MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by lossolo | 2025-12-29 18:28:30+00:00
> I do not understand what is motivating this conflict.

Money/resources, and power/control/influence.

It's the same with fentanyl as it was with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Your government is selling you and the world justifications. It's as old as the world, you need a casus belli. The Crusades, for example, were mostly just resource and land grabs etc.
by snoman | 2025-12-29 18:28:32+00:00
My reading of it also violates the Boy Scout Rule. That is to say: if improving some portion of the codebase would make it better, but inconsistent, you should avoid the improvement; which is something that I would disagree with.

I think adherence to “consistency is more important than ‘good design’” naturally leads to boiling the ocean refactoring and/or rewrites, which are far riskier endeavors with lower success rates than iterative refactoring of a working system over time.
by neogodless | 2025-12-29 18:28:58+00:00
There's a simple third option you omitted:

Tesla is not the only company to achieve self-driving, and all companies that achieve it share the market with them.

(Or the fourth option, it will take decades for self-driving to take even a significant market of "driving" as humans continue to want to own and drive cars rather than short-term rentals.)
by mxschumacher | 2025-12-29 18:29:27+00:00
there was a rush to buy electric cars in the US for as long as the $7500 incentive was in place, so the Q3 2025 number if inflated; it's a pull forward effect.

Sales have been flat for 3 years and the delivery numbers in Europe are catastrophic

on a fully diluted basis, the market cap is above $1.6tn, so at a PE of 20, they'd have to generate something like $80bn in profit per year - hard to do in an industry that is as brutally competitive and low margin as passenger cars.
by malshe | 2025-12-29 18:29:30+00:00
If you want to understand how Tesla bulls pump the stock, check out any of the numerous videos of Dan Ives you will find on YouTube. He is regularly invited on CNBC and other financial new media as well as on financial blogs/vlogs. Here is one recent video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecLsZ4bkW6Q
by WillAdams | 2025-12-29 18:29:32+00:00
John Ousterhout has been addressing this one class at a time at Stanford for a while now, and has scaled up to a book:

https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/39996759-a-philosophy...

Video overview at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmSAYlu0NcY
by austin-cheney | 2025-12-29 18:29:34+00:00
Software developers like to think they are special. They aren't. Software, from a planning perspective, is not much different than physical construction.

When it comes to extending an existing application it really comes down to how well the base application was planned to begin with. In most cases the base application developers have no idea, because they either outsourced the planning to some external artifact or simply pushed through it one line at a time and never looked back. Either way the person writing the extension will be more concerned with the corresponding service data and accessibility than conformance to the base application code if it is not well documented and not well tested in a test automation scheme.
by Telaneo | 2025-12-29 18:29:45+00:00
> They don't because too many people pirate games to make that a viable business.

Given how many games on Steam are sold either DRM free (you can just transfer the files over to another PC and they just work) or functionally DRM free (Steam's DRM is trivially bypassed, so one step removed from DRM free), this doesn't really scan. Other than games with Denuvo and multiplayer games, DRM is a non-issue for actual pirates.

It seems a lot more likely to me that the people in charge will have a fit at the idea of releasing the games DRM free, but don't actually care to know anything about the details. So long as the DRM checkbox is ticked, and they don't know about the fact that Steam's DRM is trivially bypassed, everybody mostly gets what they want.
by satvikpendem | 2025-12-29 18:30:08+00:00
For one such example, see the years long fights in city halls over resource usage or utilization, such as building new developments for example. A corporation trying to get something done moving at that pace would, well, not get anything done. That is why worker owned co-ops, which you can create today even in this capitalist system we have, do not outcompete capitalist structures generally speaking.
by square_usual | 2025-12-29 18:30:11+00:00
> I am assuming that the downvotes are less about the fact that your parent comment is wrong, and more about the fact that the grandparent is not "categorically" false. It has some accurate aspects, but cannot be easily dismissed away.

First, the parent comment just stated that out as fact without any argument or evidence, so I don't feel the need to provide any of my own to dismiss it. As the old adage goes, claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Then, if it was just that I asserted that the GGP was wrong (which they are, 100%), then the sibling comment asking for more evidence wouldn't also be in the negatives, which it is at the time I write this.

The simpler idea is this: GGP (or someone like them) is just downvoting people calling out their orientalist woo about "[Hiduism] thinks of truth and morality as extremely subjective", which is simply false. The only "strains" of Hinduism that you could even remotely argue have relativistic worldviews are ancient philosophies that are not held by any practicing Hindu today, so even with whatever you're arguing their statement, as written, is categorically false. It's like saying Christianity is a mystical religion because the Gnostics existed.

I'm assuming the rest of your comment is written by AI because it sounds like AI, so I'm not going to bother responding to that.
by MatthiasPortzel | 2025-12-29 18:30:12+00:00
One key thing to understand about TigerBeetle is that it's a file-system-backed database. Static allocation means they limit the number of resources in memory at once (number of connections, number of records that can be returned from a single query, etc). One of the points is that these things are limited in practice anyways (MySQL and Postgres have a simultaneous connection limit, applications should implement pagination). Thinking about and specifying these limits up front is better than having operations time out or OOM. On the other hand, TigerBeetle does not impose any limit on the amount of data that can be stored in the database.

=> https://tigerbeetle.com/blog/2022-10-12-a-database-without-d...

It's always bad to use O(N) memory if you don't have to. With a FS-backed database, you don't have to. (Whether you're using static allocation or not. I work on a Ruby web-app, and we avoid loading N records into memory at once, using fixed-sized batches instead.) Doing allocation up front is just a very nice way of ensuring you've thought about those limits, and making sure you don't slip up, and avoiding the runtime cost of allocations.

This is totally different from OP's situation, where they're implementing an in-memory database. This means that 1) they've had to impose a limit on the number of kv-pairs they store, and 2) they're paying the cost for all kv-pairs at startup. This is only acceptable if you know you have a fixed upper bound on the number of kv-pairs to store.
by jerf | 2025-12-29 18:30:21+00:00
Technically, your computer is not Turing Complete because it does not have access to infinite memory. Technically, once all the input has been given to a program, that program is a finite state automaton.

That "once all the input has been given to the program" is doing a bit of heavy lifting since we have a number of programs where we have either unbounded input, or input modulated by the output itself (e.g., when a human plays a game their inputs are affected by previous outputs, which is the point after all), or other such things. But you can model all programs as their initial contents and all inputs they will ever receive, in principle if not in fact, and then your program is really just a finite state automaton.

Static allocation helps make it more clear, but technically all computers are bounded by their resources anyhow, so it really doesn't change anything. No program is Turing complete.

The reason why we don't think of them this way is several fold, but probably the most important is that the toolkit you get with finite state automata don't apply well in our real universe to real programs. The fact that mathematically, all programs can in fact be proved to halt or not in finite time by simply running them until they either halt or a full state of the system is repeated is not particularly relevant to beings like us who lack access to the requisite exponential space and time resources necessary to run that algorithm for real. The tools that come from modeling our systems as Turing Complete are much more practically relevant to our lives. There's also the fact that if your program never runs out of RAM, never reaches for more memory and gets told "no", it is indistinguishable from running on a system that has infinite RAM.

Technically, nothing in this universe is Turing Complete. We have an informal habit of referring to things that "would be Turing Complete if extended in some reasonably obvious manner to be infinitely large" as simply being Turing Complete even though they aren't. If you really, really push that definition, the "reasonably obvious manner" can spark disagreements, but generally all those disagreements involve things so exponentially large as to be practically irrelevant anyhow and just be philosophy in the end. For example, you can't just load a modern CPU up with more and more RAM, eventually you would get to the point where there simply isn't enough state in the CPU to address more RAM, not even if you hook together all the registers in the entire CPU and all of its cache and everything else it has... but such an amount of RAM is so inconceivably larger than our universe that it isn't going to mean anything practical in this universe. You then get into non-"obvious" ways you might extend it from there, like indirect referencing through other arbitrarily large values in RAM, but it is already well past the point where it has any real-world meaning.
by Orphis | 2025-12-29 18:30:29+00:00
Google is made of many thousands of individuals. Some experts will be aware of all those, some won't. In my team, many didn't know about those details as they were handled by other builds teams for specific products or entire domains at once.

But since each product in some different domains had to actively enable those optimizations for themselves, they were occasionally forgotten, and I found a few in the app I worked for (but not directly on).
by surajrmal | 2025-12-29 18:30:57+00:00
If you are just a lower level IC, your influence is small. However if you can climb to higher level 7+ or enter management you will have a lot of control of roadmaps you own. If you're trying to influence organizations you're not in you're also going to have quite limited influence, but participating in dogfooding programs and filing bugs is still more influence than you would have externally.

I do agree that it's not easy even given the correct conditions.
by pranavarora99 | 2025-12-29 18:31:03+00:00
We build conversational AI infrastructure for healthcare. Voice agents that talk to real patients, coordinate care, and drive outcomes at scale. Our AI is on calls with Medicare patients right now.

We're two founders looking for three founding engineers.

Backend: Own the API layer, AI agent orchestration, event-driven systems. Hono.js on Lambda, TypeScript, PostgreSQL, DynamoDB. Real-time patient conversations.

Frontend: Own two Next.js apps, a design system, real-time dashboards. You're not implementing Figma. You're deciding what the product looks like.

Infra: Own AWS, Terraform, CI/CD, observability. You decide how everything runs and scales.

We use Cursor, Claude, and ship weekly. Your code is in production the same week you write it.

Why this might be interesting: healthcare has a 20% first call resolution rate. We're at 88%. One care manager can reach thousands of patients through what you build. The technical problems are real and the impact is immediate.

Small team in Kendall Square. No layers. No roadmap theater. Founding equity that means something.

$140K to $180K + 0.5 to 2%+ equity
by spwa4 | 2025-12-29 18:31:04+00:00
The spec allows carriers to disallow removal of an eSIM, to allow for subsidized phone business models (in other words: this change was demanded by the carriers). So you should blame the carrier, not the manufacturer that simply implements the spec.

It might be nice if manufacturers implement a HUUGE LOUD warning when enabling an eSIM that requires carrier authorization to remove though. Someone should put that in the Android bug tracker.
by stuffn | 2025-12-29 18:31:14+00:00
I don't think realistically isolationism implies inaction. Let's suppose that it's the most "honest" cause. That is, attempting to prevent a Cuban Missile Crisis event by putting boots on the ground early. Then this doesn't contradict isolationism. In fact, I'd argue it's probably entirely within the bounds of "America First".

However, your point stands. Venezuela stands to benefit from an invasion because the country is unstable and teetering on collapse. It's essentially being sold to the highest bidder. If Russia/China want to put their boots there they will need to defend it and rebuild it. If the US wants to prevent Russia/China from doing that they will need to defend it and rebuild it. The US has far better global power projection and will likely spend considerable resources to ensure it's success as it's also, in some sense, a survival concern for the CONUS itself. I would think it could look a lot 1953 Iran, with the exception that power projection "down the street" (so to speak) is much easier to maintain than across the ocean.
by computerex | 2025-12-29 18:32:29+00:00
People only pirate games because the publishers make it too painful to play games legally. I have pirated games that I own simply because it's easier to play. This pattern has been shown time and time again. When people pirate, it's usually due to a problem with the experience. People pay for convenience.

Now a days a lot of people are pirating games because the quality of games has gone down the drain. Publishers are releasing unfinished games and pricing them at record high. Consumers are pissed at the lack of value.
by fsmunoz | 2025-12-29 18:32:50+00:00
Depends on what you want, I touch upon that somewhat: to replicate this specific pattern, you can replace Squid with something that fills in the gap without any major changes - so, nginx or Caddy for example -- but you would have to make sure the feature set is adequate: I see Squid as being egress-first, where others are ingress-first (nginx being used a an ingress controller, recently discontinued but still...), so I do think that for this specific purpose it works quite well.

As for Envoy and others, I think this would fit in a different architecture that I sort of point to near the end, one that includes using a service mesh: Istio for example uses Envoy for Egress Gateway, Cillium also has an Egress Gateway, etc. This to me would be a separate pattern though.
by wredcoll | 2025-12-29 18:32:54+00:00
At no point did the phrase "goodness of pure hearts" appear in my text.

That doesn't make usaid saving 90 million lives less great.

Also, remember how america is not a single person? It is in fact millions of people? You want to tell me with a straight face that every single employee of usaid is working entirely out of some kind of dispassionate desire to increase american foreign influence?

I don't get why it is so difficult to understand that countries (and people) and do both good and bad things over their existences and if we actually want a better future we should encourage the good things being done which means we need to actually be able to recongize good vs bad.
by eviks | 2025-12-29 18:33:01+00:00
the principles aren't sound

> To promote balanced usage, ... equal distribution eliminates the strain of overextending the right fingers

What overextension? You don't even type them frequently enough for your index/middle finger on the home row to notice anything, and "cognitive overhead" is lower if they're paired together.

And neither is this strategy

> we reach up for numbers,..This strategic approach ensures that my layout and daily typing tasks never overwhelm my cognitive load.

The default numbers are so inconveniently placed that you don't really get much proficiency in using them, so you'll not lose much if you switch from some great numpad layout back to horizontal line just like using regular numpad has no effect on your ability to use the horizontal row
And numpad can't overwhelm anything since is extremely common

This is just bad strategy, using superficial logic to hurt ergonomics.

The familiarity with more rarely used symbols might add overhead if broken, but maybe if symbols are mapped to the same numbers it won't be much? (this is at least plausible unlike with the numbers themselves)
by crawfordcomeaux | 2025-12-29 18:33:04+00:00
Any analysis of corporations without contextualizing them within systems generating/maintaining genocides is going to be too reductive to be about the real world, like most economic models. The result will always be too idealistic & artificially limiting the scope of potentially meaningful work (as well as the creativity needed to move past such limits).

Passively contributing to genocide is still contributing to genocide. Complicity/apathy toward genocide is still contributing to genocide.
by andsoitis | 2025-12-29 18:33:07+00:00
> It has delivered a better ROI in the same way a ponzi scheme can deliver higher ROI.

It sounds like you're arguing that high valuation compared to fundamentals means buyers expect gains from future buyers paying more sounds like a Ponzi, but it isn't, it is speculation.

The comparison doesn't make sense. Some surface features of speculative markets can look Ponzi-like, but the underlying mechanics are very different.

A Ponzi-scheme returns to earlier participants directly from money contributed by later participants, with no real underlying business generating value. In a Ponzi-scheme, there is no real product (or it is irrelevant), the operator controls payouts, and investors are promised steady or guaranteed returns. None of that applies to Tesla stock.

Ponzi-schemes hide losses, smooth returns, collapse suddenly. Tesla stock is volatile, has had large drawdowns, and public reflects bad news, margin compression, demand shifts. Volatility is a sign of a market, not a Ponzi.
by mikepurvis | 2025-12-29 18:34:06+00:00
Also not a game dev, but my understanding there is that there there's a lot of in-memory objects whose lifetimes are tied to specific game-time entities, like a frame, an NPC, the units of octtree/bsp corresponding to where the player is, etc.

Under these conditions, you do need a fair bit of dynamism, but the deallocations can generally be in big batches rather than piecemeal, so it's a good fit for slab-type systems.
by wyldfire | 2025-12-29 18:34:27+00:00
> With this information, the necessity of code-models feels unecessary [sic]. Why trigger the cost for every callsite when we can do-so piecemeal as necessary with the opportunity to use profiles to guide us on which methods to migrate to thunks.

Does the linker have access to the same hotness information that the compiler uses during PGO? Well -- presumably it could, even if it doesn't now. But it would be like a heuristic with a hotness threshold? Do linkers "do" heuristics?
by twistorino | 2025-12-29 18:35:03+00:00
Hey HN,

I’ve been building CheatSheet++ as an all-in-one resource for developers.

Most developer sites focus on just one thing, but I wanted to build a place that provides the diverse set of tools you need when mastering a new technology.

The platform already offered:

Cheat Sheets for quick syntax lookups.
Tutorials for determining "how" to use a tool.
Interview Questions for preparing for a new job.
Today, I’ve added the missing piece: Interactive Quizzes.

Now, for every topic on the site, you can instantly test your knowledge. It’s designed to complete the loop: you can learn the concept, look up the syntax, and now verify you actually know it—all in one place
https://cheatsheet-plus-plus.com
by kevin_thibedeau | 2025-12-29 18:35:08+00:00
This is still a more dependable approach with resource constraints. Fragmentation is eliminated and you can monitor pools for usage in a worst case scenario. The only other risk here versus true static allocation is a memory leak which can be guarded against with suitable modern language design.

LwIPs buffers get passed around across interrupt handler boundaries in and out of various queues. That's that makes it hard to reason about. The allocation strategy is still sound when you can't risk using a heap.
by kilna | 2025-12-29 18:35:20+00:00
Framing it as unwarranted to not think "Tesla is uniquely unable to achieve it"...? Seriously?

The real question is if Tesla is uniquely ABLE to achieve it, above others in the market... including new startups or tech/auto-maker partnerships which may yet form.

Tesla has some supply chain innovation, but none of what they do can't be replicated... and Musk's slavish commitment to video as opposed to LIDAR is hobbling them.
by Tiktaalik | 2025-12-29 18:35:31+00:00
Houston is able to scale even with the space inefficiencies of the car by leveraging sprawl. It is remarkably larger than NYC and has room to grow.

This is the relief valve I mentioned here:

> You simply have to give up and can't grow the city any further. So you have to push people out to other cities.

So a city that can sprawl like Houston, does so, and it grows outward, adding more cities on the edge and becomes effectively a loose federation of many cities, which aids in the transportation issue.

That is a solution that some cities on a plain can make use of to kick out the runway further, but it's unavailable to others with more constrained geography.
by jpollock | 2025-12-29 18:35:33+00:00
This isn't really about software quality, it's about the entire organization.

Consistency enables velocity. If there is consistency, devs can start to make assumptions. "Auth is here, database is there, this is how we handle ABC". Possible problems show up in reviews by being different to expectation. "Hey, where's XYZ?", "Why are you querying the database in the constructor?"

Onboarding between teams becomes a lot easier, ramp up time is smaller.

Without consistency, you end up with lots of small pockets of behavior that cause downstream problems for the org as a whole.

Every team needs extra staff to handle load peaks, resulting in a lot of idle devs.

Senior devs can't properly guess where the problematic parts of fixes or features would be. They don't need to know the details, just where things will be _difficult_.

Every feature requires coordination between the teams, with queuing and prioritizing until local staff become available.

Finally, consistency allows classes of bugs to be fixed once. Fix it once and migrate everyone to the new style.
by Capricorn2481 | 2025-12-29 18:35:41+00:00
I don't have a stake in forcing people to vote or not, because I generally agree that uninformed people shouldn't be pressured to make a last minute decision if they don't want to. I think everyone knows elections are at their least honest days before the vote.

But to engage with your question, not voting is the same as voting. You are forgoing your voice and giving more weight to the people that do vote. It's limited to your district, yes, but whatever the outcome, you gave the majority power to do that. So it's not surprising that people get frustrated when non-voters see themselves as "outside" of politics, especially when they complain about the state of things.