MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by bigiain | 2025-11-12 04:15:30+00:00
That behaviour is indeed totally unacceptable. At your job. Where they're paying you, and especially if they're paying you at FAANG type pay scales.

If you're an unpaid volunteer? Yeah - nah. They can tell you "Sorry, I'm playing with my cat for the next 3 months, maybe I'll get to it after that?", or just "Fuck off, I don't care."

(I'm now playing out a revenge fantasy in my head where the ffmpeg team does nothing, and Facebook or Palantir or someone similar get _deeply_ hacked via the exploit Google published and theat starts the planets biggest ever pointless lawyers-chasing-the-deepest-pockets fight.)
by efitz | 2025-11-12 04:17:50+00:00
Why does the successor to the terminal need to be text oriented at all?

Maybe it is an API. Maybe the kernel implements this API and it can be called locally or remotely. Maybe someone invents an OAuth translation layer to UIDs. The API allows syscalls or process invocation. Output is returned in response payload (ofc we have a stream shape too).

Maybe in the future your “terminal” is an app that wraps this API, authenticates you to the server with OAuth, and can take whatever shape pleases you- REPL, TUI, browser-ish, DOOM- like (shoot the enemy corresponding to the syscall you want to make), whatever floats your boat.

Heresy warning. Maybe the inputs and outputs don’t look anything like CLI or stdio text. Maybe we move on from 1000-different DSLs (each CLI’s unique input parameters and output formats) and make inputs and outputs object shaped. Maybe we make the available set of objects, methods and schemas discoverable in the terminal API.

Terminals aren’t a thing of the 80s; they’re a thing of the early 70s when somebody came up with a clever hack to take a mostly dumb device with a CRT and keyboard and hook it to a serial port on a mainframe.

Nowadays we don’t need that at all; old-timers like me like it because it’s familiar but it’s all legacy invented for a world that is no longer relevant. Even boot environments can do better than terminals today.
by lisdexan | 2025-11-12 04:18:42+00:00
(I misunderstood you then, sorry!)

Well, the subtitle is "a unique collection of laptops adorned with creative stickers from around the world". Meaning that the sticker themselves are creative, not necessarily the collage, which it also can be art by itself (I wouldn't say it fits here)

>But surely the bar to being creative is higher than putting stickers on your laptop. No doubt many of the people here are creative and code creatively, write creatively, draw creatively or make music.

I think a certain selection and positioning can be creative.

>If you said to someone who is a comedian or a writer that you were 'creative too' because of your laptop stickers. Well. C'mon.

Depends, is the comedian Jerry Seinfeld?

I'm kidding (kinda). I personally understand creativity as something very much lower stakes, but that might be my ESL showing.
by lmm | 2025-11-12 04:19:35+00:00
> It would be easy for me to cite some worst-case memory corruption vulnerabilities with real world consequences.

Could you do that for a couple of non-UB ones then? That'll make things a lot more concrete. As far as I can remember most big-name memory safety vulnerabilities (e.g. the zlib double free or, IDK, any random buffer overflow like CVE-2020-17541) have been UB.
by Aurornis | 2025-11-12 04:20:35+00:00
> Unfortunately, in my experience, there's often a lot of barriers within companies to upstream. Reasons can be everything from compliance, processes, you name it... It's unfortunate.

I’ve been at several companies where upstreaming was encouraged for everything. The fewer internal forks we could maintain, the better.

What surprised me was how many obstacles we’d run into in some of the upstream projects. The amount of time we lost to trying to appease a few maintainers who were never happy with code unless they wrote it themselves was mind boggling.

For some projects you can basically forget about upstreaming anything other than an obvious and urgent bug fix because the barriers can be so high.
by vjvjvjvjghv | 2025-11-12 04:22:33+00:00
Something being illegal only has a meaning if somebody prosecutes it and has the power to stop it. With the DOJ head’s main qualification being loyal to the president there is nothing that will be done.

My other concern is that Congress will spend the next few decades prosecuting, investigating and impeaching each other without doing anything useful for the country. I thought impeaching Trump while knowing that it would never succeed was a big distraction and basically show business. I would like to see much more focus on actual problems of citizens. Trump being in prison won’t improve my life.
by jorangreef | 2025-11-12 04:23:21+00:00
If only. But you also need to fix the internal concurrency control of the DBMS storage engine. TB here is very different to PG.

For example, if you have 8K transactions through 2 accounts, a naive system might read the 2 accounts, update their balances, then write the 2 accounts… for all 8K (!) transactions.

Whereas TB does vectorized concurrency control: read the 2 accounts, update them 8K times, write the 2 accounts.

This is why stored procedures only get you typically about a 10x win, you don’t see the same 1000x as with TB, especially at power law contention.
by mamcx | 2025-11-12 04:25:13+00:00
No, the problem is that the proposal is not enough *bold*.

A "barely better" version of something entrenched rarely win (maybe only if the old thing not get updaters).

This is the curse of OpenOffice < MS Office.

This is in fact the major reason:

> Great, now you just need to build and maintain shims for every tool in existence

MOST of that tools are very bad at ux! so inconsistent, weird, arcane that yes, is MADNESS to shim all of them.

Instead, if done from first principles, you can collapse thousands of cli arguments, options, switched and such things in few (btw a good example is jj vs git).

This is how could be: Adopt an algebra similar to the relational model, and a standardized set of most things millions of little tools have (like the commands help, sort, colors, input/output formats, etc) and then suddenly you have a more tractable solution.

ONLY when a tool is a total game changer people will switch.

And what about all the other stuff? In FoxPro (that in some ways show the idea you just preen `!` and then run the shell command you need. That is enough (editors and such? Much better to redo in the new way, and everyone knows that vim and emacs fan never change ways)
by bigiain | 2025-11-12 04:26:17+00:00
> But "everyone else down stream of us should compile out our security hole" is a terrible way to go about things.

Is that somehow _less_ of a terrible way to think than "someone who's contributed their time as a volunteer to an open source software project that we have come to rely on, now has some sort of an obligation to drop everything and do more unpaid work for a trillion dollar company"?

> it really needs to be fixed in the up stream

Lots of people love using "Free Software" that they didn't have to write as essential parts of their business.

Way too many of them seem to blink right when they get to this bit of the licence they got it with:

SHOULD THE LIBRARY PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

(That's directly from Section 15 "NO WARRANTY of https://code.ffmpeg.org/FFmpeg/FFmpeg/src/branch/release/4.0... )
by mpyne | 2025-11-12 04:26:51+00:00
> Something is very wrong if it takes 20+ years to field new military technologies. By the time these technologies are fielded, a whole generation of employees have retired and leadership has turned over multiple times.

Conversely, the Navy's first SSBN went start to finish in something like 4 years.

And unlike the F-35, which could easily have been an evolution of the existing F-22 design, the Navy had to develop 4 major new pieces of technology, simultaneously, and get them all integrated and working.

1. A reduced-size nuclear warhead (the missile would need to fit inside the submarine for any of this to matter) 2. A way to launch the nuclear missile while submerged 3. A way to reliably provide the nuclear missile with its initial navigation fix at launch 4. A way to fuel the nuclear missile with a safe-enough propellant to be usable on a submerged submarine without significant risk to the crew

The USAF's Century series of fighters were turned around quick. So was the B-52.

Having been involved in defense innovation efforts during my time in uniform, I cannot overemphasize how much the existing acquisition system is counter-productive to the nation's defense, despite 10+ years of earnest efforts dating back to before Trump's first term.

Most of the aspects to it are well-intentioned and all, but as they say the purpose of the system is what it does, and what America's defense acquisition system does is burn up tax dollars just to get us a warmed-over version of something grandma and granddad's generation cooked up during the Cold War.

Its turned into a death spiral because as these programs get more onerous the cost goes up, and who in their right mind thinks it's a good idea to just let people go off on a $1B effort with less oversight?

Until it's even possible to deliver things cheaply through the DAS (or WAS or whatever it will be now) we'll never be able to tackle the rest of the improvements. I look forward to reviewing the upcoming changes but Hegseth isn't the first one to push on this, it's a huge rat's nest of problems.
Show HN: Autelpilot Drone –Drone Mapping: Lidar Technology
by kaihongye4 | 2025-11-12 04:30:37+00:00
The article explains how LiDAR-equipped drones attach a laser scanner to capture high-precision 3D point-cloud data, enabling rapid, efficient mapping across diverse terrains. It highlights applications in urban planning, forestry, disaster management, and infrastructure inspection — showcasing how drones are transforming surveying and modeling workflows.
by kaelwd | 2025-11-12 04:31:42+00:00
The author of that issue has a whole video series about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxM8QmyZXtg

A way faster terminal emulator demo: https://github.com/cmuratori/refterm

And a terminal rendering benchmark tool: https://github.com/cmuratori/termbench
by yunwal | 2025-11-12 04:32:20+00:00
> If you look at the text of the first amendment, the word "person" doesn't appear in that part.

This is irrelevant, but anyway it has the word “people” in it. Either way the bill of rights is a list of personal rights.

> The Supreme Court was going to decide whatever they wanted, regardless

The Supreme Court is also supposed to justify their position. It makes sense to protest their justification. That’s how the courts work.

Not a single activist would continue to protest if the ruling was overturned. Absolutely no one actually cares about what legal terminology is used beyond lawyers. It’s an effective slogan because it gets to the heart of why the ruling was so ridiculous. To change the slogan “corporations aren’t people” would either reduce accuracy or reduce understandability. It is the correct slogan, no matter whether the legal terminology continues to be useful
by wredcoll | 2025-11-12 04:32:59+00:00
The term "phenomenon" is so vague as to be useless. If you have an actual example of someone doing something meaningful, do let me know.

Just for you I went and re-read the study you linked and promptly found this: https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0033-2909.1...
by marcus_holmes | 2025-11-12 04:33:10+00:00
I have no idea on the data, but anecdotally I'd dispute this. Regular folks in my life (i.e. non-techies) routinely talk to an LLM and use it to answer questions that 5 years ago they'd have searched for.

The techies are the ones who are steering clear and sticking with search engines in my experience.
by stinkbeetle | 2025-11-12 04:34:12+00:00
> Make the plastic manufacturers own the external costs by requiring they fund proper disposal sites/messaging,

I think you fail to understand the reality of the problem.

In western countries, plastic "trash" is not really the problem. It's highly visible and it would always be nice to reduce it of course.

The majority of uncontained environmental microplastics comes from vehicle tires and clothing/textiles. Clothing and other textiles (e.g., carpets) being the biggest source, more than 1/3rd. After that it's probably building materials, paints, machinery and factory parts, etc.

Disposal sites and messaging will not do anything. You can be a perfectly compliant goodly consumer who dutifully puts their old clothes in the trash and pays the disposal fees for their old tires or rides busses. You'd still be contributing enormously to environmental microplastic load.

All natural fiber clothes, cycle everywhere, don't wear sneakers or other kind of plastic or synthetic rubber shoes, don't have synthetic carpets or drapes, don't paint your house, etc... now you're starting to get somewhere.

But the machinery required for you to stay alive, moving goods and services around, pumping your water, people going to work to keep your electricity on, package your food, etc... all still pumping out microplastics.

Disposal and messaging just won't cut it. And without a bunch of astounding and vanishingly unlikely breakthroughs, getting rid of microplastics from the top 4-5 sources will make net zero CO2 look like a walk in the park. Therefore we have to accept microplastics at enormous scale and work with that. Not to say we shouldn't attempt to reduce it where possible of course we should, but it won't be reduced to insignificant. So I think what needs to be done is well funded research into the effects of existing and new types of plastics, and into new materials and techniques for cleanup or containment. That way we have a chance to discover and limit or ban the worst of the worst before they can become too pervasive.

As far as reduction goes, possibly some small incentives to avoid plastics in consumer items (clothes, carpets, etc) might help. The messaging really can not be the same idiotic and counterproductive alarmism and blame and guilt campaigns led by wealthy private jet and mega yacht owning billionaires of the climate change debacle. Just gently make people aware they could look for natural fiber clothes, perhaps modest and commensurate added costs on plastics manufacturers to fund this research and containment, etc.
by freddie_mercury | 2025-11-12 04:35:13+00:00
Nobody ever paid $900 for a toilet seat. That was a statistical artifact caused by an accounting method called "equal allocation".

"The equal allocation method calculates prices for large numbers of items in a contract by assigning "support' costs such as indirect labor and overhead equally to each item. Take a contract to provide spare parts for a set of radar tracking monitors. Suppose a monitor has 100 parts and support costs amount to a total of $100,000. Using the equal allocation method each part is assigned $1,000 in such costs, even though one item may be a sophisticated circuit card assembly, which requires the attention of high-salaried engineers and managers, and another item may be a plastic knob. Add $1,000 to the direct cost of the part and you get a billing price. This is what the government is billed, though not what the part is really worth--the circuit card being undervalued, the knob being overvalued. The need for billing prices arises because contractors want to be paid up front for items that are shipped earlier than others."
by lmm | 2025-11-12 04:39:00+00:00
Cases that are both memory corruption and UB tell us nothing about one being worse than the other. My initial claim in this thread was "the worst case of UB is worse than the worst case of most kinds of non-UB memory safety issues" and I stand by that; if your position is that memory corruption is worse then I'd ask you to give examples of non-UB memory corruption having worse outcomes.
by thrw045 | 2025-11-12 04:40:30+00:00
While that is definitely at play there is a deep rooted instinct in humanity to show status and to have something that is worth a lot. It goes beyond just marketing, which is why it "works" economically. I think the luxury market serves a certain type of mindset that has been there since ancient egypt even. It would be nice to have a society where status didn't pay a role but there hasn't been a social movement that has crystallized what that would look like.

I also think as a sidenote there is a difference between luxury and fashion. Fashion is about creativity and self expression, and for a long time, the luxury market was sort of the defacto place for creeativity rather than the cheaper labels that had more 'standard' clothing, at least where I live. That has changed a bit in the past decade though. I like both fashion and luxury, but I am conflicted about it too. For example in the luxury fashion world there is a thing called 'grails', which are essentially items that are difficult to get but are considered very cool looking in some way and so they become grails. A lot of people like the feeling of chasing and finally acquiring grails, so that's one aspect of it.
by mfabbri77 | 2025-11-12 04:41:33+00:00
I don't know how common it is in fonts, but for generic 2D vector graphics, problems arise from the management of self-intersections, i.e., the pixels where they fall. With an SDF rasterizer, how do you handle the pixel where two Bezier curves intersect in a fish-shaped path? For this reason, more conventional rasterizers with multisampling are often used, or rasterizers that calculate pixel coverage analytically, also finding intersections (sweepline, Bentley-Ottmann).
by ralphc | 2025-11-12 04:42:23+00:00
Everyone talks about GenServers and OTP and all that, and that part is great, but what sells it for me is that it's a practical functional programming language. You get 80% of the FP part of Haskell but you don't have to mess with monads. It has tail call optimization which makes it easy to write functions in general, one "function" is made up of several that call each other, much easier to reason about and write. In general code I use what I call the "holy trinity", atoms, tuples and pattern matching.

As for it being fun and addictive, I'm retired. I can write code in any language I want, or don't write at all, and I choose to write in Elixir.
by oivey | 2025-11-12 04:42:41+00:00
> Rather than call it myopic I would say this is a hard won insight. Dynamic binding tends to be a bug farm.

I run into typing issues rarely. Almost always the typing issues are the most trivial to fix, too. Virtually all of my debugging time is spent on logic errors.

> It’s not about guessing every way your code could be used. It’s about being explicit about what your code expects.

This is not my experience in large OOP code bases. It’s common for devs to add many unused or nearly unused (<3 uses) interfaces while also requiring substantial refactors to add minor features.

I think what’s missed in these discussions is massive silent incompatibility between libraries in static languages. It’s especially evident in numerical libraries where there are highly siloed ecosystems. It’s not an accident that Python is so popular for this. All of the interfaces are written in Python. Even the underlying C code isn’t in C because of static safety. I don’t think of any of that is accident. If the community started over today, I’m guessing it would instead rely on JITs with type inference. I think designing interfaces in decentralized open source software development is hard. It’s even harder when some library effectively must solely own an interface, and the static typing requires tons of adapters/glue for interop.
by ryukoposting | 2025-11-12 04:42:46+00:00
Don't count out the flatbeds. I don't have the space (or the patience) for a DSLR rig, and I've been quite happy with the output from my Epson V800. I bought mine used for $700 or thereabouts. For the amount of time it's saved me, the added cost over a DSLR and bellows/macro lens was worthwhile.
by runesoerensen | 2025-11-12 04:43:26+00:00
I wrote this post - for anyone curious, Heroku's .NET support is built on our open source .NET Cloud Native Buildpack (CNB), which is written in Rust and produces standard OCI images.

You can use it anywhere, even locally, for free. The example in the post uses the .NET 10 file-based app feature we added support for today, so if you want to try the same functionality locally, you can do something like this:

# Create a minimal .NET 10 file-based app echo 'Console.WriteLine("Hello HN");' > Hello.cs # Build an OCI image using the .NET CNB pack build hello-hn --builder heroku/builder:24 # Run it with Docker docker run --rm -it --entrypoint hello hello-hn # Output: Hello HN

The "classic" Heroku buildpack shown in the demo video is just a thin wrapper around the CNB implementation: https://github.com/heroku/buildpacks-dotnet
by avadodin | 2025-11-12 04:44:24+00:00
I don't think anyone would have complained if the art had been more detailed but in the same style as the original or even using real digitized actors.

Monkey Island II's art was slightly more comic-like than say The Last Crusade but still with realistic proportions and movements so that was the expectation before CoMI.

The art style changing to silly-comic is what got people riled up.
by pmontra | 2025-11-12 04:44:36+00:00
It's HTML imagemaps from the 90s, when we could not style buttons and navbars where GIFs with links in the right places. Browsers still have the code to render them.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Reference/...

https://caniuse.com/mdn-html_elements_map
by vlovich123 | 2025-11-12 04:44:50+00:00
> Heresy warning. Maybe the inputs and outputs don’t look anything like CLI or stdio text. Maybe we move on from 1000-different DSLs (each CLI’s unique input parameters and output formats) and make inputs and outputs object shaped. Maybe we make the available set of objects, methods and schemas discoverable in the terminal API.

This is Powershell. It’s a cool idea for sure. One thing I’ve noticed though is that it becomes closer to a programming language and further away from scripting (ie you have to memorize the APIs and object shapes). And at that point, why would you write the program in a worse programming language?

By comparison, I’ve noticed even windows-leaning folks do a better job remembering how to delete files and find files than doing so through cmd.exe or powershell. I think that’s because you can run the command to see the output and then you know the text transformation you need to apply for the next step whereas powershell shows you formatted text but objects in the pipe.

Maybe a better terminal that provided completion for commands with AI support and a uniform way to observe the object shapes instead of formatted text might mitigate this weakness but it is real today at least imho.
by mikepurvis | 2025-11-12 04:44:53+00:00
I evaluated it for a home server a few years ago and yeah— compelling in concept, but a system like this lives or dies by the quality of its integrations to other systems, the ability to automatically ingest photos and notes from your phone, or documents from your computer, or your tax returns from Dropbox.

A permanent private data store needs to have straightforward ways to get that data into it, and then search and consume it again once there.
by profsummergig | 2025-11-12 04:44:58+00:00
And here I'm still looking for a way, with one click, to create an offline backup of the webpages each of my bookmarks points to. Such that the offline version looks and works exactly like the online version in (say) Google Chrome (e.g. the CTRL+F feature works fine). And such that I can use some key-combo and click a bookmark in my bookmarks manager (in Chrome) to open a webpage from the backup (or the backup can have its own copy of the bookmarks manager... it needs a catalog of some sort or it won't be useful).