge conspiracy theories over.

† as I remember it
by mbreese | 2025-11-25 03:27:03+00:00
I don’t buy this. I mean, I’m sympathetic to the issue. It’s easy for things to get jumbled when companies are young. But we’re talking about libraries that are used by your customers. To many, this is the externally visible interface to the company.

What you describe sounds like a process problem to me. If an $EARLY_EMPLOYEE if the only one with the deploy keys for what is a product of the company, then that’s a problem. If a deployment of that key library can be made without anyone approving it, that’s also a problem. But those are both people problems… and you can’t solve a people problem with a technical solution.
by dboreham | 2025-11-25 03:27:08+00:00
> I don't believe that the electrical signals of the brain define thought or memory.

Yes and no. It'll be something like a JPEG file. You can have a JPEG file that contains an image of a cat. But give that file to someone who has no clue about JPEG encoding and the file looks like random noise. They'll take 100 years to figure out it's an image of a cat.

Actually it's like if you take an electron beam prober to one of the NVidia AI GPU chips while it's figuring out whether it likes Wordsworth poetry.
by jauntywundrkind | 2025-11-25 03:27:16+00:00
I'd love a deeper dive on how Objects work in NeXTSTEP. From their brochures, they talk about objects being persistent and distributable, that in a workgroup of people everyone can rely on the objects being up to date.

I've always been so curious what the broader technical ecosystem looks like here. Presumably there are still processes running on systems. But these processes have lots of objects in them? And the objects are using Mach message passing to converse with other processes elsewhere? Within an application, are objects communicating across Mach too?

There's so much high level rhetoric about. Such as this bit. But I'd love a real technical view at what was happening, what objects really were here. https://computerhistory.org/blog/the-deep-history-of-your-ap... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42111938

This is a fun work. It feels like the brief outline for a Speaking for the Dead for OOP. Huge amount of things to lots of different people over time.

Seconding @rawgabbit's recommendation for Casey Muratori's The Big OOPs: Anatomy of a Thirty-five-year Mistake, which really is hunting back and back for the cosmogenesis of objects, and covers so much terrain. Objectogenesis? https://youtu.be/wo84LFzx5nI
by jrumbut | 2025-11-25 03:28:17+00:00
Well, that's why people still have jobs but I appreciate the idea of the post that the neat demo was a coherent paragraph or silly poem. The silly poems were all kind of similar, not very funny, and the paragraphs were a good start but I wouldn't use them for anything important.

Now the tightrope is a whole application or a 14 page paper and the short pieces of code and prose are now professional quality more often than not. That's some serious progress.
by tptacek | 2025-11-25 03:29:19+00:00
Again: that has now happened. What have we learned from it that we needed to know 3 years ago when NIST chose Kyber? That's an important question, because this is a whole giant thread about Bernstein's allegation that the IETF is in the pocket of the NSA (see "part 4" of this series for that charming claim).

Further, the people involved in the NIST PQ key establishment competition are a murderers row of serious cryptographers and cryptography engineers. All of them had the knowhow and incentive to write implementations of their constructions and, if it was going to showcase some glaring problem, of their competitors. What makes you think that we lacked implementation understanding during this process?
by phil21 | 2025-11-25 03:30:30+00:00
It's only meaningful if you have enough disposable income to invest that it eventually (and I don't mean in 50 years) makes a dent against your living expenses.

If you make $4k/mo and rent is $3k, it's pretty silly to state that it's a meaningful thing for someone to scrimp and invest $100/mo into a brokerage account.

They definitely should do this, but it's not going to have any meaningful impact on their life for decades at best. Save for a decade to get $12k in your brokerage account, say it doubles to $24k. If you then decide you can get a generous 5% withdrawal rate you are talking $600/yr against rent that is now probably $3500/mo or more. Plus you're killing your compounding.

It's good to have so emergencies don't sink you - but it's really an annoying talking point I hear a lot lately. Eye rolling when you are telling someone struggling this sort of thing.

It really only makes a major impact if you can dump large amounts of cash into an account early in life - or if you run into a windfall.
by tarocha1019 | 2025-11-25 03:31:29+00:00
The project does not claim that AI has consciousness or emotions. What it provides is a behavioral simulation layer that lets a large language model respond with consistent persona states, memory, and long-term traits.

It’s the same difference as: • a physics engine is not real physics, • but it produces behavior consistent enough to be useful.

Users aren’t asking the model to “have feelings.” They want predictable, stateful, evolving behavior for interactive applications.

Whether AI has consciousness is a philosophical question. What I am building is an engineering solution.
by mitthrowaway2 | 2025-11-25 03:31:34+00:00
Thank you for mentioning this. Not knowing the specs of a PS5, I'd assumed that the comparison was made because the PS5 now sold for less than the RAM it contains, and scalpers were now hungrily buying up all available PlayStation inventory just to tear them open and feast on the RAM inside.

But since it's 16 GB, the comparison doesn't really make sense.
by vbezhenar | 2025-11-25 03:31:38+00:00
I'm asking for Android-based desktop.

Windows is so bad, that I've lost any hope for it to recover.

MacOS is not that bad, but it's tied to Apple hardware and I don't like it. Also it's not getting better either, new releases bring more bloat and features I didn't ask for.

Linux is what I use, but I also lost hope for it to ever become polished experience. Just recent months they introduced another bug to GNOME which probably will not be resolved in years. No big company wants to invest in desktop Linux and without investments it's just not good. I can navigate Linux bugs and workarounds, but I'd prefer not to.

Expecting some new unknown operating system to appear and be ready is foolish, it won't happen.

So Android is the only operating system that could realistically be ready in the foreseeable future. Linux have good support for desktop hardware. Android have good polished stack for applications. Developers know how to write apps for android. Security story for Android is miles ahead that of desktop Linux. So I totally see that Android Desktop could actually be a good thing, with Google sponsoring its development. And if Google will put too much bloat in it, its open source nature would allow for volunteers to build better distributions of it.
by treesknees | 2025-11-25 03:32:16+00:00
Do you have any specific examples where a Linux-based firewall was too "random" or "fiddly" or "flaky"? Or provide examples of ways that BSD "much nicer"?

It sounds to me like you picked a bad Linux distro for your use case.

I've seen plenty of single-purpose Linux-based network appliances, and none of them have come across as flaky or unreliable because of the OS. In fact they can be easier to use for people who have more operational experience using Linux already.
by alsetmusic | 2025-11-25 03:32:37+00:00
> When challenged by Rep. Peter Merideth in April 2023 on arguments related to transgender youth, Moon defended his 2018 stance on child marriage in which he opposed legislation that raised the marriage age from 15 to 16, and requires parental consent for older teenagers to marry.

> After his comments went viral, Moon claimed he did not have enough time to explain his vote and that he does not support adults marrying children. Moon's argument in defense of child marriage in both 2018 and 2023 are an anecdote about a couple he met in college who married at age 12 as a result of pregnancy and are "still married."

> In April 2024 and again in March 2025, Moon cast the sole senate vote against legislation intended to completely ban child marriage in Missouri.

Oh, well if a single instance of someone getting married as a child didn't end in divorce, then it must be a great practice. Because we all know that no abusive relationship has ever persisted because divorce was taboo. By all means, let's keep letting little kids get married before their minds are fully developed and let's keep letting creepy adults have a severe power imbalance over them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Moon_(politician)#Child_m...
by Reprise8001 | 2025-11-25 03:32:48+00:00
It's also worth mentioning Ibn al Haytham, who wrote the seven-volume Book of Optics in 1011 - 1021, and covered topics including how the eye handles reflected light. Also observed the effect of image inversion when developing the camera obscura.

There are many other scientists over the ages (whom we know a LOT about) that contributed to our understanding of eyes and optics. I don't think there are enough words in that article to really teach anything meaningful. The history is genuinely interesting, why write so little (even if it's just SEO)?
by dragonwriter | 2025-11-25 03:33:15+00:00
> joining NATO would have required relinquishing its claim on Crimea.

That’s...not at all clear (there is no such legal requirement, though there were some NATO members who publicly suggested that resolving the territorial disputes with Russia first was their then-current diplomatic position at various times in the discussion of the possibility. But diplomatic positions are sometimes prone to change in response to inducements from parties with different preferences.)
by Marsymars | 2025-11-25 03:33:54+00:00
Juries are a just an implementation detail of the justice system used by Britain and some of its former colonies.

I'm talking at a higher level - I'm saying that conceptually, "inconvenience" ranges from mild offences to murder, and society has to decide where to draw some line for inconveniences that it will not permit. If someone is determined to re-offend, regardless of severity, the state's only choices are to either let them re-offend, or to use force to prevent it.
by Mikhail_Edoshin | 2025-11-25 03:34:17+00:00
There is a good methodological principle stated by a Soviet philosoph Ilyenkov: to understand the nature of a thing build or describe a minimal working model of the thing. So simple that if you remove any single detail it ceases to work. He himself gave an example of radio: to understand what radio is build a minimal radio sender and receiver of three or four details each. Do not start with a household radio unit that comes in a polished box with lights and knobs; it has way too many unrelated details.

This works very well both for concrete things like radio and for more abstract things like math or Marx's notion of private property. This is also the principle employed by religious and mystical parables or the book "A pattern language".
by gonzobonzo | 2025-11-25 03:35:02+00:00
That's the default chatbot behavior. Many of these people appear to be creating their own personalities for the chatbots, and it's not too difficult to make an opinionated and challenging chatbot, or one that mimics someone who has their own experiences. Though designing one's ideal partner certainly raises some questions, and I wouldn't be surprised if many are picking sycophantic over challenging.

People opting for unchallenging pseudo-relationships over messy human interaction is part of a larger trend, though. It's why you see people shopping around until they find a therapist who will tell them what they want to hear, or why you see people opt to raise dogs instead of kids.
by dangus | 2025-11-25 03:35:22+00:00
I’m on Linux too, but I still have a Windows 11 box…the reasons I still have it are just about gone but I’ve been too lazy to change it.

I never see nags about Edge. Basically you can avoid those by never opening Edge.

OneDrive can be fully uninstalled (this wasn’t always the case). It legit doesn’t even show up when I search for it anymore.

The start menu cluster, I mean, it’s not the best interface on the planet, but the annoying recommendations can be easily removed…or you can just replace it entirely.

I know this is a user choice and therefore way less egregious than being forced to endure it on the Microsoft side, but perhaps it’s even worth pointing out that running Steam on Linux as a respite from commercialization and ads of Windows is…not really accomplishing that goal. And you don’t really avoid the browser wars by switching to Linux either, as many of the top distributions have Firefox+Google Search as their default configuration.
by marcosdumay | 2025-11-25 03:36:47+00:00
> why most of us use Java at all

Java was the first popular language to push static analysis for correctness. It was the "if it compiles, it runs" language of its day, what meant that managers could hire a couple of bad developers by mistake and it wouldn't destroy the entire team's productivity.

I'm not sure that position lasted for even 5 years. But it had a very unique and relevant value proposition at the time.
by fairfeather | 2025-11-25 03:36:57+00:00
Pretty much, but it depends a lot on the vendor and how much you spent on the drive. A lot of the assumptions about enterprise SSDs is that they’re powered pretty much all the time, but are left in a low power state when not in use. So, data can still be refreshed on a timer, as long as it happens within the power budget.

There are several layers of data integrity that are increasingly expensive to run. Once the drive tries to read something that requires recovery, it marks that block as requiring a refresh and rewrites it in the background.