MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by PurpleRamen | 2025-12-11 11:27:36+00:00
> It becomes "This is a problem, therefore the solution is good", without questioning the solution itself.

This is a very simplified view. The topic has been disputed for years, and societies has tried to find alternative solutions. But turns out, there is no other well enough working solution at the moment, hence the nuclear option. And sometimes that is the only working option anyway.

Should be noted, this is not a first. Social Media has already been restricted to various degree for kids of certain ages in several countries. Australia is just raising the age from the usual 12, 13 up to 16.

> I find myself agreeing with everything said, and then, suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, the article pivots to "therefore we need completely 24/7 mass surveillance of everyone at all times and we need to eradicate freedom of speech".

So it's a poor article, so what? These attempts are not new. There are regularly political attempts pushing towards stricter regulations and more surveillance. Some work, some not.

> That article is like a perfect microcosm of this entire international shift in internet privacy.

There is no shift. Those views have always been there, even before the internet. This is a normal part of societies, including democratic. There is a constant power-struggle between control and liberty in any society, and the balance is always shifting depending on how good or bad certain problems are at that moment.

But a certain thing which is missing here BTW is a complete ban of all open media, for everyone in all ages and groups. For Government, kids on social media are not a big problem, that will only bite them in the decades to come. But people now, today, who are getting radicalized against the standing order, those are a problem. And nobody demanding for a ban is good sign for a healthy enough democracy. Because think about in which countries this is not the case..
by dns_snek | 2025-12-11 11:28:23+00:00
> I wish wealth wasn't treated so abstractly as if it's some kind of universal measure of evil.

It is evil, the vast majority of people don't become rich without exploiting other people, and just about everyone in that position then leverages their wealth to exert even more power over people and politics.

> technologies and aid originating from the wealthier nations.

We run sweatshops in poor countries, exploit their people and natural resources to death, then we send them a few crumbs of aid to paint ourselves as the good guys for the history books, how noble of us!

> Historically the only time the trend of wealth accumulation reverses is during massive crises, wars, and civilizational collapse which make life worse for everyone and nobody with any sense would wish for

Nobody wishes for this but people will reach a breaking point where they're desperate and can't take it anymore. If slaves try to resist they get beaten, would you advise them to keep their heads down and do as they're told to avoid the beatings? These are classic abuser tactics.

> based on this same flavor of folk economics

Which part of "The wealthy are getting wealthier, they're using that wealth to exert more power over us, and they're using that power to change the system to be even more favourable for them, so that they can get even richer, and even more powerful, at great cost to the rest of society" would you say is "folk economics"?
by nickjj | 2025-12-11 11:28:29+00:00
It's surprising to me at how hard companies are pushing AI when it's in such a poor usability state.

I was trying to sign up my step dad to SiriusXM (he wanted it) so I called their phone number. The first interaction with the company is them saying you are speaking to an AI and to ask what I'm trying to do. So I said something like "I'd like to sign up for a new account but have a question about the promotional price". It said it couldn't understand the request and I had to repeat things a few times until it gave up and sent me to a human where the question was resolved quickly but it took minutes to reach a human.

It's wild to me that companies are putting AI at the top of their sales funnel.
by gpderetta | 2025-12-11 11:28:53+00:00
You would think so, but it actually doesn't. last time I checked, libstdc++ could only optimize std::bind closures. A trivial test with a stateless lambda shows this is still the case in GCC14 and 15. In fact I can't even seem to trigger the library optimization with bind.

Differently from GCC14, GCC15 itself does seem to be able to optimize the allocation (and the whole std::function) in trivial cases though (independently of what the library does).
by emaro | 2025-12-11 11:28:58+00:00
Design patterns can be really helpful. In my previous job I worked on enterprise .NET applications. It made sense to use common patterns, because most applications were big and the patterns made it easier to understand unfamiliar code, within an application but also across different teams and applications. New projects looked familiar, because the same style and the same patterns were used.

Now I'm working on an old (+10 years) JS application. Similar patterns were implemented, but in this case it's not helpful at all. The code looks very corporate and Java EE style, with a ton of getters and setters (`getName() {}`, not `get name() {}`, factories, facades, adapters, etc, etc. It's usually completely unclear what the benefit of the pattern is, and code is more complicated, for instance because creating new instances of business objects is split into `Object.build` which calls `new Object`, with no guidelines at all what part of the initialization should be in `build` and what should be in the constructor.

The gist of my comment is that patterns can be useful, but usually they're overused and if you implement one without understanding why and without benefiting from faster understanding the code because the pattern is applied consistently over multiple instances, the result is worse than just implementing what you need in a readable way (YAGNI).
by lnsru | 2025-12-11 11:29:15+00:00
I had some savings during the pandemic and I needed to choose between down payment for a house or fund my patient monitoring venture. I had contact with few care home chains and very positive feedback and even agreement for a test run. I was pussy and went for a home. Couple years later no semiconductor parts were available anymore and I was super happy with my cautious decision. I heard of few hardware ventures, which died during part shortage. What an unfortunate time. There was a product, market opportunity, but simply no production material.

The original sensor got discontinued, I have some savings again and would love to try the same with radar approach. Anyone willing to analyze well being of old people from radar data together?
by Timwi | 2025-12-11 11:29:21+00:00
> (even assuming we know we're just talking about earth)

This is a nitpick, but life on other planets wouldn't be called “animals”. Animal is a clade defined by common ancestry. The only way you could have an extraterrestrial animal is for it to have evolved on Earth and then migrated somehow, and I think we can fairly confidently rule that out.
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-12-11 11:29:33+00:00
> The idea that someone is going to make an engaging experience on a “decentralized” network is honestly a bit silly to me. The market potential of this business is low. Decentralized networks with much larger incentives have failed to capture critical mass.

When decentralized networks win, they often win so big that they become invisible. AOL is dead, the web isn't. Email, the global telephone network, the internet itself, these are all decentralized networks.

The hardest part of doing this for social media is actually discovery. It's easier to show people an "engaging" feed when your algorithm has access to the full firehose to select from. But that doesn't mean doing it in a decentralized way is impossible, and if you pass a law that drives people away from centralized services, the incentive to do it goes up.
by xg15 | 2025-12-11 11:29:56+00:00
This sounds too easy to be true.

Does the "brand" include the physical shape of the connector?

Could I make hardware with a "NotHDMI" port that "happens" to be mechanically compatible with HDMI plugs, has the exact same pinout, etc etc?

Even then: In the OP case the hardware is already there, it's only about the driver. So wouldn't a driver for hardware that very clearly identifies the port as "HDMI" run into the same problem, even if the driver itself never mentions the term?
by jwr | 2025-12-11 11:30:42+00:00
The reason is money. Google (in spite of what they would have you believe) does not show you what is "good" for you, it shows you what it gets paid to show you (paid in various, sometimes very complicated ways).

I am sad that Google services are so popular, because it makes the world a little bit worse for everyone. This includes not only Google Maps, but also Gmail (did you know that Google is quite active at censoring your E-mail and you will never see certain E-mails?).

I would really like to see more competition, ideally without the ever-present enshittification (I'm pretty sure Apple Maps will go down the drain, too, because KPIs and money).
by brihati | 2025-12-11 11:30:54+00:00
In distributed systems, at least we have the variables, functions, pods, log traces, spans etc some pre defined structure, and some level of determinism. I would say Causality is still not fully explored territory when it comes to human brain.

When I think of human brain or may be to some extent LLMs, it's difficult to understand what is invisible. For distributed systems we will build tools, there is ongoing research in LLM Observability, but I wonder what about human brain
by martypitt | 2025-12-11 11:31:53+00:00
> ... the company which made the ad, defended its use of AI in a post on LinkedIn

> “It’s never about replacing craft, it’s about expanding the toolbox. The vision, the taste, the leadership … that will always be human,” she said.

> “And here’s the part people don’t see: the hours that went into this job far exceeded a traditional shoot. Ten people, five weeks, full-time.”

That response sounds like it was written by ChatGPT, which is a fantastic piece of tone-deaf irony from the creators.
by nasmorn | 2025-12-11 11:33:05+00:00
Yeah the last one. The others would require 5x deal flow which LLMs might not help deliver at all. But the last one should exist for people if 10x is true. Not every client can have already fully price in LLM improvements, people have contracts negotiated pre LLM. I have not heard of this though so I have to remain sceptical
by polyrand | 2025-12-11 11:33:07+00:00
A frozen dictionary would be very welcome. You can already do something similar using MappingProxyType [0]

from types import MappingProxyType d = {} d["a"] = 1 d["b"] = 2 print(d) frozen = MappingProxyType(d) print(frozen["a"]) # Error: frozen["b"] = "new"

[0]: https://docs.python.org/3/library/types.html#types.MappingPr...
by Yokohiii | 2025-12-11 11:34:15+00:00
You point out the cultural issue that this creates and sweep it under the rug, violently.

The thought model complicates the process of writing new code, "what pattern do i need here?" and the perception of existing code, "oh this is pattern X, why isn't that communicated clearly?". The truth is that design patterns are at best stagnant in quality and quantity over time (GoF is over 30 years old!), but the quantity and quality of problems is infinite.

I've thought in patterns quite some time in my early career. With my colleague back then everything was an pattern and we were kind of in sync with that approach. But it quickly falls apart if you have peers that are less try hard on it. You can spend days, weeks, months to study design patterns and then have to explain it to someone in 5 minutes that simply doesn't care. I can't blame anyone to not care, so that has to be accounted for.

I think the common language argument is tempting, but also too stressed. Good and useful programming knowledge is bound by reality. An integer is a indisputable thing that is always useful. A "singleton" is just a fancy rephrasing of "global state".
by clappski | 2025-12-11 11:34:30+00:00
I like the priorities.

I think a core thing that's missing is that code that performs well is (IME) also the simplest version of the thing. By that, I mean you'll be;

- Avoiding virtual/dynamic dispatch

- Moving what you can up to compile time

- Setting limits on sizing (e.g. if you know that you only need to handle N requests, you can allocate the right size at start up rather than dynamically sizing)

Realistically for a GC language these points are irrelevant w.r.t. performance, but by following them you'll still end up with a simpler application than one that has no constraints and hides everything behind a runtime-resolved interface.
by throw__away7391 | 2025-12-11 11:34:33+00:00
I read the title of this and as I could not wrap my head around the idea of "Rubio" here actually meaning Marco Rubio, I assumed this was a font name, but also laughing to myself just how hilariously absurd it would be for the Secretary of State to involved in picking fonts...only to click the link and discover that yes, it is exactly that absurd.
by arrrg | 2025-12-11 11:34:33+00:00
It takes a village to raise a kid.

You cannot parent in isolation and outside of society. How society is structured has an huge impact on parenting. It is delusional to think of parenting as some kind of thing that exists in isolation separate from and not influenced by the rest of society. Parents often can only have little influence themselves.

This is a value neutral description. Though I do think total parental autonomy in parenting is not a worthwhile goal and also not at all realistic. As parents you have to deal with society.

What does that mean for social media bans? To me mostly: network effects are wicked strong and fighting against them as an individual parent is basically impossible. This can lead to parents only having bad choices available to them (ban social media use and exclude them from their friends, allow social media use and fry their brains). Are bans that right solution? Don’t know. I’m really not sure. But I do know that it‘s not as simple as „parent better“.
by oneeyedpigeon | 2025-12-11 11:34:46+00:00
Note that, even if that's all true (and I do agree that studies should have been conducted), the two positions are:

a) We made this change because we think it will help certain people

and

b) We made this change because we fundamentally disagree with attempts to help certain people, whether effective or not

I think b) is a lot worse than a). Or, to put it another way, has the current administration demonstrated a benefit from this change, or are they behaving at least as badly as "the left"?
by MisterMusion | 2025-12-11 11:35:30+00:00
The biggest problem IMHO is how the unit system with regards to pixels and physical units is designed. A px is not a device pixel but a physical unit of length 1/96 inch. This nonsense is technical not a CSS-only thing but based on a 80s hack by Microsoft and Apple. As a result you can not specify device pixel sizes directly, (you have to calculate them from devicepixelratio in js), and physical units relate to UI scaling on screen.

A use case for specifying device pixel sizes are thin-lined grids, that can have inconsistent spacing and line width due rounding when you use px on hi-DPI.

How it should be (and OSes should do it) is:

- There is the device pixel e.g. "dp"

- There is a UI scaling unit "u" (the equivalent to CSS px, but not with a misleading name). It could be e.g. defined to be the height of a standard button. This is used for most screen-oriented elements, and u-based sizes can be optionally rounded to whole dp.

- There are physical units independent of u. There is a ratio of these to dp. For print the ratio is e.g. so that 1in = 300dp if it is a 300dpi print. For screen the ratio is based on the actual physical pixel density the OS can either derive from a display device, or the user calibrates it. Physical unit based sizes can optionally be rounded to whole dp.

- The user can obviously set the UI scaling and overwrite the physical unit scaling.

This way you can get display pixel based sizes simply and reliably, UI scaling is not based on a often misunderstood "virtual pixel", and physical objects can be displayed on screen with its actual size (or whatever scaling the user wants).
by roenxi | 2025-12-11 11:35:58+00:00
So? Do I not count as a benchmark of basic intelligent now? I've got a bunch of tests and whatnot that suggest I'm a reasonably above average at thinking. There is this fascinating trend where people would rather bump humans out of the naturally intelligent category rather than admit AIs are actually already at an AGI standard. If we're looking for intelligent conversation AI is definitely above average.

Above-average intelligence isn't a high-quality standard. Intelligence is nowhere near sufficient to get to high quality on most things. As seen with the current generations of AGI models. People seem to be looking for signs of wild superintelligences like being a polymath at the peak of human performance.
by BlueTemplar | 2025-12-11 11:37:06+00:00
So should HDCP. And DMCA. And platforms. And DRM in general.

But this is basically asking for the USA to give up on their soft power (Hollywood, and over the Internet). It's something to aim for, but is still going to take decades.

And you have to be careful about what might fill the power void (China, Russia...)
by xandrius | 2025-12-11 11:37:38+00:00
Maps's search as a whole is terrible even from a UX perspective: search something with some filters, realise that you want to change a letter in the search? Byebye filters.

Some filters are available with a specific subset of words but not with another.

Zoom in a location, look for a common word? There are good chances it will zoom out and send you to the other side of the globe instead. Then pan back, hit "Search in this area" and bam it works.

Some devices can make reviews and some can't (tested on different devices, even Google ones).

Search for a specific word which might be in a review (say, "decaf") and you get even stuff which doesn't even remotely contain the word (I'd expect an empty result if no place has mentioned my keyword).

And many more.

It's just insane how a huge company just seem focused in making a "good enough" experience instead of being the leader. Maybe it's for the best but if they went 1 sprint/quarter into "let's fix glaring BS UX issues in our products", they would probably destroy so many alternatives out there.

Maybe it's on purpose to avoid some anti-trust kind of response? We'll never know.
by potato3732842 | 2025-12-11 11:37:45+00:00
The speeds are appropriate for the roads generally. I mean, at the lowest level speed limits are a matter of social consensus so the broad public is tautologically correct.

The problem is that knocking the magic number on the sign down by 5-15 and then simply not enforcing it too seriously results in less screeching Karens harassing the politicians who then harass the bureaucracy than taking a hard line about "well akshually this is the engineered speed for the road".
by smcleod | 2025-12-11 11:38:00+00:00
Oh that makes a lot of sense, I'm glad it works that way actually - the explanations afterwards left me wondering if it was truly explaining the connections or if it was inferring what they would be (leading to a problem a bit like how "thinking" doesn't actually show the real connections to get to an answer) I'm glad it's not doing that. Neat game and learning opportunity. (Sorry for not wording that very well - long day!)
by IshKebab | 2025-12-11 11:38:40+00:00
> h1, h2, h3 should not have different styles. it's an anti-pattern that leads to broken accessibility

How does that hurt accessibility? Are you saying people use h3 in order to get its style even when they didn't mean h3?

I think the opposite could happen too - if they all have the same style then people might just use h1 everywhere which is probably just as bad. People tend not to use elements that have no obvious use, like <output> which apparently has better accessibility but does absolutely nothing else, so nobody bothers. The whole "semantic web" thing failed partly because of this.
by squigz | 2025-12-11 11:38:57+00:00
> When you say “…any such system will be easily circumvented.” What do you mean by “circumvented”?

I mean... bypassed. Ignored. Fooled. This might be with fake IDs, it might be by compromising the system itself, it might be something else.

> I don’t see how you can have a problem with making statements tied to identities as an attack on free speech but then suggest that the government decides what correct speech is. That seems like a direct attack on the “free” part of speech separate from the less important “anonymous” part

Interestingly, I really haven't said anything about "free speech", nor have I taken the position that the government is unable to already tie your identity to your online activity. Anyway, those responsibilities I outlined could be put on the platforms, if you somehow trust them more, or perhaps a third party service.

Out of curiosity, supposing identity verification doesn't work out, what ideas might you propose for tackling the issues of misinformation and propaganda?
by bigmealbigmeal | 2025-12-11 11:39:16+00:00
This is a very strong, explicit statement in response to someone using the term rather casually. Can you explain why you are so sure?

I do think you need to define 'comprehension' in order to be certain. A statement fitting the form of "it doesn't comprehend, it just X" is incomplete, because it fails to explain why X is not a valid instance of comprehension.
by graemep | 2025-12-11 11:39:33+00:00
I can understand culturally incompatible, but what on earth is "racially incompatible"?

> working the lowest paying and least consistent jobs, with little-to-no chance of fully integrating.

It depends who the immigrants are. If your immigration laws favour highly skilled immigrants that is not going to happen.

In the UK people who live in ethnically mixed areas tend to integrate. In fact, I think most people integrate but the minority who do not are just more noticeable and used politically (not by just one side either).
by TheAceOfHearts | 2025-12-11 11:40:24+00:00
I'm quite skeptical of the data centers in space claim, but I think a proof of concept can certainly be achieved in five years. I'm less convinced that we'll ever see widescale deployment of data center satellites.

And to be fair, I've read that Google's timelines for this project extend far beyond a 5 year horizon. I think it's a rational research direction for them, since it gets people excited and historically many space-related innovations have been repurposed to benefit other industries. Best case scenario would be that research done in support of this data centers in space project leads to innovations that can be applied towards normal data centers.
How do you test multiple API payloads and edge cases?
by freetimeparadox | 2025-12-11 11:40:32+00:00
I’m building a mobile app and need to reliably test different API payloads and failure scenarios. Ideally, I want to switch between payload variations on the fly and immediately see how the UI reacts. I’ve used Charles and some in-code mocks, but these approaches don’t scale well for dozens of repeatable scenarios.

How do you typically handle this? Mock servers, custom tooling, contract tests, or something else? I’m looking for practical workflows that let you test a wide range of payload variations without adding temporary test logic into the client code.
by account42 | 2025-12-11 11:40:38+00:00
> they just can't call it HDMI 2.1 without certification

The problem is more that they can't use the HDMI trademark at all, not just for the HDMI 2.1 on Linux implementation. That makes it a non-starter for AMD or Valve, but in theory should not stop an individual who doesn't care about marketing anything as being HDMI-compatible.