MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by sam_goody | 2025-12-16 14:15:20+00:00
Good for them.

Currently they spend millions of dollars (that mostly come from people wanting to support their browser) on huge salaries and projects that have nothing to do with their browser. At the same time they keep on taking steps to alienate those that are donating or using their products.

The bar for success is pretty low - stop wasting all them bucks, and stop alienating your users.

If you could do that, there is plenty of next steps.

Good luck
by bluGill | 2025-12-16 14:15:24+00:00
The changes are not limited. Gas pumps are everywhere. EV chargers are much more limited which means you have to stop where they are. You can make the trips, but sometimes it means you are stopping to charge in places you didn't want to be which can be a significant change. Worse the places you might want to be often don't have a charger so it can mean stop to charge in some gas station you don't want to spend half an hour at, then drive 10 minutes to the museum you want to be at. (even in the rare case there is transit at the gas station, they don't want you parking at the charger for 3 more hours after you are fully charged)
by vasco | 2025-12-16 14:15:32+00:00
> Some people react to negative externalities or internal struggles differently than others.

> But I entirely doubt that OP has experienced enough suffering to know what Bourdain has been through, in order to make such a callous remark.

I think these statements aren't consistent with each other. If you believe the first you wouldn't say what someone has or not gone through based on one single remark they made on the internet. They made the remark, yes, but they may very well have suffered way more. In fact more suffering may lead to less patience rather than more empathy when confronted with others' problems. Imagine a case of an innocent person who went to jail for 50 years hearing about an actual criminal caught in the act complaining about a night in jail for example.
by EnergyAmy | 2025-12-16 14:15:36+00:00
You can't legislate reality away. If you're tracking biological sex, then it doesn't matter what a court decides. If you're tracking legal fictions then you might.

I look forward to your citation disputing the truth of what he lays out in that paper. In the meantime, feel free to peruse the list here of people affirming the same stance:

https://projectnettie.wordpress.com/

Or someone else:

https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/33/2/in-humans-sex-is...

You should ask the people you run with why no human is born with a body not organized around the production of gametes. You'll notice that when you read about conditions like anorchia or ovarian agenesis, the sex of the person with that condition is not a mystery, it's literally in the name.

Biology is messy indeed, and that's why finding such a universal definition was so useful.
by flowerthoughts | 2025-12-16 14:16:00+00:00
I read somewhere that the sentiment in Europe after WW2 was that Soviet had a bigger impact than the US. But narrative has shifted over time. I'd guess Churchill saw the US as a last resort, not the goto fixer. Happy to be corrected by someone who knows history, thouogh.

It seems the US wasn't in the war until two years after it started, and was drawn in due to Pearl Harbor. Even the protection of Atlantic trade was handled by the UK and Canada until 1941: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United...
by colechristensen | 2025-12-16 14:17:02+00:00
I don't trust Mozilla. I don't trust them with my donation money. I don't trust their software any more than other browser vendors.

"Third: Firefox will grow from a browser into a broader ecosystem of trusted software. Firefox will remain our anchor. It will evolve into a modern AI browser and support a portfolio of new and trusted software additions."

Yeah, no. Just make a browser that doesn't suck. Mozilla has been wasting a ton of money, lost almost all of their market share, and have been focusing on making new products nobody wants for a VERY long time and this looks to continue.
by throwaway198846 | 2025-12-16 14:17:36+00:00
Becuase you made an argument with a single supporting example yet didn't name any name that could be used to verify what you said and let other people judge the case nor have you explained at any point of there was any court procedure in Israel about extradition and whatever he ended up extradited. How are we supposed to disscus particulars like that? Resorting to sarcasm so fast that you aren't interested in genuine discussion. Furthermore if he wasn't extradited, you could use this discussion to make him more (in)famous.

> How does that change the situation? Are you the head prosecutor of Israel and looking to rectify the situation?

You were claiming that many criminals abuse Israel extradition system to esapce the law. I was making (implicit) claim that there is nothing special about it and if there was abduance of such cases is merely because more people in your country had means to escape to Israel than to other places. As already explained you provided a sole lacking in information example and I wanted more.

And because you were being glib, I will be too, yes for all you know I am Israel's head prosecutor.
by jaywee | 2025-12-16 14:17:53+00:00
Well, divide et impera. Fairly straightforward for AI inference (not training): The existing Starlink constellation:

3491 V1 sats × 22.68 m² = 79176 m²

5856 V2-mini sats × 104.96 m² = 614 646 m²

Total: 0.7 km² of PERC Mono cells with 23% efficiency.

At around 313W/m² we get 217MW. But half the orbit it's in shade, so only ~100MW.

The planned Starship-launched V2 constellation (40k V3 sats, 256.94 m²) comes out at 10 km², ~1.5GW.

So it's not like these ideas are "out there".
by gabrielgio | 2025-12-16 14:18:06+00:00
> Even if the Netherlands makes every effort now, a fully-fledged alternative won't be readily available.

You don't need to match their product. You have a smaller user base and smaller number of functionally to cover than Microsoft.

> That gives American companies power.

Guess what happens if you don't do anything?

The trend of universities sacrificing long-term sovereignty for minimal short-term savings is concerning. I have observed this in my home country, where the strategic investment in national technology (which would return back to the country) is dismissed in favor of cheaper foreign platforms like Google. This approach naively puts sensitive research and institutional data on external servers, creating vulnerability where access could be compromised[^1].

Hopefully this person does not express the opinion of that university.

[^1]: https://agorarn.com.br/ultimas/google-bloqueia-acesso-ufrn-c...
by lproven | 2025-12-16 14:18:06+00:00
Totally agreed regarding appearance etc.

However, the one thing I'd take issue with:

> As a programmer, I can point out all the many, many flaws with its technical architecture.

I think, since we started out on history here, we must consider the history and its context.

1. Apple does the Lisa: a cheaper Xerox Alto, minus the networking and the programming language. Multitasking, hard disk based, new app paradign. The Future but 1/4 of the price of the original.

It's not cheap enough. It flops, badly.

2. Jobs repurposes the parallel information-appliance project into a cheaper Lisa. Remove the hard disk and the slots and all expansion, seal it up, floppy only, remove the fancy new app format & keep it simple: apps and documents. Smaller screen but square pixels. Keeps most of the Lisa good stuff.

It's still expensive but it's cheap enough. It sells. It gets Pagemaker. It changes the course of the industry.

But to get a GUI OS into 128kB of RAM, they had to cut it brutally.

It worked but the result is significantly crippled, and Apple spent the next decade trying to put much of that stuff back in again.

Remarkably enough, they succeeded.

By MacOS 7.6 it had networking, network-transparent symlinks, TCP/IP, a HiColour GUI, usable multitasking, virtual memory, and more. It was actually a bloody good OS.

Yes, it was very unstable, but then, remember so was DOS, so was Windows 3.

The snag is, that time was 1997 and by then MS had surpassed Windows NT and Windows 95 with NT 4.

NT 4 had no PnP, no power management, no working 3D except vastly expensive OpenGL cards, it lost a lot of NT 3.x's stability because of the frantic desperate bodge of putting the GDI in the kernel, but it was good enough, and it made Apple look bad.

Apple was ploughing its own lonely furrow and it made a remarkably good job of it. It was just too slow.

When Jobs came back, he made a lot of good decisions.

Junk most of the models. Junk all the peripherals. Make a few models of computer and nothing else.

Junk Copland, Pink, Taligent, all that.

Meanwhile, like Win9x + NT, 2 parallel streams:

[a] Win9x parallel: salvage anything good that can be stripped out of Copland, bolt it onto MacOS 7.x, call it 8.x and kill off the clones.

[b] NT parallel: for the new project, just FFS get something out the door ASAP: Rhapsody, then Mac OS X Server. All the weird bits of NeXTstep that were to avoid Apple lawsuits (vertical menus, scrollbars on the left, no desktop icons, columnar file browser, etc.): remove them, switch 'em back to the Apple way.

Meantime, work on a snazzy facelift for the end-user version. Make the hardware colourful and see-through, and do that to the OS too.

I think, looking at the timeline and the context, all the moves make sense.

And I used MacOS 6, 7, 8 and 9. All were great. Just such a pleasure to use, and felt great. I didn't care that NT was more solid: that was a boring reliable bit of office equipment and it felt as exciting as a stapler. NT 3.51 was fugly but it worked and that's what mattered.
by doodpants | 2025-12-16 14:18:47+00:00
I've often thought, "If AI is so great, how come all these tech companies are shoving AI features down our throats for free, instead of charging real money for them?" I'm actually glad that MS is doing this, and I hope it starts a trend of more companies gating their AI features behind paywalls, and a noticable reduction in the number of popups I encounter badgering me to use AI features that I never asked for.
by komali2 | 2025-12-16 14:19:15+00:00
> I'd prefer a complete bypass of the enshittified economy. Replaced with a system that doesn't trust that people with absolute power won't turn into narcissist cunts.

I've been running a co-op for about 4 years now and I really want to expand the model since it seems to be working really well. Turns out giving everyone in the company ownership and an equal say in what we do with our profits (including simply redistributing it to everyone) results in ridiculously hard working people. I'm trying to leverage this into making our own internal product development happen but am kinda stuck coming up with ideas.

Anyway someone interviewed me recently and was asking, "why don't more companies form as co-ops? What's the hidden downsides?" I was surprised that there was this suspicion that there must be some sneaky hidden downside, when in fact co-ops are more sustainable, have lower turnover, higher profit per person, and happier employees. There's no actual downside, it's literally all upsides - oh, except for the fact that there's no way to get obscenely rich as the owner of a co-op. That's it, that's the entire reason. People with capital start companies so they can exploit labor to get even more capital, and only people with capital have enough time and money to start companies, so thus there's not many co-ops.

> replace it with a grassroots up system.

This is basically how Marx wrote about Communism, and how Kropotkin wrote about Anarchist Communism. There have been many... interpretations... of their work in practice. Spanish anarchist syndicalism actually worked remarkably well, they had nearly their entire economy syndicalized before they were betrayed by the communists and then killed en masse by the fascists.
by wat10000 | 2025-12-16 14:19:18+00:00
I do think that’s true, but largely because animals mostly don’t have the luxury of being out of survival mode. They can’t have unforced discontent when it’s constantly being forced.

I’m sure the ancients were aware that animals suffer. I think it’s noteworthy that the passage in Luke was talking about plants, not animals. It’s hard to imagine effort and discontent in an organism with no brain.

In any case, I’m definitely not taking life advice from an apocalyptic cult telling me not to plan for the future and give away all my possessions because their god will provide.
by viega | 2025-12-16 14:19:23+00:00
Well, when I was doing the original work on it (about 5 years ago now), I spent a lot of time trying to find something else in the literature. I couldn't find anything that wasn't SPMC or MPSC, unless it had severe limitations, like not actually having a drop policy when full.

However, I definitely did not see the paper you've sited, but just spent a few minutes with the paper you cited. Section 5.2 seems to cover their version. It's far from clear what their algorithm is, but they are talking about page eviction; it doesn't seem like they're using even a single fixed array for the ring, but I'm not 100% sure because it's pretty light on any detail. a
by throwaway_2494 | 2025-12-16 14:19:40+00:00
>then flee at maximum speed because a well-fed 200+lb apex predator is passing by, it sure looks like work and effort.

I think the 'effort' being described in the article—despite using analogies of overgripping and physical strain—is mental effort.

When the rabbit has escaped, he returns quickly to a relaxed state. A typical human reaction would be to continue to worry about the predator, to form plans to rid the whole _world_ of all predators, to build a fortress with grass to eat on the inside...

This whole saying that "Nature is red in tooth and claw" is overstated. Most animals have normal, humdrum days like we do.

However, I think it was the Buddhist teacher, Ajan Cha who said: "We live in a world where we must eat to survive, and some of us are uncomfortable about being eaten."

But this does not mean that every animal lives a life of unremitting terror all the time.

I’m wary of your use of 'romantic' as a descriptor here. It's a rhetorical shortcut which makes it easy to pre-emptively dismiss a position as naïve without further examination.
by trollbridge | 2025-12-16 14:19:40+00:00
I once exited an excellent Indian restaurant in San Diego with a bag of takeout food I had just picked up. Someone approached me and asked me for some money “to buy a burger”. I offered him my food bag and said it’s really good, fresh, and I just picked it up.

He took the bag, waited until I wasn’t looking, then set it down on the sidewalk and walked away. He was not interested in food, nor was he hungry.
by whynotmaybe | 2025-12-16 14:19:51+00:00
For me, it helped me to look at open source hardware like adafruit's.

The Mini Sparkle is a 4 layer and available on their github https://github.com/adafruit/Adafruit-Mini-Sparkle-Motion-PCB

There are many more available at OSHWA : https://certification.oshwa.org/list.html
by mattstir | 2025-12-16 14:20:27+00:00
> No-one wants this

IntelliCode has 60M downloads and is the 11th most downloaded extension for all of VS Code. Also consider that there's 6 official Python-related extensions above it that could all be rolled into one, and Copilot just above it which (to my knowledge) is installed by default in newer versions of VS Code.

Just because it doesn't affect you personally doesn't mean it affects no one. You aren't in fact the centre of the universe.
by 1718627440 | 2025-12-16 14:20:34+00:00
Sorry for the late reply.

> classifying expropriations of their wealth as theft

Like I wrote earlier the average homeless also wants to have "expropriations" of his things to be classified as theft. Normalizing "expropriations" also results in a self-education to an attitude that does not fare well in a society.

> ignores the power differences between the parties in the contract.

No we are not "ignoring power differences". That is why we have (labor) laws after all, whose independent application you also don't seem to like. Laws only limit the powerful, the powerless would be even more at the mercy of the powerful without (enforced) laws, as this is the very meaning of having or not having power.

I do not think that the existence of Amazon and people like Bezos, is the result of a healthy, competitive market. If anything it has destroyed the very same. The actions of Amazon are borderline to literally illegal, which is why they need to transport the workers across country borders to evade law enforcement.

> These relationships wouldn’t exist if the parties were on equal footing.

Which is why these relationships are affected by labor laws. If you want to suggest, that we should invest in law enforcement to deal with these issues or maybe tweak the laws a bit, to make more of that behaviour illegal, then I agree.

> Wealth differences are power differences.

Yes.

> The power differences give rise to exploitative relationships.

Given the absence of a healthy state, yes.

> Wealth differences aren’t a fact of nature.

Maybe.

> They are a result of how we as humans have organized our societies.

Yes.

> We have made this and we can unmake it.

Citation needed.

> Sucking our thumbs and saying “that’s just the way things are”

This is a strawman, nobody is suggesting that.

I do not want to be subject to the "ideological apparatus" that rises from your ideas. I would if my dad hasn't fought against it, under threat of live to him and the family (which is why my grandfather was against it). No I very much do not want to see how your ideas work out in practice AGAIN. Read a history book.

> Wealth differences are power differences and as such impinge on freedom

I think we also have a different definition of freedom as well. Having less choices doesn't make you less free. Arbitrary limiting choices does. Not being able to snip your fingers and be rich, doesn't make you unfree, if anything being attached to wealth makes you unfree. Forcing you to work for someone, forbidding you from buying or selling a product makes you unfree.
by jofla_net | 2025-12-16 14:20:46+00:00
Spouting inevitability is small-minded.

There are plenty "technology" things which have come to pass, most notably weapons, which have been developed which are not allowed to be used by someone to thier fullest due to laws, and social norms against harming others. Theese things are technology, and they would allow someone to attain wealth much more efficiently....

Parrots retort that they are regulated because society sees them as a threat.

Well, therein is the disconnect, society isn't immutable, and can come to those conclusions about other technologies tomorrow if it so chooses...
by rcarmo | 2025-12-16 14:20:55+00:00
I just refactored the rendering and resampling approach. Took me a few tries to figure out how to remove the banding masks from the layers, but with more stacked layers and a bit of GPT-foo to figure out the API it sort of works now (updated the GIF)

Keep in mind that this is not Gaussian splat rendering but just a hacked approximation--on my NVIDIA machine that looks way smoother.
by raw_anon_1111 | 2025-12-16 14:20:59+00:00
To be frank, this is a horrible suggestion if you want to see whether it’s worth it if you are trying to monetize it.

First you validate your idea by seeing if there is a potential market for it. Talk to people. See if someone is excited about it. Show them your work in progress.

See if there is already a company in that space and find a differentiator.
by gwbas1c | 2025-12-16 14:21:06+00:00
> The Cambrian explosion IBM-PC compatability didn’t happen overnight of course.

There's a recording of an interview with Bill Gates floating around where he pretty much takes credit for that. He claims (paraphrasing because I listened to it almost 20 years ago) that he suggested a lot of the hardware to IBM because he knew he could repurpose DOS for it.
by ang_cire | 2025-12-16 14:21:14+00:00
Sure it will.

I see some lifted pickup truck, I know where to focus my attention to better perceive a potential outsize source of accidents.

If I know where a hidden driveway is, I know where to focus my attention to better perceive any cars emerging. My knowledge of the driveway biases me towards looking towards it, where another driver without that knowledge would not.

Biased perceptions of things as dangerous will absolutely make us observe them more closely in order to better perceive danger.

You're still (perhaps inadvertently) equating 'bias' with 'prejudice', but experience biases our perceptions in positive ways, like clocking a hot stovetop.
by orwin | 2025-12-16 14:21:16+00:00
The fact that successive US governments choose to use their economic hegemony to pump assets rather than invest in their education and healthcare, or at least in their infrastructure, doesn't contradict the fact that it was a great gift, engineered since Bretton-Woods, confirmed at the Smithsonian institute and a few years later at the Kingston accords (and btw, had nothing to do with gold standard but the convertibility of the Dollar. The gold standard realistically ended in the 50s (died for the 5th time in the US alone), and for the 1st time, stayed dead).
by kaipereira | 2025-12-16 14:21:36+00:00
Routing is honestly one of my favorite parts of making a PCB, there's something about the feeling of understanding exactly what each trace is doing that I find exhilarating.

The problem with most AI powered tools is that they don't understand the context of your board, which is absolutely crucial for routing. Like so-and-so trace could be switching really fast and an AI powered design tool wouldn't understand that and wouldn't route it properly. Or like power for example, different things have different power requirements and I feel like we're not at the point where these tools are referencing every datasheet on the planet to figure out trace/fill sizes and whatnot.

There's also some concepts I don't think these tools can wrap around quite yet. For example, minimizing loops, consistent ground planes, proper impedance control, and just all of these factors lead to an inferior board.

Not saying that humans are perfect and understand all of these too, I just feel like if you understand what's happening with your board, you can do a much better job.

At the end of the day, you'll be spending more time fixing the mistakes, which are actually pretty hard to spot without checking every single trace sometimes, then actually just routing it yourself, but maybe one day we'll get there!

I'd love to hear some other takes though ;)
by gmuslera | 2025-12-16 14:21:37+00:00
For any point of the past, this is the future. It is not what is "best" by some metric, nor what is right, or should be, is what actually happens. It is like saying that evolution goal is intelligence or whatever, is what sticks in the wall.

Can we change direction on how things are going? Yes, but you must understand what means the "we" there, at least in the context of global change of direction.
by vrighter | 2025-12-16 14:21:49+00:00
if you rely on hobbyist libraries, you will eventually have to read datasheets. They usually only contain the barest minimum possible that one can still call "working". Usually most of the functionality of the device you're using is just not supported. At which point it's datasheet time.

And before long, you'll find yourself reading datasheets first and doing your utmost to avoid the "ready made templates"
by frantathefranta | 2025-12-16 14:22:00+00:00
I admittedly don't really know how SSH is built but it looks to me like the patch that "makes" it HPN-SSH is already present upstream[1], it's just not applied by default? Nixpkgs seems to allow you to build the pkg with the patch [2].

[1] https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-ports/blob/main/security/...

[2] https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/d85ef06512a3afbd6f9082...