MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by cortesoft | 2025-12-03 21:00:37+00:00
> These things do not prevent cheating at all.

I feel like this is the same as saying "seatbelts don't prevent car accident deaths at all", just because people still die in car accidents while wearing seat belts.

Just because something isn't 100% effective doesn't mean it doesn't provide value. There is a LOT less cheating in games with good anti-cheat, and it is much more pleasant to play those games because of it. There is a benefit to making it harder to cheat, even if it doesn't make it impossible.
by throwout4110 | 2025-12-03 21:00:37+00:00
Ok sure the bubble/non-bubble stuff, fine, but in terms of “things I’d like to be a part of” it’s hard to imagine a more transformative technology (not to again turn off the anti-hype crowd). But ok, say it’s 1997, you don’t like the valuations you see. But as a tech person you’re not excited by browsers, the internet, the possibilities? You don’t want to be a part of that even if it means a bubble pops? I also hear a lot of people argue “finances don’t make a lick of sense” but i don’t think things are that cut and dried and I don’t see this as obvious. I don’t think really many people know how things will evolve and what size a market correction or bubble would have.
by sleepybrett | 2025-12-03 21:00:55+00:00
My pet theory is that most of the investor class in seattle is ex microsoft and ex amazon. Neither microsoft nor amazon are really big splashy unicorns. Amazon's greatest innovation (aws) isn't even their original line of business and is now 'boring'. No doubt they've innovated all over their business in both little and big ways, but not splashy ways, hell every time amazon tries to splash they seem to fall on their ass more often than not (look at their various cancelled hardware lines, their game studios, etc. Alexa still chugs on, but she's not getting appreciably better to the end user over even the last 10 years).

Microsoft is the same, a generally very practical company just trying to practical company stuff.

All the guys that made their bones, vested and rested and now want to turn some of that windfall into investments likely don't have the kind of risk tolerance it takes to fund a potential unicorn. All smart people I'm sure, smart enough to negotiate big windfalls from ms/az but far less risk tollerant than a guy in SF who made their investment nestegg building some risky unicorn.
by burnte | 2025-12-03 21:00:59+00:00
> Will there be the same overutilisation occurring if users have to financially support the infrastructure, either through subscriptions or intrusive advertising? > I doubt it.

I agree. Right now a lot of AI tools are underpriced to get customers hooked, then they'll jack up the prices later. The flaw is that AI does not have the ubiquitous utility internet access has, and a lot of people are not happy with the performance per dollar TODAY, much less when prices rise 80%. We already see companies like Google raising prices stating it's for "AI" and we customers can't opt out of AI and not pay the fee.

At my company we've already decided to leave Google Workspace in the spring. GW is a terrible product with no advanced features, garbage admin tools, uncompetitive pricing, and now AI shoved in everywhere and no way to granularly opt out of a lot of it. Want spell check? Guess what, you need to leave Gemini enabled! Shove off, Google.
by zdw | 2025-12-03 21:01:18+00:00
Has anyone calculated or measured the input lag of ADB vs other protocols such as PS/2 or USB? This is unfortunately hard to search because most references on the web to ADB are for the Android Debug Bridge.

From the numbers given, it seems like ~2ms to send a packet (my math may be off), which is quite good when compared with other contemporary/modern protocols (see: https://danluu.com/input-lag/ for examples)
by kalap_ur | 2025-12-03 21:01:20+00:00
I think this analysis has little to say. What would be important to know how those $ are being spent, not where they are collected from. We do not know how those $ are being spent.

1. Doctors, Nurses, Administration (management and field administration), other. We need to know total employment and total salaries (including private practices).

2. OTC, prescription and hospital administered drugs (separated for acute, such as ER, and chronic, such as inpatient and elective surgery). We need to know how much is being spent on these, which is _potentially_ one of the culprits of large discrepancy between US healthcare vs European healthcare. What would be great to have these by large cohorts of population (<20; 20-65; 66-85; 85<) and maybe the top 5 buckets (i am guessing: cardiovascular - chronic; diabetes; accidents; hospice; dialysis)

3. Facility expenses (rent, maintenance, utilities, other contractor)

4. Other

Without these, very hard to opine reasonably on the state of affairs. And to be fair, I suspect there is a reason why proper expense breakdowns are not available.
by paxys | 2025-12-03 21:01:23+00:00
All big corporate employees hate AI because it is incessantly pushed on them by clueless leadership and mostly makes their job harder. Seattle just happens to have a much larger percent of big tech employees than most other cities (>50% work for Microsoft or Amazon alone). In places like SF this gloom is balanced by the wide eyed optimism of employees of OpenAI, Anthropic, Nvidia, Google etc. and the thousands of startups piggybacking off of them hoping to make it big.
by grayhatter | 2025-12-03 21:01:27+00:00
I started working on srctree 2 years ago because of how awful github has become. I don't think there's much creativity in this trend line... But the question was; "why is insulting people doing intellectual work bad". Not, "do you think the changes at github are creative", but I do think that the changes require a bit of intellectual work, and that no matter how shitty github has become, it's unreasonable to attack people when unprovoked.
by banana423 | 2025-12-03 21:01:49+00:00
I am working on a project that asks the question: “How does technological accessibility form intangible boundaries?” As part of this research, I am planning to create a network-quality-based technological map of the city (“techno-cartography”) as an experimental case study.

The project aims to visualise the geographic boundaries produced by technological infrastructure and to make these boundaries perceptible to people in their everyday lives. Participants will reconstruct the network quality of their own locations onto the city map, generating a new kind of topography. Through this, users will be able to sensitively understand the technological strata they belong to, identify points of exclusion based on these metrics, and gain grounds to raise questions about structural inequalities. To design and implement this, I would like to ask for your expert advice on several points:

Which metrics should be collected to represent “network quality” as objectively as possible?

What would be a realistic methodology for crowdsourcing this data?

How can we reduce variation and bias in crowdsourced measurements?

What kinds of technical, physical, and ethical risks should I anticipate?

Other technical advice or open-source references

More technical details and full context are available on my GitHub.

https://github.com/banana42311/Technological-topography

If you're interested, please check the repository here thanks!
by skywhopper | 2025-12-03 21:01:50+00:00
How do you expect that to change? What is the next step in your mind? Maybe asking for donations? If only he would set up some way that the general public could contribute money to the project! That’d be the smart thing to do. Then he could write a blog post about it, and maybe someone would post a link to HN. That’d really be something.
by voxleone | 2025-12-03 21:01:54+00:00
My experience with groups and linear algebra is similar. I made real progress only after I got past the initial fear and intimidation, making a point of understanding those beautiful equations. Now I find myself agreeing with those who argue that mathematics education could profitably begin with sets and groups instead of numbers.

https://d1gesto.blogspot.com/2025/11/math-education-what-if-...
by Joker_vD | 2025-12-03 21:02:23+00:00
> Why not use same syntax for all architectures?

My question is more, why even try to use the same syntax for all architectures? I thought that was what GAS's approach was: that they took AT&T syntax, which historically was unified syntax for several PDPs (and some other ISA, I believe? VAX?) and they made it fit every other ISA they supported. Except apparently no, they didn't, they adopted the vendors' syntaxes for other ISAs but not for Intel's x86? Why? It just boggles my mind.
by jfalcon | 2025-12-03 21:02:28+00:00
I get the feeling that this is supposed to be about the economics of a fairly expensive city/state and that "six-figure salary", but you don't really call it out.

If it was about the technology, then it would be no different than being a java/c++ developer and calling someone who does html and javascript their equal so pay them. It's not.

People get anxious when something may cause them to have to change - especially in terms of economics and the pressures that puts on people beyond just "adulting". But I don't really think you explained the why of their anxiety.

Pointing the finger at AI is like telling the Germans that all their problems are because of Jews without calling out why the Germans are feeling pressure from their problems in the first place.
by dansalvato | 2025-12-03 21:02:43+00:00
From the last interview question in the article (pertaining to Arm):

> We don’t really try to steer the market one direction or another; we just want to make sure that good options are always supported.

Sounds like their priority is to support Steam on the hardware consumers are currently using. Given that, it makes sense they'd go Arm in the Steam Frame, because Fex alone is already a massive undertaking, and Snapdragon is a leading mobile chipset for performance and power efficiency.
by xpe | 2025-12-03 21:02:44+00:00
> I believe infrastructure of this kind should be stewarded by a mission-driven, non-commercial entity that prioritizes public benefit over private profit.

One of my pet peeves is people trotting out “I believe” statements. (Usually) I care much more about the evidence that backs the belief than the belief.

Putting aside my cantankerousness, I am glad Michael believes in setting up good incentives for the organization that will manage Ghostty. (But being glad right now doesn’t count for much.)

At a deeper level, my more precise complaint is people broadcasting “I believe” statements as if doing so should persuade us. It should not. “I believe” statements may often be personal and genuine, but they are so easily abused that perhaps they should be enumerated among the dark patterns of rhetoric.

(There are some ridiculous quote from the first episode of Silicon Valley by Mike Judge that pokes fun at the zealotry behind belief, but I can’t quote it off the top of my head.)

In the case of software projects with broad benefits that want continuity over a long period of time, I want to agree that the not-for-profit structure is a good choice and often than the alternatives. But I don’t know that this has been carefully studied.

My hunch would be there are stronger causal predictors such as governance mechanisms. Choosing an organization form is just step one. Smart governance, and long-term execution can only be shown with time.

Individuals with unaligned incentives will challenge any organization’s set of rules. In the same way that our immune system has to evolve over time to win, organizational rules at all levels have to evolve.

Also, I do think there’s a lot of opportunity for smarter legal structures after the machinations pulled by OpenAI.
by zimpenfish | 2025-12-03 21:02:57+00:00
I'm hoping they'll get around to supporting command-number for switching between windows[0]. command-` is fine but clunky as hell when you have more than three or four windows. Without command-number, I'm still stuck using iTerm2 as my daily driver.

(It'd be nice if it supported other standard macOS UI conventions[1] too)

[0] https://github.com/ghostty-org/ghostty/discussions/8131

[1] https://github.com/ghostty-org/ghostty/issues?q=is%3Aissue%2...
by _sinelaw_ | 2025-12-03 21:03:53+00:00
Thanks for reminding me. Unfortunately yes, it's because of v8 (for Deno).

For extensions, the choice was either TypeScript (and get this bloat) or go with Lua and a much smaller binary (but less popular language).

But - I just realized stripping it brings it down to 76MB so I guess that's ok! Will push a commit :)
by sleepybrett | 2025-12-03 21:04:06+00:00
'how much they do for the community' like trying to buy elections so we won't tax them, same thing boeing and microsoft did. Anytime out local government gets a little uppity suddenly these big corps are looking to move like boeing largely did. Remember Amazon HQ2, at least part of the reasoning behind that disaster was seattlites asking, 'what the hell is amazon doing for us besides driving up rents and snarling traffic?'

(.. and exactly how is boeing doing since it was forced to move away from 'engineering culture' by moving out of the city where their workforce was trained and training the next generation. Oh yeah planes are falling out of the sky and their software is pushing planes into the ground.)
by neilv | 2025-12-03 21:04:26+00:00
Sad. I've been buying Crucial as an attempt to avoid counterfeits, both buying direct and on eBay. Every DIMM and SSD from them has been perfect so far.

(ProTip: When you see 'Crucial'-labeled DIMMs with chips that don't have the Micron 'M' logo, I wouldn't buy that, or I would send it back.)
by throwout4110 | 2025-12-03 21:04:36+00:00
What would you imagine a plausible scenario would possibly be that your tools would be taken away or “collapse in functionality”? I would say Claude right now has probably made worse code and wasted time than if I had coded things myself, but it’s because this is like the first few hundred days of this. Open weight models are also worse but they will never go away and improve steadily as well. I am all for people doing whatever works for them I just don’t get the negativity or the skepticism when you look at the progress over what has been almost zero time. It’s crappy now in many respects but it’s like saying “my car is slow” in the one millisecond after I floor the gas pedal
by whoamiopa | 2025-12-03 21:05:12+00:00
Very new ex-MSFT here. I couldn’t relate more with your friend. That’s exactly what happened. I left Microsoft about 5 weeks ago and it’s been really hard to detox from that culture.

AI pushed down everywhere. Sometimes shitty-AI that needed to be proved at all cost because it should live up to the hype.

I was in one of such AI-orgs and even there several teams felt the pressure from SLT and a culture drift to a dysfunctional environment.

Such pressure to use AI at all costs, as other fellows from Google mentioned, has been a secret ingredient to a bitter burnout. I’m going to therapy and under medication now to recover from it.
by AngryData | 2025-12-03 21:05:53+00:00
That is what people always says about their current culture or economy or political system, even as they are on the very edge of systemic change. And quite frankly to me that just reads like an excuse to not do or try anything so people can kick the can down the road, benefiting themselves at the expense of many others both currently and in the future as things deteriorate further.
by Koffiepoeder | 2025-12-03 21:06:02+00:00
Mhm, this is one of these cases I'd prefer a benchmark to be sure. Checking %2 is very performant and actually just a single bit check. I can also imagine some cpu's having a special code path for %3. In practice I would not be surprised that the double operand is actually faster than the %6. I am mobile at this moment, so not able to verify.
by socalgal2 | 2025-12-03 21:06:05+00:00
> like Apple: a well-liked company that has an obvious and not inherently exploitive business model.

Apple does have an exploitive business model. Take 30% from every business that's not them. Apple is trying to own the entire world. They're quickly becoming the bank by offering Credit Cards and Savings. I'm sure once they get big enough they'll turn the screws and add more charges because no company will want to lose 50+% of their market. The only thing that will stop them is regulation. Apple is fully an exploitive company
by rconti | 2025-12-03 21:06:31+00:00
> If you haven’t had a mind blown moment with AI yet, you aren’t doing it right or are anchoring in what you know vs discovering new tech.

Or your job isn't what AI is good at?

AI seems really good at greenfield projects in well known languages or adding features.

It's been pretty awful, IME, at working with less well-known languages, or deep troubleshooting/tweaking of complex codebases.
by buildbot | 2025-12-03 21:06:36+00:00
Perhaps, I have yet to experience anything like what the older games had though.

It might just be the game too - I do think the auto aim is a bit high because I feel like I make aimbot like shots from time to time. And depending on the mode BF6 _wall hacks for you_ if there are players in an area outside of where they are supposed to be defending. I was pretty surprised to see a little red floating person overlay behind a wall.
by pdimitar | 2025-12-03 21:06:46+00:00
As a person who actively uses Elixir, Rust and Go (in that priority order) to me there is a maddening gap between Rust and Go.

While Go has the goroutines and they have made concurrent and parallel programming accessible to many, they are a rather raw material that's easy to abuse and use wrongly (leaks, deadlocks, and don't even get me started on writing to a closed channel -- instant panic and program abort).

Rust async is also too raw but in another way: gets wordy / verbose and too implementation-oriented way too quickly -- I never wanted to care about Pin<Box<???>> or what must this or that Future implement in order to be eligible for usage in `select` and whatnot. Those things should have been hidden behind a DSL much like `select` and `async` itself are a DSL / macros / state-machines of sorts. Rust's async just seems... I don't know... unfinished. Zero disrespect is intended (and I do recognize you by your username), I love Rust and I never pass an opportunity to whip up an internal CLI tool with it and my most consulting engagements have resulted in teams highly appreciating such tools, but I can't shake the feeling that Rust's async could be more... polished.

Both Rust's and Go's async mechanics leave me with the impression that somebody thought that they gave the devs enough LEGO building blocks and called it a day. I don't judge. I understand. But as a user of the languages I also have the right to find their async facilities less than ideal.

Erlang / Elixir / Gleam / LFE on the other hand stand on a runtime that has exhaustively analyzed a ton of async scenarios and cover them very well (minus stuff like filesystem operations being centralized through a singleton runtime agent, something you can opt out of, thankfully).

So I'd say both Rust and Go are ripe for either disruption or courageous backwards-incompatible modifications. Their async implementations simply did not go far enough.

And don't get me wrong, I love both and do my best to use them regularly. But it's a sad reality that their "unfinishedness" led to a plethora of footguns that became a badge of honor if you get to know most or all of them, as in: know how to avoid them. Which I don't know why many see as a desired state of affairs. Job security, I suppose.

I would kill for something as terse and explicit as Go but as super strict as Rust but that also has 100% finished async semantics, and has a faster compiler than Rust but optimizing as aggressively as it as well. Yeah, I know: what color do I like my dragon?

All that being said, Rust is the closest we have to a perfect language currently. And that's kind of sad because it has a few things that it really needs to fix if it wants to keep gaining mind-share. I personally find myself reluctant trying to build a career with it. But I'll not digress further.
by nosianu | 2025-12-03 21:07:00+00:00
> If you haven’t had a mind blown moment with AI yet, you aren’t doing it right

I AM very impressed, and I DO use it and enjoy the results.

The problem is the inconsistency. When it works it works great, but it is very noticeable that it is just a machine from how it behaves.

Again, I am VERY impressed by what was achieved. I even enjoy Google AI summaries to some of the questions I now enter instead of search terms. This is definitely a huge step up in tier compared to pre-AI.

But I'm already done getting used to what is possible now. Changes after that have been incremental, nice to have and I take them. I found a place for the tool, but if it wanted to match the hype another equally large step in actual intelligence is necessary, for the tool to truly be able to replace humans.

So, I think the reason you don't see more glowing reviews and praise is that the technical people have found out what it can do and can't, and are already using it where appropriate. It's just a tool though. One that has to be watched over when you use it, requiring attention. And it does not learn - I can teach a newbie and they will learn and improve, I can only tweak the AI with prompts, with varying success.

I think that by now I have developed a pretty good feel for what is possible. Changing my entire workflow to using it is simply not useful.

I am actually one of those not enjoying coding as such, but wanting "solutions", probably also because I now work for an IT-using normal company, not for one making an IT product, and my focus most days is on actually accomplishing business tasks.

I do enjoy being able to do some higher level descriptions and getting code for stuff without having to take care of all the gritty details. But this functionality is rudimentary. It IS a huge step, but still not nearly good enough to really be able to reliably delegate to the AI to the degree I want.
by bajp | 2025-12-03 21:07:32+00:00
In the 3rd december puzzle, B4's clue is:

Exactly 2 of the 3 innocents in column A are Iris's neighbor

A2, A4 (from clue B4), A5 (from clue A4) are innocent. Clue B4 implies A1 and A3 must be guilty because column A already has 3 innocents, however the game claims there is not enough evidence to mark these two as guilty.

Also,the game site talks about giving feedback but doesn't seem to have any contact info.
by disqard | 2025-12-03 21:08:26+00:00
From a certain perspective, these students are optimizing their Time, which is not an unwise strategy. If you've saved 3 hours by using an LLM, would it make sense to spend 1 hour checking those references by hand?

Of course, they're also cheating themselves out of an education, but few students have that Big Picture at their age.
by nradov | 2025-12-03 21:09:19+00:00
Physicians spend very little time directly dealing with insurance companies. They (or their employers) hire back office administrative staff for that. This is somewhat wasteful and inefficient but it doesn't directly impact the time that clinicians have available for patient care. Usually the physicians only have to get directly involved in rare peer-to-peer consults with health plans for complex cases that fall outside of normal clinical practice guidelines.
by pseudalopex | 2025-12-03 21:09:30+00:00
> Many necessary business analytics require tracking and aggregating the behavior of individual users.

Businesses existed before tracking individuals was practical. Wanting something does not make it necessary.

> Realistically, you want to know things like, how many users who looked at something made a purchase in the next 3 days? Is that going up or down after a recent change we made?

Metrics like this had little benefit sales did not in my experience. And tracking might be acceptable if it stopped there.