MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by cyberax | 2025-12-10 08:08:29+00:00
I sign my zones :)

The reliable way is DoH/DoT that are rapidly going to become the standard. They don't suffer from fragmentation issues, so they can reliably get the DNSSEC chain.

Or maybe the next step is putting the stapled response into the certificate. Perhaps it can even be used by Let's Encrypt as a part of the challenge, providing the incentive to get it right.

The original stapled DNSSEC experiment was suffering from misaligned incentives. CAs didn't care at all about it.
by mathstuf | 2025-12-10 08:08:32+00:00
As someone who probably has a similar setup on Linux to the author: why do you have 10 windows for an app open?

For me, grouping by app is terrible. Yes, they may all be "Terminal" or "Firefox" windows, but they are for very different things. I'd rather see things grouped by project regardless of "app". But that is what tagging window managers are for :) .

Given that macOS forces that (IMO) braindead tunnel vision paradigm, I think the response should be "Wù".
by TeMPOraL | 2025-12-10 08:08:33+00:00
Comedy gold. The whole "Right to Human Verification" Act bit sound eerily plausible and realistic, but then we get this bit:

"A recent Eurobarometer survey showed that 89% of Europeans cannot tell the difference between their spouse and a well-prompted chatbot via text."

Also I bet this will become a real political line in less than 10 years:

"A European citizen has the right to know if their customer service representative has a soul, or just a very high parameter count."
by rob74 | 2025-12-10 08:08:47+00:00
Pah! Solar and batteries?! Have you been living under a rock for the last 12 months? Any startup that dares to suggest solutions based on solar and batteries (not to mention windmills) is sure to attract the ire of the Trump administration, so they'd better keep quiet and hope he doesn't notice them!

Actually, renewables seem to be such a no-no that the Boom blog even avoids mentioning them in the sentence "Meanwhile China is adding power capacity at a wartime pace — coal, gas, nuclear, everything" - even though China added overwhelmingly more renewable capacity last year than anything else: according to https://climateenergyfinance.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/..., solar increased by 43% from Feb. 2024 to Feb. 2025, wind increased by 17.6%, hydro by 3.5%, while thermal and nuclear increased by 3.9% and 6.9% respectively.
by IshKebab | 2025-12-10 08:09:32+00:00
> And yet modern assembly does not correspond 1:1 to the micro-ops the CPU runs or even necessarily the order in which they run.

Nobody claimed that. It corresponds to the instructions the CPU runs and their observable order.

Also it's really only x86 that uses micro-ops (in the way that you mean), and there are still plenty of in-order CPUs.
by dustedcodes | 2025-12-10 08:10:35+00:00
> The CEO at my last company (2022) refused to use Let's Encrypt because "it looked cheap to customers".

Spoken like a true dinosaur. How can a certificate based on open, public and proven secure protocols be cheap?

> So my question: has anyone actually commented to you in a negative way about using Let's Encrypt?

No, but I personally judge businesses which claim to be tech savvy if they don’t have an ACME issued certificate, because to me that instantly shows I’m not dealing with someone who has kept up with technology for the last 10 years.
by troupo | 2025-12-10 08:11:13+00:00
> You seem pretty convinced that each menu item needs its own unique icon

Tell me you didn't read what I wrote without telling me that.

Literal quote: "So why does Google use an icon for every single item? It's enough to have just a single icon on the first item in the group, the rest will naturally be associated with it."

The rest of my text is showing how your defense of "let's use a generic icon for completely different actions for every menu item" falls apart even with the tiniest of scrutinies

> it doesn't seem like anything I say is going to lead you to understand why others would see that as overly complex and less helpful.

Literally every menu in every Google Docs is full with unique icons for every menu item except this context menu BTW.

You'd know that if you weren't so hellbent on defending incompetence.
by advael | 2025-12-10 08:12:59+00:00
I don't think I'm completely oblivious to social status, but I've never understood at a deep level the way most people seem to process concepts like "fame" and "celebrity". I have never had the experience of being awestruck by a person, or elevating them above personhood, though I admire plenty of people. With the few brushes with, maybe we can say "microcelebrity" I've had myself, the opportunities and status benefits, while nice, seemed not worth the bizarre distorting effect on social reality it has, like the thing where someone's heard of me and talks to me like they know me when we've never met is uncomfortable at best, and most people considered various degrees of famous I've met who I came to respect seemed to be similarly jaded with this awestruck or even worshipful reaction some people seem to have when they idolize someone. I really think this whole cluster of behaviors is unhealthy and weird, and the fact that mass-communication technologies and the massive societal resources bent toward persuasion (both commercial and political) have drastically amplified it is probably one of the major causal factors in the polycrisis of the modern world
by sph | 2025-12-10 08:13:38+00:00
And he would've been right. Any new advancement in technology brings societal change, and it is possible to reach a point of diminishing return, where the bad sides outweigh the positives.

I wish we could, as a society, have a serious conversation about this effect without resorting to name calling ("Luddist nonsense") and straw men ("but what about penicillin?")
by theshrike79 | 2025-12-10 08:13:58+00:00
> it requires much of the same thought and planning that development pre-LLMs did

Exactly, there's nothing new to coding with LLMs than there is coding with actual humans.

A human programmer can also fart out a 2000 LOC feature that bifurcates, duplicates and has shit abstractions - they just waste a full two week sprint on it.

With a LLM you get the piece of poop in a day and you still have 7-8 days to tell it to fix its shit. With a human you're two weeks in the hole already and the feature is should be QA'd (2 weeks) and needs to be released in a month so ... fuck =)

The feedback loop with LLM generated code is so much faster than with actual humans and it makes up for (some) of the issues with it.

Can it replace all human coders? Of course not. But all of the bulk shit of adding CRUD operations to a handler or adding a new parameter to a HTTP API and flowing it through the 12 layers of enterprise shit to the database layer can be easily done with an LLM and the humans can focus on the actual creative and difficult bits.
by reliefcrew | 2025-12-10 08:14:05+00:00
> by all means go and compete as much as you want

Just for clarification, competing isn't preferred because it's easier... IDK if it is or not. Competing, however, does not conflict with my ethics.

IOW, if the government deputized me to carry a gun and go around demanding people buy things from me or do as I instructed, I would decline.
by ZaneHam | 2025-12-10 08:14:25+00:00
Honest answer: I tested it on GPT-2 (124M) and the results are mixed. The mathematical claims hold up. I ran 58 tests covering ternary matmul correctness, memory compression, and numerical stability. The 16x compression works, the zero-multiplication property is verified, and the epistemic layer correctly abstains on high-entropy distributions. What does not work is post-training quantization. When I quantized GPT-2's weights to ternary and ran generation, the output was garbage. This is expected because the model was never trained with ternary constraints. BitNet gets coherent output because they train from scratch with ternary baked in. I did not do that. The actual novelty here is not the quantization itself but the epistemic output layer that treats the ternary zero as "I do not know" rather than just sparsity. My tests show it correctly abstains on future predictions and impossible knowledge while answering factual queries confidently. But I should be clear that these tests use designed distributions, not outputs from a trained model. I do not have the compute to train a ternary model from scratch, so coherent generation remains theoretical. The code is at github.com/Zaneham/Ternary_inference if you want to poke at it. Happy to be proven wrong on any of this. tl:dr yes it works but current models aren't made for it. The most interesting thing is the llm can say when it doesn't know.
by arghwhat | 2025-12-10 08:14:27+00:00
Java also targets an abstract machine model (JVM) - such statement really doesn't mean much.

Assembly is not about corresponding to exactly which gates open when in the CPU. It's just the human writable form of whatever the CPU ingests, whereas C is an early take on a language reasonable capable of expressing higher level ideas with less low-level noise.

I seriously doubt anyone who has written projects in assembly would make such comparisons...
by f1shy | 2025-12-10 08:15:35+00:00
IMHO readability is the absolute maximum paramount priority. Having the code interrupted by pacifiers makes the code more difficult to read. The warning is very visible when compiling. Let me argue, much more visible. Why? well, independent if my last change had something directly to do with that piece of code, I will see the warning. If I use some preprocessor magic, I will only see that if I directly work in that part of the code.

Again, IMHO the big problem is people think "warnings are ok, just warnings, can be ignored".

And just as anecdotal point "Sure, just throwing in compiler pacifiers willy-nilly to squelch the warnings is terrible." this is exactly what I have seen in real life, 100% of the time.
by IshKebab | 2025-12-10 08:15:43+00:00
I don't think unsafe Rust has gotten any easier to write, but I'd also be surprised if there was much unsafe except in the low-level stuff (hard to write Vec without unsafe), and to interface with C which is actually not hard to write.

Mostly Rust has been used for drivers so far. Here's the first Rust driver I found:

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/2137cb863b80187103151...

It has one trivial use of `unsafe` - to support Send & Sync for a type - and that is apparently temporary. Everything else uses safe APIs.
by not_that_d | 2025-12-10 08:17:38+00:00
The code is quite easy to follow to be honest, we have documented a lot of stuff and segmented functionality into libraries that follow an app/feature/models pattern. Almost every service we have, has unit tests explicitly describing what the public api is doing or supposed to do on several scenarios, we never test implementation details.

Given it to new people of course carry questions, but most of them (juniors) could just follow the code given an entry point for that task, this from BE to FE.

I use the github copilot premium models available.

> I routinely make an implementation plan with Claude and then step away for 15 mins while it spins - the results aren’t perfect but fixing that remaining 10% is better than writing 100% of it myself.

I have to be honest, I just did this two times and the amount of code that needed to be fixed, and the mental overload to find open bugs was much more than just guide the LLM on every step. But this was a couple of months ago.
by cyberax | 2025-12-10 08:18:44+00:00
Let's Encrypt is a single point of failure.

WebPKI also suffers from an inability to properly do delegation. It's not possible for me to create an intermediary certificate valid only for *.mycompany.com

If I want to use WebPKI, I have to either expose every host inside my company to everyone (via CT transparency logs) or use a wildcard certificate. And wildcard certs allow attackers to impersonate anything within my domain, if they get access to just one host.

X.509 technically supports name constraints ( https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5280#section-4.2.1.10 ), but its implementation was inconsistent. In particular, some implementations did not apply it to the Common Name. Fortunately, Common Name is on the path to deprecation.
by taurath | 2025-12-10 08:19:18+00:00
I agree, I think MOBAs superceded the "real time" part of RTS's, while the more turn based Civ/4x, Total War series strategy type games ended up taking a lot of the base building part. Having them both together was just straight up difficult and incredibly intense, like the game itself demanded you be on adderall because your attention cannot wane for a single moment.

The better I got at competitive RTS's the less interesting the game got for me, it just kinda of felt like chess where there was only going to be one or two interesting interactions in the game if played well, otherwise its just a game of who makes a mistake too early.

Teamfight Tactics and Autochess are interesting newer entries though, allowing time to strategize and adding a lot of randomness to the games, where you can't just play one build. Even then though, as these games get more and more explored, "optimal" strategy gets eventually discovered and the game devs especially in TFT are in a race to try to keep things high variance but also seem fair - its definitely a difficult job!
by wiz21c | 2025-12-10 08:20:14+00:00
it is not straightforward in rust because the linked list is inherently tricky to implement correctly. Rust makes that very apparent (and, yeah, a bit too apparent).

I know, a linked list is not exactly super complex and rust makes that a bit tough. But the realisation one must have is this: building a linked list will break some key assumptions about memory safety, so trying to force that into rust is just not gonna make it.

Problem is I guess that for several of us, we have forgotten about memory safety and it's a bit painful to have that remembered to us by a compiler :-)
by eviks | 2025-12-10 08:20:45+00:00
> why do you have 10 windows for an app open?

For example, because the app restores its state and you have a few "projects" within the app.

> I'd rather see things grouped by project

Ok, and what if that project is encapsulated in an app window? Why introduce an extra level of indirection for no reason and spend time configuring it? If you frequently need a set of "5 firefox tabs, 2 terminal tabs, 4 text editor tabs, each in a separate app window", sure, spend time tagging it, set it as a WM project and launch/activate it with a key, but not everything is like that.
by jwr | 2025-12-10 08:21:10+00:00
Thanks, keeping this as a reference — I'm trying to find some time to try mu4e. I used Gnus for many years, then switched to Apple Mail.app, but with the gradual decline of MacOS (and Mail.app) I'm looking to switch back.

I remember the two main reasons I switched from Gnus: 1) there was no good reliable search, 2) I couldn't drag&drop attachments into E-mails and back so I was spending a lot of time pointing to files. I hope both things have improved since then.
by lurk2 | 2025-12-10 08:22:39+00:00
> Before she started playing, she took a second to explain how love is in the air and in the trees and in the water. "And we're all, like, made out of water, you know!" she said. "And water is, like, you know, life!" It was one of the stupider things I'd heard recently, but it sounded familiar.

It’s one thing to be a blogger huffing his own farts, it’s another thing to be rude about it. The girl might not have been a philosopher, but when she was given a platform she said what she had to say; when the author of this article was given a platform he used it to publish a pointless, meandering essay operating under the erroneous belief that he was a good storyteller with insightful things to say.
by sph | 2025-12-10 08:23:16+00:00
I have recently moved into a new accomodation, and my neighbour is an elderly Italian lady in her mid 80s. Our first conversation was about how estranged she feels nowadays that everyone around her, young people but also middle-aged adults, are unable to connect not only with strangers but also among each other, filling every minute of their lives with a smartphone. Even the doctor's waiting room or Sunday mass doesn't feel the same, and she has to force people to snap out of it and just put the bloody phone down. She asked me how did I cope. I said I didn't, really.

We had a beautiful conversation about that as it is a topic that I think about a lot, yet whenever I breach it with any "adult" (millennial or older) the response I get is either a shrug, or denial. Weirdly enough, it is an easier topic to discuss with the younger generations, those that have grown up in the YouTube era, yet deep inside feel there is something crucial that's gone lost in our society and we haven't even started trying to recapture it.

I have always believed the millennial generation to be the only one to do something about it, as it sits right between the major societal upheaval the internet has brought. The older generations are lost to Facebook and inertia, the younger have never even seen the world of before.
by biorach | 2025-12-10 08:23:18+00:00
Yeah, if you need a linked list (you probably don't) use that. If however you are one of the very small number of people who need fine-grained control over a tailored data-structure with internal cross-references or whatnot then you may find yourself in a world where Rust really does not believe that you know what you are doing and fights you every step of the way. If you actually do know what you are doing, then Zig is probably the best modern choice. The TigerBeetle people chose Zig for these reasons, various resources on the net explain their motivations.
by johngossman | 2025-12-10 08:23:49+00:00
Oh boy...more memories. About a decade later at work I identified a bottleneck in our line-drawing code. The final step was to cast two floats (a point) to integers, which the compiler turned into ftoa() calls. Unfortunately, ftoa changed and restored the floating point control flags in order to set the rounding behavior (the Intel default did not match the standard library spec). Even more unfortunately, this stalled the Pentium's instruction pipeline. Replacing the casts with a simple fld/fist pair was another 100x speedup. A few years later I noticed the compilers started adding optimization flags controlling this behavior.
by aurareturn | 2025-12-10 08:24:29+00:00
it will become Generally Obvious that Apple has the best consumer AI story among any tech company.

I love my Macbooks and think they can be great for local LLMs in the future. But the vast majority do not care and they do not want to setup complicated local LLMs. They want something that just works on the computer, tablets, and phones - ideally all synced together.

Local LLMs will never be better than cloud LLMs. They can close the gap if/when cloud LLM progress stalls.

Let's not conflate Apple's failure in cutting edge transformer models with good strategy.
by mpeg | 2025-12-10 08:24:40+00:00
You clearly don’t even speak the language and are just fishing for an argument. I have already explained why your comment is incorrect, have nothing else to say to you on that subject if you insist that the accent mark will completely change the meaning without understanding that the accent in català follows the normal ortographical rules while the accent in mà is diacritic, a special rule that only applies to often monosyllabic words.

mà / ma does not break the general rule because the word does have an accent mark, it just also falls under the diacritic special rule.

On your point about the author’s last name, it’s fair, but also you’re ignoring that the last name comes from the same word and is thus a spelling variation from French/Occitan, further proving your assertion of Catala != Català as wrong.
by a96 | 2025-12-10 08:25:46+00:00
> experienced people often are more hesitant to learn new things

I believe the opposite. There's some kind of weird mentality in beginner/wannabe programmers (and HR, but that's unrelated) that when you pick language X then you're an X programmer for life.

Experienced people know that if you need a new language or library, you pick up a new language or library. Once you've learned a few, most of them aren't going to be very different and programming is programming. Of course it will look like work and maybe "experienced" people will be more work averse and less enthusiastic than "inexperienced" (meaning younger) people.
by RossBencina | 2025-12-10 08:27:11+00:00
Sorry, maybe I got carried away with the tone. But it is not sarcasm. I genuinely did not realise that the NTP service level was so low. There are two problems raised in the email: There is no on-site redundant fail-over upstream of the NTP servers. All NTP servers at the site were not automatically taken down immediately upon detection of the fault (because some were still, in some sense, within tolerance). This places all of the fault management onto downstream NTP servers. I honestly expected NIST to be running a robust cross-site timebase upstream of NTP.
by flohofwoe | 2025-12-10 08:27:11+00:00
In VSCode it's quite a bit more convenient since you don't need to faff around with Chrome extensions or the browser dev tools and debugging happens right in VSCode.

It still requires some tinkering with launch.json to glue a couple of VSCode extensions together though, but the result is that I can simply press F5 in VSCode to step into my C/C++ code with the debuggee running remotely in Chrome - e.g. exactly the same workflow like a native debug session:

https://floooh.github.io/2023/11/11/emscripten-ide.html
by fellowniusmonk | 2025-12-10 08:29:11+00:00
It's in the frame and it's mid. There is enough ambiguity of interpretation (as is the nature of gonzo writing) and one instance of saying willow smith talks like a homeless person to trick people into missing the frame the article adopts, the mean spirited takedown and the worship are the same. This is literally textbook tabloid framing, the tabloid elevates, the tabloid destroys, the tabloid tells you have nothing better to do while you wait in a long line. This article is celebrity worship tabloid brain rot.
by TeMPOraL | 2025-12-10 08:29:51+00:00
It didn't have to, not explicitly. The tone and the context already hint at that - if you saw someone creating a fake cover of an existing periodical but 10 years into the future, you'd likely assume it's part of some joke or a commentary related to said periodical, and not a serious attempt at predicting the future. And so would an LLM.

People keep forgetting (or worse, still disbelieving) that LLMs can "read between the lines" and infer intent with good accuracy - because that's exactly what they're trained to do[0].

Also there's prior art for time-displaced HN, and it's universally been satire.

--

[0] - The goal function for LLM output is basically "feels right, makes sense in context to humans" - in fully general meaning of that statement.
by 2rsf | 2025-12-10 08:29:57+00:00
> 9. render the presentation as a pdf file, so any device can display it

That's good as a backup, or for simpler presentations (in a good way!) but Powerpoint allows you all kinds of benefits like animations or transitions. Presnting PDFs is not guaranteed to be pain free as well, as I expereince on my corporate controlled laptop with stange versions of Adobe software.

> 11. the anxiety goes away

It does! also remember that the audience doesn't know what you are going to present, so they wouldn't care if you make mistakes.

I will add

13. Practice and learn speaking, a good start could be Vinh Giang's Youtube channel
by freetonik | 2025-12-10 08:30:25+00:00
>In my work, the bigger bottleneck to productivity is that very few people can correctly articulate requirements.

Agreed.

In addition, on the other side of the pipeline, code reviews are another bottleneck. We could have more MRs in review thanks to AI, but we can't really move at the speed of LLM's outputs unless we blindly trust it (or trust another AI to do the reviews, at which point what are we doing here at all...)