MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by 01HNNWZ0MV43FF | 2025-12-29 08:48:02+00:00
Continue with the previous config. If the config-loading function was fallible, and that bubbled up somewhere, someone might say, "Oh this can fail, we should do blue-green for configs the same as we do for exes." With it being infallible and a panic, that gets hidden.

If I was designing a language to surpass Rust, I'd make panics opt-in. I think Rust has a team looking into no-panic but it's a funny loophole for a language that wanted to eliminate crashes.
by Dilettante_ | 2025-12-29 08:48:32+00:00
I have given an example of something that I can prove, and you have failed to "easily" disprove it. Disappointing given the cockiness of your challenge.

And shortness in an argumentation is a mark of elegance, not of AI writing(which, just as an aside, is usually verbose? Where are you getting two-word replies from AIs?)
by littlecranky67 | 2025-12-29 08:48:40+00:00
> My dream would be that I can adb into my phone, install the .Net SDK or .Net Runtime (v 8 or 10) and have my applications run natively on Android

My understanding is that you can (almost) do that using MAUI (formerly known as Xamarin). You will not get a .Net SDK or Runtime, but the mono runtime. Since it is bundled in your app, you won't actually notice.
by brabel | 2025-12-29 08:49:11+00:00
That’s what I am saying: this is just utter bullshit that almost every other study disproves, as well as a quick check of the reality around the world! Hence why I suggested to read more on the topic.

Notice that the sentence you wrote says this is the reason people give. People are very unreliable when trying to explain their own behavior. People almost always say what they think is right not what they really feel. I suspect a lot of people don’t have kids because they are afraid of having ugly or stupid or sick children… would you say it out loud if that was the case for you? I am sure you would not and you would rationalize it as being about money somehow.
by BrandoElFollito | 2025-12-29 08:49:38+00:00
> Self-hosting has always been hard, and it's not getting easier.

Oh yes it is. I already self hosted stuff back in 2000 and it was very hard. Then came docker and it is very simple now.

Sure "very simple" mean different things to different people, but if you self host you need to know a lot already.

This is somehiw similar to amateur electronics. You used to do 100% yourself from scratch. Now you have boards and you can start in z much simpler way.
by torginus | 2025-12-29 08:49:59+00:00
I think you've unfortunately got suckered in by Unity marketing wholesale, and things would stand to be cleared up a bit.

Unity's whole shtick is that they make something horrible, then improve upon it marginally. The ground reality is that these performance enhancement schemes still fall very much short of just doing the basic sensible thing - using CoreCLR for most code, and writing C++ for the truly perf critical parts.

IL2Cpp is a horror-kludge of generated code, that generates low-quality C++ code from .NET IL, relying on the opitmizing compiler to extract decent performance out of it.

You can check it out: https://unity.com/blog/engine-platform/il2cpp-internals-a-to...

The resulting code gives up every possible convenience of C# (compile speed, convenience, debuggability), while falling well short of even modern .NET on performance.

The Burst compiler/HPC# plays on every meme perpetuated by modern gamedev culture (structure-of-arrays, ECS), but performance wise, generally still falls short of competently, but naively written C++ or even sometimes .NET C#. (Though tbf, most naive CoreCLR C# code is like 70-80% the speed of hyper-optimized Burst)

These technologies needless to say, are entirely proprietary, and require you to architect your code entirely their paradigms, use proprietary non-free libraries that make it unusable outside unity, and other nasty side effects.

This whole snakeoil salesmanship is enabled by these cooked Unity benchmarks that always compare performance to the (very slow) baseline Mono, not modern C# or C++ compilers.

These are well-established facts, benchmarked time and time again, but Unity marketing somehow still manages to spread the narrative of their special sauce compilers somehow being technically superior.

But it seems the truth has been catching up to them, and even they realized they have to embrace CoreCLR - which is coming soonTM in Unity. I think it's going to be a fun conversation when people realize that their regular Unity code using CoreCLR runs just as fast or faster than the kludgey stuff they spent 3 times as much time writing, that Unity has been pushing for more than a decade as the future of the engine.
by crapple8430 | 2025-12-29 08:50:22+00:00
A powerful enough machine (usually limited by RAM, not CPU) will let you run a hypervisor OS like Proxmox which helps a lot with making things secure and flexible. You might also want to have RAID, ECC memory. It quickly starts to make sense to build a proper home server rather than cobbling together a bunch of low end hardware. The tipping point is probably when you want more than 1-2 hard drives worth of storage.
by maxglute | 2025-12-29 08:51:11+00:00
They transitioned to hypersonic development after US withdrew from ABM treaty in early 2000s, historically moving to hypersonic was not reaction to US having a working shield (it didn't), it was more proactive move demonstrate US pursuing missile shield is likely not ever going to be viable. It took another 15+ years for US ABM tests to consistently intercept ballistics, and even then under very favourable (scripted), not operational conditions, i.e. FTM44 in 2020 was first time US intercepted an "ICBM representative" target. Current US ABM defense #s is not remotely credible threat vs salvo medium/high end ballistics, i.e. current US has ~50 GMDs, it functionally doesn't matter for strategic level exchanges.

For theatre/tactical performance, again early Kinzhal was functionally ballistic and interception rate was ~25%, dropped to 6% when RU added some terminal maneuvering. So US has not only not caught up to ABM defense outside of North Korea tier threats, ABM defense currently on trend to lose the physics race (against capable adversaries). There are fundamental physical reason high end hypersonics will likely only extend the interception gap. The TLDR is terminal speed past mach 6+, the intercept window compresses so much it becomes almost mechanically impossible for interceptors, i.e. g-load on interceptors will physically break them apart. Kinzhal (which US/PRC categorize as ballistic tier) terminal is ~mach4, PRC DFs (US categorize as proper hypersonic) are estimated to sustain mach 5-10, i.e. high machs until final seconds, basically physically impossible engagement envelopes. DEW doesn't have dwell time vs hypersonic already shielded against plasma sheath. Current golden shield bet is on glide phase interceptors, which doesn't really answer magazine math, i.e. multiple expensive interceptors (especially midcourse) is going to lose the attrition game regardless, maybe not vs smaller adversaries, but vs PRC. Extra lopsided in context of naval defense with limited magazine depth where it's not even about $$$ but inability to defend against saturation.
by threethirtytwo | 2025-12-29 08:52:10+00:00
Let me restate the claim in plain terms, because the disagreement is not about evidence, it’s about what is being compared.

If you take the same language and change only one thing by adding sound static type checking, the resulting system is strictly more reliable in the sense that it can fail in fewer ways at runtime. That statement is not empirical, probabilistic, or sociological. It follows directly from the definitions.

This is not a claim that statically typed programs are more correct, smarter, or more likely to produce the right answers. Logical errors exist equally in both systems. Static typing does not prevent bad algorithms. That entire line of argument is orthogonal and does not touch the claim being made.

The comparison is deliberately narrow and controlled. Hold everything constant: runtime, semantics, memory model, expressiveness, libraries. Change only one thing: add static type checking. Once you do this, all other dimensions disappear by construction. There is literally nothing left to compare except runtime failure behavior.

Under that transformation, something very simple happens. Any program that executes successfully in the statically typed variant also executes successfully in the dynamic one. But there exist programs that execute in the dynamic variant and fail at runtime due to type errors that cannot be executed at all in the statically typed variant. Those failures are removed from the set of possible outcomes. That is exactly what static typing means.

This is a set inclusion argument, not a statistical one. The set of possible runtime failure states in the statically typed system is a strict subset of the failure states in the dynamically typed system. No infinities need to be compared. No random sampling over “all programs” is required. No assumptions about developer skill, time pressure, or real-world workflows are involved. It is a property of the language definition itself.

Redefining “reliability” does not escape this conclusion. If reliability is expanded to include things like readability, velocity, team discipline, or development process, those factors are already equalized away by holding the language constant. They cannot distinguish the two systems because they are identical by assumption. Once everything except typing is fixed, the only remaining difference is how many ways the program can fail at runtime. At that point, reliability reduces to failure count whether one likes that framing or not, because there is literally nothing else left to compare.

So the claim that “there’s no hard evidence” or that this is “just vibes” is simply misplaced. No empirical evidence is needed because no empirical claim is being made. This is a deductive statement about failure modes. Between two otherwise identical systems, the one that admits fewer runtime failure states is more reliable. That conclusion is not controversial, and it is not optional. It follows directly from the setup.
Show HN: ProfileHunt – Portfolio builder for product managers
by srinivas3651 | 2025-12-29 08:52:42+00:00
Hi HN! I built ProfileHunt (https://profilehunt.in/), a portfolio builder specifically designed for product managers.

The Problem

Breaking into product management is notoriously difficult, especially for career switchers. Unlike designers or developers who can showcase visual work or code, PMs struggle to demonstrate their skills tangibly. Traditional resumes don't capture the full scope of product thinking, problem-solving approaches, or impact metrics that define great product work.
Most PMs end up using generic website builders (Notion, Squarespace, Wix) that aren't tailored to showcase PM-specific artifacts like PRDs, roadmaps, product teardowns, or impact metrics. The result? Portfolios that feel generic and fail to tell the compelling story hiring managers want to see.

What ProfileHunt Does

ProfileHunt helps product managers create portfolios that actually showcase what makes them great at the role:

PM-focused templates: Structured sections for case studies, product teardowns, metrics dashboards, and project summaries

Easy storytelling: Guided frameworks to articulate your product thinking process - from problem identification to solution prioritization

Professional presentation: Clean, modern designs that make your work stand out without overwhelming visitors
Quick setup: Get a professional portfolio up in minutes, not days

Why I Built This

After helping several friends transition into PM roles, I noticed they all struggled with the same thing: presenting their work in a way that resonated with hiring managers. They'd spend weeks wrestling with Notion pages or building custom sites from scratch, when they should have been focusing on the content itself.
I wanted to remove that friction and give aspiring and experienced PMs alike a tool that understands what hiring managers are looking for in a PM portfolio.

What's Next
I'm working on adding more features like:

Portfolio analytics (see who's viewing your work)
Integration with product management tools
Collaborative feedback features
More industry-specific templates

Would love to hear what the HN community thinks! Are there specific features you'd find valuable as a PM or hiring manager? What would make this more useful for your product management journey?
Try it out at https://profilehunt.in/ and let me know your thoughts!

here is a sample profile https://profilehunt.in/p/sarah-chen
by TheOtherHobbes | 2025-12-29 08:53:04+00:00
Cynical take - if you know you're lying, that's not optimism, that's cynical manipulation.

A lot of people missing that cynicism isn't the same as sneering grumpiness.

You can be perfectly pleasant and charming while being utterly cynical about how you approach professional relationships.

This is a problem with at least two axes. The cynicism part relies on accurately calibrating the distance between official narratives and reality.

If you're a pessimist, you overshoot. An optimist undershoots. A realist gets it more or less right.

But if the distance is huge, that automatically makes the realist a cynic, because the reality is a lie, and in most orgs failing to take false narratives at face value is considered dissidence.

The strategic part depends on how you handle that. You can be sneering and negative, you can play the game with a fake smile and an eye for opportunity, or you can aim for neutrality and a certain amount of distance.

Sneering negativity is usually the least effective option, even when it's the most honest.

A realist in a functional organisation won't be cynical at all.
by fruitworks | 2025-12-29 08:54:04+00:00
The UK isn't a shining example of public discourse. It's not even a country anymore. It's a museum.

Also, you endorse acts against "religious and homophobic hatred" which is a dogwhistle for islamaphobic rhetoric so I think you should be investigated for hate speech and have your bank accounts frozen and you should get fired from your job.
by wltr | 2025-12-29 08:54:46+00:00
Hey, but what’s up with DDR3?

> Even old hardware isn't safe: DDR4 prices are also affected, so that tiny ThinkCentre M720 won't save us.

Most of my home infrastructure is DDR2 or DDR3. It’s plenty fast for quite a lot of things. I really don’t care whether some background operation takes five minutes or an hour. I rather care how little energy and heat that machine produces.
by atraac | 2025-12-29 08:55:03+00:00
I write mostly backend stuff for a living, big chunk of it in Node/TS but also C# with modern .NET. I also have to dabble with Unity and Unreal both for work and a hobby project. I technically learned C++ in uni but really, I hate every single second I have to spend doing Unreal Engine work. I genuinely despise how obsolete and hard to write C++ is compared to modern languages. It didn't bother me in university because that was all I knew at the time but it's hard to justify existence of header files today. Add macros everywhere, really bad compilation errors, really hard to read syntax with a lot of unnecessary bloat and you get something that is just not likable. I'm sure you can get used to it given enough time spent in that ecosystem, but I can tell you as someone writing 4 different languages on day to day basis, C++ is difficult, and it's not because of pointers.
by pjmlp | 2025-12-29 08:55:27+00:00
If you mean due to lack of C++ for doing GUIs, Google and Microsoft have also long left C++ to the dust, in what concerns GUI frameworks.

Even Microsoft, for all its C++ use, has never produced anything better than MFC to this day, and only Windows team cares about XAML C++, others rather use React Native or Webview2 alongside C++.

It is up to third parties to use frameworks like Qt.
by bob1029 | 2025-12-29 08:56:00+00:00
The entire point of the incremental GC is to preserve frame latency budget at the expense of raw throughput. If you can guarantee <16ms frames, I'll work with whatever you can give me.

If your game is allocating so quickly that the incremental GC can't keep up, I would argue that solving this with a "faster" GC is just taking you further into hell.
by GuB-42 | 2025-12-29 08:56:28+00:00
I think it is the result of specs like RAM and CPU no longer being the selling point it once was, except for gaming PCs. Instead people want thin laptops, good battery life, nice screens, premium materials, etc... We have got to the point where RAM and CPU are no longer a limiting factor for most tasks, or at least until software become bloated enough to matter again.

If you want a powerful laptop for cheap, get a gaming PC. The build quality and battery life probably won't be great, but you can't be cheap without making compromises.

Same idea for budget mobiles. A Snapdragon Gen 6 (or something by Mediatek) with UFS2.2 is more than what most people need.
by aubanel | 2025-12-29 08:56:40+00:00
I'd advise you take a look at some of Musk's companies:
- Tesla is the top seller of EVs in the US, beating century-old companies.
- SpaceX has left public institutions like NASA and ESA in the dust despite their vastly bigger budgets
- Although it joined late, xAI is now firmly in the top 4 of AI companies worldwide (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, xAI)

What's the common element between these successes?
by karel-3d | 2025-12-29 08:56:52+00:00
Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46403200

but I think the presentation is somehow a better summary

edit: somehow all the previous links were not showing up for me, now they are. Can close this as a dupe.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46409998

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46406026
by koito17 | 2025-12-29 08:57:38+00:00
This is what I find a bit alarming, too. My M3 Max MacBook Pro takes 2 full seconds to boot Slack, a program that used to literally be an IRC client. Many people still believe client-side compute is cheap and worrying about it is premature optimization.

Of course, some performance-focused software (e.g. Zed) does start near-instantly on my MacBook, and it makes other software feel sluggish in comparison. But this is the exception, not the rule.

Even as specs regress, I don't think most people in software will care about performance. In my experience, product managers never act on the occasional "[X part of an app] feels clunky" feedback from clients. I don't expect that to change in the near future.
by JuniperMesos | 2025-12-29 08:59:16+00:00
> Putin and Khamenei are ruthless, brutal dictators. You don’t need to like Starmer, but he’s none of that. He’s a proper democrat. The implication that they’re all somewhat the same delegitimises democracies and legitimises these dictators. That’s how they win.

Someone who is a citizen of the UK who has no connection to Iran or Russia is legitimately much more concerned with the ways in which Starmer governs the UK, than in whether Putin or Khamenei "win". I don't even disagree with you that Putin and Khamenei are ruthless dictators, and certainly plenty of people in Russia or Iran or countries in the Russian or Iranians sphere of influence have plenty of good reasons to politically oppose both those dictators. But a democratically-elected official can wield the power of the state against you and harm your interests just as much as a dictator can, and people in the UK who oppose Starmer and his party shouldn't let up in that opposition just because it makes Starmer seem closer to Putin or Khamenei than Starmer's supporters would like.
by pjmlp | 2025-12-29 08:59:17+00:00
Most of the laptop vendors, with their pre-installed Windows, alongside OEMs differentiation customisations.

Android tablets with detachable keyboards.

Chromebooks as well.

The only PCs left with customisation are those aquariums full of rainbows, built by gamers.

In mainstream of course, then there all those little brands that only HN like audiences care that they exist.
by adrian_b | 2025-12-29 09:00:02+00:00
The so-called elementary particles, which are divided into leptons and hadrons, are all "achromatic", i.e. the color charge is null for the whole particle.

While the leptons may be considered as truly elementary, at least in the current state of knowledge, the hadrons are composed of quarks, and the quarks have non-null color charge.

At present there is no hope of being able to produce any particle where quarks are separated, i.e. any particle with non-null total color charge, because when the distance between quarks increases the attraction force between them also increases (like they would have been bound by an elastic spring), until the force becomes high enough so that a pair quark-antiquark is generated, so the original hadron may split into 2 hadrons, both of which have null color charge and no free quarks can be produced (e.g. the quark initially being pulled apart is split away, but it takes with it the antiquark newly generated, forming a meson particle instead of a free quark).

Therefore, because neither free quarks nor combinations of quarks where the color charge is non-null can be produced, no "quarkish" elements can exist.

Nevertheless, while the normal chemical elements have nuclei composed of nucleons, i.e. protons and neutrons, it is possible to have nuclei composed of other hadrons, i.e. nuclei where besides protons or neutrons there are one or more of the so-called hyperons, which have a similar structure to nucleons, but which contain some heavier quarks than the u and d quarks that compose nucleons.

However, all hyperons have an extremely short half-life, much shorter than a second, so if such an exotic element containing hyperons in its nucleus were formed due to a very unlikely sequence of collisions between particles with very high energy, it would decay extremely quickly.

At the huge scale of the Universe, even extremely unlikely events may happen somewhere, so perhaps a few atoms of such hyperonic chemical elements have a transient existence somewhere, but their quantity must be truly negligible.

The only possible exception might be in extremely high gravitational fields, i.e. inside neutron stars and black holes, where there may be a chance that such hyperons could become stable due to the extreme pressure, but we do not really know the possible structure of matter in such conditions and in any case at such pressures there would be no chemical elements in the normal sense, as there would be no free electrons.
by apexalpha | 2025-12-29 09:00:19+00:00
If you run everything on Linux you don't need VMs.

What are you putting in the VM, another Linux kernel? Why? Yeah then you need to take into account between 4GB and ~ 8GB of extra ram per VM.

I don't have RAID though I do backup to my NAS at my parents'.

But honestly a NVMe drive is basically like a CPU: it's either dead on arrival or it will just run forever.
by zdc1 | 2025-12-29 09:01:27+00:00
Thankfully we're at a stage where a 4 year old second-hand iPhone is perfectly usable, as are any M-series Macs or most Linux laptops. Sucks for anyone needing something particularly beefy for work; but I feel that a lot of purchases can be delayed for at least a year or two while this plays out.