MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Maakuth | 2025-12-08 10:30:50+00:00
This is largely a misconception that's caused by the fact that EV fires are hard to extinguish with normal water sprays. That is because the bettery packs are designed to be water proof, so it is hard to get the fire patrol's water in. If you can immerse the pack in water, the fire is extinguished without much trouble. That's unlike petroleum fires, where the fuel is lighter than water and liquid, so water spray will boil and spread the fire instead of extinguishing it.
by Barathkanna | 2025-12-08 10:31:20+00:00
This resonates a lot. As founders we make way more emotional decisions than we admit, and half the battle is just getting out of our own way. The “AI CEO” framing is clever because it basically forces you into a discipline loop,focus on essentials, talk to users, cut the noise, execute consistently. It’s not that the AI is brilliant, it’s that it doesn’t get tired, anxious, or distracted like we do.

Sometimes that neutrality is exactly what a struggling startup needs.
by pjc50 | 2025-12-08 10:31:23+00:00
The one technology that I thought might work really well here is flow batteries. You need a couple of sets of tanks, but then you can do charging by pumping out the old electrolyte and pumping in charged electrolyte. But these seem to have stagnated, possibly because they're dependent on expensive short lived membranes.

I wonder if there's significant scope for offsetting electricity consumption by adding deck renewables. Not for container ships, but maybe for tankers .. which are only needed because of fossil fuel consumption elsewhere. Hmm.
by Jyotichauhan | 2025-12-08 10:32:23+00:00
I am an ambitious entrepreneur focused on delivering trusted domestic financial services in India. With strong expertise in SEBI compliance, RBI regulations, NBFC registration, audits, AMFI advisory, and cash flow management, I help businesses stay compliant and financially strong. My mission is to provide reliable, results-driven solutions that support growth and make complex financial processes simple and accessible for every client.
by chimprich | 2025-12-08 10:33:38+00:00
I felt like that when I started using Emacs, about 25 years ago. It turned out to be worth it, though.

Emacs has its own tutorial (Help -> tutorial from the menus), which is a pretty good introduction. Learning to get help from Emacs itself is a bit of a learning curve, but really beneficial.

Learning to the use the help tools properly was something I didn't get around to for years, but I wish I had sooner.
by HPsquared | 2025-12-08 10:33:49+00:00
I'd never thought about it in this way before but the idea of writing a number as a decimal (or other) string of numerals, bears some resemblance to a Fourier transform.

Think of the components of a written number: ones, tens, hundreds etc which have a repeating pattern. Digits are inherently periodic. Not too far from periodic basis functions.

Both involve breaking something down into periodic components, and reversing the process by adding up the components.
by nrhrjrjrjtntbt | 2025-12-08 10:34:14+00:00
My countries groupon had a fuck off page. It had a phone number but it wasnt connected. It had a bot (need I say more). As a hail mary I sent them an email. They got back in 10 minutes and fixed the issue. Like wtf? that was a suprising bonus. But an awful experience to get there.
by aosaigh | 2025-12-08 10:34:29+00:00
This might be a hot take, but I feel like the blurring of lines between back-end and front-end apps with platforms like Vercel will lead to more and more of these exploits. I’m an experienced full-stack dev and I’m constantly confused as to “where I am” in a Next code base. Server? Client? Edge? Proponents might say “that’s the point - you don’t have to worry about there you are, it’s one code base” but these sort of issues indicate otherwise.

All platforms can be exploited I guess, but I still wonder at the complexity of the platforms we now rely on and whether it’s justified.
by A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 | 2025-12-08 10:34:58+00:00
<< My "abstract thoughts" are a stream of words too, they just don't get sounded out.

Hmm, seems unlikely. They are not sounded out part is true, sure, but I question whether 'abstract thoughts' can be so easily dismissed as mere words.

edit: come to think of it and I am asking this for a reason: do you hear your abstract thoughts?
by b3lvedere | 2025-12-08 10:35:12+00:00
Once i had a very amusing discusson with a store that sold laptops.

I wanted to purchase a laptop at the advertised price. The sales person told me i was in luck, because all their laptops came preinstalled with Microsoft Office for a little extra money. I told him politely i did not want to buy Microsoft Office, even for such little extra money. I just wanted the laptop.

Semi-flabbergasted he told me this was not possible, because all the laptops had Office pre-installed. I told him i did not care and wanted to buy the laptop for the adverstised price.

After 15 minutes of discussion, some manager came frustrated what the problem was. I pointed to the price tag and told him i wanted to buy the laptop for that price exactly and if that was possible. It was, but it would require uninstalling Office, which took them another 15 minutes.

So i waited for another 15 minutes so they could remove Office. Back at home i powered on the laptop, popped in a usb disk and removed every partition that its harddisk ever had and started a nice fresh install without any bloatware.
by m_fayer | 2025-12-08 10:35:55+00:00
Most people don’t even know what regulatory capture really means. There’s no “brand” to rally around and I don’t know how you’d go about building one.

And without the concept spread through the population, where would you find the grass roots support you’d need for resisting the avalanche of interest-group pushback?

“Draining the swamp” or “revolving door” were sorta in the neighborhood, but still ineffective and counterproductive.
by Dilettante_ | 2025-12-08 10:36:00+00:00
Cynically reduced, tfa reads as: "I don't like what the population is choosing to use their brand-new Freedom for", but claims to say: "The promised freedom did not materialize."

If crypto allows people to do something that was previously not possible(order drugs in the mail with the convenience of amazon, invest at consistently insanely chaotic conditions, run multimillion hustles with total impunity) versus doing something that was possible already, just re-skinned(make bank transfers), then it's really no surprise what will see better adoption. The biggest value-add is in the degenerate stuff.
by 1718627440 | 2025-12-08 10:36:28+00:00
> A better answer would be a modern OS built to avoid the weaknesses that make these bolt on afterthought solutions necessary

That's basically my point. Plugging EDR into an OS, is getting you a different OS that contains a part of which you have only a binary blob, and which is changed by a third-party over the network. This means you need to be able to change parts of the OS over the network, which opens you to new attack surfaces and you now also have the possibility of incompatibilities between the core OS and your blob, since these are developed by different vendors.

When you have software, of which you have the source, you control the version, trust the vendor, run this in the kernel and still want to call that EDR, that is fine, but that doesn't seem to be what EDR companies like Crowdstrike are doing.

If all you do is use kernel hooks, than you are still trusting the kernel. If your low-level IO still queries things in the kernel, than you still trust the kernel. If low-level IO means below the kernel, than you are not modifying the OS, your "EDR" is the OS and you run another untrusted OS on top.
by aleph_minus_one | 2025-12-08 10:36:33+00:00
> The risk is NOT only "will this go up or down" but you have a high risk of being robbed, as have happened to millions of people.

Using a cryptocurrency (originally) meant basically opting out of the governmental violence-as-a-service for cryptocurrency/-token purposes and taking care of this aspect by yourself.

Depending on your resourcefulness and lifestyle, this may mean

- hiring personal security

- being very careful about privacy aspects, e.g. making it very hard to link your personal identity to your cryptographic keys; distribute your crypto-tokens among many keys so that if one key gets "linked", the attacker will find only few tokens there; use anonymization services; ...

- think about what mitigations you have in place against "rubber hose attacks"

- live a modest life so that people (and also taxation authorities?) don't get suspicious that you are secretly rich, i.e. don't boast about your richness

- ...
by watwut | 2025-12-08 10:37:00+00:00
But honestly, they are more likely to NOT be experts in the business of the client. They are experts on tech, their own business and aesthetic.

People come to hairdressers with own ideas about how their hair should look like and reject hairdressers advice. In fact, hairdressers are not even trying to give you advice unless you explicitly ask for it. They sometimes makes mild suggestions and offers, but that is it.

Frankly, financial advisors are more likely to give advice designed to max out their bonuses rather then one good for you. You probably should firmly reject that financial product or flat tire insurance.
by nephihaha | 2025-12-08 10:37:00+00:00
If Chaucer had just had subsistence farmer after subsistence farmer telling their tales it would be very boring. Even in such a society, there were a number of different roles at the bottom of it. Some people were shepherds or drovers rather than just scraping the soil, others were producing cloth and clothing, others were fishermen, others were midwives and so on. All these were useful at the time and used by peasants.
by sklinkert | 2025-12-08 10:37:09+00:00
100%. The 'sunk cost fallacy' was my biggest blocker. When the agent flagged 1,500 articles for deletion, my immediate human reaction was, 'But I paid freelancers $X,XXX for those!'

The AI just looked at the data: Traffic = 0. Authority = Diluted. Action = Delete.

It decoupled the execution from the sentiment. I think that's the killer feature of agentic workflows because it forces you to argue with logic rather than anxiety.
by arionmiles | 2025-12-08 10:37:22+00:00
I've recently reached a point where I feel I've reached an upper limit with how much efficiency I can extract from my usual toolset/editors. So I've gone on a journey where I'm finally exploring tools that make living in the command line a productive and pleasant experience for me.

I've long put off learning or even exploring tmux or learning more than a few handful of vim keybinds. So I started digging into configuring them and learning them well enough to be able to regularly use them for work and personal computers.

It's been very pleasant, to say the least. There's still a few ways I need to go where I do everything from the command line and the keyboard, but I think it's worth training your muscles to be comfortable with doing things purely using the keyboard.

I've switched to vim mode for a few tools that offer it. I started seriously using vimium on chrome and firefox (a friend had introduced me to it about 7 years ago but I never cared enough to learn it well).

Another reason I finally made the jump was that I've been having RSI pain on my right hand due to using mouse too much and in un-ergonomic positions. While I've taken measures to improve ergonomic use of the mouse and keyboard, I'm just totally impressed with the capabilities of keyboard navigation and how much value you can extract out of your keyboard.

My friends have been egging on me about the bell curve meme, but I think it's important for me to figure out the limits and then maybe I will finally go back to defaults and simpler tools. The only way to be on the right side of the bell curve is through the middle.
by skepti2 | 2025-12-08 10:37:46+00:00
> Ada and especially Spark makes it a whole lot easier to produce correct software.

Relative to what? There are formal verification tools for other languages. I have heard Ada/SPARK is good, but I do not know the veracity of that. And Ada companies promoting Ada have horses in the race.

And Ada didn't prevent the Ada code in Ariane 5 from being a disaster.

> The programming language is just a small piece of the puzzle. But an important one.

100% true, but the parent of the original post that he agreed with said:

> And the F35 and America's combat readiness would be in a better place today with Ada instead of C++.

What is the proof for that, especially considering events like Ariane 5?

And Ada arguably has technical and non-technical drawbacks relative to many other languages.

When I tried Ada some weeks ago for a tiny example, I found it cumbersome in some ways. Is the syntax worse and more verbose than even C++? Maybe that is just a learning thing, though. Even with a mandate, Ada did not catch on.
by adrian_b | 2025-12-08 10:37:57+00:00
There are several classes of lock free algorithms with different properties.

Lock free algorithms for read only access to shared data structures have only seldom disadvantages (when the shared data structure is modified extremely frequently by writers, so the readers never succeed to read it between changes), so for read-only access they are typically the best choice.

On the other hand lock free algorithms for read/write access to shared data structures must be used with great caution, because they frequently have a higher cost than using mutual exclusion. Such lock free algorithms are based on the optimistic assumption that your thread will complete the access before the shared structure is accessed by another competing thread. Whenever this assumption fails (which will happen when there is high contention) the transaction must be retried, which will lead to much more wasted work than the work that is wasted in a spinlock.

Lock free algorithms for read/write access are normally preferable only when it is certain that there is low contention for the shared resource, but in that case also a spinlock may waste negligible time.

The term "lock-free" is properly applied only to the access methods based on optimistic access instead of mutual exclusion (which uses locks).

However, there is a third kind of access methods, which use neither optimistic access nor mutual exclusion with locks, so some authors may conflate such methods together with the lock-free algorithms based on optimistic access.

This third kind of access methods for shared data have properties very different from the other two kinds, so they should better be considered separately. They are based on the partitioning of the shared data structure between the threads that access it concurrently, so such methods are applicable only to certain kinds of data structures, mainly to arrays and queues. Nevertheless, almost any kind of inter-thread communication can be reorganized around message queues and shared buffers, so most of the applications that use either mutual exclusion with locks or lock-free optimistic access can be rewritten to use concurrent accesses to dynamically partitioned shared data structures, where the access is deterministic unlike with lock-free optimistic algorithms, and there are no explicit locks, but the partitioning of the shared data structure must be done with atomic instructions (usually atomic fetch-and-add), which contain implicit locks, but they are equivalent with extremely short locked critical sections.
by npoc | 2025-12-08 10:39:21+00:00
To become a medium of exchange, it needs to become a unit of account. That will happen as it's value stabilises, and that will only happen once it's proved itself as a store of value.

What if Henry Ford evisaged his Model T being used as a temporary alternative for when your horse is unwell? Or a fairground ride? Bitcoin is what it is.

> And what is the incentive to loan money in your system?

Interest - the age-old solution. Offer me interest that both compensates me for not having use of my money and for the risk of getting it back, and we have a deal.
by littlestymaar | 2025-12-08 10:40:47+00:00
> but that's the rate of change of performance with respect to examples rather than what it learns by the time training is finished.

It's not just that. The problem of “deep learning” is that we use the word “learning” for something that really has no similarity with actual learning: it's not just that it converges way too slowly, it's also that it just seeks to minimize the predicted loss for every samples during training, but that's no how humans learn. If you feed it enough flat-earther content, as well a physics books, an LLM will happily tells you that the earth is flat, and explain you with lots of physics why it cannot be flat. It simply learned both “facts” during training and then spit it out during inference.

A human will learn one or the other first, and once the initial learning is made, it will disregards all the evidence of the contrary, until maybe at some point it doesn't and switches side entirely.

LLMs don't have an inner representation of the world and as such they don't have an opinion about the world.

The humans can't see the reality for itself, but they at least know it exists and they are constantly struggling to understand it. The LLM, by nature, is indifferent to the world.
by bjackman | 2025-12-08 10:40:54+00:00
It's funny that absolutely everything about GHA fucking sucks, and everyone agrees about this. BUT, the fact that it's free compute, and it's "right there"... means it's very very difficult to say no to!

Personally I've just retired a laptop and I'm planning to turn it into a little home server. I think I'm gonna try spinning up Woodpecker on there, I'm curious to see what a CI system people don't hate is like to live with!
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-12-08 10:41:08+00:00
Why do it for entities of that size at all? It's not about their type of incorporation, it's about not adding more paperwork for small businesses.

You're using or. That means you don't need a low revenue number. You could use $10B because nearly all of the relevant companies would already be in on the basis of the number of employees regardless, so all you need is to catch the few outliers that manage to be major companies without hitting the employee threshold.
by susam | 2025-12-08 10:41:13+00:00
Yes, I do! <https://github.com/susam/may4>

I have a Forth-inspired, esoteric, stack-based, postfix, colouring language too: <https://susam.net/fxyt.html>

Demos: <https://susam.github.io/fxyt/demo.html>
by epsteingpt | 2025-12-08 10:41:26+00:00
Yes, the stuff I added is anecdotal, but pretty well established from my discussions and observations of high level operators and related service providers (Bain, McKinsey, etc.) LMK if you've ever seen a slide deck in their post-acquisition plans that says "Impact on Community."

The PE complaints are mostly unsophisticated from 'the community' but actually have a very reasonable underpinning - as discussed above.

Finally for builders - this is great. Probably the single best application - but again, cost benefit I'm pretty sure it's not only economic drag, but social drag as well.

Again - the asset class has expanded massively. It's due a reckoning - curious how many firms are actually solvent were they required to sell their holdings in market.
by nephihaha | 2025-12-08 10:41:33+00:00
Not just technically true, but the reality for vast areas such as the Ukraine and Kazakhstan etc which existed even then. There were numerous cities such as Vilnius or Dushanbe where most of the population did not speak Russian as a first or even native language or consider themselves Russian. It's like when people watch/read "Hunt for Red October" and call Captain Ramius a Russian... He isn't one, and it's a pretty key plot point that he isn't one, hence he defects.
by pjc50 | 2025-12-08 10:41:44+00:00
> there is no central bank that can print more Bitcoin

It turns out this doesn't matter: you can't hear the inflation argument over the volatility. The amount of goods you can buy per Bitcoin changes dramatically on a month by month basis. It's just that everyone loved it while it was going up, but that's not actually guaranteed!

Also, you can't print more Bitcoin, but that doesn't matter: you can fork it (people have, BCH), or you can just endlessly spawn new token chains, or you can have things which both sides regard as abominations but are somehow immensely popular: stablecoins. These give you the legal stability of crypto tied to the price stability of the dollar. It turns out that what people actually wanted was several hundred billion dollars of virtual poker chips.
by hodgesrm | 2025-12-08 10:42:32+00:00
IBM is turning into a real player for enterprise data. They have a very long history of data related products and their portfolio is starting to look interesting again, especially if it includes Kafka and the Confluent cloud service.

I just hope this is not another Data+AI play. There's real value in doing data properly that does not go away. AI return on investment is much more speculative.
by falcor84 | 2025-12-08 10:42:33+00:00
When reasoning about sufficiently complex mechanisms, you benefit from adopting the Intentional Stance regardless of whether the thing on the other side is "some form of human". For example, when I'm planning a competitive strategy, I'm reasoning about how $OTHER_FIRM might respond to my pricing changes, without caring whether there's a particular mental process on the other side
by Normal_gaussian | 2025-12-08 10:43:04+00:00
There is an underlying point in general, but it seems like the author has got hung up over the words "talk to our sales team" and wants to ditch the whole design and go to something with less function as a result.

If I was hiring them I might well start ignoring them at this point as well - thy are literally proposing only implementing only one of the three methods, and the most simple one at that.

I assume I've determined that customers want ready access to some questions. I assume that I have a physical location customers want to see.

Proposing to ditch these is preposterous. I could see proposing inlining the contract form. I could see using more neutral terms ('get in touch' vs 'contract our sales team').
by kace91 | 2025-12-08 10:44:12+00:00
I went back and forth over the years with vim. Lazyvim plus the ebook (lazyvim for ambitious devs or something like that, it’s free online) is what allowed me to stick.

I can’t be doing real work and suddenly realize I don’t know the way to do a certain basic action. Lazyvim makes it so that for everything you want to do, there’s an already configured way, and then you have all the time in the world to fiddle for a better alternative if you don’t like it.
by bananaboy | 2025-12-08 10:44:12+00:00
Sorry I'm not exactly sure what you're saying. I know very well how it works as I write a lot of demos and games (still today) for mode 13h (see https://www.pouet.net/groups.php?which=1217&order=release) and I can program the VGA DAC palette in my sleep. Were you referring to the fact that you write 8-bits to the palette registers? That's true, you do, but only 6-bits is actually used so it effectively wraps around at 64. There are 6-bits per colour component which as you pointed out is 18-bits colour depth.

Btw I was a teenager when those Denthor trainers came out and I read them all, I loved them! They taught me a lot!
by input_sh | 2025-12-08 10:44:19+00:00
And in the sentence above that, they're "saving" 15 million in Microsoft licenses. So either they've paid 24 million to Microsoft this year, in which case their next year's expenses are dropping by over 60%, or it's the same pot of money, in which case their yearly bill dropped by 40%.

I get that 9 million sounds like a lot, but it's much, much lower than what they would've paid to Microsoft anyways. And those 9 million are advertised as a "one-off investment", while their contract with Microsoft was perpetual.