MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by linyows | 2025-12-08 05:57:48+00:00
Hi HN,

I’ve been working on an open source deployment tool called *Dewy*.

Dewy is a *single-binary deployment agent* that runs on each host and keeps your apps (binaries or containers) up to date, with *zero-downtime rollouts*, *pull-based updates*, and *no Kubernetes required*.

It’s for teams who:

- Run small to medium services on *VPS / bare metal* (a few to a few dozen servers) - Can’t or don’t want to use *managed Kubernetes / Cloud Run / ECS* for cost, policy, or complexity reasons - Already have CI, but the “deploy to production” step is still *SSH + shell scripts / rsync / scp* - Worry about giving CI agents SSH access to production hosts

### How it works

- You publish *artifacts or images* from CI: - e.g. GitHub Releases assets, S3 / GCS objects, or container images in a registry - Dewy runs as a *daemon on each host* - It periodically checks a *registry / storage / container registry* for the latest semantic version - When a new version appears, Dewy: - Downloads it - Starts the new version - Performs *zero-downtime switch-over*: - For processes: graceful restart via signals - For containers: Dewy acts as a reverse proxy and *drains old containers* (finish existing connections, route new traffic to the new version) - Keeps multiple previous versions on disk so you can roll back safely

All of this is *pull-based*: production hosts reach out to fetch new releases. CI never SSHes into production, which reduces the attack surface.

### Why not Kubernetes?

Kubernetes (plus something like Argo CD) already gives you declarative, continuous deployments — but:

- Managed k8s can be *expensive* or *not allowed* in some orgs - Self-hosting k8s can be *overkill* for small teams with a handful of nodes - Many setups still have *long-lived VMs / bare metal* that are not going away soon

Dewy is *not* a replacement for Kubernetes. It doesn’t do scheduling or autoscaling. It focuses on a smaller problem:

> “Given some servers I already have, keep this service safely deployed and up to date, with minimal moving parts.”

### Safety & operations

- *Zero-downtime rollouts* via graceful restart / connection draining - If the new version fails to start or health checks don’t pass, Dewy: - Keeps the old version running - Sends notifications (Slack / email) - Avoids noisy repeated alerts - Keeps several past releases locally for *quick manual rollback* - Audit-friendly: you can see who released what and when through your Git tags / releases

### Cost & infra model

- Runs on *plain Linux servers* (VPS, small VMs, underpowered physical boxes) - No control plane, no database required - Just a *single static binary + a YAML config + systemd service*

If this sounds like something you’d use instead of hand-rolled SSH deploys or ad hoc scripts on non‑k8s infra, I’d love feedback:

- GitHub: https://github.com/linyows/dewy - Docs / landing page: https://dewy.linyo.ws
by rswail | 2025-12-08 05:58:15+00:00
I've been "work from home" since 2012, mainly because the projects I worked on were actually in overseas cities.

Before COVID, I would go on work trips of 1-2 weeks every 2 months or so, which was more than enough "office time" to get my doses of office chatter, noisy work environments, stupid in-person meetings etc.

Even before the lockdowns (Melbourne had the longest in the world), I made it part of my routine to go outside every day to get coffee/lunch/sit-in-the-park/walk/talk to people.

It's important to have that human contact, but it's better that I get to choose who to have that contact with and when and how. There are numerous friends from my work that I also see out of work, but there are a great majority that I have no interest in being with in person or outside the work context.
by bytefish | 2025-12-08 05:58:20+00:00
I have never been in a project, where estimates were spot-on, and I do this for 15 years now. By now hundreds of features have floated by the river and hundreds of meetings have been held.

Estimations are often complicated, because there are way too many variables involved to give accurate estimates. Politics within companies, restructuring of teams. The customer changes their mind, the reality you've expected is slightly different, your architecture has shortcomings you find out late in a project, the teams your work depends on disband, … and a million other things.

Theoretically you could update your estimates in a SCRUM meeting, sure, but to be honest, this has always been nothing but a fantasy. We rarely do work in a void. Our features have been communicated higher up and have already been pitched to customers. In a fully transparent and open organization you might update your estimates, and try to explain this to your customers. In reality though? I have never seen this.

While this sounds very negative, my take on it is not to waste too much time on estimates. Give a range of time you expect your features to fall into, and go on with getting your work done.
by b112 | 2025-12-08 05:58:26+00:00
Russ Hanneman's thigh implants are a key example. Appearances are all to some people. Actual growth is meaningless to them.

The problem with AI, is that they waste the time of dedicated, thinking humans which care to improve themselves. If I write a three paragraph email on a technical topic, and some yahoo responds with AI, I'm now responding to gibberish.

The other side may not have read, may not understand, and is just interacting to save time. Now my generous nature, which is to help others and interact positively, is being wasted to reply to someone who seems to have put thought and care into a response, but instead was just copying and pasting what something else output.

We have issues with crackers on the net. We have social media. We have political interference. Now we have humans pretending to interact, rendering online interactions even more silly and harmful.

If this trend continues, we'll move back to live interaction just to reduce this time waste.
by pengaru | 2025-12-08 05:58:43+00:00
"supply voltage to the electronic control system was purposely lowered and perturbed to simulate bad alternator and/or battery system. The result from the manipulation of supply voltage was rather astonishing. The control systems seemed to work even with the perturbed supply voltage but not correctly. As a matter of fact, it seemed to cause the sudden unintended acceleration repeatedly. The supply voltage to the ECU can be disturbed by minor mishap in the alternator output function and possibly by the overload of ever increasing use of electric devices in the vehicle by the driver. In any case, the current study showed the reproduction of the sudden unintended acceleration when the supply voltage changes abruptly by sudden drop of the alternator output voltage or by overload of the electric devices."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03790...
by Arainach | 2025-12-08 05:59:54+00:00
What "current results" are you referring to? No, people 50+ years ago weren't arguing that cliffs can lead to disincentives, they were arguing that the whole system is "socialism" and bad - something that has been repeatedly disproven.

There are few things more evil in our society than the breed of conservative that will talk about how their family needed social welfare growing up to survive, how it worked and they did survive, but how "ashamed" they feel so they thing we should tear everything down and remove the ladder now that they've climbed it.
by komali2 | 2025-12-08 06:01:40+00:00
> Work is literally THE worst place to make human connections

I don't necessarily disagree, but I make a slightly different argument, in that, humans will make human connections, whether they like it or not, and the most typical human experience is to make stronger and stronger connections with people you see regularly. Furthermore, depending on the company, there's the desire to be a part of something bigger, there's social conditioning setting in to prove yourself among your peers, there's the desire to not appear like you're lazy.

Where I think you'll agree is that your company will 100% exploit these human aspects of you to get a better margin on the value of your labor vs the compensation they pay you.
by dotancohen | 2025-12-08 06:02:06+00:00
> worthwhile software is usually novel.

Another type of worthwhile software is business CRUD. And unfortunately in my experience even for these mundane types of tasks time estimates are typically misjudged - for a multitude of reasons.

The typical reason is that developers in large teams often don't know all the places where a field may be used - and their IDE could very well miss some. So automated testing or QA finds an issue, and then the unaccounted-for, time-consuming bugtracking begins.

CRUD: Create, Read, Update, Delete. Basically just inputting and displaying data from a database.
by refulgentis | 2025-12-08 06:02:25+00:00
> I never understood why they do not track the OpenJDK versions. I don't work on Android apps.. but it seems mildly insane to basically have a weird almost-Java where you aren't even sure if you can use a given Java lib.

NIH syndrome

> (and not a Dart chat app.. but something actually performant that uses the hardware to the full extent)

I used to work on Android, quit two years ago and have used Flutter since, it's a breath of fresh air. It does use the hardware to the full extent, imo it's significantly more performant: it does an end-around all the ossified Android nonsense.
by voodooEntity | 2025-12-08 06:02:36+00:00
Tbh, if i read back my comment from yesterday i don't even know exactly why i did mention that part. Sounds even to me like a "look at my blog" thingy which it definitely should not. Maybe some day ill give it a try and write something about my 'ideas' and drop it here. Tho not today (w0rk w0rk) ^
by vladvasiliu | 2025-12-08 06:03:37+00:00
I was pondering this, because my team is very small, so I don't get to interact with all that many people at the office (the people I interact with will 90% of the time be elsewhere anyway).

But apart from that it seems like the worst of both worlds? You still have to commute there, you can't reasonably expect to have peace and quiet since it's mostly open space (or if it's a closed office, how's that better than staying home?), and you don't even get to see your colleagues.

In my case, what I hate with the office is the commute and the random noise people make (phone calls, chats, whatever). I rather like my colleagues, so it's not like I want to avoid those people specifically.
by bawolff | 2025-12-08 06:04:52+00:00
> I've never understood the initial arguments about Bitcoin, no matter how many times they've been explained to me.

Bitcoin has a great mythology associated with it. People over emphasize the technical aspects, i think its the "story" that made it succeed. Its about taking back "control" from the man. People love an underdog story, people love a rebellion story. Lots of people in the tech space are anti-establishment or libertarian. Bitcoin is the perfect fulfillment of the dream of that ideology.

When people try to sell bitcoin, they aren't selling merkle-trees, they are selling "freedom".

I think if it was actually just about digital currency, then chaumian ecash would have taken off. It technically has a central party but not in a way that matters. It makes so much more sense than bit coin. But it doesnt have the total freedom story.

> How anyone, especially many intelligent people, thought it was realistic to graft a currency on top of such a unwieldy piece of technology is beyond me.

I mean, it did work. It is a shitty currency no doubt, but you can buy and sell stuff with it. There are bitcoin atms in my neighbourhood. I think the bigger mystery is not how anyone thought it could be a currency, but how the hell something so silly actually sort of became one (albeit bad one)
by raincole | 2025-12-08 06:05:06+00:00
> “Bag of words” is a also a useful heuristic for predicting where an AI will do well and where it will fail. “Give me a list of the ten worst transportation disasters in North America” is an easy task for a bag of words, because disasters are well-documented. On the other hand, “Who reassigned the species Brachiosaurus brancai to its own genus, and when?” is a hard task for a bag of words, because the bag just doesn’t contain that many words on the topic

It is... such a retrospective narrative. It's so obvious that the author learned about this example first than came with the reasoning later, just to fit in his view of LLM.

Imaging if ChatGPT answered this question correctly. Would that change the author's view? Of course not! They'll just say:

> “Bag of words” is a also a useful heuristic for predicting where an AI will do well and where it will fail. Who reassigned the species Brachiosaurus brancai to its own genus, and when?” is an easy task for a bag of words, because the information has appeared in the words it memorizes.

I highly doubt this author has predicted that "bag of Words" can do image editing before OpenAI released that.
by jcranmer | 2025-12-08 06:05:33+00:00
Some guesses here:

First off, Itanium was definitely meant to be the 64-bit successor to x86 (that's why it's called IA-64 after all), and moving from 32-bit to 64-bit would absolutely have been a killer feature. It's basically only after the underwhelming launch of Itanium that AMD comes out with AMD64, which becomes the actual 64-bit version of x86; once that comes out, the 64-bitness of Itanium is no longer a differentiation.

Second... given that Itanium basically implements every weird architecture feature you've ever heard of, my guess is that they decided they had the resources to make all of this stuff work. And they got into a bubble where they just simply ignored any countervailing viewpoints anytime someone brought up a problem. (This does seem to be a particular specialty of Intel.)

Third, there's definitely a baseline assumption of a sufficiently-smart compiler. And my understanding is that the Intel compiler was actually halfway decent at Itanium, whereas gcc was absolute shit at it. So while some aspects of the design are necessarily inferior (a sufficiently-smart compiler will never be as good at hardware at scavenging ILP, hardware architects, so please stop trying to foist that job on us compiler writers), it actually did do reasonably well on performance in the HPC sector.
by creato | 2025-12-08 06:05:44+00:00
You're right, the thing I linked to do does exactly that. I should have read it more closely.

The projects that I've worked on, unconditionally define it as a thing that crashes (e.g. `std::abort` with a message). They don't actually use that C/C++ thing (because C23 is too new), and apparently it would be wrong to do so.
by kaluga | 2025-12-08 06:06:05+00:00
The real issue isn’t just the cliffs themselves — it’s that our welfare system is a set of disconnected programs that interact like poorly designed APIs. For people with zero margin for error, even a small income change can trigger huge losses in healthcare, childcare, or housing.

We ended up with a system that’s expensive, complicated, and psychologically brutal — and still fails to do what it was designed to do.
by esperent | 2025-12-08 06:06:21+00:00
Crypto currency uses up to 1.5% of the world's electricity, makes up 2.5% of the world's money, uses up to 0.1% of the fresh water supply, and perhaps as high as 6-10% of silicon chips produced.

And yet, as you say, there's no mass adaption (yet). All it's doing is making tech bros and speculators even richer. It's possible that wider adoption will eventually happen, but as years pass this claim gets harder and harder to make. It's not any easier for "normal" people to use than it was ten years ago, and the main use cases are still "speculation" and "paying for drugs", also just like ten years ago.

From someone who also genuinely thinks the underlying crypto tech is fascinating, it's hard not to see the "currency" part of it as a kind of cancerous growth on the world economy.
by cyberax | 2025-12-08 06:06:38+00:00
Foldable phones are one example. Apple completely missed the boat here, while even freaking Google managed to make a decent device.

Smart rings are booming. Apple has nothing, probably afraid that it can cannibalize their watch sales.

If we look at the wider industry, EVs and self-driving cars are coming. Huawei has its own car now, along with a battery research program.
by tomhow | 2025-12-08 06:07:20+00:00
We've had to ban this account for what looks like high-frequency bot posting.

Please stop doing this. URLs are only dupes if they have had major front page exposure and discussion in about the previous 12 months. Your comments seem to be bot-generated, and other community member are noticing.

I understand you probably want to help but this is not a positive contribution to HN, so please don't do it, thanks.

If you want to contribute to HN as a human, please cease this activity then email us and we can unban the account.
by regularization | 2025-12-08 06:08:06+00:00
Who does not have a market? In the USSR people went to markets to buy radishes, just like we do here, except paying with rubles not dollars.

What was different was not the market but the production, or control over production. In the US heirs own the majority of the Fortune 500 and thus control it, their things worked differently.

So why is production not discussed but a market? Or not even a market but a "free" market - I suppose to be in a free market you buy radishes in a market with dollars and not rubles.
by tdpvb | 2025-12-08 06:09:29+00:00
Agreed. There's something about the gestational phase, aka nanotechnological self-assembly, that surely requires at least a few lines of code(!) and which otherwise is never used again -- until passed on to the next generation. Probably a good bet that the "repetitive elements" are accumulated lines of code for all successive phases of fetal development, from single-celled organism to two, to four, etc until all echoes of evolution are replayed and the present species emerges. "Junk," indeed.
by raincom | 2025-12-08 06:10:15+00:00
For the price point, IKEA mattresses (both hybrid and foam) are worth it. Same goes for mattresses sold by Costco/Sams Club.

A lot of this enthusiasm about mattresses comes from being young. When your back is still indestructible, nearly any mattress(all kinds of foam, coils, hybrid, innerspring) feels fantastic. 20% of mattresses are returned for comfort reasons; that's how online marketing companies disguised as mattress companies have won over the traditional brick and mortar companies.

Lots of people complain about the invisible sagging after a few years of usage. For warranty purposes, 1.5" visible sagging is needed. Even latex foam sags too, but it sags slower than PU foams. Even Tempurpedic has cheapened their foam, thereby cashing on its brand name.

High density foam lasts longer. However, 99% of mattress makers don't list ILD and densities of their PU and viscoelastic PU foams. That's why the market is flooded with cheap mattresses that have invisible sag after a couple of years.

Same goes with coils: thin wire, reducing the wire in each pocket, stretching the wire, carbon content, how wires are cleaned, etc--all these factors matter.

Yes, there is advancement in the knowledge of materials and foams. However, industry has started cutting corners for a short term profit. If you make a mattress that lasts 10 years at least, who can you sell mattresses to then? That's why cheap low density foams, cheap coils dominate the industry.
by pjmlp | 2025-12-08 06:10:40+00:00
Someone doing maintenance work on C# project might find code going all the way back to C# 1.0.

Also improvements to low level programming, being done since C# 7, a few semantic changes, aren't for removing boilerplate code.

Then since a language is useless without its standard library, there have beem plenty of changes on how to do P/Invoke, COM interop, development of Web applications, and naturally knowing in what release specific features were introduced.
by sirponm | 2025-12-08 06:10:44+00:00
Walmart uses it a lot more than I do. Civeng principles show that road damage rises to the fourth power of axle weight, a fully loaded tractor-trailer does roughly 10k times structural damage of a passenger car but they definitely don't pay that amount.

And yeah the government is consistently incompetent. But there's no incentive for them to be competent in the first place. Either a mostly exempt-from-competiton company does it badly or a fully exempt-from-competition state does it badly in our system.
by altmanaltman | 2025-12-08 06:12:15+00:00
People can absolutely build radical things after learning or being assisted by LLMs. But that's not the meta they're selling. What they are selling with vibe-coding is that you can let the AI build things and don't even need to learn how to code. If someone truly believes that, then I would say the chances of them building something actually useful or radical is close to 0.

With books, the sell is not that it will create your app and you don't even need to learn to code. The sell is that you will learn to code with this and then use it to build the app (often through a painstaking process).

> Jensen Huang says kids shouldn't learn to code — they should leave it up to AI

https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intell...

Which book tells you that you shouldn't learn to code but leave it to the book?
by lynn123456 | 2025-12-08 06:12:35+00:00
Soar2 AI is a next-generation AI video generator powered by the OpenAI Sora 2 API. It transforms creative ideas into cinematic 10-second clips with advanced text-to-video capabilities, realistic motion physics, and immersive sound design.. This AI video generator stands out with Sora 2-driven features: advanced text prompts, custom character integration, dynamic physics, and immersive sound design. Whether you’re a creator, marketer, or educator, Soar2 AI lets you craft stunning 10-second cinematic videos—fast, seamless, and professional, powered by Sora 2.
by sophrosyne42 | 2025-12-08 06:13:02+00:00
Capitalism is the term for the market system popularized by Karl Marx. If socialists want to incorporate markets, I am all for it, since it slips capitalism through the back door. This represents a total classical liberal/libertarian victory over socialist ideologies of the past. The only thing they have kept are slogans and terms.

The key thing modern progressives need to do is cut out their naiive criticisms of economics. The usual gambit is to repeat criticisms of Marx, et al. of classical economics, which mostly amount to charicature and ridicule, and don't even apply to classical economics, let alone modern subjectivist economics.

The so-called left libertarians represented by C4SS are the most pre-eminent and sophisticated of the 'socialist'-oriented political ideologies. But like all socialist types, they cannot free themselves from the dogma that labor is a special kind of factor of production which, as they think, not being exposed to the principles of choice under scarcity, follows different principles governing action and exchange than those which cover all other economic factors of production. Carson takes pains to demonstrate this in his book, but is ultimately unsuccessful.
by any1 | 2025-12-08 06:13:44+00:00
> It's the intended way to read/write declarations/expressions. As a consequence, asterisks ends up placed near the identifiers.

You know you don't always have to use things as they were intended?

> The confused ones will think it's a stylistic choice and won't understand any of this.

Well, I've written it both ways, and the compiler never seems to mind. :)

Maybe I should start putting space on both sides of the asterisk; seems like it would be a good way to annoy even more people.