MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by robocat | 2025-12-29 20:02:12+00:00
You are doubling down - I do find your misinformation to be interesting.

Have a look at images of the antennas:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22GPS+compass%22+antenna&ia=image...

I do apologize for liking brutal facts - I am an engineer type.

I clicked the Furuno antenna since it looked sexy - blurb:

SC-130 features a Tri-sensor antenna that provides a high system accuracy for the heading of your vessel [for Autopilot, berthing etcetera.]. 0.25°rms

Fist principles: I think wavelength of L1 GPS frequency is about 0.2m - the same order as smartphone length. A ship length baseline using phase would need precise engineering and would not work for satellites absolutely perpendicular to the ship (making it less ideal).

Calculating phase difference only needs a single satellite visible, so I would guess directionality can be precise in built up areas even where location is harder to fix. although I'm assuming multipath can be filtered out.
by vovavili | 2025-12-29 20:02:12+00:00
>It might be more expensive than the competition

By a _substantial_ margin, because the best bang-for-your-buck strategy with smartphones for a long time has been to buy used or refurbished popular flagships for the last one or two years. As much as I like what Xperias are doing with a headphone jack and an SD card slot, the used market for them is almost non-existent. Even if you somehow manage to get a good deal, it will be even more difficult to find a good case and accessories like a reliable magnetic wallet, the market is just isn't there.

I myself have settled on using a Pixel with a headphone jack DAC dongle and an external hard drive.
by abigail95 | 2025-12-29 20:02:27+00:00
As the other comment said it's either airport wifi, prep beforehand, roaming data (if absolutely necessary), or (last resort) you go to a physical phone store usually in an airport and they will set it up for you.

I can download T-Mobile eSIM from Australia - Pay them $15, know what my +1 USA number will be, all before leaving the country. You just can't do this with classical sims.
by ThierryBuilds | 2025-12-29 20:02:30+00:00
Balancing developer satisfaction with raw productivity is a critical trade-off. While the 'joy of coding' maintains long-term engagement, LLMs provide a necessary lift in throughput. I prefer a surgical approach: disabling LLMs for core logic to avoid 'auto-pilot' bias, while utilizing them for the high-friction work of documentation and unit testing.
by doctorpangloss | 2025-12-29 20:02:41+00:00
it's really hard to say. the games industry is huge. it is significantly more diverse than video, where people have been making the same arguments and have gotten absolutely zero traction, so it's hard to say there is a lot of demand for what he is saying.

there is space for the specific thesis he is talking about, but it isn't necessarily the biggest opportunity in, whatever niche, which is to say, the line is probably going to keep trending down.
by amortka | 2025-12-29 20:02:52+00:00
The real bottleneck isn’t human review per se, it’s unstructured review. Parallel agents only make sense if each worktree has a tight contract: scoped task, invariant tests, and a diff small enough to audit quickly. Without that, you’re just converting “typing time” into “reading time,” which is usually worse. Tools like this shine when paired with discipline: one hypothesis per agent, automated checks gate merges, and humans arbitrate intent—not correctness.
by andrewaylett | 2025-12-29 20:02:54+00:00
Strong disagree: until the branch is merged, it's mine.

I'm in a camp that prefers single rebased commits as units of change, "stacked diffs" style.

GitHub in particular was annoying with this style but is definitely getting better. It's still not great at dealing with actual stacks of diffs, but I can (and do) work around that by keeping the stack locally and only pushing commits that apply directly to the main branch.
by climb_stealth | 2025-12-29 20:02:54+00:00
Except 4G/5G does not work properly in Australia. :(

It is some carrier configuration bullshit or something like that. There may be a way to make it work, but it did not look guaranteed after reading dozens of pages on forums on the topic. I ended up retuning the Sony I tried whilst I could still get a full refund.

Phones used to be exciting. Now it is just frustrating because all the good features are gone. Headphone jack, sd card, fingerprint sensor on back, unlockable bootloader.
by spwa4 | 2025-12-29 20:03:07+00:00
> Or this is one of several independent steps, it only works when all are ready, and they are willing to spend the money.

This is the step they can do for free (without eating any government budgets). The other steps are really expensive. One does not lead to the other.

This is like let's make a new Google and "already implementing the sorting algorithm". While undoubtedly important, it does not actually advance you towards your goal.

Which is exactly what the EU did a few years back of course. Try to force the creation of a new Google. What did they come up with?

Trovaprezzi.it

Kelkoo.co.uk

Yes, really. Visit those sites and decide for yourself how close they are to replacing Google. There were 10 or so others, even worse (by which I mean much worse scam sites). Don't worry, the EU kept the damages for their own budget and did not give them to those companies to actually try to build a new Google.
by ifh-hn | 2025-12-29 20:03:11+00:00
Don't use chrome to store your passwords. Use a password manager that's not tied to a cloud company that you can use multifactor Auth with, one of which is off device.

Don't leave yourself signed into your accounts. As soon as you're done sign out.

Keep everything portable and not centralised.

Convenience doesn't make for good cyber security.

You can't protect yourself from everything but you can make it more difficult.
by porcoda | 2025-12-29 20:03:51+00:00
I do wish when people say happy vs sad with LLMs for code they’d qualify it with what kind of code they’re talking about. I can totally see a web dev being super happy grinding out JS code and someone doing scientific computing being less happy even though they’re using the same tools. Without understanding what people are using it for, what their expectations are with respect to correctness, completeness, and performance, these discussions just turn into the same back and forth of people arguing that the other person is wrong and talking past each other. I think people on this site forget the diverse contexts where people use computers, the different backgrounds we all have, and our different expectations for what we work on.
by stocksinsmocks | 2025-12-29 20:04:14+00:00
I don’t think self-dealing is new. Although it was eye-opening, when I learned that BlackRock, Vanguard, and Fidelity all own 5-10% of every company and competition between the companies they hold is not meaningful. Everyone just has to have nice steady predictable returns and nobody is allowed to innovate too far ahead of anyone else for fear of devaluing the real bosses’ other assets.

I don’t even know what to call the kind of system we have.
by sanskritical | 2025-12-29 20:05:21+00:00
Yes, the prosecutor defined the "victim" in this case as the third party receiving the text messages. They were so harmed by hearing someone who beat the defendant until she had a brain injury called a slur that the only remedy was bust into her house with a swat team to put her in a jail cell, instead of having the "victim" block and cut ties with the sender.
by iridium184 | 2025-12-29 20:05:48+00:00
Air traffic is not taxed heavily compared to other modes of transport - on the contrary, it is very heavily subsidized (at least in Europe): Regional airports often strongly depend on state subsidies, airlines are exempt from petroleum taxes, flight tickets are VAT-exempt.

In Germany (and also e.g. Switzerland), long-distance trains are expected to run either at cost (or make a profit). Short-distance trains (regional transport) are usually subsidized.
by ben_w | 2025-12-29 20:05:49+00:00
To the main topic: I am so not surprised.

I like GenAI, I use it, but even in the best case I don't want to publish stuff it made without checking the results for weirdness.

As an aside: I find the linked page reloading randomly as I read it, and eventually crashing (iOS, Safari). Anyone else getting this problem?
by cxr | 2025-12-29 20:05:50+00:00
Perhaps I'm misreading a different (opposite/orthogonal) meaning from what you meant when you wrote the quoted passage in your initial comment. Some form of dynamism is required, else it fails the "extreme late binding" criterion that Kay insists is fundamental to his view of OO.

I'm not familiar enough with Smalltalk-72 or what Ingalls did that makes it so different from the Smalltalk-80 that Cox read about in Byte.

> differing mainly in whether the search state is optimizable by a central engine (VM) or fixed in the user's explicit control flow (Handler). This is a classic example of dualism in computer science, specifically the Expression Problem (or the Data/Operation duality). You are simply traversing a 2D matrix of (Types × Operations), just choosing a different axis as primary.

If you are doing whole-system development and have control over the entire thing, then it is that simple. But Kay's view of OO is a matter of "open world" versus "closed world", and the previous sentence is only true for closed systems.

The example Cox uses in his book (fairly early on—it's on something like page 9) is meant to demonstrate that dynamic dispatch is fundamentally necessary because it means you don't have to have panoptic control/involvement over the objects in a system (with all types known at compile time). If you're programming every operation with switch statements that select code paths based on objects' type tags, not only do you have to go visit all N routines where each of those N operations are implemented to update them when introducing a single type, but it also requires a priori knowledge of such things to be baked into the system that you release, whereas OO with live systems means that you can introduce new types even after the point when the initial shipment of the system to the user.
by fauigerzigerk | 2025-12-29 20:06:00+00:00
>Sure, if you don't model the error domain correctly you will leak stuff that maybe you shouldn't leak

You are implying that there is one correct and self evident set of distinctions. I disagree with that. In library design, you're always making assumptions about what users may want. In my opinion, this is even harder when modelling errors, because there are so many possible ways in which callers might want to respond.

>Your example is interesting actually because there are real differences in those types of errors. IO errors are different from the globset errors.

Of course. I'm not complaining about the distinction between io errors and globbing errors here but about the fact that the globset library and its specific error type is leaked.

What if someone (say fastburningsushi) comes along and creates a glob library that absolutely smokes this one? :P
by maxweisel | 2025-12-29 20:06:51+00:00
Back when I would ask ChatGPT to write code, I would agree with you, but using Claude Code's planning mode is a night and day difference. You write out a list of specs, Claude writes up a plan (that for writing backend APIs has always been just about perfect for me if my spec is solid), and then Claude executes that plan to almost perfection, with small nudges along the way.

If you're doing anything UI-based, it hasn't performed well for me, but for certain areas of software development, it's been an absolute dream.
by ambrosio | 2025-12-29 20:07:23+00:00
> But what happens if there was a cosmic bit flip in a dynamic library?

I think there were more basic reasons we didn't ship shared libraries to production.

1. They wouldn't have been "shared", because every program was built from its own snapshot of the monorepo, and would naturally have slightly different library versions. Nobody worried about ABI compatibility when evolving C++ interfaces, so (in general) it wasn't possible to reuse a .so built at another time. Thus, it wouldn't actually save any disk space or memory to use dynamic linking.

2. When I arrived in 2005, the build system was embedding absolute paths to shared libraries into the final executable. So it wasn't possible to take a dynamically linked program, copy it to a different machine, and execute it there, unless you used a chroot or container. (And at that time we didn't even use mount namespaces on prod machines.) This was one of the things we had to fix to make it possible to run tests on Forge.

3. We did use shared libraries for tests, and this revealed that ld.so's algorithm for symbol resolution was quadratic in the number of shared objects. Andrew Chatham fixed some of this (https://sourceware.org/legacy-ml/libc-alpha/2006-01/msg00018...), and I got the rest of it eventually; but there was a time before GRTE, when we didn't have a straightforward way to patch the glibc in prod.

That said, I did hear a similar story from an SRE about fear of bitflips being the reason they wouldn't put the gws command line into a flagfile. So I can imagine it being a rationale for not even trying to fix the above problems in order to enable dynamic linking.

> Since this keeps happening, that machine is always there lightly loaded, ready for new stuff to launch. New stuff that...wind up broken for the same reason!

I did see this failure mode occur for similar reasons, such as corruption of the symlinks in /lib. (google3 executables were typically not totally static, but still linked libc itself dynamically.) But it always seemed to me that we had way more problems attributable to kernel, firmware, and CPU bugs than to SEUs.
by array_key_first | 2025-12-29 20:07:47+00:00
The cars are higher quality and, more importantly, cheaper. US manufacturers can't make a cheap car to save their lives. The average age of cars on US roads is now 13 years, nobody can afford new cars.

There's a huge market opportunity here that all our manufacturers are missing, seemingly on purpose. BYD, and others, would absolutely sweep the competition.
by dlcarrier | 2025-12-29 20:08:26+00:00
We have more users than everyone you just mentioned (combined).

That's my favorite part. When an organization dominates a market, it's possible that they're so much better than the competition that the market has full-force chosen them, but that's almost never the case. Usually, it's because they've managed to avoid an open market all-together, (e.g. through exploiting intelectual property protection, byzantine compliance requirements, exclusive contracts made without concern for end users, etc…) and there's no need to make the product good, making it far worse than all of the competition (combined).
by bruce511 | 2025-12-29 20:08:36+00:00
If you go to a golf coach to "learn golf", they will teach you how to hit the ball. A crucial step, no doubt, but that's well short of "playing golf".

Golf is first understanding what to do, then executing it. It's a risk/reward balance. Yes, execution will fail sometimes (ok, often), but at least trying the right thing is better than successfully expecting the wrong thing.

In so many ways, it's just like software development.
Show HN: Starthub – Deploy horizontal n8n to Digital Ocean with one command
by tgirotto | 2025-12-29 20:08:51+00:00
Hello, I’ve been experimenting with Starthub, an npm-like CLI tool that chains Docker and WASM units to perform arbitrary workflows. Deploying open-source stacks horizontally across multiple nodes is often tedious and error-prone, so this is an attempt to make that kind of task reproducible and composable.
As an example, the command below deploys a horizontal n8n stack (postgres + redis + droplets + ssl) to DigitalOcean.

npx @starthub/cli@latest run starthubhq/n8n-horizontal-do:0.0.1

It’s just a rough MVP (the CLI needs A LOT of work still), but I’d love feedback on: - The approach for composable, stateless deployment actions - Multi-cloud or multi-target deployment ideas

Github repo: https://github.com/starthubhq/cli

Thank you for your time!
by jaggederest | 2025-12-29 20:09:32+00:00
In my experience, haters are some of the most passionate users, if you can do even the smallest thing to demonstrate a desire to improve, they'll often be huge advocates over the medium term.

I was working at a startup and we got some frustrating and hostile feedback from a user, I responded by acknowledging the issue and sending them a beta build that attempted to fix their issue. (it did not, but...)

Just reaching out and trying to engage made an enormous difference. They ended up contributing significantly to isolating and fixing that specific bug and others in the future, and referring us a few customers to boot, if I remember correctly.
by ThrowawayR2 | 2025-12-29 20:09:35+00:00
Many games on GOG are at the tail end of their sales cycle (i.e. were released on Steam long ago) trying to eke out a few more sales, are from small indies for whom any attention at all is good attention, or are very old^H^H^Hclassic games that garner purchases for nostalgia's sake by older gamers that can afford more discretionary spending.
by ValentineC | 2025-12-29 20:09:49+00:00
> unless you opt in to cloud providers holding your data there is no easy way afaik to migrate your authenticator apps to another phone.

You could self-host Bitwarden/Vaultwarden, or something like that.

> don’t get me started on apple’s unpredictable model of sending 2fa to some other “trusted” device which means tou never know what tou need to bring with you.

I think they send 2FA to all supported devices on one's Apple account?
by tpoacher | 2025-12-29 20:10:28+00:00
he (she?) didn't mention anything about offense, he mentioned the possibility of bumping across preconceptions which accidentally harm your ability to communicate an argument.

nor does he say you should patronise; he says understand the problem well yourself so that you can descrive it well and use it to frame the problem, rather than rely on potentially loaded terms. if anything this is respectful rather than patronising
by andrewaylett | 2025-12-29 20:10:36+00:00
I think you might appreciate https://www.jj-vcs.dev, which makes it a lot easier to split and recombine changes. I often use it for checkpoints, although you wouldn't see that from looking at what I push :).

One nifty feature is that commits don't need messages, and also it'll refuse (by default) to push commits with no message. So your checkpoint commits are really easy to create, and even easier to avoid pushing by mistake.
by sjsdaiuasgdia | 2025-12-29 20:11:36+00:00
> But... and I feel this will be controversial, but I feel like this isn't really the most meaningful part of coding. Isn't the "complex problem solving" mostly a side-effect of the thing which is really the important thing (and the thing I like much more)

Different people can find enjoyment and meaning in different parts of work, even if they do the same kind of work.

You enjoy delivering products to people. Other people might feel more enjoyment from the problem solving and understanding the system end to end.

It's not controversial for people to have different preferences. What might be controversial is saying that your preference is more correct / somehow "better" than someone else's preference.
by mmooss | 2025-12-29 20:12:04+00:00
> start using real world examples of what kind of work student would be working with as an employee

College isn't hands on employee training; the employer can do that if they want it. College is for the student, and not just for their career - there is much more to life. Knowledge is power for the student.

Even working with computers, theory is more universally valuable knowledge than the current programming trend - the wonderful thing about a theoretical abstraction is that it applies everywhere. For example, lots of practical high level coding experience is now less valuable, while people who truly understand theory can apply their knowledge somewhere new.
by EvanAnderson | 2025-12-29 20:12:09+00:00
One of my iPhone SE's died an untimely death because of failure of the lightning port, so I'm strongly sympathetic.

I also am a hardcore 3.5mm headphone user. Wireless headphones are garbage.

I did get my mind changed on USB-C DACs by way of inductive charging. Using an USB-C DAC and still being able to inductively charge seems at least somewaht reasonable to me.

On the newest round of phones for my wife and me I've tried to make sure we're inductively charging >90% of the time.
by transcriptase | 2025-12-29 20:12:39+00:00
People said the same thing when Steam launched, yet my profile sits there with a badge saying 20+ years and I can’t recall a time I’ve encountered an issue that was the fault of Valve versus a developer or publisher.

At this point the games I “own” on physical media like CDs have theoretically started to degrade before the threat of Valve revoking my ability to install or play has come to pass.
by oezi | 2025-12-29 20:12:44+00:00
Is it draconian that piracy sites aren't resolved by some ISPs' DNS?

Is it draconian if no Government entity is involved? And the penalty is unavailability?

I thought draconian implies that the punishment is much too high in relationship to the crime.

Maybe the whole affair is more dystopian rather than draconian: ISPs block access to media even though no law or government asked them to just so they have less hassle with rightholders.
by esbranson | 2025-12-29 20:13:06+00:00
"Yellow journalism" becomes "misinformation". "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" becomes "algorithmic bias". What's new is old again.

Denial of care is not a new moral failing introduced by machines, it is an old cost-containment policy implemented more efficiently with computers. For example, the No Surprises Act of 2020 created a federally-managed independent dispute resolution (IDR) process for institutional players to appeal claim denials, while it (and Obamacare) intentionally left the rest of us with an opaque, privately-managed independent review organization (or IRO) process for our appeals. Examples are likely merely the tip of the iceberg.

Little to do with AI. Or even computers. "Trump" is what this is about. Previously it was Bush, and before that Reagan, Nixon, or whoever the last non-Democrat was. Someone else besides "me".
by yesfitz | 2025-12-29 20:13:08+00:00
I could see a case for personal de-dollarization in the long term, but based on previous American financial crises, European and Asian markets are also impacted by the downturn. Even the Shanghai Stock Exchange was hit in 2008[1].

Of course, this time could be different. Do you have any speculation as to why it would be?

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Stock_Exchange#Timeli...
by soldthat | 2025-12-29 20:13:31+00:00
Your comment is one data point in a deluge of similarly slanted views across all platforms that, in conjunction, have real consequences and fuel the violence.

I don’t think that’s your intention, or that your comment on its own can have a significant impact, you are just one person I can reach out to. I think you agree that it’s wrong to make a negative exaggeration against a group of people, and I was just pointing out that that what you said was an exaggeration.
by OtherShrezzing | 2025-12-29 20:14:13+00:00
In the uk, during interview, you can only be questioned for offences you’ve been arrested for. So it’s common to get over-arrested, and later charged with the serious crime rather than the minor ones.

The overwhelming majority of people arrested under the communications act aren’t charged under it. They’re either released, or charged under a more serious offence.