MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by UniverseHacker | 2025-11-01 19:49:46+00:00
It’s more complex than that- initial drafts of the declaration of independence were more explicit about literally covering all people, and even had a rant about how slavery was unethical, and they compromised by cutting these in order to get enough consensus to make it happen at all. Thomas Jefferson himself was a hypocrite- he wrote a lot about how slavery was wrong and should be ended, all the while owning slaves himself.

Anyways, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to nowadays take that philosophy and apply it universally. Just because it was done unfairly and hypocritically in the past is no excuse for us to also be hypocrites nowadays.
by RulerOf | 2025-11-01 19:49:46+00:00
> but the number of independently variable backlight zones is still orders of magnitude smaller than the number of pixels

The appearance of a lone mouse cursor on a black screen in the dark is mildly amusing for exactly this reason. You can watch as the ghostly halo of light follows it around the screen as you move the cursor.

I'll upgrade my machine when they put an OLED display in it.
by fuzzfactor | 2025-11-01 19:50:31+00:00
Interesting observation, thanks for adding that.

If you're using the FreeDOS ISO in Ventoy, maybe replacing it with a FreeDOS IMG that is a bitwise copy of a working "floppy" image would be a workaround?

Or add a second partition on your Ventoy stick for FreeDOS to occupy on its own and choose it like bare metal dual-boot style?

I actually still put MS-DOS on some sticks [0], haven't used FreeDOS in a number of years, but either way I do prefer for the stick to have a partition table and resemble a HDD, rather than the simpler non-partitioned floppy-simulating layout, even when they both work.

[0] People are still not disappointed by Tetris :)
by ErroneousBosh | 2025-11-01 19:50:41+00:00
I must admit I do regard assembly language with some suspicion, because the assembler can make some quite surprising choices. Ultra-high-level languages like C are worse, though, because they can often end up doing things like allocating really wacky bits of memory for variables and then having to get up to all sorts of stunts to index into your array.
by dns_snek | 2025-11-01 19:51:18+00:00
> Obviously you can add modules calling to C/C++ functionality to a scripting language runtime easily

Yes, obviously, that's what NodeJS does. But you can't "just use the V8 runtime as-is if you're doing async IO", it doesn't have those facilities at all.

Async IO wasn't just "sold as an advantage", it is an advantage. Websockets were gaining popularity around that time and async IO is a natural fit for that.

You would have to change the language and boil the ocean to make the runtime support multiple threads (properly).

But why? Just to end up with the inferior thread-per-request runtime (which by the way, still needs to support async because it's part of the language), that requires developers to write JS which is incompatible with browser JS, which would've eliminated most of the synergy between the two?

I really don't understand what you're going for here. I don't see a single advantage here.
by Noumenon72 | 2025-11-01 19:51:38+00:00
I'm not sure I understand the different approaches being compared here. Are you opposing 1 and supporting 2?

1. HatsService with methods .get_hats(), .throw_hats() 2. wearable_hats = db.query(Hats).map(hat => WearableHatDto(hat) throwable_hats = db.query(Hats).map(hat => ThrowableHatDto(hat)
by NoMoreNicksLeft | 2025-11-01 19:52:38+00:00
Some claim slight improvements. I have two views of this that I alternate between without coming to any lasting conclusion. In the first view, they've merely managed to move forward births that were always going to happen. Some couple would have a child two years from now, but because the governemnt (of whatever country) bribed them, they had the kid early. This isn't particularly difficult to eliminate by proper windowing, I thought, but they're often bragging about the numbers early and (of course) juking the stats.

In the second view, they have actually slightly increased fertility (and only temporarily). But at what cost? No one refuses to believe that it's impossible to bribe someone to have a child they wouldn't otherwise have anyway. If you offered $1 billion in cash, up front, you'd probably have riots of women trying to sign up for it. But this is ultimately unaffordable is it not? If the US needs 500,000 extra births next year, we can't afford $500 trillion for that, and not when we need as many the year after, and the year after that. It doesn't become more tractable by reducing the bribe, you get far few takers (which is why they've only managed to slightly raise fertility rates so far, they offered far too little).

Whichever of these possibilities happens to be the truth, neither bodes well. Government doesn't have any levers that it can pull to meaningfully change this.
by walleeee | 2025-11-01 19:52:51+00:00
> This may be true to some extent, but what I dislike about this idea is that to many it implies that human flourishing is impossible without suffering exported elsewhere

To some degree this is true, in the sense that human flourishing implies some degree of suffering for e.g. the ants we accidentally step on, animals we eat, bacteria in our guts, etc. But Jains do their best not to step on the ants, many people refuse to eat flesh, and so on. Plants and bacteria will have to fend for themselves for now. We can certainly do better with each other.

I am proposing no version of fatalism, besides the fact that, at least in our living substrate, organisms have not all learned to do each other no harm, if this is even possible, and even if it isn't, fatalistic hedonism is not the inevitable response to this fact.
by TuxSH | 2025-11-01 19:53:18+00:00
> Or change / improve the status [quo]

uutils/coreutils is MIT-licensed and primarily hosted on GitHub (with issues and PRs there) whereas GNU coreutils is GPL-licensed and hosted on gnu.org (with mailing lists).

EDIT: I'm not expressing a personal opinion, just stating how things are. The license change may indeed be of interest to some companies.
by estearum | 2025-11-01 19:53:22+00:00
Nope they didn't decide that. It's actually even worse!

A lot of Americans have the impression that SCOTUS keeps deciding in the administration's favor, but this is not true.

SCOTUS is saying: "We're not going to hear this case right now, but we likely will in the future. In the meantime, we are going to overturn the lower court who did actually hear the case and allow the administration to continue its actions. No, we will not explain we think the lower court got wrong."

Increasingly these SCOTUS orders totally unexplained which is a blatant violation of their judicial obligations, and they are frequently unsigned by the majority (conservative) Justices. Presumably because they don't want their names written on papers that they know will be understood by future generations to be totally indefensible.

SCOTUS has proven itself functionally incapable of fulfilling its Constitutional duties and has proven that we need a lot more Justices. If you don't have the time to hear the cases we need you to hear, then the court needs to be scaled up and we can pick random panels to hear different cases.

Nothing to do with policy disagreements (how would any American even know if they had a policy disagreement with an unexplained, unsigned SCOTUS order?) – we just need courts that can decide on things that are important to our country.
by cwzwarich | 2025-11-01 19:53:47+00:00
The original purpose of the C standard was to solve the problems created by the diversity of increasingly divergent implementations of C. They studied existing behavior across systems, proposed new language constructs, and it was generally a success (look at the proliferation of C in the 90s across many different systems and architectures).

The actual informal semantics in the standard and its successors is written in an axiomatic (as opposed to operational or denotational) style, and is subject to the usual problem of axiomatic semantics: one rule you forgot to read can completely change the meaning of the other rules you did read. There are a number of areas known to be ill-specified in the standard, with the worst probably being the implications of the typed memory model. There have since been formalized semantics of C, which are generally less general than the informal version in the standard and make some additional assumptions.

C++ tried to follow the same model, but C++ is orders of magnitude more complex than C and thus the standard is overall less well specified than the C++ standard (e.g. there is still no normative list of all the undefined behavior in C++). It is likely practically impossible to write a formal specification for C++. Still, essentially all of the work on memory models for low-level programming languages originates in the context of C++ (and then ported back to C and Rust).
by anigbrowl | 2025-11-01 19:53:52+00:00
This is a sideshow. Harris was a poor candidate, and lost a ton of votes because she refused to commit to a ceasefire in Gaza. Th larger problem is the Dems lining up behind the idea of running Biden again even though he was obviously inadequate.

Dem flaws aside, Trump isn't just 'a candidate people actually wanted to elect'. He's an authoritarian, every major prediction about how authoritarian this administration would be has turned out to be correct, he instigated efforts to overturn the result of the last election where he lost, and 25-30% of the voting population likes authoritarianism and do not give a shit about what the Constitution actually says.
by overvale | 2025-11-01 19:54:01+00:00
I'm not 100% clear myself but I think that the criticism is that what was supposed to be a non-profit delivering world-changing technology for the public good was bullied/manipulated into a for-profit entity that would enrich investors and consolidate power among the wealthy.

So the "theft" is the wealthy stealing the benefits of AGI from the people. I think.
by techblueberry | 2025-11-01 19:54:19+00:00
I thought I’ve been reading that more and more of the money financing the AI boom is debt. The numbers are big enough I’d expect Powell to know:

https://techstartups.com/2025/10/31/the-hidden-debt-behind-t...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2025-10-06/big-de...

I think there’s any way we don’t see contagion. There’s too much money involved.
by jeroenhd | 2025-11-01 19:54:21+00:00
I believe m68k already has a working Rust compiler of sorts, though it's not part of the default Rust chain. I think shaping that fork into something that will let it run and compile like normal is feasible.

For other architectures currently unsupported by Rust, I doubt it'll happen. The CPU architectures themselves are long dead and often only used for industrial applications, so the probability of hobbyists getting their hands on them is pretty slim.

People still using these old architectures for anything but enthusiast hacking will probably not be using Debian Trixie, and if they do, they can probably find a workaround. It's not like the .deb format itself is changing, so old versions of apt and dpkg will keep working for quite a while.
by glitchc | 2025-11-01 19:54:31+00:00
Sure, that's your personal preference and to each their own. The market speaks otherwise. Detached homes are the most desirable section of the real estate market based on consumer surveys, see the greatest growth in value compared to other real estate over the medium to long term and are basically recession proof. Even in the financial crisis of 2008-2009, the average loss was 10-15% in market value, which was recouped over the next five years.
by tombert | 2025-11-01 19:54:41+00:00
Does this mean I can finally load-balance with multiple Jellyfin instances?

A million years ago, back when I still used Emby, I was annoyed that I couldn't use it across multiple in Docker Swarm due to locking of SQLite. It really annoyed me, enough to where I started (but never completed) a driver to change the DB to postgres [1]. I ended up moving everything over to a single server, which is mostly fine unless I have multiple people transcoding at the same time.

If this is actually fixed then I might have an excuse to rearchitect my home server setup again.

[1] https://github.com/Tombert/embypostgres
by nwienert | 2025-11-01 19:54:43+00:00
A far as I understand Windows only has a toggle for HDR on vs off, that's not what we're talking about here, this is about forcing the full brightness of HDR always, even outside videos. It's something that manufacturers don't allow for as it reduces display life, it would actually be an anti-feature for a consumer OS to expose as a setting. It'd be like exposing some sort of setting to allow your CPU to go well beyond normal heat limits.
by bostik | 2025-11-01 19:55:08+00:00
I'd say the lines just before that are more illustrative of _why_ this sentiment is even possible to express: Goldman team wrote. “AI investment as a share of U.S. GDP is smaller today (<1%) than in prior large technology cycles (2%–5%).” In other words, there’s still plenty of room to run.

However, someone has now uttered the four words we should all recognise. "This time it's different."
by wongarsu | 2025-11-01 19:55:40+00:00
Here in Germany there were still enough protests even against buried cables. The construction is still disruptive, and they aren't completely invisible afterwards (they emit heat that can lead to visibly different vegetation on the surface, and you can't plant trees on them) so they don't really satisfy the "but my property prices" crowd (of course they have a long list of real and imagined concerns, but imho they mostly boil down to disruption from construction, pseudoscience and property prices)

Moving the discussion to "we put some sculptures in your landscape, and in return those sculptures carry some cables" might genuinely help
by digianarchist | 2025-11-01 19:55:43+00:00
A good point is made at the end of the article:

> But preemptive surrender is no sign of wisdom. Any reality made by human beings can be remade by them. The price of this power is mutual obligation: we can never let ourselves off the hook. The things we can accomplish together are, by definition, within our sphere of control, even if we have to act through structures that are bigger than any of us alone to achieve them.

Stoicism doesn't answer the question "what can and can't we control" and doesn't claim to. I think the modern neostoicism trend is to make the reader believe that they have little control over daily life, encouraging an almost narcissistic-nihilist response to ongoing events.
by djcannabiz | 2025-11-01 19:56:19+00:00
The politicians gave themselves an exemption from the scanning. This is just from the top search result but this is widely reported.

“The scanning would apply to all EU citizens, except EU politicians. They might exempt themselves from the law under “professional secrecy” rules” https://nextcloud.com/blog/how-the-eu-chat-control-law-is-a-...
by finnborge | 2025-11-01 19:56:20+00:00
At this extreme, I think we'd end up relying on backup snapshots. Faulty outcomes are not debugged. They, and the ecosystem that produced them, are just erased. The ecosystem is then returned to its previous state.

Kind of like saving a game before taking on a boss. If things go haywire, just reload. Or maybe like cooking? If something went catastrophically wrong, just throw it out and start from the beginning (with the same tools!)

And I think the only way to even halfway mitigate the vulnerability concern is to identify that this hypothetical system can only serve a single user. Exactly 1 intent. Totally partitioned/sharded/isolated.
by Marshferm | 2025-11-01 19:56:22+00:00
Our totally inane and amateur government:

“This diversion is not a small part of many of these agencies. It includes one in five US marshals (650 of 3,892), one in five FBI agents (2,840 of 13,700), half of DEA agents (2,181 of 4,620), over two-thirds of the ATF (1,778 of 2,572), and nearly 90 percent of Homeland Security Investigations (6,198 of 7,100).”
by runako | 2025-11-01 19:56:31+00:00
> What kind of leverage does this give countries to penalize others

In the case of China, it's pushed them to make headway in the process of building a manufacturing infrastructure that is more insulated from global energy price swings. IIRC they can also power much of it more cheaply (e.g. solar has no fuel cost), which provides them with a cost advantage.

As we have repeatedly seen, there is also leverage to be had in not having one's country internally levered to global oil prices.

So it provides leverage, but not to directly penalize.
by MerrimanInd | 2025-11-01 19:56:50+00:00
I've heard two arguments for these rewrites that don't always come up in these discussions. There are fair counterpoints to both of these but I think they add valuable dimensions to the conversation, or perhaps may explain why a rewrite may not seem justified without them.

* It's becoming increasingly difficult to find new contributors who want to work with very old code bases in languages like C or C++. Some open source projects have said they rewrote to Rust just to attract new devs.

* Reliability can be proven through years in use but security is less of a direct correlation. Reliability is a statistical distribution centered around the 'happy path' of expected use and the more times your software is used the more robust it will become or just be proven to be. But security issues are almost by definition the edgiest edge cases and aren't pruned by normal use but by direct attacks and pen testing. It's much harder to say that old software has been attacked in every possible way than that it's been used in every possible way. The consequences of CVEs may also be much higher than edge case reliability bugs, making the justification for proactive security hardening much stronger.
by EionRobb | 2025-11-01 19:57:20+00:00
One of the biggest contributors I've had in the past for SQLite blocking was disk fragmentation.

We had some old Android tablets using our app 8 hours a day for 3-4 years. They'd complain if locking errors and slowness but every time they'd copy their data to send to us, we couldn't replicate, even on the same hardware. It wasn't until we bought one user a new device and got them to send us the old one that we could check it out. We thought maybe the ssd had worn out over the few years of continual use but installing a dev copy of our app was super fast. In the end what did work was to "defrag" the db file by copying it to a new location, deleting the original, then moving it back to the same name. Boom, no more "unable to open database" errors, no more slow downs.

I tried this on Jellyfin dbs a few months ago after running it for years and then suddenly running into performance issues, it made a big difference there too.
by SpicyLemonZest | 2025-11-01 19:57:37+00:00
It's not just gaming it out theoretically! It's important to keep in mind that it's not just a policy dispute - everyone involved in this is violating the law, and when constitutional government is restored they can and should go to prison for it. (If you find yourself working for ICE, even indirectly, I'd encourage you to keep that in mind!)
by westurner | 2025-11-01 19:58:09+00:00
From "WebR – R in the Browser" (2025 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44999706 :

> jupyterlite-xeus builds jupyterlite, Jupyter xeus kernels, and the specified dependencies to WASM with packages from conda-forge or emscripten-forge.

jupyterlite/xeus https://github.com/jupyterlite/xeus

There may be an easy way to wrap GHC with jupyterlite/xeus, with Haskell's lazy evaluation; xeus-haskell or xeus-ghc?
by dredmorbius | 2025-11-01 19:58:22+00:00
Look at regulated advertising / marketing on tobacco products as examples.

No ads on TV/Radio. Mandated warnings. In some countries, packaging must carry prominent health warnings, in some cases excluding virtually all branding (Australia, for example).

That along with high taxation, smoking cessation programs, legal proceedings against tobacco companies, restrictions on retailling, etc., have drastically reduced smoking rates in many countries.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_smoking#Public_policy>
by jMyles | 2025-11-01 19:58:26+00:00
> I find it hard to keep these discussions separate.

...because they're not separate discussions at all. There is no example in history of mass deportations being done according to a coherent rule of law. These two things are not of the same impetus; mass deportations are a power-grab, and the rule of law interferes with that.

The only way that a nation gets to a point where mass deportations are plausible (in the sense that there are a sufficient number of people who have entered or stayed without going through a state-prescribed process) is that there is already relative domestic tranquility (otherwise, the "problem" would have been noticed decades earlier).

In our case (in the USA), we have plenty of room, plenty of resources, a wonderful and diverse array of immigrant cultures, and the capacity to defend ourselves against bad actors on an individual and/or community level. There is no need whatsoever for a government thousands of miles away (whose authority is decreasingly recognized anyhow) to tell me who my neighbors can be.

It's borderline farcical.
by NoMoreNicksLeft | 2025-11-01 19:58:38+00:00
Music relies on antique policy the likes of which will never happen again. Even then, newer performers (being exempt from said policy) constantly refuse to allow their music on Spotify, it makes the headlines multiple times a year. With music dying, it's all moot anyway.

>Also, it used to work like that in the early days of Netflix

Back when producers thought Netflix was some sort of joke that would soon blow over. Now that they realize that it's the only way forward, they don't want to be on Netflix, they want to *BE* Netflix. And so it can't work anymore.

And you wouldn't want that anyway. Netflix doesn't fund any of their own shows longer than 2 years, and that's for their own. Why the hell would they fund some other producer's show for longer, what with the added overhead of it being NIH? "Netflix with everything" would be the Soviet cornucopia of television.
by PeaceTed | 2025-11-01 19:59:17+00:00
Many have called it COP-out for years simply because of how useless it has been, or worse yet actually is used to tighten the relationship better countries and companies that handle high emissions with the incentive to double down. That and that COP28 was held in the UAE the nation equivalent of a Gas station, this funnily enough doesn't feel like a big loss.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't try these things, but COP has become the poster child of the failure of these kind of events.
by tremon | 2025-11-01 19:59:21+00:00
What do you mean with "is the language open source"? The Ada specification is public [0] but not open source -- but the C and C++ specifications are not open source either, in the normal sense of the term. And like with C and C++, there are both open source and proprietary compilers for Ada, see e.g. [1]

What's mostly not open source (FAFAIK) is SPARK, the formal verification framework for Ada.

[0] https://www.adaic.org/ada-resources/standards/ada22/

[1] https://github.com/ohenley/awesome-ada#compilers