MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by atonse | 2025-11-24 18:30:54+00:00
Let me clarify, when I perform interviews, I tell my candidates they can do _everything_ you would do in a normal job, including using AI and googling for answers.

But just to humor you (since I did make that strong statement), without googling or checking anything, I would start with basic regular expression ranges (^[A-za-z\s\.\-*]) etc and do a find-replace on that until things looked coherent without too much loss of words/text.

But the problem isn't me, is it? It's the AI companies and their crawlers, that can trivially be changed to get around this. At the end of the day, they have access to all the data to know exactly which unicode sequences are used in words, etc.
by magicalhippo | 2025-11-24 18:31:42+00:00
> Mozilla has no desire to introduce a barely supported massive C++ decoder for marginal gains

On a slightly related note, I wanted to have a HDR background image in Windows 11. Should be a breeze in 2025 right?

Well, Windows 11 only supports JPEG XR[1] for HDR background images. And my commonly used tools did either not support JPEG XR (Gimp fex) or they did not work correctly (ImageMagick).

So I had a look at the JPEG XR reference implementation, which was hosted on Codeplex but has been mirrored on GitHub[2]. And boy, I sure hope that isn't the code that lives in Windows 11...

Ok most of the gunk is in the encoder/decoder wrapper code, but still, for something that's supposedly still in active use by Microsoft... Though not even hosting their own copy of the reference implementation is telling enough I suppose.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XR

[2]: https://github.com/4creators/jxrlib
by 6510 | 2025-11-24 18:31:48+00:00
imho...

The entrepreneur chat session should start with an LLM to analyze the task, asks questions and writes an information dense summary as well as an extended one. (rather than the usual truncation) If applicable it should also ask if information from previous jobs should be pulled in. The freelancer will scroll over the open tasks, view the extended description and asks the LLM for further specifics. (to be included in a new short/long description)

The LLM may also send push notifications if your settings, history and profile suggest you are uniquely qualified for the job.

The front page should be a work space with 3 tabs. The default tab is for the tasks currently open. Programmers should not be bothered with endless docs and tons of clicking around, they should type the url and immediately see what they are suppose to do. All other things come second.

Second tab is for posting jobs.

3rd tab is for people who some how ended up on the page not knowing why they are there.

What I like to do is not bother people with registration until it is required. You can spend as much time as you like typing a task description, if you don't actually submit it there is no need to pay or register. They need to write down what is on their mind, it is terrible to bother them with other things.

Good luck!
by euroderf | 2025-11-24 18:31:58+00:00
> When I’m staring at a screen 8 hours a day as a computer programmer already, my body screams for less screen time, not more.

Can sympathise. When I worked in SW I avoided computer games and hobby coding like the plague. During bouts of unemployment I dived back in.

There's limits to being a glassy-eyed inert lump of protoplasm.
by SoftTalker | 2025-11-24 18:32:02+00:00
Yes, it makes sense when there is a "hand off" of continuing operations to the next shift.

For something like software, being produced by ICs or even pairs, a fixed daily meeting is much more likely (at least in my experience) to become a ceremony[1] over time even if it is occasionally or initially beneficial.

[1] was wanting to find a link but could not. I'm using this word in the sense that Tom DeMarco used it in Peopleware.
by maxlin | 2025-11-24 18:32:26+00:00
Looks are subjective. The "narrow mustache" alfas have make the absolutely ugly for me, even though I do understand some people consider then pretty for some reason.

CB's aren't "traditionally pretty" but are objectively distinctive, IMHO cool af, futuristic like DeLoreans. Kids love em, and I love the looks of a Testarossa the same now I did when I had a model as a kid ...

Also, CB's absolutely "can car". Better than DeLoreans for sure lol
by moffkalast | 2025-11-24 18:33:03+00:00
You know I didn't use to understand libertarians, but after years of watching boundaries being overstepped again and again I think I see the appeal of burning it all down and living in a cabin in the woods.

Like, in Europe we already live in a completely safe society in historical and geographic terms, what more do you fucking want? Security is beyond a laughable excuse for things like chat control. Power tripping elitists will never be happy until they have the entire population under 24/7 camera surveillance and can read every thought in our heads as it occurs. If you make crime impossible, you make free will impossible.
by bluescrn | 2025-11-24 18:33:22+00:00
> Billionaires are a very small group. There is far more wealth held by people with assets of, say, over £100m, or even £10m?

Which is precisely why we can't 'eliminate billionaires'.

Because before long it's a push for full-on communism, and even owning £100k is too much.

And unless you can destroy capitalism on a global scale, there'll always be countries eager to take in very wealthy people.
by immibis | 2025-11-24 18:33:29+00:00
Probably the former. SkyECC, Encrochat, etc, were found to be deliberately sold to nontechnical drug lords for large amounts of money - as in, the project leads went out searching for drug lords and selling phones to them individually and offered to sell them 100 phones for $200 per month per phone. Drug empires have that sort of money. And they didn't sell to anyone else since nobody else has that sort of money.

It seems unlikely that GrapheneOS is the same way, since it's free, but you never know - maybe it is made for drug lords, and giving it away to the rest of us is just for plausible deniability.
by ctenb | 2025-11-24 18:33:58+00:00
2023: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36798774

2022: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30734137

2018: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17413911

2015: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9093545

2014: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8399461
by graeme | 2025-11-24 18:33:58+00:00
The headline + intro is written to infuriate. If you respond to that and not the article you're taking the bait.

The main topic the article is talking about is a drag on business efficiency from a slower upgrade cycle and running workloads less efficiently on old equipment.

>Small businesses, in particular, lose valuable hours each year due to lagging systems, creating what economists call a ‘productivity drag,’” Benabess said. On a national scale, this translates to billions of dollars in lost output and reduced innovation. “While keeping devices longer may seem financially or environmentally responsible, the hidden cost is a quieter erosion of economic dynamism and competitiveness,” she added.

Of course it's on CNBC for writing the article this was. It likely never would have made it here without that spin however. State of the media environment.
by sofixa | 2025-11-24 18:34:11+00:00
> status quo

Yes, we're talking about the current reality and trends about the future. Which is it, are EU manufacturers at large on the decline, or am I too focused on the current reality that they're doing okay, with exceptions?

> Making worse cars at higher prices can not work.

Who is talking about worse cars or brand loyalty?

A Renault 5 or Renault 4 are objectively good cars that sell well based on their performance and looks. Cars aren't bought only on the basis on cost, which is why premium or even just any other brand other than the lowest cost Skoda or Dacia exist in the first place.

> None of your arguments seem convincing at all.

It's not very convincing to say that manufacturing in the EU is on a death bed when its double the % of GDP as in the US, and has multiple domains where there are good performances. And then get extremely hung up that EU manufacturers must export, and that somehow cost is the only metric by which people buy stuff. And then get extremely hung up on car manufacturing in particular. But also somehow that EU manufacturing is worse quality, which you don't even attempt to prove. Yeah, when you put down the wrong conditions, you're going to get the wrong conclusions. And repeating them again and again doesn't make them more convincing.

Most best selling EV models in the EU are Tesla, from Renault or VW Group. Practically all of them are manufactured in the EU. This is not a declining trend.

And of course you're completely ignoring the reality that tariffs against Chinese dumping are a reality and here to stay in many markets. Manufacturers that relied a lot on e.g. the Chinese car market, like VW, will suffer. Others that didn't, like Renault, are doing just fine.
by A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 | 2025-11-24 18:34:12+00:00
It is, but it does not matter, because:

1. Corporate interests want to sell product 2. Administrators want a product they can use 3. Compliance people want a checkbox they can check 4. Teachers want to be ablet to continue what they have been doing thus far within the existing ecosystem 5. Parents either don't know, don't care, or do, but are unable to provide a viable alternative or, can and do provide it

We have had this conversation ( although without AI component ) before. None of it is really secret. The question is really what is the actual goal. Right now, in US, education is mostly in name only -- unless you are involved ( which already means you are taking steps to correct it ) or are in the right zip code ( which is not a guarantee, but it makes your kids odds better ).
by Aurornis | 2025-11-24 18:34:35+00:00
All of the buggy software projects I've been employed to work on have had some version of this rule.

Usually it's implicit, rather than explicit: Nobody tells you to limit work on bugs to 1-2 days, but if you spend an entire week debugging something difficult and don't accumulate any story points in Jira, a cadre of project manager, program managers, and other manager titles you didn't even know existed will descend upon you and ask why you're dragging the velocity down.

Lesson learned: Next time, avoid the hard bugs and give up early if something isn't going to turn into story points for hidden charts that are viewed by more people than you ever thought.
by numpad0 | 2025-11-24 18:34:39+00:00
Same reasons as why things like Clipper Chips isn't happening. It completely lacks technical basis, and even political consensus gets sketchy quick.

Post-war Commonwealth nations are generally bad at gun designs as well - UK tried once and produced an infantry rifle that will(not could) seriously injure its user if held and fired in left hand. So even if forced, the approved gun will be more of a theoretical product, and the smart gun mandate will just be a less politically viable alternative to total firearms ban.
by tptacek | 2025-11-24 18:34:40+00:00
It's "Dragonblood", not "Dragonbleed". I don't like Harkin's PAKE either, but I'm not sure what fundamental attribute of it enables the downgrade attack you're talking about.

When you're talking about the P-curves, I'm curious how you get your "sanity check" argument past things like the Koblitz/Menezes "Riddle Wrapped In An Enigma" paper. What part of their arguments did you not find persuasive?
by Wistar | 2025-11-24 18:34:46+00:00
My empirical observations conclude this is true in my little circle of the world. In our offices, we are using 2017–2019 era computers that are kept up and many of my friends, family and acquaintances are using iPhone 14 and older. I use an iPhone 12 mini because I love the mini form factor and treat the phone with care as I want it to last—hopefully until the next mini comes out which is likely forever, darn it.
by prngl | 2025-11-24 18:35:02+00:00
I always find it odd when media (and others) consider consumerism as somehow "helping" the economy. The economy is entirely about the collective activity of humans serving humans. Everything we make or do is really about prioritizing that activity over others. Why would it be advantageous to prioritize barely-distinguishable "new" devices over the myriad other things human labor and capital could be put to?
by jmclnx | 2025-11-24 18:35:02+00:00
For me, the only drawback for corporations is the 6 month upgrade. There is no LTS on OpenBSD.

I use OpenBSD as a workstation and it works great, but in a production environment I doubt I would use OpenBSD for critical items, mainly because no LTS.

It is a sad state of affairs because Companies do not want nor will want a system you need to upgrade so often even if its security very good.
by LegionMammal978 | 2025-11-24 18:35:06+00:00
> It's always either an `unwrap` (and we know how well that can go [2])

If a mutex has been poisoned, then something must have already panicked, likely in some other thread, so you're already in trouble at that point. It's fine to panic in a critical section if something's horribly wrong, the problem comes with blindly continuing after a panic in other threads that operate on the same data. In general, you're unlikely to know what that panic was, so you have no clue if the shared data might be incompletely modified or otherwise logically corrupted.

In general, unless I were being careful to maintain fault boundaries between threads or tasks (the archetypical example being an HTTP server handling independent requests), I'd want a panic in one thread to cascade into stopping the program as soon as possible. I wouldn't want to swallow it up and keep using the same data like nothing's wrong.
by estebank | 2025-11-24 18:35:22+00:00
You can see epage's replies to my copy of this comment for an idea of the open questions: https://hachyderm.io/@ekuber/115605792856416650

You can look at what is currently effectively staffed at https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-project-goals/#flexible-fas...

We discussed a lot of these last May in person. Haven't kept track of who's doing what on these fronts.

> have there been any interesting pondered/proposed avenues for speedup that were rejected because they would result in too much breakage, violate a core tenant of Rust (e.g., require a runtime to be usable) or other reason that is "inherent" to Rust?

Yes, but I haven't been part of all of them and can't ellaborate much here. Opening a thread in internals.rust-lang.org with that question might get some good info sooner that I could.
by hinkley | 2025-11-24 18:35:43+00:00
When I worked in commercial aerospace, before we even shipped live there was an incident with a CERT advisory against the XML package we were using. But the fix was only added to the current major version and we were stuck one behind. It took ~3 of our best problem solvers about a week to get that damned thing upgraded. Which put us behind on our schedule.

This made some of my more forward thinking coworkers nervous because what if this happened after we went live? So we started a repeating story called “upgrade dependencies” and assigned it round robin once a month to someone on each application. Every time someone got it the first time they would ask me, “but upgrade what?” Whatever you want, but preferable something that hasn’t been in a while.

For IP and security reasons we were already on vendored dependencies, so it was pretty straightforward to tell what was old. But that made “upgrade immediately” problematic if fixes weren’t back ported far enough and we didn’t want that live.
Those who fly too close to the SUN (Microsystems) eventually get burned
by dfasoro | 2025-11-24 18:36:02+00:00
Imagine if in the 1960s, the early days of databases, tech CEOs decided that flat files on giant mainframes were the pinnacle of innovation. Imagine they poured $300B into pre-scaling that because they assumed sequential file access represented the future of enterprise demand - and because government contracts seemed within reach.

Meanwhile, a handful of quiet researchers were in the trenches building the real breakthroughs: RDBMS, B-Trees, hash indexes, SQL, and later NoSQL and distributed SQL - along with new hardware architectures that actually made data systems scalable, reliable, and foundational to the global economy.

If someone had bet hundreds of billions on flat files simply because they mistook raw compute demand for actual utility, it would be laughable in hindsight. That’s the feeling I get watching today’s frenzy.

I don’t understand the impatience of supposedly smart tech leaders racing to pour tens of billions into selling and scaling technology that is still unstable, rapidly evolving, and nowhere near its final form (today it is MCP; tomorrow it is Context Engineering; next it is code-execution). Actually, I do understand: FOMO and opportunism.

What I’d rather see is impatience in funding research, fundamental scientific progress, and the innovations that will make AI genuinely more useful, robust, and economically meaningful.

And we can’t ignore the societal cost. People are being laid off, teams dissolved, and careers and lives disrupted - all for technologies that remain expensive (don’t be deceived by the subsidies; every major AI company is burning cash), immature, and unpredictable.

As the old saying goes: those who fly too close to the SUN (Microsystems) eventually get burned.

https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/amazon-ai-investment-us-federal-agencies
by makimilan22 | 2025-11-24 18:36:05+00:00
Hi.

This is an experimental "Testbed" release, and the backstory is a bit unusual.

I didn't write this code alone. I orchestrated a swarm of AI Agents (using reasoning models like GPT-5.1/Gemini 3) to architect and build it. My job was basically arguing with them to stop them from building "just another vector DB" and actually implement the physics-based O(N) routing logic I envisioned. The previous post was useless because it was a dummy project with fictitious data. I won't delete this one and will leave it for your feedback.

What we achieved (v4.0): We built an engine that replaces the O(N^2) Attention Matrix with Event-Driven Routing + State Space Models (SSM).

Why I'm sharing this: The model is currently UNTRAINED (random weights), so it won't write poetry yet. I am releasing the engine to verify the performance claims:

1. Efficiency: At 4096 tokens, it uses ~27,000x fewer FLOPS than a Transformer. 2. Speed: It runs in pure Python. It starts slower (overhead), but overtakes optimized Transformers at ~2k tokens. 3. Logic: v4.0 finally fixed the "Bag-of-Words" issue. It now understands sequence order.

I need the community to stress-test the physics. Clone the repo, run `python run_v3_demo.py`, and tell me if the math holds up.

Repo: https://github.com/makimilan/pulse-field-corev

Cheers!
by theideaofcoffee | 2025-11-24 18:36:07+00:00
As much as I want to agree with you, no, backdoors for them mean backdoors for everyone else. It's all or nothing. Now, they should be held to a higher standard, and face stiffer penalty than the regular prole because they should be the example-setters.

Do better policing (and that doesn't include trying to backdoor devices), but backdoors aren't the answer.
by throwawaypath | 2025-11-24 18:36:11+00:00
>Here's your own "source" (wikipedia) on neolithic people on the British isles.

Yes, the source that literally proves my point.

>"Recent genetic studies have suggested that Britain's Neolithic population was largely replaced by a population from North Continental Europe characterised by the Bell Beaker culture around 2400 BC, associated with the Yamnaya people from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe."

And if you continue reading, the English are the descendants of that population, the mix Neolithic and Northern European peoples, even though most of the Neolithic were replaced, the English descended from both.

Thanks for proving my point?

>And you can't use the fact that wikipedia uses the term "non-indigenous" for a group to prove a point about "non-native", when what your arguing is that they mean the same. That's a circular argument, the premise is only true if the conclusion is true.

Those groups are non-indigenous to Europe, which means they are de facto not native to London. There are indigenous groups in Europe and the UK that are similarly not native to London. These two words mean different things.

>There's also a category error here, whether a group belongs to non-indigenous minorities says nothing about indigenous majority, which is what you're claiming the English are. They would not be present in "non-indigenous minority" because they are not a minority.

The only category error here is you trying to claim non-indigenous foreign groups are "native" when by definition, and all sources I've provided, show they are not.

>Again, you're the only one bringing up "indigenous" as a relevant concept. Something that neither DHH nor anyone else but you in this discussion is arguing about.

The only native group to London are the English. The English are White Brits. DHH claimed "native Brits," and "native Brits" are those who are indigenous to the area, the English.
by fn-mote | 2025-11-24 18:36:14+00:00
> a mountain of tutorials online advising to drop in that file for wifi

Cannot emphasize this enough. People with barely enough knowledge (“script kiddies” so to speak) are configuring and using RPi’s. They just want to follow the tutorial and get it working so they can do what they really want. (Eg image processing or run their 3D printer.) Nothing against this kind of user. I help them when, but…

This creates a situation where “the wrong tutorial” problem is unnecessarily easy to stumble on.
by lisbbb | 2025-11-24 18:36:34+00:00
Everything about the exercise of power in the digital world is tilted away from the individual.

Windows 11 moved all my files into the cloud without even asking me! I was livid--those are documents that I deliberately DID NOT WANT in the cloud! It's crazy what malice we have to put up with and navigate these days. It just keeps getting worse and more convoluted, too.
by thomastjeffery | 2025-11-24 18:36:47+00:00
The only problem with that train of thought is that you are advocating a lower standard. Backdoors are not a superior option in any circumstance whatsoever.

The standard of conduct we need (and are failing) to hold politicians and cops to is actual security and responsibility. Some of the most powerful politicians in the world are leaking private conversations, and no one is holding them accountable. Police are paying private corporations (notably Flock) to build giant monolithic datasets from stalking private citizens, yet neither party is held to any standard whatsoever.
by blintz | 2025-11-24 18:37:26+00:00
> I think the whole point is that some people would be forced to use it due to other standards picking previously-standardized ciphers. He explains and cites examples of this in the past.

If an organization wants to force its clients or servers to use pure ML-KEM, they can already do this using any means they like. The standardization of a TLS ciphersuite is besides the point.

> He comes with historical and procedural evidence of bad faith. Why is this ridiculous?

Yes, the NSA has nefariously influenced standards processes. That does not mean that in each and every standards process (especially the ones that don't go your way) you can accuse everyone who disagrees with you, on the merits, of having some ulterior motive or secret relationship with the NSA. That is exactly what he has done repeatedly, both on his blog and on the list.

> why wouldn't you equate that to working for the NSA (or something equally bad)?

For the simple reason that you should not accuse another person of working for the NSA without real proof of that! The standard of proof for an accusation like that cannot be "you disagree with me".