MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by viraptor | 2025-11-29 01:27:12+00:00
> "... so you're saying they wrote bad code on purpose?"

Depends how you define "one purpose". I feel like I could polish any code to perfection forever. But the threshold of bad is going to be very murky. Is it still bad after 5min? After 30? After an hour? After a day?

Wherever you think is the right effort/benefit threshold, it will turn out to be different in a few weeks. And you'll find people who think it's too fancy and people who think it's bad. Rarely is there objectively bad code. (Yeah, sometimes there is)
by bigyabai | 2025-11-29 01:27:17+00:00
I think they mean fascist, and it's a good question - will the common person toe the line if they get paid to accept it? We almost saw this in the MEFO bill era of the Nazi German economy, where the Wehrmacht's industrial demand reanimated the half-dead German manufacturers. Many poor German citizens got jobs and homes in this era, despite the ongoing tragedy.

Democracy is underpinned by populism, if the average person feels like UBI would harm the economy then they'll vote against it. Fascism, authoritarianism and planned economies can completely skip the public opinion portion and just start paying people out-of-pocket if they're liquid enough. We may see something similar here in the US as Trump considers a public tariff stipend to refute accusations of a recession: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2025/11/19/trump-2000-ta...
by d3Xt3r | 2025-11-29 01:27:42+00:00
Vanilla Wine doesn't, but Proton/Proton-GE does. It supports BattlEye, EAC, VAC, and nProtect Gameguard. Maybe a few others I missed out on.

But this means nothing unless game devs/studios actually enable support for it, and unfortunately some companies like Epic and Rockstar just aren't interested in Linux and they just make up blatant lies (like how Rockstar lied that BattlEye doesn't work on Linux, when Valve explicitly said it does, all they need to do is email BattlEye to enable support[1]).

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/8/22737127/valve-steam-deck...
by foobarian | 2025-11-29 01:29:11+00:00
I used to obsess about code, but over time I came to dread coming into a new codebase and finding layers upon layers of pointless mini-architecture. There would be a controller calling into a separate package where the actual implementation is, then that would call into a layer where service calls are, then all that would be abstracted just in case and built into a separate jar, and so on. And there would still be cross-dependencies. I think what happens there is a kind of purity spiral effect and developers have to go through the motions of following the best practices du jour instead of just calling the damn method.
by pengaru | 2025-11-29 01:29:15+00:00
> At least with SNAP/EBT, your landlord can’t take that money.

You think people don't pay their rent with SNAP/EBT?

I've got news for you - they do, by selling their benefits to someone with cash at a horrible rate. To pay rent, put gas in their cars, buy alcohol... all the things money is necessary for.
by climb_stealth | 2025-11-29 01:31:27+00:00
I agree and disagree with you. These studies should be done with guaranteed payments for life. Otherwise it is just not representative.

I do believe that people would still work though. Personally I would like to do a useful job with real benefit to society, but the low pay makes it not feasible. I would still want to work part time at least instead of not at all.
by ethagnawl | 2025-11-29 01:32:54+00:00
This is an exciting development. I imagine I'll continue using Celery in most cases but being able to transparently swap back-ends for testing, CI, etc. is very compelling.

I haven't looked into this in any detail but I wonder if the API or defaults will shave off some of the rough edges in Celery, like early ACKs and retries.
by loeg | 2025-11-29 01:35:09+00:00
The Nasdaq 17 year figure is only true from the peakiest peak of ~4800 in March 2000. Two years earlier, in March 1998, it was at 1750. It had hit 1750 again by August 2023.

All this to say... shorting 1-2 years early doesn't work. You don't have the patience or capital to actually maintain a short position for two years while the market goes from 1750 to 4800. You can cheaply sit out in cash, if you want, but that's not a short position. And the S&P500 hasn't seen the kind of 300% run-up over an 18 month period that Nasdaq did in the dotcom boom.
by alfiedotwtf | 2025-11-29 01:36:44+00:00
If your editor is full screen, and you have a terminal emulator to build, test, and run, does an OS actually matter these days?

VS Code is good enough for 90% of grunt work, and Emacs will give you 110% more, but at the end of the day, you live in your editor not your OS (or maybe it’s just me).
by thaumasiotes | 2025-11-29 01:37:24+00:00
You can see an edge effect in bidding-based card games when someone is close to victory.

Say you're in a game to 500 points and you're losing 460 to 480. There are 13 tricks and a trick is worth 10 points if you bid it.

The other team bids 5 tricks. Assuming they can make this (very safe) bid, they will have 530 points. You are collectively good for about 6 tricks. What should you bid?

If you bid reflecting your hand, you'll score 60 points and lose the game 520 to 530. You could go higher; you can take 8 tricks without even needing to set the other team. That would convert your loss into a win. But it's extremely unlikely that you'll be able to make those 8 tricks.

If you're playing duplicates and getting scored based on how good your result was compared to other teams playing the same hand, you should bid 6. If you're playing this as a one-off and getting scored based on whether you win or lose, you should bid 8 despite the fact that you can't make 8.

This becomes a manners issue in some games where your bid is an important input into later players' bids.
by manquer | 2025-11-29 01:37:36+00:00
Positions are not necessary to be single transaction. They can be multi-step trade.

For global currency risk (meaning on USD), You will have to hedge your shorts with a non currency long position which historically hold value during defaults/ runs etc. Assets like gold (ETFs/Gold bars) or real estate (REITs or physical land holdings) or rights to commodity revenue like oil, copper etc [1].

If the currency risk is not for USD, then mix of other currencies particularly USD would work well as as hedge.

Currency risk is independent of shorting, i.e. it is risk in Long positions as well, current may inflate faster than your position increases in value etc.

---

[1] Commodity come with additional shorter term market volatility and risks - due their own supply/demand volatility and depend performance of economy.

However after assets like Gold, they will have highest correlation of returns against inflation as long the economy doesn't completely crash, because the demand for them is foundational
by anonym29 | 2025-11-29 01:38:39+00:00
In 2025, the US Federal government pulled in a a grand total of $5.16 trillion in revenue.

Giving all 258 million adult US citizens $1000 a month totals to $3.096 trillion per year.

Giving them all $2000 a month totals to $6.192 trillion per year - more than all US tax revenue from all sources combined.

Of course, we already have a $1.7 trillion deficit, with $38 trillion and counting in debt without the UBI, and I assume you're not planning on defaulting on our $1 trillion+ in annual interest payments on the debt either, right?

How about Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which by themselves take up over half of the entire federal budget, are we keeping those too?

If you'd like, we could confiscate 100% of the assets of every billionaire that's a US citizen and hope to sell all of the non-liquid asssets at market prices, that'll get us 9 months worth of current federal spending levels - less if we're adding UBI on top and not getting rid of any other programs.

Now if you want to get creative, we could keep funding the military and use it to go after all of the other global billionaires, that'll get us almost through a full 4-year presidential cycle, at the low, low cost of invading just about every other sovereign nation on earth to rob their citizens, too.

We could also have the treasury start minting trillion dollar coins to both pay off the debt and fund the UBI, but I don't think you're going to like your $2000 monthly UBI check as much when market rent on a studio is $200,000 a month.

If you have better ideas on how to pay for this, I'm all ears.
by berti | 2025-11-29 01:39:34+00:00
That's applicable for one specific model of ADIRU (basically determines where the aircraft is in 3d space in terms of position, rotation, velocities, and accelerations) from a single manufacturer (Litton). These aircraft have dozens of computers for different functions, many of them with multiple manufacturer options. There are at least 4 different ADIRU makers that airlines have been able to specify at different times including the Litton.

The ELACs (controlling the elevator and aileron actuators according to the demands computed by other functions) are made by Thales specifically for this aircraft type and probably have a quite different design.
by inkyoto | 2025-11-29 01:39:37+00:00
> Certainly it is literally derivative.

I am not sure if it is that clear cut.

Embeddings are encodings of shared abstract concepts statistically inferred from many works or expressions of thoughts possessed by all humans.

With text embeddings, we get a many-to-one, lossy map: many possible texts ↝ one vector that preserves some structure about meaning and some structure about style, but not enough to reconstruct the original in general, and there is no principled way to say «this vector is derived specifically from that paragraph by authored by XYZ».

Does the encoded representation of the abstract concepts represent the derivate work? If yes, then every statement ever made by a human being represents the work derivative of someone else's by virtue of learning how to speak in the childhood – they create a derivative work of all prior speakers.

Technically, the3re is a strong argument against treating ordinary embedding vectors as derivative works, because:

- Embeddings are not uniquely reversible and, in general, it is not possible reconstruct the original text from the embedding;

- The embedding is one of an uncountable number of vectors in a space where nearby points correspond to many different possible sentences;

- Any individual vector is not meaningfully «the same» as the original work in the way that a translation or an adaptation is.

Please do note that this is the philosophical take and it glosses over the legally relevant differences between human and machine learning as the legal question ultimately depends on statutes, case law and policy choices that are still evolving.

Where it gets more complicated.

If the embeddings model has been trained on a large number of languages, it makes the cross-lingual search easily possible by using an abstract search concept in any language that the model has been trained on. The quality of such search results across languages X, Y and Z will be directly proportional to the scale and quality of the corpus of text that was used in the model training in the said languages.

Therefore, I can search for «the meaning of life»[0] in English and arrive at a highly relevant cluster of search results written in different languages by different people at different times, and the question becomes is «what exactly it has been statistically[1] derived from?».

[0] The cross-lingual search is what I did with my engineers last year to our surprise and delight of how well it actually worked.

[1] In the legal sense, if one can't trace a given vector uniquely back to a specific underlying copyrighted expression, and demonstrate substantial similarity of expression rather than idea, the «derivative work» argument in the legal sense becomes strained.
by ssl-3 | 2025-11-29 01:40:20+00:00
It warms the engine (and thus the interior) while I clear the driveway of snow, and it does this even if the doors are frozen shut because of a layer of ice.

By the time I get back to addressing the car itself, the snow and ice is easier to brush or scrape off and the doors might actually open without ripping the handle off (which is something that I've directly experienced twice so far in my days).

This all conspires to mean that it makes my life easier.

And it's OK if you don't like the feature and take a very dim view of it. It's also OK that some others may find merit in using it.

It's all OK.
by snuxoll | 2025-11-29 01:42:47+00:00
The reality is that CRM is still the most important factor required to have a reasonable chance of turning what would otherwise be a catastrophic aviation incident into something that people walk away from. Systems do fail, when they do it's up to the crew to enact memory items as quickly as possible and communicate with each other like they are trained to.

Unfortunately, sometimes they also fail in ways that even a trained crew isn't able to recover the aircraft. That could be a failure that wasn't anticipated, training that was inadequate, design flaws, the human element, you name it. Actions of the crew being put in an accident report isn't an assignment of blame, it's a statement of facts - the recommendations that come from those facts are all that matters.
by berti | 2025-11-29 01:43:59+00:00
The 777 and 787 before it are true fly-by-wire designs like the Airbus in question here; the 737 MAX isn't and never was. It just had a computer that was supposed to add artificial inputs under a very specific condition, so it could continue to fly like the older models under the same type certificate and not require extra pilot training. It turns out that the condition could be triggered erroneously, and the logic to determine the artificial inputs was deeply flawed.
by beeflet | 2025-11-29 01:44:04+00:00
>Probably not.

Probably not, but possibly yes. Which is more than the cuck license guarantees. See postmarketOS and such, which would be impossible in a BSD world.

>The vast majority of vendors that use Linux embedded never contribute a single line of code

It doesn't matter. The point is just that they can be legally compelled to if needed. That is better than nothing.

>The level of contribution has nothing to do with the GPL.

None of this would be feasible if linux wasn't a platform where the drivers work. They wouldn't have worked on the linux userspace in the first place if it didn't have driver support: it wouldn't be a viable competitor to windows and the whole PC platform would probably be locked down anyways without a decent competitor. Permissive software is parasitic in this sense that it benefits from inter-operating in a copyleft environment but cooperates with attempts to lock down the market.

LLVM was made after GCC and is designed with a different architecture. It is apples and oranges.

Apple is a great example of a company that is flooding the world with locked-down devices. Everything they do is an obstacle to general purpose computing. What do they meaningfully commit to the public domain? Swift? Webkit? It is part of a strategy to improve their lock-in and ultimately make collaboration impossible.
Show HN: Generate Sheet Music Using AI (Scribe)
by hwittenborn | 2025-11-29 01:46:04+00:00
Today, I'm releasing a public beta of Scribe. Scribe allows you to describe sheet music that you want in English, and get sheet music that fits the vibes you're looking for.

Existing tools like Suno already convert text into audio, but I've seen a big gap for converting text to sheet music, the format that musicians and composers use every day.

I'm hoping to expand beyond this as I do more market research, but this was the big first step on my journey!

Any feedback would be appreciated
by YZF | 2025-11-29 01:48:22+00:00
To be fair to management, it is the results that matter.

Management cares about what their management cares about. So this boils down to what the CEO cares about. The CEO cares about what the board cares about. The board cares about share prices going up.

I do believe that e.g. retaining engineers is something that helps the business. It's stupid that someone ramps up for 2 years and then goes to a different job just as they start becoming really effective. It costs companies a ton of money which they could instead just use to get people to stay. But I'm not on Google's board. It's only when Google board decides that fostering the right engineering culture is important enough for the business that something is going to change. And so far- they don't (s/Google/BigTech).

Re: Incentives- Obviously(?) the incentives are not right. So when you say "plenty of incentive" what it really means is incentive to ship sloppy code and get promoted. Or the incentive to go from Google to OpenAI and get a pay increase or whatnot.
by cadamsdotcom | 2025-11-29 01:48:47+00:00
There’s a cost-benefit component missing from the analysis.

“Bad” code is probably “good enough for now” code that was written some time ago on a bet that doing it better would never be needed as it wouldn’t need to change.

Also, “good” code is costly especially if taking longer to build the thing causes the company to miss its market.
by data-ottawa | 2025-11-29 01:50:15+00:00
These are things I pull out like 2-3 times a year normally, so I don’t feel like that makes a huge difference.

I’ve been learning zig and using LLMs clearly did hamper my ability to actually write code myself, which was the goal of learning zig, so I’ve seen this too.

It is important to make the right choice of when/how to use these tools.
by dylan604 | 2025-11-29 01:50:37+00:00
Maybe you skimmed past this from TFA:

"Well, the first problem I had, in order to do something like that, was to find an archive with Hacker News comments. Luckily there was one with apparently everything posted on HN from the start to 2023, for a huge 10GB of total data. You can find it here: https://huggingface.co/datasets/OpenPipe/hacker-news and, honestly, I’m not really sure how this was obtained, if using scarping or if HN makes this data public in some way."
by sfink | 2025-11-29 01:50:39+00:00
Hm, those are all valid, but they're also from the perspective of only caring about external forces. It's as if the work itself is only relevant insofar as we get something out of it.

I got into this career because I like mucking about with this kind of work. Programming is sort of like building thought sculptures. Ok, maintaining them too. I spend a lot of my adult life working with these systems, so of course I care about their quality.

It is unpleasant to work on a hack-filled creaking monstrosity of a codebase. My skills, such as they are, don't help as much as it feels they should, because I rely heavily on understanding a system based on how it sort of has to work given what I know about the constraints, and hacky systems constantly confound my expectations. That means I have to spend way too much time and effort learning the idiosyncrasies and unpredictable corner cases, and so have less time to make the changes I want to make. It's like a carpenter working on a house where nothing is straight, nothing is level. Or a cook given flavorless or half-rotten ingredients to use. You spend more time picking out the bad (or picking out the good and discarding the rest) than actually cooking.

Any my scope is limited. Some changes are just not feasible to make, because there are too many hidden and/or unnecessary dependencies buried in the code. If you change one thing, everything falls apart. If you patch it together well enough to more or less work, you're faced with a long tail of subtle bugs that you'll be battling for a long time to come. There's no conceptual integrity.

Furthermore, working with a team that accepts a never-ending accumulation of creeping technical debt is also unpleasant. You can't trust that a positive review means anything. If you try to do something right and take pride in your work, your teammates will be resentful that you're not closing your bugs fast enough. Who cares that it means less maintenance overhead in the future if nobody's planning on sticking around, or people are depending on things being constantly broken so that they can spend their days knocking off relatively easy whack-a-mole style bugs?

Bad code is actually fine. It happens. But I want to know why the code is bad, whether the reasons are defensible or not. If they aren't, I know that the codebase is going to be littered with similar crap, and that my job is going to suck. That's what bothers me so much. This is true even if I'm the author of the bad code. Why didn't the reviewer point it out? Is it like the article said, and there's nobody competent enough to spot glaring issues? That is also a component of a job that sucks.
by mindcrime | 2025-11-29 01:50:50+00:00
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF797E961509B4EB5

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDesaqWTN6EQ2J4vgsN1H...

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDesaqWTN6ESk16YRmzuJ...
by rincebrain | 2025-11-29 01:51:19+00:00
This is only true in places where there are more people trying to rent than places.

In theory, having more capital available in the face of a landlord raising rent an obnoxious amount will incentivize people who aren't making much to move somewhere with a lower CoL that they might not have been able to make work otherwise because of uncertainty in the amount of time they'd be out of work or their base level of money available for that time.
by GiorgioG | 2025-11-29 01:52:34+00:00
I’ve worked remote for at least 16 of the past 22 years including my first job out college. It’s always been friggin awesome. The only downside was when I was contracting and I’d get calls in the middle of dinner and I didn’t have the self-discipline to ignore the call. A few times a year I have to travel to work, it’s nice to see folks, but it’s not required to get the work done, I put my big boy pants on and figure it out, or ask for help when I can’t.
by hombre_fatal | 2025-11-29 01:52:50+00:00
I use it as my secret store provider but it has its quirks.

It would be better if you could have multiple providers attached (gnome-keyring and keepassxc) and then decide which app uses which provider.

Because only some secrets you want to share across devices, like wifi passwords, and the rest you don’t, like the key chromium uses to encrypt local cookies or the gh cli token.
by chickenbig | 2025-11-29 01:52:56+00:00
> So, more heat capacity and less mass means lower cost per mwh.

Can you compare different technologies with these scaling laws? Also what are the limits of these approximations (e.g. taking temperatures to extremes tends to run into maintenance problems).

In this case the sand battery delivers 400 C steam from 600 C sand [0], via some heat exchange fluid (solar salt?) that flows next to the sand. Going through heating/cooling cycles can cause material issues, especially for larger temperature differences.

[0] https://polarnightenergy.com/sand-battery/
by Spooky23 | 2025-11-29 01:53:05+00:00
Even if you do, you’re still going to get breached. They drop features all of the time that open potential vulnerabilities.

I used to run a Microsoft productivity ops team. Email/SharePoint/etc. Our headcount was about 20-24. O365 dropped that to ~8. Now? I’m told it’s about 60, much of it relating to security.
by JakaJancar | 2025-11-29 01:54:17+00:00
Assuming you're fine with keeping the queue in postgres, I've used Procrastinate and it's great:

https://procrastinate.readthedocs.io/en/stable/index.html

Core is not Django-specific, but it has an optional integration. Sync and async, retries/cancellation/etc., very extensible, and IMO super clean architecture and well tested.

IIRC think the codebase is like one-tenth that of Celery.