MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by scottyah | 2025-12-04 15:59:02+00:00
That's a lot of words with not a lot of substance. I suppose their whole identity is announcing that they're superior to other people and branching off, while asking for money for what looks like mostly sending people to talk at events (which are probably mostly more fundraising).

> "In the current situation we see ourselves unable to collaborate both with the FSF and any other organisation[sic] in which Richard Stallman has a leading position."

I do wish more people would try to fix things from the inside, and I get there's a point where it's no longer possible, but in this case it sounds like they didn't like people calling them out on X and had no way to control the narrative. What other gain would there be for a group trying to spread information in as many channels as possible?
by joshribakoff | 2025-12-04 15:59:18+00:00
To add onto this, it is a characteristic of their design to statistically pick things that would be bad choices, because humans do too. It’s not more reliable than just taking a random person off the street of SF and giving them instructions on what to copy paste without any context. They might also change unrelated things or get sidetracked when they encounter friction. My point is that when you try to compensate by prompting repeatedly, you are just adding more chances for entropy to leak in — so I am agreeing with you.
by noboostforyou | 2025-12-04 15:59:44+00:00
To further your point, a used 5800X3D still goes for ~$300 when you can get a brand new 7800X3D for the same if not slightly cheaper (was on sale at MC for $280). I assume the high cost of DDR5 is pushing more people to not upgrade to AM5 and stay on AM4 for as long as possible. And most people are avoiding Intel chips out of principle after the chip degradation debacle - you can see that based on how much lower Intel motherboards are even though they have considerably better feature sets than the AMD equivalents.
by Lord-Jobo | 2025-12-04 16:01:10+00:00
Not only does the Peter principle generally show more incompetence the higher up a structure you move, but the outsized influence those positions have make for a very noticeably higher level of “things fucked up by incompetence“ coming from the C suite compared to the rest of the structure.

There’s definitely plenty of incompetence regardless. But I’ve never seen a company where the incompetence was more noteworthy in the cog positions than “leadership”.
by dogman144 | 2025-12-04 16:01:12+00:00
Servant leadership works just fine in business (as in a competitive non-church environment) as long you’re aware you you’re serving and who you’re working peer to peer with/against/whatever.

Another term for it somewhat is being a “players coach.”

End state is you will build loyal as heck teams with it, and if you want to take a very cynical business mindset, it produces with the least pain and suffering three very impotent outcomes - your team will produce output, they won’t hate you along the way, and your team will write you (well earned) manager perf reviews. A manager who has a loyal as heck team up and down the stack builds unique odds of corporate survival.

All it takes is a little EQ.
by ryandrake | 2025-12-04 16:02:33+00:00
I'm not asking about how the Stasi did it in Germany, I'm asking how Palantir, a private company, is going to turn me into a "slave of the state" in the USA. If it's so obvious, then it should take a very short time to outline the concrete, detailed steps (that are relevant to the USA in 2025) down the path, and how one will inevitably lead to the other.
by jermaustin1 | 2025-12-04 16:02:47+00:00
Overspending on your tools is a misallocation of resources. An annual $22k spend on computing is around 10-20x over spend for a wealthy individual. I'm in the $200-300k/year, self-employed, buys-my-own-shit camp, and I can't imagine spending 1% of my income on computing needs, let alone close to 10%. There is no way to make that make sense.
by akhelif | 2025-12-04 16:02:48+00:00
Location: Greenville, SC (US)

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: No (but open if compelling)

Technologies: Prestashop, Channable, Asana, WordPress, Cloudflare, SQL, Excel, Brevo, Amazon Seller Central...

Résumé/CV: linkedin.com/in/akhelif

Email: adel.khelif+askhn@gmail.com

Looking for (e‑Commerce|Digital Strategy|BI|Analytics)(Manager|Director)
by MyHonestOpinon | 2025-12-04 16:03:01+00:00
Unfortunately, in this profession we are being lead by managers that do not longer have deep knowledge of how to build good software systems. They can't evaluate contributions in code, so they resort to evaluate participation, and popularity.

As an engineer you are left with a dilema. Either you focus on writing solid code and making your projects move forward or you focus on selling your self to the leadership class.
by horsawlarway | 2025-12-04 16:03:05+00:00
This is some serious rose colored glasses happening here.

If you have a service with a simple compose file, you can have a simple k8s manifest to do the same thing. Plenty of tools convert right between the two (incl kompose, which k8s literally hands you: https://kubernetes.io/docs/tasks/configure-pod-container/tra...)

Frankly, you're messing up by including kustomize or helm at all in 80% of cases. Just write the (agreed on tedious boilerplate - the manifest format is not my cup of tea) yaml and be done with the problem.

And no - you don't need an ingress. Just spin up a nodeport service, and you have the literal identical experience to exposing ports with compose - it's just a port on the machines running the cluster (any of them - magic!).

You don't need to touch an ingress until you actually want external traffic using a specific hostname (and optionally tls), which is... the same as compose. And frankly - at that point you probably SHOULD be thinking about the actual tooling you're using to expose that, in the same way you would if you ran it manually in compose. And sure - arguably you could move to gateways now, but in no way is the ingress api deprecated. They very clearly state...

> "The Ingress API is generally available, and is subject to the stability guarantees for generally available APIs. The Kubernetes project has no plans to remove Ingress from Kubernetes."

https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/services-networking/ingr...

---

Plenty of valid complaints for K8s (yaml config boilerplate being a solid pick) but most of the rest of your comment is basically just FUD. The complexity scale for K8s CAN get a lot higher than docker. Some organizations convince themselves it should and make it very complex (debatably for sane reasons). For personal needs... Just run k3s (or minikube, or microk8s, or k3ds, or etc...) and write some yaml. It's at exactly the same complexity as docker compose, with a slightly more verbose syntax.

Honestly, it's not even as complex as configuring VMs in vsphere or citrix.
by Der_Einzige | 2025-12-04 16:03:05+00:00
Buying a Supra is stupid. Either buy a proper BMW with the b58/Zf8 speed and get a proper interior or stop being poor and buy an LC500.

Better yet, get a C8 corvette and gap all of the above for a far better value. You can get 20% off msrp on factory orders with C8 corvettes if you know where to look.
by kwright76 | 2025-12-04 16:03:06+00:00
We’re looking for an exceptional Staff Data Engineer to help us take our data platform to the next level. This is a high-impact role where you’ll architect and build scalable data infrastructure, empower data-driven decision-making, and help shape the future of fraud prevention. We’re scaling fast, and you’ll have the chance to shape the future of our data platform.

What You’ll Do: - Design and build robust, scalable, and secure data pipelines and infrastructure to support analytics, product intelligence, and machine learning. - Lead data architecture decisions, ensuring high performance, reliability, and maintainability across our platform. - Collaborate cross-functionally with product, engineering, and business teams to deliver data solutions that drive strategic insights and operational excellence. - Champion data quality and governance, implementing best practices for data validation, lineage, and observability. - Mentor and guide other data engineers, fostering a culture of technical excellence and continuous learning.

What We’re Looking For: - Proven experience as a staff-level data engineer in a fast-paced, product-driven environment. Engineering experience of 8+ years. - Experience in leading teams of other engineers to build a long-term technical vision and plans to achieve it. - Deep expertise in cloud data platforms (e.g., Snowflake, BigQuery, Redshift) and orchestration tools (e.g., Airflow, dbt).

Reach out to me: kwright@certifid.com, or apply at https://jobs.lever.co/certifid/279db3d1-9bdc-487b-9103-57ab1...

Location: Remote within the US
by matheusmoreira | 2025-12-04 16:03:09+00:00
Advertising in general is absolutely abusive. I like to think of advertising as mind rape: it forcibly inserts brands and trademarks into your mind while you're trying to read or watch something.

On the other hand, I don't classify what Steam is doing as advertising. When I open the Steam store, it's because I want to see the games it has on sale. It's not advertising, it's the exact information I asked for. It would have been advertising had it kept spamming me with game deals while I'm watching a film or something.
by flipgimble | 2025-12-04 16:03:13+00:00
The "Epstein class" of multi-billionaires don't need AI at all. They hire hundreds of willing human grifters and make them low-millionaires by spewing media that enables exploitation and wealth extraction, and passing laws that makes them effectively outside the reach of the law.

They buy out newspapers and public forums like Washington Post, Twitter, Fox News, the GOP, CBS etc. to make them megaphones for their own priorities, and shape public opinion to their will. AI is probably a lot less effective than whats been happening for decades already
by maxglute | 2025-12-04 16:03:45+00:00
E: last comment

Real world data bares out that local competition theory holds. You've demonstrated questionable ability to intrepret data in real world context. Of course it's relevant when Samsung sales collapse happens if it happens in time period where policy changes (which again does not exist) simply could not have effect. The fact that collapse happened when Xi cannot have causative effect means Xi's policies (or lack of) was not responsible. If Xi entered office, made policy to kill Samsung, and 4-5 years later PRC built up domestic mobile players to do so, then sure. But those players already existed and had scaling plans to supplant Samsung domestically pre Xi. Samsung markshare dropping in subsequent years was because domestic PRC brands who built factories pre Xi started doing their natural scaling hence execution years prior to Xi resulted in capturing more marketshare in subsequent years, which entirely comports with timeline. Your theory also simply doesn't comport on the fundmental level that there weren't any anti-market policies in smart phone domain, because it was mature domain where pre Xi PRC competitors were already in place. Anti-market policies was for nacent industries, i.e. MIC2025.

Dramatic drop was seen first in PRC then globally which fits customary trend of PRC players establishing in PRC first then expand globally. We have global data that Samsung sales went from stalling to negative while Huawei scaling as global player to rising after Huawei ban, i.e. Samsung share went from stalling to jumping to 40% in EU after Huawei ban from 30%. Like this is all very well established history, there's no need to entertain alternative / revisionist theories when plenty of market analysis at the time already discussed Huawei eating lunch of Samsung and Apple pre ban while Samsung being primarily benefitiary of HW ban. And again it entire avoids the fact that Samsung went backc to PRC for ODMs for the same reason PRC manufactures displaced Samsung, because PRC had the most cost competitor manufacturers for low-medium end devices that accounted for most sales.

https://counterpointresearch.com/en/insights/samsung-gains-h...
by mindslight | 2025-12-04 16:03:56+00:00
I think it's "organic" from the big tech companies looking to pull up the ladder behind them. These laws are straight up regulatory capture to make it much harder to start new Internet businesses, while forcing their users to divulge even more personal info.

Google has been bugging me with Android popups for years "please add your birthday to help Google comply with the law". Obtaining that bit of my information isn't something they need to do - it's something they want to do because every bit of personal information they scrape out of me makes their adtech surveillance database joins that much more accurate.
by acdha | 2025-12-04 16:04:18+00:00
It's not entirely JavaScript but it is partially due to some of the language's history and culture: prototype pollution wouldn't be possible in every other language and not everyone has culture around things like decoding payloads in an exploitable manner (e.g. in the Python world some people used to decode pickled objects but it was always frowned upon; the Java world has had debates over the years about this). The big one which is unique to JavaScript is the culture around client-side execution and mixing code running between the two environments, which means you have a lot of machinery setup to execute code on the server and/or clients, making it both easy to have confusion around the execution context in ways which have been exploited and encouraging people to do things like ship complex objects between the two which programmers using other backend languages wouldn't consider because they never had the possibility of running directly in the browser.
by xpe | 2025-12-04 16:04:41+00:00
It seems likely that some people have perceived what I wrote above as some kind of criticism of Ghostty or that it is now funded by a non-profit. That would be a misunderstanding [1].

Personally -- for context, not to be confused with an argument-from-authority -- I've worked in the not-for-profit sector (3+ orgs) as well as studying how to make it work better. There are people with immensely more knowledge than I, and I have learned from them, and I respect the lessons they try to convey.

In case it puts people at ease, yes, I want Ghostty to succeed. I tend to agree that a not-for-profit home is likely be a good choice, especially relative to an alternative where it might be mostly reliant on one person and/or beholden to corporate interests.

So what I am saying, at core? More or less: this is probably a good start but only a start. I am suggesting more awareness of:

1. There is a psychological tendency for people to _believe_ others who express more confidence. Being aware of this helps us notice it and prefer evidence over statements of belief.

2. What does evidence show about making OSS project succeed? Giving it a not-for-profit home seems like a good start, but how important is this relative to other choices? What does the evidence show?

To mention one place to start, here is a open-access article from the ACM that I skimmed: "Open Source Software Sustainability: Combining Institutional Analysis and Socio-Technical Networks" [2] However, I didn't find it particularly useful in answering my #2 question above. Also the paper seemed mostly to promote a method of analysis but didn't drive towards actionable nor causal recommendations.

[1]: Maybe the misunderstanding comes from one or more of the following?

(a) halo effect (e.g. "Michael is a good guy, your words imply an indirect criticism of him");

(b) tribalism (e.g. "you are either with us or against us");

(c) timing-oriented (e.g. "this is not the time to be critical; this is a time to be jolly.");

(d) past success implies future results (e.g. "Hack Club has done well so far, trust them");

(e) tone-policing (e.g. "You seem grumpy, dude");

(f) feeling lectured-at (e.g. "You seem to act like you know things we don't.")

All of these possibilities would involve a some degree of presumption about what is appropriate and some level of disengagement with the substance of what I'm writing. Remember, we have a big tent here with room for many different points of view.

[2] https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3555129
by cgearhart | 2025-12-04 16:04:44+00:00
When I say something like this it usually means “I don’t want to dictate your job to you. You’re here because you’re smart, ambitious, and capable. We’ve talked at length in team settings and 1:1 about our goals. What do you think are the problems that need attention, and what solutions do you propose?”

The anti-pattern I’ve seen from some folks is that they never want to propose solutions because then it’s someone else’s fault if those fail. These folks often demonstrate minimal ownership of any decisions, so they don’t feel bad complaining about all the problems they see. Not only is that unhelpful, it can actually be very toxic for the team. (As you mentioned.)

So when I’m saying “bring solutions” what I’m really asking for is some shared ownership of the choices and consequences—I’m asking folks to act like the main character in the story. And don’t worry, I own the consequences of the mistakes in my team to my leadership—this isn’t about throwing them under the bus. (Getting this to work well requires a lot of trust both ways.)
by dxdm | 2025-12-04 16:04:44+00:00
"Love", the word, can stand for so many more or less related concepts. Is it something we feel? Is it something we do? We're always picking a nebulous definition, a different one each of us, different ones at different times.

"Love" is suprisingly ill-defined for the power it has. Maybe that's even part of its power: being a vague word to refer to powerful things within us to try to give them meaning, and a handle to hold them by, which then of course is also a handle that has a hold on us.

That's why, I'd say, it's important to be careful with the other words we place around that word "love", because they can illuminate or conceal, sharpen or blur, all the while gripping people by that handle.

I appreciate what you're doing to promote a better understanding of that word here and give it some context you were missing from the post you originally reacted to. Of course, "love" may mean different things to a Romantic poet or a monk or a teenager or a long-married couple; none of them are wrong, none takes away from the other, and all with some pretty messy edges, probably.

The poster you reacted to used "love" and "anger" to refer to opposing tendencies and motivations within us. You pointed out that "love" and "anger" can overlap. That's right, of course, I don't think anyone would say otherwise. I just think it's not what OP was talking about when they used these words. They used a different, albeit related, concept of love from yours, for a different purpose, relying on the difference between their chosen form of love and anger to make their point. You pointed out that things can be seen differently; that's fair.

What I do object to, though, is the conflation of anger and love. I understand what you're getting at, but I think it's important to keep these things separate and distinguishable, because it is not good to mistake anger for love, or excuse anger with love.

It may seem as if they are inextricably mixed, nothing we can do about it! But I think this is, please excuse the direct language, a little lazy and a little cheap. It's quick to use a few words to stir up some emotions and romantic notions that are sleeping in our hearts. But it opens the way to let anger reign in the name or even guise of love, which is, morals aside, not gonna lead anywhere nice at all. Romantic? Yes. Good? Bad? Ugly? We all have choices, and we should consider them.
by throwaway894345 | 2025-12-04 16:04:45+00:00
Yeah, a couple years ago I built a system that undergirded what was at the time a new product but which now generates significant revenue for the company. That system is shockingly reliable to the extent that few at the company know it exists and those who do take its reliability for granted. It's not involved in any cost or reliability fires, so people never really have to think about how impressive this little piece of software really is--the things they don't need to worry about because this software is chugging along, doing its job, silently recovering from connectivity issues, database maintenance, etc without any real issue or maintenance.

It's a little bit of a tragic irony that the better a job you do, the less likely it is to be noticed. (:
by dogman144 | 2025-12-04 16:04:46+00:00
What am I missing? Risk acceptance is what you’re referring to - risk creation and reward creation.

Sec lead might have a pretty darn clear idea of an out of whack creation of risk v reward. CEO disagrees. Risk accept and move on.

When you’re technical and eventually realize there’s a business to survive behind the tech skills, this is the stuff you learn how to do.

People “will know” as you say because it’s all documented and professionally escalated.
by odie5533 | 2025-12-04 16:05:16+00:00
For unit testing, I still use TestContainers which spins a full Postgres in Docker. But new alternatives like this make py-pglite (https://github.com/wey-gu/py-pglite) possible which is Python unit testing with PGlite. Even so, for Python unit testing I'm more confident in something like pgserver (https://github.com/orm011/pgserver) which offers the full, real Postgres in a lightweight pip package. Note: my take is specifically for unit testing, not other use cases!
Show HN: Heat Cue – Multilingual, LLM-powered reverse dictionary game
by saretup | 2025-12-04 16:05:52+00:00
Heat Cue is a mini game where you have to guess a hidden word and AI gives you feedback on how close your guess is to the target word. An LLM based semantic distance system is used to generate the score and a hint is given to nudge the player in the right direction. New Word Daily!
by HarHarVeryFunny | 2025-12-04 16:05:55+00:00
For me, starting with 1978 hand soldered NASCOM-1 kit (2MHz Z80, 1KB RAM for user, 1KB for display) to my current hand built 10-year old tower with a core i7-5930K processor.

2MHz 8-bit -> 3.5GHz 64-bit multi-core CPU

1KB -> 32GB RAM (a factor of 32 million times more memory !!)

audio casette storage -> 4TB HDD

16x48 char display -> GTX 980 Ti 2560x1600 gfx (+ 6 TFLOPs)

offline -> 9600 baud BBS -> 1Gbps fiber + internet

From hand assembling on paper (or just entering memorized hex opcodes directly into memory) to vibe coding "build me an app to do xxx", or talking to Gemini on my iPhone (would have looked like an alien artifact in 1978) asking it pretty much anything.

What will the next 50 years bring? Will it be as amazing as NASCOM-1 -> iPhone + Gemini? I used to think so, and certainly in 50 years I'd expect full-blown human-level AGI to be here, but will it feel that much different ?
by dasil003 | 2025-12-04 16:05:58+00:00
That entire paragraph is a string of poorly-articultated, cringeworthy sentences. In fact the whole article seems to be a series of strawmen set up on the basis of oddly specific and naive interpretations of management concepts like "servant leadership". There's basically nothing in here that I would agree with as a blanket statement without a lot of company and org-specific provisos.

All that said, to be charitable, I think what the author meant to express is that you don't want to make yourself a bottleneck as a manager, which is a common failure mode for newly converted IC to junior manager. Where he goes off the rails in the most tone-deaf way is describing that as "not doing useful work". As a manager your work is constantly observing what people are doing, staying the hell out of the way when things are working, and leaning in when things are not going well from a team and outcomes perspective. Doing that well is incredibly challenging and important work.