MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by praptak | 2025-12-03 09:57:41+00:00
I disagree about innovation in automation creating a contradiction in LTV. LTV states that the exchange-value of goods is determined by the socially necessary amount of labor needed to produce them. Automation only means that the socially necessary amount of labor changes, so the exchange-value changes too.

Also in Marx theories exchange-value is something different than use-value, the latter being unaffected by automation.
by sepisoad | 2025-12-03 09:57:55+00:00
I totally agree, Microsoft is ruining everything with AI, like all Microsoft product have been on decline for years even before the LLM era, and now they are on an even steeper decline.

it makes me sad to see that github is now going through the same shit, and people are using other random half-ass alternatives, it’s not easy to keep track of your favourite open-source projects across many source forgeries. we need someone to buy github from Microsoft and remove all the crap they have added to it.
by gaigalas | 2025-12-03 09:58:10+00:00
> So frustrating that Github doesn't support such an obvious workflow.

It kind of does.

I used this a lot in several jobs to work in dependent tickets in advance. Just make another branch on top of the previous (a PR to the other PR branch).

People could review the child PR before the parent was merged. And it requires some less than trivial git knowledge to manage effectively, but nothing extraordinary. Any solution for stacked PRs based on git would also require it (or a custom tool).

I think I'm on their side on this one. From git perspective, it works just as I expect. Something else probably belongs to JIRA or project management instead.
by zaphirplane | 2025-12-03 09:58:18+00:00
The idea that a company DNA somehow lives over 100 years and maintains the same track record is far fetched.

that the OpenAI tech bro are investing in AI using a grown up ROI is similarly far fetched, they are burning money to pull ahead of the reset and assume the world will be in the palm of the winner and there is only 1 winner. Will the investment pay off if there are 3 neck and neck companies ?
by arp242 | 2025-12-03 09:59:07+00:00
A lot could probably be done with a simple "a person 1.80m in length must be able to see a 50cm high object 1 metre in front of the car" or something like that. Just making up numbers here and don't know what would be reasonable, but it seems this doesn't need to be that hard?

Weight also matters of course. Hopefully this relatively simple ruling will fix some of that too.
by gpderetta | 2025-12-03 09:59:10+00:00
The essence of the sender/receiver proposal is essentially this: - first start with a sync function

result_t foo(params_t); ... auto result = foo(params);

- make it async by adding a continuation:

void async_foo(params_t params, invokable<result_t> cont) { cont(foo(params)); }; ... invokable<result_t> auot receiver= [](result_t result) {...}; async_foo(params, receiver);

- then curry it:

auto curried_async_foo(params_t params) { return [params](invokable<result_t> cont) { async_foo(params, cont); };} ... auto op = curried_async_foo(params); op(receiver);

- finally modify the curried variant to add another required evaluation round:

auto foo_sender(param_t params) { return [params](invokable<result_t> cont) { return [params, cont]{ async_foo(params, cont); };};} ... auto sender = foo_sender(params); auto operation = sender(receiver); operation();

The actual library uses structures with named methods instead of callables (so you would do operation.start() for example), plus a separate continuation for the error path (by having the receiver concept implement two named functions), and cancellation support. Also the final operation is required to be address stable until it is completed.

The complexity is of course in the details, and I didn't fully appreciate it until I tried to implement a stripped down version of the model (and I'm sure I'm still missing a lot).

The model does work very well with coroutines and can avoid or defer a lot of the expected memory allocations of async operations.
by mothballed | 2025-12-03 09:59:27+00:00
No tax I've seen is anywhere remotely close to following "fourth power law" on axle weight[]. And especially so for gas taxes, as the gas/diesel cost tends to be closer to linear with weight.

Usually what happens is smaller cars subsidize everyone else due to paying a disproportionate tax vs axle weight^~(2-4 depending on fatigue pathway). Depending on tax structure possibly pedestrians/cyclists too but they are usually parasitic on tax basis.

[] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
by kouteiheika | 2025-12-03 09:59:35+00:00
> I guess designing a font for a language with 2100 different characters is probably a hassle.

The ~2000 is the official count taught in schools, but the actually "commonly" used number in literature is around ~3000. And you actually want more than that, because people's names can use weird kanji which are used nowhere else.

On the other hand, the vast majority of kanji are actually composed of a limited set of "subcharacters". For example, picking a completely random one:

徧 ⿰彳扁

The '徧' is composed of '彳' and '扁' arranged in a horizontal pattern. Unicode even has special characters (⿰,⿱,⿶, etc.) to describe these relationships.

So this actually makes creating a CJK font somewhat easier, because you can do it semi-algorithmically. You don't have to manually draw however many thousand characters there are, but you draw those "subcharacters" and then compose them together.
by nkoren | 2025-12-03 10:00:05+00:00
Eh, they got further than New Glenn did on its first attempt, and it succeeded on its second. They obviously made it through re-entry / retropropulsion in one piece and with a stable attitude, which is an achievement in itself. Looks like an engine exploded at the start of the braking burn -- or in any case, they suddenly start combusting a whole lot of stuff that isn't methane. But that might just be a single point failure, and a whole lot had to go right for them to get this far. It's reasonable that they could succeed on their next attempt.
by b112 | 2025-12-03 10:00:10+00:00
Both Microsoft and Google seem to do it just fine

I routinely get between 5 and 10 duplicates of DMARC reports from Google for gmail. Searching on this, it's a known phenomenon. No one else has this issue. I don't get dupes from outlook.com, hotmail, yahoo, etc, etc.

But it's Google. Fairly typical for their modern quality control and engineering practices. I view them as a little like when Volkswagen stopped being run by engineers, and instead by accountants.
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-12-03 10:00:22+00:00
COVID happened in the year of the discontinuity and caused major changes to commuting behavior as a result of remote work, people afraid of infection avoided mass transit, many people moved out of cities or lost their jobs, people bought cars who didn't used to drive and now there are more new/inexperienced drivers with cars (and it's easier to get a license in the US than Europe), etc.

Also, the numbers for at least the US are apparently just wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...

1.27 fatalities per 100M VMT in 2023 (the latest year with data), 1.11 in 2010, that's a difference of 14%, not 30%. Even the peak during COVID was only 24% above 2010. The only way I can see to get 30% is to use the during-COVID number for only the total number of motor vehicle fatalities without accounting for population growth or vehicle miles traveled, which is not a great metric for making comparisons.
by lbreakjai | 2025-12-03 10:00:44+00:00
I drive a 2014 Ford Fiesta. Every car feels huge in comparison. I had a Nissan Qashqai parked next to my car, it looked like a tank. I had a look inside, it didn't seem particularly spacious.

Same when I flew to Bilbao. I booked late, the only rentals left were in the luxury segment. I drove off in a mild-hybrid Lexus NX, where I struggled to fit the luggage that fit reasonably well in the boot of my car on the way to Schiphol.
by Glemkloksdjf | 2025-12-03 10:01:44+00:00
You are just an info broker and not in it.

I helped a collegue to migrate to germany, your job can easily be optimized away by an LLM.

Biggest issue he had was communication/translations. Second one was finding the right information.

Try perplexity and it will find good resources. Make pictures and use google lense for translation. Talk to ChatGPT to get explanaitions on how things work in germany.

I also have no clue what you mean by 'connections and infrastructure'. You know the number of some Ausländerbehördenmitarbeiter?
by quietbritishjim | 2025-12-03 10:02:40+00:00
How many articles on this topic do we imagine there are? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? It is hopeless to read every one by any author, no matter how unrelated to the domain, and judge them individually on their merits. Being a subject domain expert is not a perfect measure of paper quality but it's the only feasible way to make a first pass at filtering.

Even if I did read it, I have no hope of understanding if it has made a fundamental mistake because I don't have the subject matter expertise either.

(I imagine it has made a fundamental mistake anyway: for LLMs to be useful progress toward AGI they don't have to be a feasible way to create AGI by themselves. Innovation very often involves stepping through technologies that end up only being a component of the final solution, or inspiration for the final solution. This was always going to be an issue with trying to prove a negative.)
by liampulles | 2025-12-03 10:02:55+00:00
The main function of GitHub is really just advertising or at least broadcasting your work. I would use GitHub issues, stars, etc as an (imperfect gauge) of the quality of a library. This is not because of GitHub's features, just that it's the biggest and most well known. And yes I know buying stars is a thing, which is why it's part of the evaluation and not the whole ballgame.

Now that zig is fairly well known and trusted, it makes sense that this is less of a concern for them when migrating away.
by stokedmind | 2025-12-03 10:03:01+00:00
As an American living in the Netherlands with a larger family (especially by EU standards, with 4 children!), I think I see a slightly different perspective.

Here, owning a car is extremely expensive - perhaps one of the most expensive in Europe. This price goes up considerably when you get a larger vehicle, both because fuel costs are very high but also because you are taxed quarterly for CO2/weight of the vehicle.

With a larger family, you are squeezed into an uncomfortable position since you are outside of the <= 2 child norm. Many 7+ seater vehicles (French cars, etc) are extremely impractical to the point of me thinking that they are not actually designed for more than 5 seats in use, as there is comically low cargo room and the 3rd row is extremely cramped (try fitting a stroller or anything besides people...ha!).

I ended up picking up a Chrysler Town & Country import from the USA for my family, because it was the only vehicle that I could find for a reasonable price that checked all of the boxes, and am paying dearly for it (400+ euros every quarter just to have the privilege of registering it!).

Before you say anything about us having a "kindercrusher" we also have 2 bakfiets cargo bikes and use them regularly, but public transit and bikes don't scale well to large families for anything more than a short distance ride (school, groceries, etc).

Large families are being squeezed out of existence here.
by decimalenough | 2025-12-03 10:03:04+00:00
Has anybody ever actually implemented an algorithmically composed kanji font? Because it seems like a hugely complicated undertaking. There are rules of thumb for how characters are composed, but getting something aesthetically pleasing out of the end result is more an art than a science. Even Korean Hangul, which is way simpler, has all sorts of funky kerning rules.
by sevenseacat | 2025-12-03 10:03:20+00:00
That feels like the opposite of what I think stacked PRs are? Like someone will open PR #1 for one feature, and then PR #2 into the PR #1 branch, but it doesn't make sense without knowing the context of PR #1 so that gets reviewed first - and then when that PR gets merged, the second one gets automatically closed by GitHub?
by g-b-r | 2025-12-03 10:03:59+00:00
> "Some homemade encryption" is not what I was suggesting at all. E.g. encrypted-at-the-source (client side) AWS files are still sent over TLS as an encrypted blob within an encrypted blob but remain encrypted past the TLS boundary.

They need to analyse the data; adding layers of encryption, thus, could only improve security if the keys for the inner encryptions are better protected than the server's TLS private key.

Which would honestly, actually, likely to be the case, but it would probably be a modest improvement
by calebio | 2025-12-03 10:04:52+00:00
It wasn't coined, it was reused. It historically meant things that were encrypted from the client to the server, e.g. SSH, SSL, TLS, etc.

RFC 4949 (Internet Security Glossary, Version 2) from 2007: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4949

$ end-to-end encryption (I) Continuous protection of data that flows between two points in a network, effected by encrypting data when it leaves its source, keeping it encrypted while it passes through any intermediate computers (such as routers), and decrypting it only when it arrives at the intended final destination. (See: wiretapping. Compare: link encryption.) Examples: A few are BLACKER, CANEWARE, IPLI, IPsec, PLI, SDNS, SILS, SSH, SSL, TLS. Tutorial: When two points are separated by multiple communication links that are connected by one or more intermediate relays, end- to-end encryption enables the source and destination systems to protect their communications without depending on the intermediate systems to provide the protection.

There's a bunch of older references as well. Since SSL/TLS wasn't really adopted by a lot of services until 2008+ usages of it are mainly in papers, old forum posts, etc. I saw it used and was discussing it back in the day on IRC with folks who were way more knowledgeable than me on this topic and had been in the trenches for a while :D
by n8cpdx | 2025-12-03 10:05:11+00:00
The 5% number is fudged, much of the increase over 2% comes from civic infrastructure investment. They’re fluffing the numbers.

Most EU defense spending isn’t on US equipment (only ~35%); I don’t get where the European victim mentality is coming from here - Europe can and is building up its own defense industry.

There’s some Trump nonsense more recently about buy American, but the demands to take security seriously have been going on for nearly 20 years, and have been largely ignored until Ukraine round two.
by witheredspirit | 2025-12-03 10:05:28+00:00
The 5% GDP deadline is 2035. The 2% by 2024 was met. Not even the US spends 5% of their GDP on defense. Again as I've stated, it's been criticized as a bad goal to use this metric. In actuality, people who push the narrative that Europe is being bankrolled by the US will never be satisfied by any percentage.
by b112 | 2025-12-03 10:07:09+00:00
SHOULD is not MUST. These capitalized terms are have very specific meanings in RFCs, see RFC https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2119. SHOULD is:

3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

MUST is a requirement. You left out the "however" part:

In general, the retry interval SHOULD be at least 30 minutes; however, more sophisticated and variable strategies will be beneficial when the SMTP client can determine the reason for non-delivery.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a fine tuned backoff. I am not saying the specific backoff discussed by GP is best, merely that 30 minutes is absolutely not a requirement, and in fact, discussed in tandem with the fact that "more sophisticated strategies" are actually beneficial.

The RFC does not agree with you. Partially quoted as you have, does not help.
by nromiun | 2025-12-03 10:07:23+00:00
That is surprising. It is the opposite for me.

$ time curl -L 'https://codeberg.org/' real 0m3.063s user 0m0.060s sys 0m0.044s $ time curl -L 'https://github.com/' real 0m1.357s user 0m0.077s sys 0m0.096s
by kelnos | 2025-12-03 10:07:24+00:00
We can cherry-pick blunders made by any big company to make a point. Maybe it would be more honest to also list companies IBM passed on that turned out to be rubbish? And all the technologies that IBM did invest in that made them a ton of money and became industry standards?[0]

Today, Xerox has less total revenue than IBM has profit. DEC went out of business 27 years ago. Apple is an in astoundingly great place right now, but Jobs got kicked out of his own company, and then returned when it was about to fail, having to take investment from Microsoft(!) in order to stay afloat.

Meanwhile, IBM is still here, making money hand over fist. We might not have a ton of respect for them, being mostly a consulting services company these days, but they're doing just fine.

[0] As another commenter points out: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46131245
by johnnyanmac | 2025-12-03 10:07:25+00:00
>. We are noticing hitting a wall to a certain point with clients still wanting to talk to a real person, but I can see that changing in the next ~5 years

I don't know. if we simply defer talks to LLM's, then companies will take out the middlemen. which means less clients. We'll have our own little filter bubbble of tech where everyone is talking to their black box to try and push out their ideas instead of within the industry.

Not exactly an industry I want to be in. But I don't think it'll get to that point.
by krmani | 2025-12-03 10:07:36+00:00
Anki flashcards for NeetCode 150 problems with LeetCode questions and NeetCode solutions

Features

- 150 LeetCode Problems: Organized by topic from NeetCode's curated list

- Detailed Solutions: NeetCode video explanations embedded in cards

- Code Editor: Interactive Python code editor powered by Pyodide (runs in Anki)

- Premium Problems: Includes some LeetCode Premium questions from community sources

- Organized Decks: Questions grouped into topic-based subdecks
by hurfdurf | 2025-12-03 10:07:38+00:00
>The Cupertino, California-based tech giant collected 85% of operating profit and 48% of revenue from smartphone sales over the course of the year. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-03/iphone-gr...

>However, it outperformed a struggling smartphone market in terms of shipment, revenue and operating profit growth, in turn achieving its highest-ever shares of 18%, 48% and 85% in these metrics respectively, in 2022.

https://counterpointresearch.com/en/insights/2022-global-sma...

Almost three year old numbers, but not all that much should have changed since then.
by SequoiaHope | 2025-12-03 10:07:52+00:00
I intentionally described policies which are already common practice in most European countries, nothing extravagant. Yes there is some cost but the alternative is deep human suffering which is otherwise avoidable.

But this isn’t really “giving them” anything. It’s giving ourselves safety and security.

It wouldn’t make sense to give you a car. We would give you a working train system instead. Again this is common in Europe and Asia. Indeed every person is “given” access to a high quality transit network with affordable tickets.

To be clear, I personally am an anarcho communist. I think we would be better off if we organized to ensure every person has their basic needs met by the established wealth of society. That isn’t all that dramatic - making sure everyone can ride high quality trains and get medical care when they need it are common in most countries for example.

For housing, I really like the Vienna model:

https://socialhousing.wien/policy/the-vienna-model

For food, follow the Sikhs:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46126736

Consider the Linux ecosystem. “Give them everything and expect nothing” works fine despite the great effort which goes in to building and maintaining that system. We can study the economics of this and build more systems like that.
by ahartmetz | 2025-12-03 10:08:41+00:00
> The other way to look at it is that the entire consulting industry is teetering on catastrophe

Oh? Where'd you get that information?

If you mean because of AI, it doesn't seem to apply much to IBM. They are probably not great at what they do like most such companies, but they are respectable and can take the blame if something goes wrong. AI doesn't have these properties.
by austin-cheney | 2025-12-03 10:09:11+00:00
It’s not that people from 10, 15, 20 years ago were smarter. It’s that they were expected to do more. The business goal, even then, was not higher quality output but was commoditization of hiring/firing and this has been fulfilled more efficiently over time. Title inflation is often the result of retention, which is another aspect of hiring/firing.
by citrin_ru | 2025-12-03 10:10:34+00:00
> Juniors take a lot of training and time and aren't very productive, but their salaries are actually not reflective of that

In the current economic situation you can offer a junior 2x may be even 3x less and still get candidates to choose from.

Also there juniors who are ready to compensate for lack of experience by working longer hours (though that's not something you would learn during hiring).

> The first few months at your first job you're probably a net loss in productivity.

It's true for a senior too, each company is different and it takes time to learn company's specific stuff.
by iggldiggl | 2025-12-03 10:10:42+00:00
The problem is that this breaks down if you don't want to leak any obscure subdomains you might be using via CT-logs – shared hosting rarely supports DNS-based certificate renewals for wildcard certificates, and even less so for domains hosted by an external registrar.

(Even for a fully self-hosted system you'd still have to figure out how to interface the certificate renewal mechanism with your DNS provider, so not as easy to set up as individual certificates for each subdomain.)
by lrvick | 2025-12-03 10:11:13+00:00
So basically some idiot company connected toilets with cameras to the internet claiming the media collected of peoples "ends" was end to end encrypted. Except, it wasn't.

These compromised toilets could be easily used to exfiltrate compromising videos of exfiltrations.

The toilets leak pictures of people taking leaks.

The internet really is going to shit.
by redbell | 2025-12-03 10:11:31+00:00
The current situation of OpenAI is difficult. At present time, even the giants (Meta, MS, Apple, AMZN) with deep pockets would find it extremely challenging to compete against Google in the AI race, let alone a VC-funded startup.

•Google has data, a lot of private data actually (YT, Gmail, Workspace, Search Queries.. you name it) •Google has a lot of money •Google has top-talented AI engineers (Eying on DeepMind & Demis Hassabis staff) •Google has a huge userbase

With $20B in ARR and hundreds of billions in funding, would OpenAI be able to make its own remontada as Google did? I'm not sure, but it would be a long challenging journey.
by gf000 | 2025-12-03 10:12:16+00:00
It explains nothing.

Java is possibly the safest bet on the future, it's open source both in spec and in the most common implementation (OpenJDK), and is so widely used that there are multiple FAANG companies critically dependent on Java working that alone could continue the development of the platform were anything happen.

Besides, Oracle has been a surprisingly good steward of the language.