MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by pjmlp | 2025-12-12 08:49:10+00:00
Registration free COM has existed since Windows XP, if I get my timeline right without bothering to look it up.

All modern Windows APIs introduced since Vista have been COM, classical Win32 C APIs are seldom introduced nowadays.

Certainly current Windows 11 performance problems have nothing to do with using COM all over the place, rather Webwidgets instead of native code, hiring people that apparently never did Windows programming, that apparently do AI driven coding.

Ah, macOS and iDevices driver model is equally based in COM like design, one would expect drivers to be something where performance matters.

Then there is XPC, Android IPC, and one could consider D-BUS as well, if it was more widely adopted across the GNU/Linux world.
by KronisLV | 2025-12-12 08:51:10+00:00
> 154GB vs 23GB can trivially make the difference of whether the game can be installed on a nice NVMe drive.

I think War Thunder did it the best:

* Minimal client 23 GB * Full client 64 GB * Ultra HQ ground models 113 GB * Ultra HQ aircraft 92 GB * Full Ultra HQ 131 GB

For example, I will never need anything more than the full client, whereas if I want to play on a laptop, I won't really need more than the minimal client (limited textures and no interiors for planes).

The fact that this isn't commonplace in every engine and game out there is crazy. There's no reason why the same approach couldn't also work for DLCs and such. And there's no reason why this couldn't be made easy in every game engine out there (e.g. LOD level 0 goes to HQ content bundle, the lower ones go into the main package). Same for custom packages for like HDDs and such.
by stacktrace | 2025-12-12 08:51:19+00:00
> It's still a big issue that the models will make up plausible sounding but wrong or misleading explanations for things, and verifying their claims ends up taking time. And if it's a topic you don't care about enough, you might just end up misinformed.

Exactly! One important thing LLMs have made me realise deeply is "No information" is better than false information. The way LLMs pull out completely incorrect explanations baffles me - I suppose that's expected since in the end it's generating tokens based on its training and it's reasonable it might hallucinate some stuff, but knowing this doesn't ease any of my frustration.

IMO if LLMs need to focus on anything right now, they should focus on better grounding. Maybe even something like a probability/confidence score, might end up experience so much better for so many users like me.
by superice | 2025-12-12 08:51:36+00:00
In the best case scenario, professionally writing software is treated like a craft. You produce something useful while applying your skills, with the tools at your disposal. You can write software as an art form, just like woodworking can be both a craft and an art form. A woodworker in an assembly line doing the same thing over and over again to me is not a craftsperson, it is the attitude towards the job that makes it art, craft, or assembly line work.

Too many software projects treat programmers as factory workers, where their primary value is measured in amount of storypoints or Jira tickets finished. Don't get me wrong, you can be a craftsperson and use an issue tracker ofcourse, but if quantity is the only thing management cares about instead of quality, the craft gets lost in the process. Quantity is easy to measure, quality is not.

At the same time treating software like an art is probably not very useful. That code is (typically) not written to be looked at, but to make the computer do something useful.

It's a shame artisinal software sounds so weird, because that precisely describes the level of caring I'd like to see applied to the software I use.
by Gud | 2025-12-12 08:51:48+00:00
When did the UK use to be free?

Seems to me this is a cultural issue that runs deep. You are his majesty’s loyal subject, like it or not, and more importantly, you are a subject of his bureaucracy. The US works in a similar fashion, except the deep state has slightly different excuses to exist.

I work extensively in the UK(past 5 years, I’ve worked there maybe two years in total). Nothing gets done without endless approval from people with cushy office jobs in the bureaucracy.

It’s in the bureaucracy’s interest to extend its power, and who is going to stop them?

CSAM is an excellent excuse to control the digital world. I wonder what took them this long.
by wartywhoa23 | 2025-12-12 08:52:38+00:00
And now compare this comment with another comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46228900) I got in yet another "let's save children from the Internet" thread:

> Your sci-fi distopia flash fiction is compelling, but not actually on topic in this discussion.

> "Think of the children" is weaponized for censorious purposes, but also the harms of social media are well documented (unlike many of the other moral panics fuelled by this phrase).

> I'm not sure a blanket under-16s ban on all social media is the right answer, but there are really good reasons why people support this that you need to engage with to have a useful discussion here.

So basically for everyone even with modest pattern recognition abilities the template used here should be crystal clear, which goes along the lines of

- I'm kinda with you (even though you are stupid and emotion-driven);

- But your point is totally invalid because you should be humiliated by the sheer number of your opponents, which renders you small and negligible;

- Your opponents have very good reasons to support any fascism that is able to address their reaction to prefabricated problems with prefabricated solutions, and you've got to support that too if you want to be heard.

I'm pretty sure these threads are chock full of shills, because one can't rob people of freedom without significant narraive steering efforts.
by m463 | 2025-12-12 08:53:14+00:00
> Their maps and navigation is pretty good (and integrated with FSD)

I got a loaner with fsd and tried it out.

There was this one trip I took to a store and for some reason, the nav route detoured off the road to the next street over, then joined back with the route.

I think this is a thing nav systems do and people just ignore it and go the right way.

except the tesla tried to drive the dumb route.

lol
by simondotau | 2025-12-12 08:53:45+00:00
In the increasingly rare instances where Tesla's solution is making mistakes, it's pretty much never to do with a failure of spatial awareness (sensing) but rather a failure of path planning (decision-making).

The only thing LIDAR can do sense depth, and if it turns out sensing depth using cameras is a solved problem, adding LIDAR doesn't help. It can't read road signs. It can't read road lines. It can't tell if a traffic light is red or green. And it certainly doesn't improve predictions of human drivers.
by rnts08 | 2025-12-12 08:54:55+00:00
Location: HCMC, Vietnam/Remote Remote: Preferred/Hybrid in HCMC Willing to relocate: No Technologies: Linux/Unix, Python, Terraform, Kubernetes, Ansible, ArgoCD, Helm, Git, Bash, Go, AWS, GCP, Azure, Postgresql, MySQL, Redis, Haproxy, Proxmox, Varnish, dRPC, Web3/Blockchain, Grafana, Loki, Prometheus, Kong, Salt etc Résumé/CV: https://timhbergstrom.pro/Resume_Timh_Bergstrom_2025_latest.... Email: timh.bergstrom@gmail.com

Senior DevOps, Infrastructure/Platform Engineer, Cloud Architect, and Security Engineer with 20+ years of experience designing, automating, and scaling mission-critical systems across data centers, cloud platforms, and edge environments.

Open to interesting DevOps/SRE, cloud infrastructure, cybersecurity or platform engineering positions as well as contract and consulting work in or around Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam - or remote worldwide, especially within the IaaS, PaaS, Startups, AI/ML, Security, Web3/DeFi, FinTech or Cloud sectors.
by keepamovin | 2025-12-12 08:55:11+00:00
OK, but applying the idea from critical legal theory that "the purpose of the law is the protect status quo power" to mental health to infer that diagnoses must similarly reinforce archetypes with social/economic/political utility for the system - how does that gel with the idea that people capable of aquiring great wealth (a measure of 'system utility') are highly mentally ill?

Aside from that, I'm not saying you're wrong or right about that theory, I'm just wondering how it falls down around that idea.

On this topic of interenet behavior, maybe I'm not really sure or maybe I am, but my view is it's less about some sort of diempowering imposition of external/elite evil upon a innocent and good mass population, but rather about the medium itself enabling latent negativities in the populus to surface. Which doesn't mean the population is itself not good and innocent - it is also multifaceted. Thus, such dynamics might operate in a "Stanford Prison Experiment" kind of "cover and permission" way.

My view of many of these dynamics are its more about emergent self-regulating properties of a system than it is about top-down control. In a sense, that's a lot more liberating and empowering for people, because then they are not cast as victims of some evil from on high, they are the architects of their experience, for good or bad.

The view you espouse, while seeming to empower the downtrodden by taking aim at hidden sources of evil power, I feel in fact disempowers by playing up the fake victim narratives that disempower and confuse people. In other words, your idea, while seemingly edgy and incisive, may in fact be what any such extant "evil elites" would want you to think, if they hope to have control! Haha :)

Anyway, I'm not trying to cut down your idea here in this topic - personally I believe people are very much in charge of their experiences, that's what I've found in my life - but in this kind of mass topic, who knows? Anywa, thanks for responding. Just some food for thought and maybe discussion. Have a good one :)
by rich_sasha | 2025-12-12 08:56:05+00:00
I get regularly downvoted for this, but oh well. I don't post for votes:

I think the research consensus is that the internet is a dangerous place for kids. And pragmatic life experience shows that as a parent, you can't control well what your kids have access to. While I think many of these laws are poorly implemented and unnecessarily endanger the free Internet, I think they are coming from a good place.

I think arguing that there should be no restrictions whatsoever is completely ignoring the negative societal impact of modern technology and is actually unpragmatic and counterproductive, because that impact is very real and people want to control it. They won't care about arguments about freedom that seem far fetched to them.

To me a much more fruitful discussion would be on how to control these things and how to ensure it doesn't become a creeping censorship mechanism. Simply saying "no" will mean people who care about free internet will be left on the side.

Because actually there is a lot one could do to reconcile these two standpoints:

- ensure privacy-preserving mechanisms are used for age verification

- ensure laws proactively proscribe freedom of internet outside of selected (age restricted) areas

- provide transparency laws that enable citizens to see all data collected on them, GDPR-style.

- pathways for citizens to appeal or request compensation for violations of privacy

- and crucially, prevent other terrible things in this area, like the demand I saw on a related thread that all mobile devices have an unremovable black-box software that censors all internet access.

Would I mind a provably privacy-preserving age check? Not really. And it's actually achievable, as opposed to simply attempting to veto this whole wave. Hackers like us no longer own the web, it has become a common good.

As a postscriptum, there's a ton of cynicism about "think of the children" and CSAM. I can well believe it's BS when politicians say it. Equally I don't take it as a given. I feel uncomfortable when my freedom to browse innocuous stuff shelters predators and gives 12 year olds access to SM porn. You're free to disagree, but it seems the world is moving on. You can shout at the clouds or try to find a compromise.
by keepamovin | 2025-12-12 08:56:19+00:00
That's a good point, that optimization thing. Sort of "algorithmically driven mad" or bad! Ha. Could be happening. It's why it's important to disengage right? From the loops of brain hijacking/hacking. A quieter internet, for a more civilized age.

That reminds me, I'm making a text-based terminal browser. It might achieve that! Haha :)
by LargoLasskhyfv | 2025-12-12 08:57:21+00:00
Ho-hum, so I gave this yay-thing a try, as a binary, out of CachyOS repos, and let it run an outstanding update of 77 packages, mostly new Plasma/KDE to 6.5.4 from 6.5.3. It even discovered some things which I must have installed manually via makepkg from the AUR, mainly i7z(probably during discovery, when the system(s) were 'new' to me), some microsoft fonts, and even Hexchat, which I've forgotten about, because I switched to KVirc when Hexchat began to crash. It doesn't do that anymore, at least not during autoconnect to EFNET & Libera Chat. Didn't test further. Did reboot with the usual insane brazenness of kill -9ing Firefox from within htop beforehand, to have it reliably restart my session, with all its windows and tabs in there. Yay -Scc, erasing all btrfs-snapshots, and so on.

Closing all other apps, terms, filemanagers. Klicking restart. Hands off. Very quiet and fast boot. Sddm appears. Login. Plasma is there. FF reloads as it should. Everything else works. Still ultra-smooth.

So Yay!?

(Squeekily screaming: *Oh my gawd!1!! Nao my (almost) pristine binary system iz tainted!1!!*)

You were saying?

Edit: Wanna 'see'? https://postimg.cc/5HmJb0g3

Edit: Hrrm. When Hexchat began to crash... So I've told shit about no app ever crashing. But that was a general problem on Distros which updated the underlying substrate faster than others, IIRC.

It was just 'bitrotten'.

Very annoying at the time because I've been used to it since a long time, and had it heavily customized and themed, but (binary!) KVirc came to the rescue, so I've forgotten about that. Sorry.
by thendrill | 2025-12-12 08:58:58+00:00
I will just copy paste my comment from another thread but still very relevant>

Coding isn’t creative, it isn’t sexy, and almost nobody outside this bubble cares

Most of the world doesn’t care about “good code.” They care about “does it work, is it fast enough, is it cheap enough, and can we ship it before the competitor does?”

Beautiful architecture, perfect tests, elegant abstractions — those things feel deeply rewarding to the person who wrote them, but they’re invisible to users, to executives, and, let’s be honest, to the dating market.

Being able to refactor a monolith into pristine microservices will not make you more attractive on a date. What might is the salary that comes with the title “Senior Engineer at FAANG.” In that sense, many women (not all, but enough) relate to programmers the same way middle managers and VCs do: they’re perfectly happy to extract the economic value you produce while remaining indifferent to the craft itself. The code isn’t the turn-on; the direct deposit is.

That’s brutal to hear if you’ve spent years telling yourself that your intellectual passion is inherently admirable or sexy. It’s not. Outside our tribe it’s just a means to an end — same as accounting, law, or plumbing, just with worse dress code and better catering.

So when AI starts eating the parts of the job we insisted were “creative” and “irreplaceable,” the threat feels existential because the last remaining moat — the romantic story we told ourselves about why this profession is special — collapses. Turns out the scarcity was mostly the paycheck, not the poetry.

I’m not saying the work is meaningless or that system design and taste don’t matter. I’m saying we should stop pretending the act of writing software is inherently sexier or more artistically noble than any other high-paying skilled trade. It never was.
by em500 | 2025-12-12 08:59:17+00:00
- Almost everything on blogs and HN are opinions, so don't take things things too seriously

- Fun and humour are subjective, and a substantial part derives from novelty and subvertin expectations. It's hard to make something fun for an audience that has already seen such dozens of times.

- The audience('s background and expectations) is diverse and varies with time. So what's considered "fun" is audience specific and often cyclical.
by fransje26 | 2025-12-12 09:01:11+00:00
> This reminds me of an adventured died just a few months ago at age of 40 after suffering insult.

I did not understand what was meant with "suffering insult", so with the help of DeepL and his wikipedia page I could determine that he passed away due to a brain tumour.

An other link:

https://eng.lsm.lv/article/society/society/19.11.2025-farewe...
by throw310822 | 2025-12-12 09:01:43+00:00
Beautiful. These models are, in some aspects, already way smarter than the average human. And frankly it does feel they have the ability to introspect- there is nothing mechanical in the way they talk about themselves.

I'm struck by the last of the "layers of meaning": "something like... caring about getting this right?"

Anthropic has already proven that the models have a limited ability to introspect-that is, to observe their own internal state and talk about it.
by arw0n | 2025-12-12 09:03:09+00:00
I think the better word is confabulation; fabricating plausible but false narratives based on wrong memory. Fundamentally, these models try to produce plausible text. With language models getting large, they start creating internal world models, and some research shows they actually have truth dimensions. [0]

I'm not an expert on the topic, but to me it sounds plausible that a good part of the problem of confabulation comes down to misaligned incentives. These models are trained hard to be a 'helpful assistant', and this might conflict with telling the truth.

Being free of hallucinations is a bit too high a bar to set anyway. Humans are extremely prone to confabulations as well, as can be seen by how unreliable eye witness reports tend to be. We usually get by through efficient tool calling (looking shit up), and some of us through expressing doubt about our own capabilities (critical thinking).

[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.12831
by jdkoeck | 2025-12-12 09:03:10+00:00
A tale as old as time: hubris. A successful system is destined to either stop growing or morph into a monstrosity by taking on too many responsibilities. It's hard to know when to stop.

React lost me when it stopped being a rendering library and became a "runtime" instead. What do you know, when a runtime starts collapsing rendering, data fetching, caching, authorization boundaries, server and client into a single abstraction, the blast radius of any mistake becomes enormous.
by danabramov | 2025-12-12 09:04:04+00:00
Note that the exploits so far haven’t had much to do with “server code/data getting bundled into the client code” or similar which you’re alluding to. Also, RSC does not try to “guess” how to split code — it is deterministic and always user-controlled.

The vulnerabilities so far were weaknesses in the (de)serializer stemming from the dynamism of JavaScript — ability to hijack root object prototype, ability to toString functions to get their code, ability to override a Promise then implementation, ability to construct a function from a string. The patches are patching the (de)serializer to work around those dynamic pieces of JavaScript to avoid those gaps. This is similar to mistakes in parsers where they’re fooled by properties called hasOwnProperty/constructor/etc.

The serialization format is essentially “JSON with Promises and code chunk references”, and it seems like there’s enough pieces where dynamic nature of JS can leak that needed to be plugged. Hopefully with more scrutiny on the protocol, these will be well-understood by the team. The surface area there isn’t growing much anymore (it’s close to being feature-complete), and the (de)serializers themselves are roughly 5 kloc each.

The problem you had in Opa is solved in RSC with build-time assertions (import "server-only" is the server environment poison pill, and import "client-only" is the client environment poison pill). These poison pills work transitively up the module import stack and are statically enforced and prevent code (eg DB code, secrets, etc) from being pulled into the wrong environment. Of course this doesn’t prevent bugs in the (de)serializer but it’s why the overall approach is sound, in the absence of (de)serialization vulnerabilities.
by tliltocatl | 2025-12-12 09:04:04+00:00
Oh, STEM naming… Especially mathematics. How can you tell that a "set" is different from a "group" different from a "manifold" different from a "category"? Then there is a lot of seemingly unrelated things called "space" (they are all actually a topological space, but when studying e. g. vector spaces one might not yet have been into that). "Field" is two absolutely unrelated things in physics and algebra, sometimes these domains even intersect! Linear programming, no real relation to computer programming at all, "programming" used to mean "optimization". Calling stuff after their discoverers might be non-descriptive, but giving a misleadingly descriptive name that also collides is way worse - yet people working with this manage just fine.
by p410n3 | 2025-12-12 09:05:05+00:00
I ran into the same thing! My site still isnt indexed and I would REALLY like to not change the URL (its a shop and the url is printed on stuff) - redirects are my last resort.

But basically what happened: In august 2025 we finished the first working version of our shop. I wanted to accelerate indexing after some weeks because only ~50 of our pages were indexed and submitted the sitemap and everything got de-indexed within days. I thought for the longest time that its content quality because we sell niche trading cards and the descriptions are all one liners i made in Excel. ("This is $cardname from $set for your collection or deck!"). And because its single trading cards we have 7000+ products that are very similiar. (We did do all product images ourselves I thought google would like this but alas).

But later we added binders, whole sets and took a lot of care with their product data. The frontpage also got a massive overhaul - no shot. Not one page in index. We still get traffic from marketplaces and our older non-shop site. The shop itself lives on a subdomain (shop.myoldsite.com). The normal site also has a sitemap but that one was submitted 2022. I later rewrote how my sitemaps were generated and deleted the old ones in search console hoping this would help. It did not. (The old sitemap was generated by the shop system and was very large. Some forums mentioned that its better to create a chunked sitemap so I made a script that creates lists with 1000 products at a time as well as an index for them.)

Later observations are:

- Both sitemaps i deleted in GSC are still getting crawled and are STILL THERE. You cant see them in the overview but if you have the old links they still appear as normal.

- We eventually started submitting product data to google merchant center as well. It works 100% fine and our products are getting found and bought. The clicks still even show up in search console!!!! So I have a shop with 0 indexed pages in GSC that gets clicks every day. WTHeck?

So like... I dont even know anymore. Maybe we also have to restart like the person in the blog did and move the shop to a new domain and NEVER give google a sitemap. If I really go that route I will probably delete the cronjob that creates the sitemap in case google finds it by itself. But also like what the heck? I have worked in a web agency for 5 years and created a new webpage about every 2-8 weeks so i roughly launached about 50-70 webpages and shops and i NEVER saw that happen. Is it an ai hallucinating? Is it anti spam gone too far? Is it a straight up bug that they dont see? Who knows. I dont

(Good article though and I hope maybe some other people chime in and googlers browsing HN see this stuff).