MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by peterldowns | 2025-11-19 21:33:34+00:00
The beauty of mise is that as long as someone is hosting a precompiled binary for you, it's easy to get it. I just repro'd and yeah, `mise use php` fails for me on my machine because I don't have any dev headers. But looks like there's an easy workaround using the `ubi` downloader:

https://github.com/jdx/mise/discussions/4720#discussioncomme...

or see the first comment on this thread to see a way to explicitly specify where to find the binaries for each platform:

https://github.com/jdx/mise/discussions/4720#discussioncomme...

Having these kind of "eject" options is one of the reasons I really appreciate Mise. Not sure this would work for you but I'd rather be able to do this than have to manage/support everyone on my dev team installing and maintaining Nix.
by roenxi | 2025-11-19 21:33:35+00:00
You've forgotten electricity, depreciation and the need for the house to be wired up to support all the gear. The figures you're quoting are just the price for a one-off purchase, not the total cost of ownership.

> But in my area, a victorian house that's litterally crumbling with no central cooling and not up-to-code wiring where you can't run a hair dryer and coffee machine at the same time?

> $180,000

I'm not familiar with the market you're talking about. What is the median wage in the area that we're comparing $180,000 to?
by hodgehog11 | 2025-11-19 21:34:21+00:00
I think it really is important to stress that these are correlations only. Something I've noticed: those with poor attention spans or generally low engagement with deeper material tend to be attracted to SFV. Likewise, those in a state of depression or have ADHD can easily get into the quick satisfaction coming from SFV. It may exacerbate existing issues, but not necessarily be the cause.
by Aurornis | 2025-11-19 21:34:39+00:00
I personally believe that consuming a lot of short form video in lieu of doing more engaging activities is highly likely to worsen cognition and attention, but to be clear this paper isn't making that claim.

This is the classic correlation, not causation, meta-analysis. They acknowledge that several times throughout:

> Although some longitudinal studies have provided insight into the directionality between social media use and cognitive functioning (e.g., Sharifian & Zahodne, 2020), it remains possible that underlying cognitive differences shape how individuals engage with SFVs. Those with lower baseline cognitive functioning may gravitate toward highly stimulating, low-effort content or find it more difficult to disengage from continuous streams of short videos (e.g., Ioannidis et al., 2019). Moreover, underlying factors such as anxiety, depression, or attentional difficulties may shape both the nature of SFV use and cognitive performance, contributing to the associations observed in the current synthesis (Baumgartner, 2022; Dagher et al., 2021; Xiong et al., 2024).

Usually any correlational study causes the comment section to immediately fill with "correlation is not causation" comments followed by the "I don't trust meta analyses" crowd with a sampling of people complaining the sample size (of the individual studies) was too small. But nearly every comment I see is assuming causality and directionality. I see this topic strikes a nerve.

It would have been nice to see at least an attempt to include other forms of video content: Long-form YouTube videos, TV shows, movies. That wouldn't show causality either, but it would be a useful data point to check if this effect is really unique to short form video or if the correlation holds for anyone watching a lot of video.
by themafia | 2025-11-19 21:34:42+00:00
> Jeez there so many cynics!

Jeez there are so many clueless CEOs!

> It cracks me up when I hear people call AI underwhelming.

This is your business. It should "make you curious." Saying it "cracks you up" is ridiculous behavior from someone in your position. I will never do business with someone like this.

> I grew up playing Snake on a Nokia phone!

Because you were bored? Or because you literally set time aside every day to play it because it was just that good? What is this nonsense?

> The fact that people are unimpressed that we can have a fluent conversation

I have "fluent conversations" already. With people. About recent and relevant things. The fact that a computer can pretend to do this is not impressive. Press on it hard enough and you'll immediately see the cracks. We've had weak chat bots since forever.

> with a super smart AI

That's trained on existing data. It cannot synthesize new perspectives or prerogatives. It often fails to know anything that recently occurred. It often presents data as if it is absolutely true and that it could not possibly be wrong. It's the opposite of smart in every way.

> that can generate any image/video is mindblowing to me.

It can make copies. It cannot generate anything novel. There was no part of my life that was hampered by the fact I couldn't generate images or videos. This is an amusement, not anything that adds to my bottom line.
by beached_whale | 2025-11-19 21:34:43+00:00
The members vote for that. 10:1 there are a lot of old members who didn't want to give up what they had and didn't think 2 steps ahead when they're the minority and lose their pension because they screwed over the younger workers.

I think the biggest issue with unions is they are not thinking of the big picture. Stuff like a government violates the unions rights and no one bats an eye(there was no general strike when Regan violated the air traffic controller rights) and that lets the unions be divided and conquered.

Ultimately, people are voting and choosing this.
by matrss | 2025-11-19 21:34:47+00:00
As well as the toolchain used to compile your toolchain, through multiple levels, and all compiler flags along the path, and so on, down to some "seed" from which everything is build.

Guix' full-source bootstrap is pretty enlightening on that topic: https://guix.gnu.org/manual/devel/en/html_node/Full_002dSour...
by lowbloodsugar | 2025-11-19 21:35:03+00:00
I’m sure NAT gateways exist purely to keep uninformed security “experts” at companies happy. I worked at a Fortune 500 company but we were a dedicated group building a cloud product on AWS. Security people demanded a NAT gateway. Why? “Because you need address translation and a way to prevent incoming connections”. Ok. That’s what an Internet Gateway is. In the end we deployed a NAT gateway and just didn’t setup routes to it. Then just used security groups and public IPs.
by thegrim33 | 2025-11-19 21:35:10+00:00
If anybody at NASA is reading, please make the original FITS / raw files for things more accessible. There's too much of a chasm between rendered images which are quickly and freely shared with the public, and with the kafkaesque journey I have to go through to get access to raw data (which most of the time is only released months/years later, if at all). I know the vast majority of the public has no use for the raws, but for amateur/citizen scientists it'd be nice for them to be more readily/easily accessible.
by anon7000 | 2025-11-19 21:35:46+00:00
It’s partly that, but it’s also partly that the quality SUCKS. I’m frustrated with AI blogspam because it doesn’t in any way help me figure out whatever I’m researching. It’s such low quality. What I want and need is higher quality primary sources — in depth research, investigation, presented in an engaging way. Or with movies and shows, I want something genuine. With a genuine story that feels real, characters that feel real and motivated.

AI is fake, it feels fake, and it’s obvious. It’s mind blowing to me that executives think people want fake crap. Sure, people are susceptible to it, and get engaged by it, but it’s not exactly what people want or aspire to.

I want something real, something that makes me feel. AI generated content is by definition fake and not genuine. A human is by definition not putting as much thought and effort into their work when they use AI.

Now someone could put a lot of thought and effort into a project and also use gen AI, but that’s not what’s getting spammed across the internet. AI is low-effort, so of course the pure volume of low effort garbage is going to surpass the volume of high effort quality content.

So it’s basically not possible to like what AI is putting out, generally speaking.

As a productivity enhancer in a small role, sure it’s useful, but that’s not what we’re complaining about.
by btilly | 2025-11-19 21:35:54+00:00
I absolutely see the correlation myself, but which way does causation go?

I can make a case for how engaging with short form video can be bad for mental health. I certainly saw evidence of that first hand in one of my children who engaged heavily in TikTok.

But I can also make a case for how poor mental health makes it hard to resist engaging with short term video. For example I have a child who is currently struggling with being suicidal. I find that when she's in particularly bad shape, I find it much hard to resist getting sucked into YouTube shorts. But when she's in good shape, I have no such problem.

The combination of the two seems to lead to a doom loop that some people get sucked into. But how can anyone separate the relative importance of the two directions in which causation could run?
by godelski | 2025-11-19 21:36:05+00:00
I think you should watch at whatever speed you best ingest the material. Don't get me wrong, some lectures I watch at 2x but it isn't about optimizing speed. It's about optimizing attention. I go faster if the speaker is too slow and/or too monotone so my mind starts drifting. Speeding up can force me to concentrate and not drift but the right speed is dependent in many factors that it can't be a hard rule. Regardless of the speed, in a lecture video I'll pause and rewind. That's the large benefit to them, though at the cost of being unable to engage and interact.

There's no deficit of time in the day, the deficit is in energy and attention. I'm worried we conflate speed and productivity (I'm unsure if you do or don't) but these are original. Speed gives the illusion of productivity but it is ignorant of quality and efficiency. It's only a first order approximation of productivity and a noisy one at best. Velocity is more important, as it requires direction but even velocity is ignorant of momentum, acceleration, force, and many other factors that go into making one productive. Speed is only important if everything else is held constant.

Let's not confuse speed for productivity. I'd argue that is a major contributing factor that has gotten us to this point. Where everything appears to move fast but in reality moves slower than ever
by frmersdog | 2025-11-19 21:36:07+00:00
It's also not very good at any of those things, if you ask it to generate something far enough outside of the mainstream, or something particular, or something consistent, or- But, yeah, the insistence that we deprecate every other even remotely-connected resource (including other people) in order to supplicate ourselves to corporate desires is aggravating. You got a lot of the same pushback with VR. VR is really, really cool. Having your reality mediated by large corporations with a history of user-hostile behavior is not. Them not taking no for an answer feels violating.
by adishj | 2025-11-19 21:36:10+00:00
hey, thanks for sharing about your documentary series. would love to check it out if you don't mind linking it!

we don't yet support that volume of footage (1TB), however if you'd like to try this at a smaller scale, you can already do this today with the Rough Cut tile — simply prompt it for the moments that you're interested in (it can take visual cues, auditory cues, timestamp cues, script cues) and it will create an initial rough cut or assembly edit for you.

I'd also recommend checking out the new Motion Graphics tile we added for animations. You can also single-point generate motion graphics using the utility on the bottom right of the timeline. Let me know if you have any questions on that.
by jstanley | 2025-11-19 21:36:18+00:00
I've only read the abstract so far but:

Wow! What the hell? Is this real?

Why would this be happening? Who would choose to transmit information in this way? And how can they know the information in the first place?

I just don't get this at all.

EDIT: Upon further reading I'm not convinced this is real.

If you really think it's real you should trade on it, not post it to Hacker News.
by constantcrying | 2025-11-19 21:36:33+00:00
>No one here said anything like that.

Exacz. Remember when I ask the other guy to make his argument explicit and you told me there was no need to. This is completely ridiculous.

If Karp isn't evil for creating "racist AI", what else should I make of it. There is no actual argument to engage with, which is why I asked for it.

>What's bizarre is acting like there is not a huge profit motive here. You're the only one that offered the value judgment of "evil" so I don't think that's a fair response anyway. It's perfectly coherent otherwise.

You are completely disregarding what I said. Nobodies internal narrative is "I murder people to make money".
by ajb | 2025-11-19 21:36:38+00:00
Interesting take! I wasn't around for perl 4. I didn't like perl 5, but I was quite interested in 6 at the start. For a moment it looked like Larry Wall had really reflected on the problems of perl 5, and was going to make a new language that was at once cleaner and more systematic, even though it had more features. Then he kept adding more shiny things and I lost interest.
by boole1854 | 2025-11-19 21:36:40+00:00
Today I did some comparisons of GPT-5.1-Codex-Max (on high) in the Codex CLI versus Gemini 3 Pro in the Gemini CLI.

- As a general observation, Gemini is less easy to work with as a collaborator. If I ask the same question to both models, Codex will answer the question. Gemini will read some intention behind the question, write code to implement the intention, and only then answer the question. In one case, it took me five rounds of repeatedly rewriting my prompt in various ways before I could get it to not code but just answer the question.

- Subjectively, it seemed to me that the code that Gemini wrote was more similar to code that I, as a senior-level developer, would have written than what I have been used to from recent iterations of GPT-5.1. The code seemed more readable-by-default and not merely technically correct. I was happy to see this.

- Gemini seems to have a tendency to put its "internal dialogue" into comments. For example, "// Here we will do X because of reason Y. Wait, the plan calls for Z instead. Ok, we'll do Z.". Very annoying.

I did two concrete head-to-head comparisons where both models had the same code and the same prompt.

First, both models were told to take a high-level overview of some new functionality that we needed and were told to create a detailed plan for implementing it. Both models' plans were then reviewed by me and also by both models (in fresh conversations). All three of us agreed that Codex's plan was better. In particular, Codex was better at being more comprehensive and at understanding how to integrate the new functionality more naturally into the existing code.

Then (in fresh conversations), both models were told to implement that plan. Afterwards, again, all three of us compared the resulting solutions. And, again, all three of us agreed that Codex's implementation was better.

Notably, Gemini (1) hallucinated database column names, (2) ignored parts of the functionality that the plan called for, and (3) did not produce code that was integrated as well with the existing codebase. In its favor, it did produce a better version of a particular finance-related calculation function than Codex did.

Overall, Codex was the clear winner today. Hallucinations and ignored requirements are big problems that are very annoying to deal with when they happen. Additionally, Gemini's tendencies to include odd comments and to jump past the discussion phase of projects both make it more frustrating to work with, at this stage.
by throwaway81523 | 2025-11-19 21:36:47+00:00
I wonder what the issue is with shorts? Usually if I look something up on youtube (say a how-to or a product review), I don't want to see a half hour of blithering that could be compressed to a tweet. I generally pick the shortest video I can find about whatever it is. If it's limited to under a minute that's great. I'd really rather have a text post than a video, but those don't seem to exist any more.
by pfych | 2025-11-19 21:37:03+00:00
Australia shut down its entire 3G network, which a lot of devices used for emergency calls. A lot of phones worked with 4G still but did not support using 4G for emergency calls.

The telco's solution was to sell new phones to people, which a lot of people didn't do. Apparently all of these phones that still worked were flagged and blocked from using 4G but this apparently wasn't the case.
by nixosbestos | 2025-11-19 21:37:53+00:00
> In a way it's comforting to know those people who hold these positions, with distinguished careers and supposedly made of better stuff than us mere mortals, are in fact just a bunch of miserable weasels, a-holes and sycophants.

There's nothing that quite makes me feel like humanity has undergone speciation than the fact that this STILL HAS TO BE FUCKING SPELLED OUT FOR PEOPLE.

Hero worship is sycophancy of the highest order. Ugh, and I know you're so right.
by stackskipton | 2025-11-19 21:38:06+00:00
>Which is why the "retrospectives are useless" crowd spins me up so badly.

As Ops person, I've said that before when talking about software and it's mainly because most companies will refuse to listen to the lessons inside of them so why am I wasting time doing this?

To put it aviation terms, I'll write up something being like (Numbers made up) "Hey, V1 for Hornet loaded at 49000 pounds needs to be 160 knots so it needs 10000 feet for takeoff" Well, Sales team comes back and says NAS Norfolk is only 8700ft and customer demands 49000+ loads, we are not losing revenue so quiet Ops nerd!

Then 49000+ Hornet loses an engine, overruns the runway, the fireball I'd said would happen, happens and everyone is SHOCKED, SHOCKED I TELL YOU this is happening.

Except it's software and not aircraft and loss was just some money, maybe, so no one really cares.
by kennethrc | 2025-11-19 21:38:33+00:00
Likewise with decorative hedges and other gardenwork; your post brought to mind this one hotel I stay regularly where a hedge is high enough and close enough to the exit that you have to nearly pull into the street to see if there's oncoming cars. I've mentioned to the FD that it's gonna get someone hurt one day, yet they've done nothing about it for years now.
by jaketoronto | 2025-11-19 21:38:50+00:00
> It can take enormous amounts of time to replicate existing imagery with prompt engineering, only to have your tool of choice hiccup every now and again or just not get some specific aspect of what a person had created previously.

Yes... I don't think the current process of using a diffusion model to generate an image is the way to go. We need AI that integrates fully within existing image and design tools, so it can do things like rendering SVG, generating layers and manipulating them, the same as we would with the tool, rather than one-shot generating the full image via diffusion.

Same with code -- right now, so much AI code gen and modification, as well as code understanding, is done via raw LLM. But we have great static analysis tools available (ie what IDES do to understand code). LLMs that have access to those tools will be more precise and efficient.

It's going to take time to integrate LLMs properly with tools. And train LLMs to use the tools the best way. Until we get there, the potential is still more limited. But I think the potential is there.
by Profan | 2025-11-19 21:38:56+00:00
LLMs are here and Google Translate is still bad (surely, if it was easy as just plugging the miraculous perfect llms into it, it would be perfect now?), I don't think people who think we've somehow solved translation actually understand how much it still deals extremely poorly with.

And as others have said, language is more than just "I understand these words, this other person understands my words" (in the most literal sense, ignoring nuance here), but try getting that across to someone who believes you can solve language with a technical solution :)
by itake | 2025-11-19 21:39:10+00:00
yeah, I'd like to see hard data on uptimes / reliability between these 2 services before declaring that big = bad and small = good.

FlyIO (and Digital Ocean) had horrible up-time when they first got started. In the last 6-12 months, FlyIO been much better. But they would go down all the time or have unexpected CI bugs/changes.

Digital Ocean accidentally hard deleted user's object stores before their IPO.
by moepstar | 2025-11-19 21:39:30+00:00
Question: did you run the pve8to9 script? Read their extensive documentation [0]on how to upgrade? Fix the stuff aforementioned script comes up with?

My cluster went from 6 to 7, 7 to 8 and recently 8 to 9, along with Ceph - all without a single problem.

Given it’s more or less Debian underneath, not too surprising I’d say? Granted, there’s always a chance for something to go sideways, however, it’s unlikely you’re the first person to encounter this problem and if you check their forums, you should find a solution.

[0] https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/Upgrade_from_8_to_9
by tptacek | 2025-11-19 21:39:38+00:00
The things you do to safeguard the rollout of a configuration file change are not the same as the things you do to reliably propagate changes that might happen many times per second.

What's irritating to me are the claims that there's nothing distinguishing real time control plane state changes and config files. Most of us have an intuition for how they'd do a careful rollout of a config file change. That intuition doesn't hold for control plane state; it's like saying, for instance, that OSPF should have canaries and staged rollouts every time a link state changes.

I'm not saying there aren't things you to do make real-time control plane state propagation safer, or that Cloudflare did all those things (I have no idea, I'm not familiar with their system at all, which is another thing irritating me about this thread --- the confident diagnostics and recommendations). I'm saying that people trying to do the "this is just like CrowdStrike" thing are telling on themselves.
by corysama | 2025-11-19 21:39:43+00:00
Back in the PS2 era of game development, we didn't have much of virtual machines to work with. And, making a shippable build involved wacky custom hardware that wouldn't work in a VM anyway. So, instead we had The Build Machine.

The Build Machine would be used to make The Gold Master Disc. A physical DVD that would be shipped to the publisher to be reproduced hopefully millions of times. Getting The Gold Master Disc to a shippable state would usually take weeks because it involved burning a custom disc format for each build and there was usually no way to debug other than watching what happened on the game screen.

When The Gold Master Disc was finally finalized, The Build Machine would be powered down, unplugged, labeled "This is the machine that made The Gold Master Disc for Game XYZ. DO NOT DISCARD. Do not power on without express permission from the CTO." and archived in the basement forever. Or, until the company shut down. Then, who knows what happens to it.

But, there was always a chance that the publisher or Sony would come back and request to make a change for 1.0.1 version because of some subtle issue that was found later. You don't want to take any chances starting the build process over on a different machine. You make the minimal changes possible on The Build Machine and you get The Gold Master Disc 1.0.1 out ASAP.