MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by intelec1 | 2025-12-20 17:16:20+00:00
Recent analysis across finance and tech points to uncomfortable shifts: Capital-weighted prediction markets are outperforming institutional expertise. AI workloads are making nuclear power unavoidable. Quantum research is increasingly aligned with defense, not academia. Synthetic media is making “real” content economically scarce. Asset prices imply a soft landing that few insiders actually believe. HN usually calls BS early — which of these is real, and which collapses first?
by well_ackshually | 2025-12-20 17:16:23+00:00
I mean a fully fledged regular debian

https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/bringing-desktop-linux-...

https://source.android.com/docs/whatsnew/android-16-release#...

While this is mostly a KVM setup, there's nothing specific about Android that prevents a linux userspace from running in there. Each app is almost one already. Most of its core components have been integrated into linux's main repository (like binder), and AOSP isn't that far off from a regular Linux. Sure, zygote, user & power management are not exactly a standard install, but they're not that crazy either
by UniverseHacker | 2025-12-20 17:17:25+00:00
I only did the basic free thing, and found it an interesting experience that calmed me down a lot. Personally I've moved on to other breathwork systems that I think accomplish the same things, but I like better- I practive several of Wim Hof's breathwork methods, as well as the breathwork training that freedivers use.

All of them involve intentionally and temporarily invoking hypercapnia (high CO2) and hypoxemia through slower breathing and/or breath holds.
by constantcrying | 2025-12-20 17:17:39+00:00
I do not understand what this is supposed to be about.

What is this "Euro Cloud" and what does it have to do with "ERP, manufacturing execution systems, CRM, and product lifecycle management (aircraft designs)"?

For example I am not aware that Microsoft, Amazon or Google offer any PLM services. The companies offering those would be Siemens, Dassault and so on. Is the issue that those PLM providers are themselves running on Microsoft, Amazon or Google Services? But then the issue is with Airbus needing to force their suppliers into changing where there services are delivered from, but AFAIK these PLM providers offer on prem services, so it seems like a relatively trivial issue.

What exactly is the "Euro Cloud" supposed to mean here, what is the actual issue with Airbus switching their PLM to on prem? TO be honest I find it hard to imagine that this isn't already the case. So what is going on here?
by laidoffamazon | 2025-12-20 17:17:40+00:00
I want to improve my communication skills so I’d love pointers on this.

Where exactly did I imply that it was the cost of the degree that is the constraint? Everyone knows poor kids and even middle class kids don’t pay anything to go to elite schools. I simply don’t think that means they face financial constraints exiting undergrad (or during undergrad). Why would they when HRT is paying $500k for new grads?

There’s this weird belief that I should feel sorry for people that didn’t come from means but got into Yale or Brown or Stanford. Sorry, they’re just as alien and inrelatable to me as Jeff Bezos’ kids. These people are in an entirely different plane of existence and ability so I have a lot of trouble thinking they wouldn’t have unlimited opportunities exiting university that I can’t even dream of.
by dragonwriter | 2025-12-20 17:18:10+00:00
> I have been particularly irritated in the past where people use a lower log level and include the higher log level string in the message, especially where it's then parsed, filtered, and alerted on my monitoring.

If your parsing, filtering, and monitoring setup parses strings that happen to correspond to log level names in positions other than that of log levels as having the semantics of log levels, then that's a parsing/filtering error, not a logging error.
by electroly | 2025-12-20 17:18:18+00:00
I think OP is making two separate but related points, a general point and a specific point. Both involve guessing something that the error-handling code, on the spot, might not know.

1. When I personally see database timeouts at work it's rarely the database's fault, 99 times out of 100 it's the caller's fault for their crappy query; they should have looked at the query plan before deploying it. How is the error-handling code supposed to know? I log timeouts (that still fail after retry) as errors so someone looks at it and we get a stack trace leading me to the bad query. The database itself tracks timeout metrics but the log is much more immediately useful: it takes me straight to the scene of the crime. I think this is OP's primary point: in some cases, investigation is required to determine whether it's your service's fault or not, and the error-handling code doesn't have the information to know that.

2. As with exceptions vs. return values in code, the low-level code often doesn't know how the higher-level caller will classify a particular error. A low-level error may or may not be a high-level error; the low-level code can't know that, but the low-level code is the one doing the logging. The low-level logging might even be a third party library. This is particularly tricky when code reuse enters the picture: the same error might be "page the on-call immediately" level for one consumer, but "ignore, this is expected" for another consumer.

I think the more general point (that you should avoid logging errors for things that aren't your service's fault) stands. It's just tricky in some cases.
by jhatemyjob | 2025-12-20 17:18:32+00:00
I wish this post went into the actual how! He glossed over the details. There is a link to his repo, which is a start I suppose: https://github.com/piercefreeman/autopg

A blog post that went into the details would be awesome. I know Postgres has some docs for this (https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/backup.html), but it's too theoretical. I want to see a one-stop-shop with everything you'd reasonably need to know to self host: like monitoring uptime, backups, stuff like that.
by zbentley | 2025-12-20 17:19:25+00:00
Yep! I was mostly replying to TFA’s claim that AWS RDS is

> Standard Postgres compiled with some AWS-specific monitoring hooks

… and other operational tools deployed alongside it. That’s not always true: RDS classic may be those things, but RDS Aurora/Serverless is anything but.

As to whether

> self-hosted PostgreSQL on a bare metal server with NVMe SSDs will much faster than what RDS is capable of

That’s often but not always true. Plenty of workloads will perform better on RDS (read auto scaling is huge in Serverless: you can have new read replica nodes auto-launch in response to e.g. a wave of concurrent, massive reporting queries; many queries can benefit from RDS’s additions to/modifications of the pg buffer cache system that work with the underlying storage)—and that’s even with the VM tax and the networked-storage tax! Of course, it’ll cost more in real money whether or not it performs better, further complicating the cost/benefit analysis here.

Also, pedantically, you can run RDS on bare metal with local NVMEs.
by MangoToupe | 2025-12-20 17:19:30+00:00
> if it would result in worse living conditions

Well nobody is forcing Denmark to be a dick about decolonization, nor a dick to all the people it never colonized. That's a choice.

> This is quite belligerent and nasty behaviour

So was colonizing, well, anywhere. Europe still hasn't been appropriately punished for this. And yes, the US deserves to be punished severely for its own brutal conquests.
by tastyface | 2025-12-20 17:19:33+00:00
Post-Trump, I’ve been noting accounts with unhinged and hateful opinions, auto-flagging and downvoting whenever I see them around, and getting on with my life. (Or aspiring to, anyway.) Yelling at people who are aggressively wrong on the internet is hardly worth my time: there’s too many of them and they never change their mind. But perhaps I can make them feel unwelcome and cause them to leave.
by Aurornis | 2025-12-20 17:19:42+00:00
> They're an interesting phenomen that people have convinced themselves MUST BE USEFUL in the context of software development,

Reading these comments during this period of history is interesting because a lot of us actually have found ways to make them useful, acknowledging that they’re not perfect.

It’s surreal to read claims from people who insist we’re just deluding ourselves, despite seeing the results

Yeah they’re not perfect and they’re not AGI writing the code for us. In my opinion they’re most useful in the hands of experienced developers, not juniors or PMs vibecoding. But claiming we’re all just delusional about their utility is strange to see.
by laz | 2025-12-20 17:20:07+00:00
No. You sit on the call and wait to restore your service to your users. There’s bullshit toil in disabling scale in as the outage gets longer.

Eventually, AWS has a VP of something dial in to your call to apologize. They’re unprepared and offer no new information. The get handed to a side call for executive bullshit.

AWS comes back. Your support rep only vaguely knows what’s going on. Your system serves some errors but digs out.

Then you go to sleep.
by usrusr | 2025-12-20 17:20:16+00:00
> It will be interesting to see how they make this arrangement approachable for Arduino’s audience which generally expects ease of use to be a high priority.

Would not be surprised to see both approaches to developing only for one of the two systems: programming the MCU and deploying some ready-made stuff to the big Qualcomm chip, like a stacking a shield on top of the Uno only that the shield is software-defined (providing some compute service), and running some ready-made interface abstraction on the MCU, running everything individually programmed on the powerful Linux chip. Likely within some form of JVM or a Python runtime, or node.
by skydhash | 2025-12-20 17:20:16+00:00
Another skeptic here: I strongly believe that creating new software was always easy. The real struggle is maintaining it, especially for more than one or two years. To this day, I've not seen any arguments or even a hint on reflection on how we're going to maintain all these code that the LLMs is going to generate.

Even for prototyping, using a wireframe software would be faster.
by NitpickLawyer | 2025-12-20 17:21:41+00:00
On top of everything you've described, one more advantage is that you can use the agents themselves to edit / improve / add to the skills. One easy one to do is something like "take the key points from this session and add the learnings as a skill". It works both on good sessions with new paths/functionality and on "bad" sessions where you had to hand-hold the agent. And they're pretty good at summarising and extracting tidbits. And you can always skim the files and do quick edits.

Compared to MCPs, this is a much faster and more approachable flow to add "capabilities" to your agents.
by zahlman | 2025-12-20 17:21:43+00:00
Recently there was a submission (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45840088) breaking down how agents are basically just a loop of querying a LLM, sometimes receiving a specially-formatted (using JSON in the example) "request to use a tool", and having the main program detect, interpret and execute those requests.

What do "skills" look like, generically, in this framework?
by everdrive | 2025-12-20 17:21:50+00:00
The privacy crowd seems to be incapable of grey areas. Are all these the same thing? Are they all the same severity of problem?

- A web site logs traffic in a sort of defacto way, but no one actually reviews the traffic, and it's not sent to 3rd parties. - A government website uses a standard framework and that framework loads a google subdomain. In principle, Google could use this to track you but there's no evidence that this actually happens. - A website tracks user sessions so they can improve UI but don't sell that data to 3rd parties. - A website has many 3rd party domains, many of which are tracking domains. - Facebook knows exactly who you are and sells your information to real-time-bidding ad services. - Your cell phone's 3G connection must in principle triangulate you for the cell phone to function, but the resolution here is fuzzy. - You use Android and even when your GPS is turned "off" Google is still getting extremely high resolution of your location at all times and absolutely using that information to target you.

A LOT of the privacy folks would put all those examples in the same category, and it absolutely drives me up a wall. It's purity-seeking at the expense of any meaningful distinction, or any meaningful investigation that actually allows uses to make informed decisions about their privacy.
by devalexwells | 2025-12-20 17:22:19+00:00
A few days ago I was trying to unsubscribe to a service (notably an AI 3D modeling tool that I was curious about).

I spent 5 minutes trying to find a way to unsubscribe and couldn't. Finally, I found it buried in the plan page as one of those low-contrast ellipses on the plan card.

Instead of unsubscribing me or taking me to a form, it opened a convos with an AI chatbot with a preconfigured "unsubscribe" prompt. I have never felt more angry with a UI that I had to waste more time talking to a robot before it would render the unsubscribe button in the chat.

Why would we bring the most hated feature of automated phone calls to apps? As a frontend engineer I am horrified by these trends.
by aw1621107 | 2025-12-20 17:23:03+00:00
Original title is "A framework for systematically addressing undefined behaviour in the C++ Standard". The HN title is misleading in two ways:

- The paper covers more than just implicit contract assertions

- Implicit contract assertions are stated to cover only a (large) subset of UB in C++. Other techniques are needed to address UB that falls outside this subset. From the paper (italics in original):

> In this section, we propose a framework that systematically introduces runtime checks and well-defined replacement behaviour — two of the tools that form the strategy presented in Section 3 — to the C++ Standard. Runtime checks guarding against core language UB are realised as implicit contract assertions

And later:

> Having specified precisely what an implicit contract assertion is and how it behaves, we can now apply that specification to every case of UB that is — at least in principle — checkable at run time. As we saw in Section 2, this is true for 77 cases, that is, 95% of all identified cases of explicit core language UB in C++.
by lolz404 | 2025-12-20 17:23:15+00:00
This article does little to support its claims but was a good primer to dive into some topics.

They are cool new tools use them where you can but there is a ton of research still left to do. Just lols at the hubris silicon valley will make something so smart it extincts humankind. It'll happen from the lack of water and heated planet first :)

The stocastic parrot argument is still debated but more nuanced than before. Although the original author still stands by the statement. Evidence of internal planning per model. Anthropic Attribution Graphs Research with some rhyming did support it but gemma didn't.

The idea of "understanding" is still up for debate as well. Sure, when models are directly trained on data there is representation. Othello-GPT Studies was one way to support but that was during training so some interal representation was created. Out of distribution task will collapse to confabulation. Apple's GSM-Symbolic Research seems to support that.

Chain of thought is a helpful tool but is untrustworthy at best. Anthropic themselves have showed this https://www.anthropic.com/research/reasoning-models-dont-say...
by zbentley | 2025-12-20 17:23:18+00:00
My point is that just because those problems can be solved with better telemetry doesn’t mean that is actually done in practice. Most organizations do are much more aware of/sensitive to failures upstream/at the edge than they are in backend services. Once you account for alert fatigue, crappy accountability distribution, and organizational pressures, even the places that do this well often backslide over time.

In brief: drivers don’t obey the speed limit and backend service operators don’t prioritize monitoring. Both groups are supposed to do those things, but they don’t and we should assume they won’t change. As a result, it’s a good idea to wear seatbelts and treat downstream failures as urgent errors in the logs of consuming services.
by pseudonymidy | 2025-12-20 17:23:25+00:00
Think of it like this: overhead power lines require you to dig a 5-7’ deep hole that’s 2’ in diameter every 90’. Underground power supplied through cable requires you to bury the cable minimum 3’ in the ground in rigid ductwork the entire 90’. Any time that cable runs under a roadway that ductwork needs to be encased in concrete. In urban and semi urban areas you also compete with other buried infrastructure for space - sewer, city/municipal infrastructure, gas, electrical transmission, etc.

While underground distribution systems are less prone to interruption from bad weather it depends on the circuit design. If the underground portion of the circuit is fed from overhead power lines coming from the distribution substation you will still experience interruptions from faults on the overhead. These faults can also occur on overhead transmission circuits (the lines feeding the distribution substations and/or very large industrial customers).

Underground distribution comes at a cost premium compared to overhead distribution. It’s akin to the cost of building a picket fence vs installing a geothermal heating system for your home. This is why new sub divisions will commonly have underground cable installed as the entire neighborhood is being constructed - there’s no need to retrofit underground cable into an existing area and so the costs are lower and borne upfront.

It’s more cost effective for them to turn the power off as a storm rolls through, patrol, make repairs and reenergize then to move everything underground. Lost revenue during that period is a small fraction of the cost of taking an existing grid and rebuilding it underground. This is especially true for transmission circuits that are strung between steel towers over enormous distances.
by zamadatix | 2025-12-20 17:23:57+00:00
The counterpoint made above is while what you describe is indeed the way the author likes to see it that doesn't explain why "an error is something which failed that the program was unable to fix automatically" is supposed to be any less valid a way to see it. I.e. should error be defined as "the program was unable to complete the task you told it to do" or only "things which could have worked but you need to explicitly change something locally".

I don't even know how to say whether these definitions are right or wrong, it's just whatever you feel like it should be. The important thing is what your program logs should be documented somewhere, the next most important thing is that your log levels are self consistent and follow some sort of logic, and that I would have done it exactly the same is not really important.

At the end of the day, this is just bikeshedding about how to collapse ultra specific alerting levels into a few generic ones. E.g. RFC 5424 defines 8 separate log levels for syslog and, while that's not a ceiling by any means, it's easy to see how there's already not really going to be a universally agreed way to collapse even just these down to 4 categories.
by Aurornis | 2025-12-20 17:24:15+00:00
The AI doomers have actually been around long before LLMs. Discussion about AI doom has been popular in the rationalist communities for a very long time. Look up “Roko’s Basilisk” for a history of one of these concepts from 15 years ago that has been pervasive since then.

It has been entertaining to see how Yudkowsky and the rationalist community spent over a decade building around these AI doom arguments, then they squandered their moment in the spotlight by making crazy demands about halting all AI development and bombing data centers.
by overfeed | 2025-12-20 17:24:28+00:00
If the buyer is publicly listed, they have to consider their own share price,that is - the perception of their shareholders. The buyer will be punished for overpaying for a company circling the drain, they will also be punished from waling away from purchasing a seemingly healthy company at a good price.

The buyer and purchaser have to agree on which of the 2 options they publicly present to their shareholders and regulators - Amazon wouldn't be fooled because they had access to the financials and had its own judgement on viability (which may not be material Amazon's plans). However, the approach would decide the corresponding offer, and typically wouldn't be a retrospective decision, but would lock-in the higher or lower from the start.
by SilverElfin | 2025-12-20 17:24:43+00:00
I’m not surprised so many deceased drivers were under the influence of THC. I see people smoking and vaping at stoplights all the time. I am however, surprised this study claims legalization didn’t change the rate. Anecdotally, on the west coast, I’ve seen far more of this, and also people casually smoking in public spaces (parks or train stations or whatever) since legalization.
by dragonwriter | 2025-12-20 17:25:20+00:00
> It is functionally accurate enough to find and prosecute criminals.

Is that a high bar? I mean, you could have said that about forensic fiber analysis—and then it was revealed that the entire history of the field was just expert witnesses lying their asses off for whatever conclusion law enforcement wanted. It turns out that to prosecute criminals, being complex enough that expert witnesses can provide a smoke screen to rationalize law enforcement targeting that is actually based on prejudice and not concrete facts can be sufficient.
by colechristensen | 2025-12-20 17:25:43+00:00
How about this:

- An error is an event that someone should act on. Not necessarily you. But if it's not an event that ever needs the attention of a person then the severity is less than an error.

Examples: Invalid credentials. HTTP 404 - Not Found, HTTP 403 Forbidden, (all of the HTTP 400s, by definition)

It's not my problem as a site owner if one of my users entered the wrong URL or typed their password wrong, but it's somebody's problem.

A warning is something that A) a person would likely want to know and B) wouldn't necessarily need to act on

INFO is for something a person would likely want to know and unlikely needs action

DEBUG is for something likely to be helpful

TRACE is for just about anything that happens

EMERG/CRIT are for significant errors of immediate impact

PANIC the sky is falling, I hope you have good running shoes
by rdtsc | 2025-12-20 17:26:08+00:00
This is about not even trying durability before returning a result ("Commit-to-disk on a single system is [...] unnecessary") it's hoping that servers won't crash and restart together: some might fail but others will eventually commit. However that assumes a subset of random (uncoordinated) hardware failures, maybe a cosmic ray blasts the ssd controller. That's fine, but it fails to account for coordinated failure where, a particular workload leads to the same overflow scenario on all servers the same. They all acknowledge the writes to the client but then all crash and restart.
by sneas | 2025-12-20 17:26:26+00:00
Yes, it's the language-learning-tool.

> Do you like the general idea of the PR?

To be honest, I'm not a fan of the PR's general idea.

> Is it possible to merge one part and keep it disabled by default for most users?

This is exactly what I am about to do. To merge a small part of that PR into my repo. That part conducts communication between the web app and the proposed extension, so the author of the PR can use my APIs while keeping most of their code in their fork.

I am actually glad that I created this thread. Thank you for responding to it.