MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by KronisLV | 2025-11-19 20:25:22+00:00
> I never understand why developers spend so much time complaining about "bloat" in their IDEs. RAM is so incredibly cheap compared to 5/10/15/20 years ago, that the argument has lost steam for me. Each time I install a JetBrains IDE on a new PC, one of the first settings that I change is to increase the max memory footprint to 8GB of RAM.

I had to do the opposite for some projects at work: when you open about 6-8 instances of the IDE (different projects, front end in WebStorm, back end in IntelliJ IDEA, DB in DataGrip sometimes) then it's easy to run out of RAM. Even without DataGrip, you can run into those issues when you need to run a bunch of services to debug some distributed issue.

Had that issue with 32 GB of RAM on work laptop, in part also cause the services themselves took between 512 MB and 2 GB of memory to run (thanks to Java and Spring/Boot).
by d-lisp | 2025-11-19 20:25:54+00:00
I second this; I have never been "into" these problematics and as a user I generally just disallow everything I can, which can be a pain (I mean I do want to often don't store anything when I'm browsing the web, which leads to meeting a lot of "cookie banners"). While there are probably browser extensions that can perform the automatic opt-out, it would be nice if browsers provided an API as an unified and centralized way to communicate consentment as a set of privilege access to different browser features and APIs (you could e.g. forbid the use of canvas, or even JS entirely).

But that's only a small part of a huge legal frame, and as I said I don't know much about these problematics.
by qsort | 2025-11-19 20:26:03+00:00
My comment was harsher than it needed to be and I'm sorry, I think I should have gotten my point across in a better way.

With that out of the way, parent was wondering why compaction is necessary arguing that "context window is not some physical barrier but rather the attention just getting saturated". We're trying to explain that 3+2=2+3 and you people are sitting in the back going "well, actually, not all groups are abelian".
by hn_acc1 | 2025-11-19 20:26:41+00:00
So then we'd have 100x as much "vibe coding" as now? <shudders>

Even if I disagree with our AI code assistant's usefulness - it often just suggests code based on "someone else in a different file used this statement after that last API call" that is totally irrelevant to my current needs - I can usually assess AI-generated code (C++ / python) relatively quickly and determine if it's what I want or not. It generally nails the "you just created this variable and now want to print it to the log" part pretty well.

Debugging AI-generated perl?? It would be like trying to follow "obfuscated C contest" entries all day, every day. No thanks!
by aDyslecticCrow | 2025-11-19 20:27:10+00:00
> Training a large language model and privacy law as it's written today cannot coexist

If they aren't compatible, then the conclusion is abundantly obvious; the LLM has to go, not privacy. Small and questionable economic utility in exchange for a pillar of stable democratic society are NOT negotiable tradeoff.

There is enough data on the internet to train LLMs without breaking a single privacy law. If the economic value of LLMs are as real as the companies like to claim, there is enough data on the internet to train LLMs while paying for proper royalty for every single word.

I don't argue that privacy laws have been perfect. Only a fraction of GDPR seems to actually do much. But bending over backwards because big tech slips a few dollars in the pocket of Brussels is NOT the reason we should revise those laws.
by svieira | 2025-11-19 20:27:12+00:00
Flash was a plugin to the browser ecosystem that no one ever made a commitment to other than "here it is".

SSLv2 and v3 all are protocol versions that anyone can still support, and removing support for them breaks certain web properties. This is less of a problem because the implementations of the protocol are themselves time-limited (you can't get an SSL certificate that is valid until the heat death of the universe).

FTP and gopher support wasn't removed from the browser without a redirect (you can install an FTP client or a Gopher client and the browser will still route-out-to-it).

The point isn't "RFC = commitment", the point is that "the culture of the web" has, for a very long time, been "keep things working for the users" and doing something like removing built-in FTP support was something that was a _long_ time in coming. Whereas, as I understand it, there is a perfectly valid way forward for continuing to support this tech as-is in a secure manner (WASM-up-the-existing-lib) and instead of doing that, improving security for everyone and keeping older parts of the web online, the developers of the browsers have decided that "extra work" of writing that one-time integration and keeping it working in perpetuity is too burdensome for _them_. It feels like what is being said by the browser teams is, "Yes, broken websites are bad for end users, yes, there are more end users than developers, yes, those users are less technical and therefore likely are going to loose access to goods they previously had ... but c'est la vie. Use {Dusk, Temple}OS if you don't want the deal altered any further." And I object to what I perceive as a lack of consideration of those who use the web. Who are the people that we serve.
by cattown | 2025-11-19 20:27:47+00:00
Doesn’t this only really affect actual Arduino brand products. There’s tons of just-as-good cheap knockoffs available. See Elegoo kits easily found on Amazon for example. The IDE is open source with the AGPL license.

Can’t we just cut Qualcomm out of the supply chain and keep going as normal without too much disruption? Doesn’t even feel like a hard fork is needed. Just don’t buy Qualcomm’s crap.
by Modified3019 | 2025-11-19 20:28:06+00:00
To add to this, while I haven’t used it yet myself (busy with too many other projects), this gist has the clearest and most up to date instructions on setting up QEMU with virglrenderer that I’ve found so far, with discussion on current issues: https://gist.github.com/peppergrayxyz/fdc9042760273d137dddd3...
by ahepp | 2025-11-19 20:28:10+00:00
> users are now explicitly forbidden from reverse-engineering or even attempting to understand how the platform works unless Arduino gives permission.

I briefly looked at their IDE and CLI repos and GitHub claims they're AGPL and GPL 3 respectively. I didn't see a CLA when I looked at their contribution guide.

Am I missing something here? What basis do they have to restrict users' rights to reverse engineer the software?
by thaumasiotes | 2025-11-19 20:28:21+00:00
> If you want to know what's going on, RTFM as they say. Except you can't because it's 2025, nothing comes with paper manuals anymore.

The SNES classic comes with no paper manuals, but it includes copies of every manual in the software. You're free to read them all. (And you may have to, if for example you want to know what the controls are.)

GOG also provides the manuals for games as "extra" content.
by threetonesun | 2025-11-19 20:28:28+00:00
Same as the dot-com bubble. Fundamentals were wildly off for some businesses, but you can also find almost every business that failed then running successfully today. Personally I don't think sticking AI in every software is where the real value is, it's improving understanding of huge sets of data already out there. Maybe OpenAI challenges Google for search, maybe they fail, I'm still pretty sure the infrastructure is going to get used because the amount of data we collect and try to extract value from isn't going anywhere.
by zumzum | 2025-11-19 20:28:42+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 ... and I don’t think I’m alone.

Isn't there a term for that: wage slavery[1]?

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery
by toast0 | 2025-11-19 20:28:50+00:00
I would expect http persistent connections (keep-alive) at these rates. It's very hard to get 64 k connections/second from a single IP to a single server ip:port without heavily tuning the client, which they don't mention doing. They're only testing for 10 seconds, but still, you'd need to clear all the closed connections out of TIME_WAIT pretty darn quick in order to re-use each port 10 times.
by SAI_Peregrinus | 2025-11-19 20:29:46+00:00
Also what can I build with an Arduino that isn't cheaper, faster, and more complete with an STM32 Nucleo or other similar dev board? These days you can get a nice 32-bit ARM MCU for the same price (or cheaper) as an Arduino board. No need to deal with an 8-bit ATMEGA and its quirks.
by apsurd | 2025-11-19 20:30:12+00:00
Yes that's just it though, it's a logic argument. "Tell me why we aren't just stochastic parrots!" is more logically sound than "God made us", but that doesn't defacto make it "The correct model of reality".

I am suspect that the world is modeled linearly. That physical reality is non-linear is also more logically sound, so why is there such a clear straight line from compute to consciousness?
by richwater | 2025-11-19 20:30:21+00:00
> Changing defaults doesn't have to mean changing existing configurations. It can be the new default for newly created VPCs after a certain date, or for newly created accounts after a certain date.

This is breaking existing IAAC configurations because they rely on the default. You will never see the change you're describing except in security-related scenarios

> There is precedent for all of this at AWS.

Any non-security IAAC default changes you can point to?
by hexaga | 2025-11-19 20:30:39+00:00
> if the body is experiencing adverse reactions to certain foods, the cause should be a biochemical one

No. I can look at a picture of gross food, or imagine it, and be nauseated. Restricting potential causes this tightly is wrong. UPFs have a huge causal surface--how one ingredient breaks down into nutrients is basically not optimized at all compared to all the other stuff. Why only look at the unoptimized part as causal origin, when the optimization is the common factor making it bad?

To put it another way, we know all the stuff that has had a ton of work put into making it something lots of people will buy, is just generally bad for unclear reasons. Examining the aspect which has had very little work put into it is clearly not the way to go.

It could be something as weird as people's built-in heuristics for which food to eat (cravings) being actually kinda important to hit specific nutrient breakpoints at different times. By subsuming those cravings using UPF technology, that stops working and general health suffers.

It could be that the baseline palatability of the output of the mechanical process is low, and so the product is universally combined with an additive that recovers palatability, but has some health drawback.

The overarching pattern here is that optimization geared toward overcoming people's heuristics of what to consume makes these kinds of decisions all the time. Doing one thing to make it cheaper to produce makes it worse at getting people to buy it, but we can just cheat back the ability to get people to buy it by turning the dial on another thing that reliably makes people want to buy it, at the cost of being horrible for them.
by nyrikki | 2025-11-19 20:30:41+00:00
Thus why libvirt was added, it works with KVM, Xen, VMware ESXi, QEMU etc... but yes most of the tools like ansible only support libvirt_lxc and libvirt_qemu today but it isn't too hard to use for any modern admin with automation experiance.

Libvirt is the abstraction API that mostly hides the concrete implementation details.

I haven't tried oVirt or the other UIs on top of libvirt, but it seems less painful to me than digging through the Proxmox Perl modules when I hit a limitation of their system, but most people may not.

All of those UI's have to make sacrifices to be usable, I just miss the full power of libvirt/qemu/kvm for placement and reduced latency, especially in the era of p vs e cores, dozen's of numa nodes etc...

I would argue for long lived machines, automation is the trick for dealing with 1000's of things, but I get that is not always true for others use-cases.

I think some people may be supprised by just targeting libvirt vs looking for some web-ui.
by fidotron | 2025-11-19 20:30:55+00:00
This is not good. Qualcomm are [expletives] anyway, but we need more activity in the connected microcontroller space in the west.

Never have been a fan of the programming style encouraged by the Arduino SDK/API, so hopefully this demise will allow someone to enter the space with something that is actually competitive with the Espressif devices. Have a decent API and connectivity, at the same time, unfathomable stuff. The Picos are closest, but the connectivity situation is a mess.
by carlosjobim | 2025-11-19 20:31:01+00:00
You can maybe order in a restaurant or ask the way with hand gestures. But surely you must be able to take a higher perspective than your own, and realize that there's enormous amounts of exchange between nations with differing language, and all of this relies on some form of translation. Hundreds of millions of people all over the world have to deal with language barriers.

Google Translate was far from solid, the quality of translations were so bad before LLMs that it simply wasn't an option for most languages. It would sometimes even translate numbers incorrectly.
by Dilettante_ | 2025-11-19 20:31:03+00:00
My experience with AI in the design context tends to reflect what I think is generally true about AI in the workplace: the smaller the use case, the larger the gain.

This might be the money quote, encapsulating the difference between people who say their work benefits from LLMs and those who don't. Expecting it to one-shot your entire module will leave you disappointed, using it for code completion, generating documentation, and small-scale agentic tasks frees you up from a lot of little trivial distractions.
by accrual | 2025-11-19 20:31:34+00:00
Just adding my anecdata. I started using ESXi around 2016 for homelab purposes. This paid off nicely as my $CORP also uses VMWare products, so it was easy and natural to get into VMs and fix them up as needed.

Pretty unhappy about the Broadcom acquisition as VMWare previously seemed to care about the homelab market and recognized the value created by letting hobby admins learn their tools. That's going away now and Broadcom hopes the locked in market will provide enough income to suit their short term goals.

Anyway, I switched to Proxmox 9 in my lab this year and couldn't be happier. It's so much more powerful, flexible, and intuitive after one spends a few days in the UI. I ported all my VMs over and things are rock solid and better than ever under Proxmox.

My local systems team at $CORP knows of Proxmox but acknowledges nothing will be changing soon with our environment. But time will tell I suppose.
by hn_acc1 | 2025-11-19 20:31:37+00:00
Yeah, as someone who occasionally had to hack on perl scripts - and I mean, maybe add/modify a hundred lines to add a new feature, then nothing for a few months, I found this too. Stop doing it for a while, and I had to relearn it all over.

I'd probably have an easier time getting back into REXX that I last used in 1992 or something..
by adishj | 2025-11-19 20:31:45+00:00
naming is hard

our original name was Frame, only to realize that frame.io existed already.

we brainstormed names for a while and had several notes full of possible names

mosaic is one which stood out to us because it not only represents artwork, but also the tiles (nodes) in the canvas come together to form your mosaic — we thought that was a fitting name
by Etheryte | 2025-11-19 20:32:42+00:00
I'm not sure how this makes sense. Functionally the rules are the same across the entire bloc and it's pretty straightforward: unless you have a legitimate reason to store the data, you need to ask for consent and the consent must be free. I want to make more money is not a legitimate reason. I have a legal requirement to fight financial fraud is a legitimate reason. Obviously the reality is more nuanced, but understanding this basic idea gets you there 95% of the way.
by _DeadFred_ | 2025-11-19 20:32:51+00:00
The East India Company set the template for joint-stock corporations, and the model was basically a weaponized extension of post-Norman politics. Its leadership acted like a portable aristocracy. Accountable only upward to investors and the Crown never to the people they ruled. Their mandate was extraction, not participation. Communist regimes are always pointed out, but that pure Free Markets look like the East India company is never highlighted.

That mindset carried straight into corporate governance. Joint-stock companies inherited a Norman-style hierarchy where a self-defined ruling stratum treats populations as revenue sources, not stakeholders. Legitimacy comes from charter and capital (today: job/founder title and investment), not from any connection to the community affected.

In Norman social architecture you have a ruling stratum that views itself as distinct from and superior to the alien conquered population under it, bound by obligation only to peers and superiors, not to the commons. The joint-stock corporation inherited that same operating philosophy. The “company” wasn’t conceived as part of society; it was a chartered power structure hovering above society. Local populations are revenue sources, not stakeholders. Accountability runs up the hierarchy, not down. Legitimacy comes from charter (now job title/founder title) and capital, not community integration. The company's goal is to be a mini Norman conqueror of it's specific market. The logic of Norman style extraction from a conquered people, rather than participation/obligation/upholding social norms, sits at its core. Norman style extraction first, everything else second.
by NitpickLawyer | 2025-11-19 20:33:15+00:00
> But rather than AGI god building, a regular technology. A valuable one, but not infinite growth.

AGI is a lot of things, a lot of ever moving targets, but it's never (under any sane definition) "infinite growth". That's already ASI territory / singularity and all that stuff. I see more and more people mixing the two, and arguing against ASI being a thing, when talking about AGI. "Human level competences" is AGI. Super-human, ever improving, infinite growth - that's ASI.

If and when we reach AGI is left for everyone to decide. I sometimes like to think about it this way: how many decades would you have to go back, and ask people from that time if what we have today is "AGI".
by andrewaylett | 2025-11-19 20:33:49+00:00
BMW have one of the more annoying matrix main beam setups, as far as I'm concerned -- it's not great at picking out my car, and seems worse than others I've encountered. A redeeming feature is that it does seem to be smart enough to stop blinding me if I flash my own main beams.

The (2017) Ford Galaxy has actually pretty decent auto-main-beams. Importantly, the stalk controls don't stop working but also if I'm just a fraction of a second late in turning them off manually and the system beats me to it, they stay off. They also stay off when driving on roads with street lights.
Ask HN: Vitalik says that QC might break ECC before 2028. This is crazy, right?
by jMyles | 2025-11-19 20:34:36+00:00
Quantum computers haven't even factored a three-digit number yet, right? I don't have handy the equivalent in discrete log solution, but... even if somehow (??!) they gain the 4+ orders of magnitude for Shor's space computation, there remain major unsolved boring problems like error correction and cooling, right?

Or have there been some galaxy-shaking developments in QC that actually make this somehow plausible?

Some recent, relevant, major discussions I brushed-up on before posting this:

* Willow announcement: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42367649

* Majorana 1 announcement: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43104071

* OpenSSH statement: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44863242

* The case against Google's claims of "quantum supremacy": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42384768

edit: I do want to say, I like Vitalik a lot and I think he has a beautiful and friendly brain and heart; the few times I hung with him he has been cool as heck. This is not an anti-Vitalik post. More of a "where are we really in QC" post, which I figure some people here can summarize in fairly simple terms.
by jandrese | 2025-11-19 20:34:39+00:00
You apparently have a bunch of old stock incandescent AA powered bike lights in your area? Around here it's all LiPo or LiFe+ powered LEDs that easily put out 1,000 lumens (not an exaggeration).

Stuff like this:

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=bike+headlight

You can even see people posting pictures of the light where it's clearly illuminating 10' up the tree on the side of the path.

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61a2EhfJeeL.jpg
by frumplestlatz | 2025-11-19 20:34:47+00:00
> `slice[i]` is just sugar for `slice.get(i).unwrap()`. And whether it's a "local" invariant or not is orthogonal. And `unwrap()` does not "require lying about invariants across your API surface."

It's not orthogonal. `Result` isn't a local invariant, and yes, `.unwrap()` does require lying. If your code depends on an API that can fail, and you cannot handle that failure locally (`.unwrap()` is not handling it), then your type signature needs to express that you can fail -- and you need to raise an error on that failure.

> That's an extreme position. It isn't caveated to only apply to certain contexts.

No, it's a principled position. Correct code doesn't `.unwrap()`, but code that hides failure cases -- or foists invariant enforcement onto programmers remembering not to screw up -- does.

I've built and worked on ridiculously complex code bases without a single instance of `.unwrap()` or the local language equivalent; it's just not necessary. This is just liked the unchecked exception debate in Java -- complex explanations for a very simple goal of avoiding the thought, time, and effort to accurately model a system's invariants.
by idop | 2025-11-19 20:34:47+00:00
I disagree, at least when it comes to the web (of those days). What's the point of rewriting what's already well- and accurately-written in the docs? What better job are the people on that message board going to do with regards to such a small, specific syntax feature? The point of those "communities" wasn't to answer questions like "what is this variable?" but rather to have actual discussions on the language, such as how to structure applications, design patterns, projects, etc. Imagine trying to build an online community for this purpose, only to spend your days answering the most basic questions possible that were already explained many times before.

Eventually, a website more tailored to such questions was created - Stack Overflow - and there things were very different than in subject-specific communities: there was no "community", there were no discussions, just a big mess of questions. It had a purpose and it served it well. Now it's dying too because of LLMs, but I digress.

Now, in a different scenario, say a colleague asking you that question at work, a direct answer is warranted, but without letting the colleague know that this information and a lot more is a just a few keypresses away would be a wasted opportunity, and not particularly a good way to help that colleague progress.

You can only spoon feed people so much. At a certain point relying on other people to just give you the answer every time you don't know something is lazy. It's like you have no respect for their time.