MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by mrguyorama | 2025-11-05 19:04:15+00:00
My girlfriend's 2 year old Asus Zenbook had easy to find repair manuals and was pretty repairable. Though consumer laptop naming conventions make googling for it error prone.

The main problem was parts. She had a fan that was defective and noisy, and the Asus parts store didn't have it in stock, and there was one on ebay for $30.

But the replacement was easy, the construction was solid, and there have been no issues since.

>Asus when I have to do maintenance such as swapping out thermal paste/pads and clearing out the heatsink fins.

If you have to do this more than once or twice over a ten year lifespan of a laptop, you probably should invest in air cleaning systems. Mid range consumer laptops are way less thermally constrained than they used to be. Ryzen CPUs are essential for that, though I think Intel now has usable cool laptop CPUs
by cactacea | 2025-11-05 19:04:23+00:00
"Bubbles are good because they leave pieces for others to pick up for free" has to be one of the most completely insane and morally bankrupt economic ideas I've ever heard. This only makes sense if you take a fully individualist, zero-sum perspective and entirely disregard all other perspectives. Nevermind the opportunity cost.

As far as I'm concerned there is no daylight between this idea and someone fighting safety measures because "trainwrecks leave free parts behind for me to pick up and build my own trains out of".
by mitthrowaway2 | 2025-11-05 19:04:27+00:00
When we say "f(x, y) = 0" in this context, we also usually have a separate definition for f(x, y) provided, where that f(x, y) is not necessarily 0 at for all x,y. And so this constraint "f(x, y) = 0" means "find pairs of x and y such that it makes f(x, y) become 0".

If "f(x, y) = 0" is actually the definition of f(x, y), then yes, it would be a pretty boring graph.
by smithoc | 2025-11-05 19:04:46+00:00
It's not, and the current administration isn't conservative.

The MAGA movement has completely purged all the conservatives from the Republican party.

They've increased the deficit by a trillion dollars, built an army of ICE agents and deployed them to terrorize people in cities around the country, added billions of dollars in import taxes, taken state ownership stakes in multiple companies.

They're closer to Stalin or Mao than to any conservative ideology of a small government that stays out of people's business.
by fork-bomber | 2025-11-05 19:05:30+00:00
An ISO standard is hard to gepolitically regulate, I would think.

It also cements the fact that the technology being standardized is simply too fundamental and likely ubiquitous for folks to worry about it being turned into a strategic weapon.

Taking the previously mentioned ethernet example (not a perfect one I should accentuate again): why bother with blocking it's uptake when it is too fundamentally useful and enabling for a whole bunch of other innovation that builds on top.
by bluGill | 2025-11-05 19:06:01+00:00
Bricking a bus via remote software update is easy. What is hard is remotely updating a vehicle and not bricking any of them. I'm under NDA so lets just say it is hard to get something that passes our test group when we are trying to make things work correctly. Trying to brick a vehicle is easy mode. (now if you want to brick it in a specific way that can be hard)
by oatsandsugar | 2025-11-05 19:06:04+00:00
When I was in Venture, I did a tonne of research into the Nix ecosystem.

Fast forward to now, a new hire at the startup I work at, on his own volition, implemented a Nix flake day one at the company. Within the week, a bunch of our engineers were using it.

Super cool to see, mainly because of the decreased frustration in setting up our dev environments.
by steveklabnik | 2025-11-05 19:06:09+00:00
The beef you're talking about here is between pcwalton and Andrew. Patrick posted those things after he had left Rust leadership.

Andrew and I literally got some tacos last week. I mean, I'm not in Rust leadership anymore either, but this sort of thing just isn't recognizable to me outside of, again, a few posts by one person who no longer even worked on Rust.
by geocar | 2025-11-05 19:06:22+00:00
> One extremely important...

Not to downplay what you think is important, but I think it's pretty important that governments and public bodies use XSLT.

https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr3617/BILLS-117hr3617ih....

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-119hr400ih/xml/BIL...

https://www.weather.gov/xml/current_obs/KABE.xml

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/politicalparties/index_en.xml

https://apps.tga.gov.au/downloads/sequence-description.xml

https://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/downloads/fwi_obs/WeatherStati...

https://converters.eionet.europa.eu/xmlfile/EPRTR_MethodType...

They don't put ads on their sites, so I'm not surprised Google doesn't give a fuck about them...
by Zr01 | 2025-11-05 19:06:37+00:00
The cynic in me thinks this is just a means to eventually make more money by offering paid unrestricted versions to medical and legal professionals. I'm well-aware that it's not a truth machine, and any output it provides should be verified, checked for references, and treated with due diligence. Yet the same goes for just about any internet search. I don't think some people not knowing how to use it warrants restricting its functionality for the rest of us.
by vkou | 2025-11-05 19:06:43+00:00
> The fact Republicans wouldn't repeal ACA but would repeal the tax credits just shows both sides prefer it to be broken.

It really doesn't. All it shows is that team R is following it's usual playbook of "The government is broken - elect me, and I'll make sure of it."

> Democrats could shove through enough votes to repeal ACA to make health insurance cheaper for lower-risk groups without tax credits

The only true part of that statement is that they could get enough votes to repeal it without replacement. But it wouldn't make anything cheaper.

The only way insurance would get cheaper is if it went back to not covering pre-existing conditions, which is contrary to the whole point of insurance.

It's wild that you're blaming the dems for... Not repealing without replacement, and pushing us straight into a completely broken shitshow?

> lower-risk groups

Oh, I understand now. You're are explicitly unhappy that the dems aren't agreeing to your plan to massively hike rates for anyone with a pre-exisiting condition, or literally any complication that would get them discriminated against prior to the ACA.

Sorry, that's a shitty thing for you to be fighting for, and they are in the right to not do it.
by testfoobar | 2025-11-05 19:06:48+00:00
Something is observably wrong. The ratio of rent to income has drastically changed against workers - this is destructive to society.

But the cause is deeper than rent price controls, minimum wage and worker protections.

After the 2008 financial crisis, western central banks digitally printed trillions of dollars (Quantitative Easing) to refloat our financial system. The collapse of 2008 was itself the result of perverse incentives leading to banks stuffed with bad mortgages due to speculative housing manias after the collapse of the Dotcom bubble and 9/11.

The response of flooding the financial system with trillions of printed money after 2008 for years was a political choice - supported by Democrats, Republicans and President Obama.

Wealth inequality is the result. It cannot be fixed at a local level through local policies. It cannot be fixed by Congress through policy or tax tweaks. It is a problem with the financial plumbing itself.
by Smaug123 | 2025-11-05 19:07:06+00:00
This assertion is so vague as to be meaningless - say more? You're presumably not asserting that all statically typed languages are fundamentally Java, because that would be saying the patently false "C and Haskell are fundamentally Java". Are you specifically saying the article's hope that it's not "Java with Python syntax" is misplaced; if so, why?
by mindslight | 2025-11-05 19:07:30+00:00
It's been a while since I've studied the details of voting systems, but it seems like Approval voting just moves the spoiler effect into how people vote - ie strategic voting. Personally I think the possibilities of circular ties under Ranked Pairs is oversold.

Society is well acquainted with the concept of a tie, and whatever tiebreaker procedure we define probably won't factor into voter strategy all that much (that is, it will be less of an effect than the people who don't understand they can vote for more than one candidate)
by 12_throw_away | 2025-11-05 19:07:50+00:00
> Why aren't we building airports with enough space for a plane to remain on the ground and have plenty of room to decelerate in this situation?

But that's exactly what a runway is? They're extremely long, have ample safety margins, and have "protected areas" extending out on either end, and outside of that there are regulations about what can and can't be built along the extendend runway centerlines. But jetliners are huge, heavy, fast, and designed to go long distances - the stopping distance of a fully loaded jet at full takeoff speed is measured in miles.
by AbstractH24 | 2025-11-05 19:07:52+00:00
So an n of 1 that has yet to take office and prove that he will live up to the label?

The day after election day 2016 I recall trying to reassure myself that another candidate who won had to be more disciplined when governing than when campaigning. That the rhetoric his campaign put out was only because his supporters were to the right of him. How sad I was to find out that wasn't true. Hope I'm not let down again.
by lotsofpulp | 2025-11-05 19:08:19+00:00
>how many children is alcohol ultimately responsible for?

If this is alluding to unplanned pregnancies, that is almost unheard of nowadays due to access to IUDs/morning after pill/abortion.

Whether or not alcohol, or specifically hard alcohol, plays a material role in establishing relationships that otherwise would not happen is difficult to discern, but I don't see why an alcohol tax (or even just higher liquor taxes) would dissuade people. It only takes a few drinks to become "buzzed", so any tax would only be material to heavy drinkers.

I don't see how a government run liquor store limits abuse, and most seem to offer the same products as any other store (does it really make a difference above a certain proof?). And many states limit hours that alcohol is sold without having government run stores.
by calebm | 2025-11-05 19:08:45+00:00
Why would you say it's not a graph of y/(x^2+y^2)=(x+1)/(x^2+y^2)? I would argue that a conventional/binary graph is also not a "pure" representation of the equation, but rather one possible representation - one that runs it through a "left_side == right_side?" boolean filter. In fact, there is no way to visualize an equation with doing something to it.
by amatecha | 2025-11-05 19:08:50+00:00
The other thing is that GUIs can be very slow to load, limiting the potential speed/efficiency. One of the most frustrating experiences is pressing a series of key commands (or just single keys) that SHOULD have performed a very specific series of actions, but the software lagged behind at some point(s) in the flow and something ended up getting messed up because my series of key presses resulted in a totally unintended action.
by blakesterz | 2025-11-05 19:08:52+00:00
They do say "Maybe our tests are bad." and then talk about the intelligence side of the tests. I wonder if maybe the other tests are bad, or smart people tend to answer those tests different?

That is, maybe it's not the intelligence tests that are bad, but the surveys (or are they tests?) that measure happiness are more responsible for those differences? Do "smart" people just answer more honestly? Or maybe the "not as smart" people do?
by bArray | 2025-11-05 19:08:54+00:00
> Often when people talk about bias, they assume it must be bias against their interests. They don't realize that, if there is room for bias, it's just as easily bias in their favor. The article could overstate either side - or both at different times.

I think that my comment left room for this. But I felt it important to offer an opposition to what is the "leading narrative" in the West.

> That's false. In each event, one side tends to inflate claims like civilian deaths and the other tends to minimize them.

I should have been clearer that one side would make such claims, and the opposing side would also make such claims to their benefit. Propaganda has, and always will be, a significant part of war. It reminds me of the 2020-2021 China-India mountain battles [1] where both sides minimised their losses and claimed victory with large losses on the other side.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_China%E2%80%...
by isr | 2025-11-05 19:08:56+00:00
Adding to what you said. Squeak was a clean open source reimplementation (by the devs who did the original Smalltalk-80), so it's real history starts from there (ie: the 90s, not the 70s)

One thing to keep in mind is that smalltalks all have the same ability to save & load code to & from disk, just as any other programming environment. But, they also have the option of just using the image to persist, and iterate on that.

Squeak overdid that aspect of it, such that over time, it became hard to prune older side projects & and it just became increasingly bloated. Both Pharo & Cuis forked from squeak at about the same time.

Pharo images are fully bootstrapped from a seed.

Cuis is not quite there yet, but cuis from its inception went on a ruthless simplification drive (the number of classes in the system was reduced by about 500% !), so that it's base is effectively a "seed", and the rest of a cuis image is built up by importing projects (from disk & git) on demand.

But yeah, curating a set of images over time is remarkably enticing & friction free. Even in cuis, I find I have to force myself to keep flushing changes to my own packages.

Its not that the tools to use files are limited. In cuis, they're not. You can work on multiple different things WITHIN THE SAME IMAGE (changes to some builtins, a couple of your own projects, etc), and the system will keep track of what belongs where. So a couple of mouse clucks will fileout the relevant code to the relevant changesets & packages.

And yet - just banging on the same image is just ... fun, easy, enticing.
by SamuelAdams | 2025-11-05 19:09:26+00:00
It does make me wonder: why are aircraft takeoffs and landings not recorded more often, with higher quality cameras and more angles? If I can watch an NFL replay in 4k a few seconds after the ball is snapped, why not record (and overwrite) all flights that take off and land at every airport?

Like a dash cam, they can save the footage only if there is a problem. Surely that would be much better than splicing together many third party camera recordings.
by LordDragonfang | 2025-11-05 19:09:51+00:00
Years Pres Senate House SC 2013-2015 D D(+8) R(+33) R(+1) 2015-2017 D R(+10) R(+59) -(+0) 2017-2019 R R(+4) R(+47) R(+1) 2019-2021 R R(+8) D(+35) R(+1) 2021-2023 D D(+0.5) D(+9) R(+3) 2023-2025 D D(+2) R(+9) R(+3) 2025-2027 R R(+8) R(+4) R(+3)

When exactly were the democrats supposed to "fix" the ACA without compromising?

Dems haven't had solid control of all three legislative bodies since it passed, and Republicans have vocally made it their priority to oppose the ACA in any way possible, and are unwilling to give an inch. Even the hair thin margin post-2020 was unusable for this due to the handful of DINOs that all needed to vote in lockstep.

Meanwhile, R's had unilateral control of the government for four straight years, and they voted to make everyone's lives worse, as you're complaining about. They said over and over they were going to repeal it, like you suggest, and then turned around and made it obvious that was a blatant lie. Because despite its flaws, even the gutted ACA is still wildly popular and a vast improvement over the previous status quo. (It turns out keeping workers healthy is critical for the economy)

This is not a symmetric problem. It really is one party making it worse.
by miki123211 | 2025-11-05 19:09:51+00:00
Times have changed. Priorities have changed.

In the heyday of TUIs, job attrition was much lower. It made sense to create a tool that was extremely hard to use, but also extremely efficient once learned.

In the modern days, attrition is much higher, especially in retail. You need to focus on discoverability and simplifying training as much as possible. Efficiency is secondary at best.
by kome | 2025-11-05 19:10:20+00:00
json is sort of a gresham's law "bad money drives out the good" but for tech: lazy and forgiving technologies drive out the better but stricter ones.

bad technology seems to make life easier at the beginning, but that's why we now have sloppy websites that are an unorganized mess of different libraries, several MB in size without reason, and an absolute usability and accessibility nightmare.

xhtml and xml were better, also the idea separating syntax from presentation, but they were too intelligent for our own good.
by mikkupikku | 2025-11-05 19:10:37+00:00
It would be terribly boring if it didn't. Just last night I had it walk me through reptile laws in my state to evaluate my business plan for a vertically integrated snapping turtle farm and turtle soup restaurant empire. Absurd, but it's fun to use for this kind of thing because it almost always takes you seriously.

(Turns out I would need permits :-( )
by dec0dedab0de | 2025-11-05 19:10:47+00:00
I prefer middlemen, especially for something like a phone. But even on a server I would rather be limited to using the OS packages from official repositories, and have a process in place if i need to compile something myself, I also think that process should be more involved than simply running as root.

I am afraid that making it too easy to install anything you want on modern smartphones is going to be a problem. Imagine how many are going to end up in botnets.
by mhitza | 2025-11-05 19:11:16+00:00
Almost all of them? as I recall there was a single volunteer developer maintaining the xml/xslt libraries they were using.

Wasn't it similar with openssl 13+ years ago? Few volunteer maintainers, and only after a couple of major vulnerabilities money got thrown at that project?

I'm sure there's more and that's why the famous xkcd comic is always of relevance.
by will4274 | 2025-11-05 19:11:36+00:00
According to whom?

Chromium is open source and free (both as in beer and speech). The license says they've made no future commitments and made no warrants.

Google signed up to give something away for free to people who want to use it. From the very first version, it wasn't perfectly compatible with other web browsers (which mostly did IE quirks things). If you don't want to use it, because it doesn't maintain enough backwards compatibility... Then don't.
by btilly | 2025-11-05 19:11:37+00:00
I agree that the image concept was a problem, but I think that you're focused on the wrong detail.

The problem with an image based ecosystem that I see is that you are inevitably pushed towards using tools that live within that image. Now granted, those tools are able to be very powerful because they leverage and interact with the image itself. But the community contributing to that ecosystem is far smaller than the communities contributing to filesystem based tools.

The result is that people who are considering coming into the system, have to start with abandoning their familiar toolchain. And for all of the technical advantages of the new toolchain, the much smaller contributor base creates a worse is better situation. While the file-based system has fundamental technical limitations, the size of the ecosystem results in faster overall development, and eventually a superior system.
by Imustaskforhelp | 2025-11-05 19:11:40+00:00
Oh really?

I live in India so we have UPI which has 0 fees online payment and the bank also takes literally 0 fees at all for most use-cases.

I guess I must be living in paradise in this department and yet I still prefer digital payments simply because they feel good

Its on the contrary here, our parents advocate us to keep cash around us in case some businesses don't accept UPI and we generally deny them

I have never seen a shop which only accepts UPI and not cash, like ever. I think cash is even written into the law that you will be legally charged if you don't accept cash.

There is this one case where some people don't accept half broken notes but banks do and they will give new ones for old tore notes and also one / two other case of my small city not accepting 10 rupees / 20 rupees coin but usually its on very rare occasion and they could still be legally charged if I wanted to for not accepting it but even its being accepted 99.9% here nowadays. Its just on rare occassion that happens and it doesn't hurt having some extra cash in hand anyways so it literally doesn't matter much
by roommin | 2025-11-05 19:11:41+00:00
Limited tests in specific settings are always surprising and do speak to it's use, but are not a testament to it being intelligent.

I replied because you answered "you're doing it wrong" to a question of it's failures. It seems you dismiss the concerns of the smaller errors or failures without realizing the point being made. If it's "smart" enough to solve take international math medals and beat grand masters at go, but can't truly understand problems and anticipate needs or issues, to me it's not a genuine intelligence and in it's current form never will be.

It's not that they are not perfect, is that they have no concept of reality, and it's evident in their failures. Beyond this point I am not interested in trying to convince you.
by insane_dreamer | 2025-11-05 19:12:19+00:00
> Andrew Carnegie was the richest man in the world at the beginning of the 1900's. What does "r > g" say happened to his wealth? What actually happened was that he gave it all away. Many of the richest people in the US have pledged to give away the majority of their wealth. You can't hand wave that away.

You absolutely can hand wave it away. 1) Yes, Carnegie's actions helped reduce inequality by funding thousands of libraries, but the reason Carnegie stands out is because he was unique in both wealth and largesse. Also, he gave away 90% of his wealth _while he was living_ so not relevant to this discussion about inherence. 2) Pledging and doing are not at all the same. 3) Those who are both pledging and doing (like Gates) are doing so during their lifetimes -- again a separate issue to inheritance.

I haven't done all the math, but I'm very confident that even if you discount charitable giving, you'll find that r > g in the present era (which is the subject of Piketty's book). Look, just looking at my portfolio, it's up nearly 70% in the past 5 years -- that's miles ahead of growth. And that just standard investments, no crypto, options, derivatives, pre-IPOs, etc. The very wealthy are doing much better than that.

> We know that "r > g" is not a good model of how the world works because 90% of the time, wealth is dissipated by the 3rd generation.

I don't know where that number comes from but I would strongly dispute it. Yes, there is very new wealth being made especially in the past 50 years by people like Musk, but most wealth is generational wealth, even in the US (and much more so in Europe and elsewhere).

> If it would, but giving it to 5 people would not, what is the number between 5 and 340,000,000 where it would start reducing inequality?

Please point me to the billionaire who divided up their assets upon their death to more than a few dozen people, and we can talk about how it reduced inequality. Almost all leave it to their heirs or, if generous, to a Trust or Foundation which keeps it invested (Ford, Rockefeller, Harvard, etc.) and give away / use the proceeds over time.