MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by oenton | 2026-01-20 03:22:24+00:00
> isn’t a good look for Nobel, and shows that we’ve now moved so far from the original intention of the prize that the peace component really should be scrapped.

I don't follow. Are you saying the committee should have known that Trump would literally wage a military war if he isn't awarded the peace prize? Are you saying if they changed their mind now and allowed Venezuelan politician Machado to gift her prize to Trump, that Trump would no longer have a desire to own Greenland? I'm honestly trying to understand but maybe I missed an important story.
by triceratops | 2026-01-20 03:22:31+00:00
> The US saw 60% real wage growth from 1860-1890 with no empire whatsoever

I understand what you mean. But also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny

You are right that common people in Britain didn't get as much out of Pax Brittanica as America's did during its own period of expansion.
by canpan | 2026-01-20 03:23:13+00:00
The tricky part is you don't have a motor. It's an unpowered vehicle.

(Caveat is the start, you will be pulled up with a rope, another powered plane or have starter motor to get up once)

You can go thousands of miles without propulsion! IF the weather and wind plays nice.

So you go up with thermic (warm air) or lift from hill sides and go forward by gliding. Repeat with skill and luck.
by siralonso | 2026-01-20 03:23:43+00:00
Super affordable for an aviation thing. I'll often fly 4-5 hours from a $50 tow. My previous club charged about $500/yr with no hourly fees for glider use. I bought my own mid-performance glider for $15k and a $200 annual inspection. Occasionally you do land out in a field and need to buy dinner for the club-members that come pick you up!
by aidenn0 | 2026-01-20 03:24:24+00:00
Two positions that work for me:

1. On my side; the matching arm is completely supported by the bed, so only the opposite arm gets tired, at which point I switch sides.

2. Book on floor, lie crosswise to bed on my stomach. Doesn't work if bed is too high, but if your arms are longer than the bed hight it's perfect.
by socketcluster | 2026-01-20 03:24:48+00:00
The continuous lowering of entry barriers to software creation, combined with the continuous lowering of entry barriers to software hacking is an explosive combination.

We need new platforms which provide the necessary security guardrails, verifiability, simplicity of development, succinctness of logic (high feature/code ratio)... You can't trust non-technical vibe coders with today's software tools when they can't even trust themselves.

There is also a substantial asymmetry at play. To hack a system, you just need to find one vulnerability. To protect a system from hacking, you need to patch all possible vulnerabilities.
by johnnyanmac | 2026-01-20 03:25:31+00:00
>So what you actually kind of miss is a nobility that has common sense and class-consciousness of the leading class.

I don't agree here, but I can seen in this lens if needed.

But that's not what Trump voters miss. And that's the issue. What they want is a "return to good times", aka times where anyone else who wasn't a white male did in fact not have good times. But they don't care about the non-white non-males.

They are smart enough to not say the quiet part out loud, and even now there's signs they are trying to backtrack internally on all of this[1]. But this is always what's in their minds. I don't know what needs to be done on that end, but the positive thing we can do is hyper-energize the country to come out in droves and not let this sneak back in again (or at least, have way more guardrails for next time).

1: https://www.salon.com/2026/01/19/some-trump-voters-are-sneak...
by simoncion | 2026-01-20 03:25:46+00:00
> So clients querying a broken domain will retry each of their configured DNS servers, our caching layer (Unbound) will also retry each of their upstreams etc...

I expect this is why BIND 9 has the 'servfail-ttl' option. [0]

Turns out that there's a standards-track RFC from 1998 that explicitly permits caching SERVFAIL responses. [1] Section 8 of that document suggests that this behavior was permitted by RFC 1034 (published back in 1987).

[0] <https://bind9.readthedocs.io/en/v9.18.42/reference.html#name...>

[1] <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2308#section-7.1>
by theamk | 2026-01-20 03:26:11+00:00
Input data rate: 1e6 * 48 / (24*60*60) = ~560 TPS

Working data size (1 day): (8B meter id + 8B timestamp + 8B value) * 48 * 1e6 = 1.1 gigabyte

Archival: 1.1GB/day * 15 month = 482 GB .. but looks like mostly write-only data?

That is pretty small as far as modern servers go. My usual approach for IoT things is event sourcing-like architecture - you have logging servers (for disaster recovery) and processing server(s), which keep things in RAM. If processing servers crash, they restart, and logging servers re-send data from last checkpoint.

But I am sure that a Postgres can be used as well, or some sort of time-series database too. Based on your description, you really don't need much as far as database go - basically range queries and that's it.
by olyjohn | 2026-01-20 03:26:33+00:00
Well those owners are idiots. That says nothing about the car. You can't exclude Toyota when you make the claim that hybrids are unreliable and inefficient either. They have proven that they can be reliable and efficient.

Hybrids aren't running around doing 30 miles a day with a 300 mile battery like most EVs. Talk about inefficient!
by simonw | 2026-01-20 03:26:58+00:00
Almost no idea at all. Coding agents are messing with all 25+ years of my existing intuitions about what features cost to build and maintain.

Features that I'd normally never have considered building because they weren't worth the added time and complexity are now just a few well-structured prompts away.

But how much will it cost to maintain those features in the future? So far the answer appears to be a whole lot less than I would previously budget for, but I don't have any code more than a few months old that was built ~100% by coding agents, so it's way too early to judge how maintenance is going to work over a longer time period.
by HarHarVeryFunny | 2026-01-20 03:27:03+00:00
It's really asking for trouble if you view it that way - that you are going to allocate something, then uniquely pass it to a single unique_ptr, or shared_ptr, to manage and release. Better really to use std::make_unique() and std::make_shared().

The smartness, limited though it may be, is just that since it "knows" it's the owner, it knows that it's responsible for releasing it at the appropriate time (reference counted in the case of a shared pointer).

A lot of the value isn't just the automatic release, but that these classes, unique_ptr, and shared_ptr, are built to enforce their semantics, such as literally not being able to copy a unique_ptr, but are able to move it, and copying a shared_ptr being allowed and increasing the reference count of the object.

Yes - they are just simple classes, but using them as intended does avoid a lot of common programmer memory management mistakes, and highly adds to the readability of your program, and ability to reason about ownership, since use of these types rather than raw pointers in effect documents who the owner(s) are, and enforces that this documentation is the reality.
by topspin | 2026-01-20 03:27:07+00:00
a.k.a. jkh. That's a blast from the past. Back in the early FreeBSD days, Jordan was fielding mailing list traffic and holding the project together as people peppered the lists with questions, trying to get their systems running with their sundry bits of hardware. I wondered when he slept.

Apparently he did as well[1]:
"The start of the 2.0 ports collection. No sup repository yet, but I'll make one when I wake up again.. :)"
Submitted by: jkh
Aug 21, 1994

[1] https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-ports/commit/7ca702f09f29...

Interesting commit starting Ports 2.0. Three version of bash, four versions of Emacs, plus jove.
by nobody9999 | 2026-01-20 03:27:22+00:00
>From https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/11/democrats-...

You conveniently left out that the author (Ruy Teixeira[0]) of the piece you quoted is a senior fellow at the right-wing think tank that authored the Project 2025 roadmap.

Should we ask Stalin to critique US Cold War policies? Or maybe ask Xi Xinping to publicly assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of Taiwan's defense posture too?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruy_Teixeira
by Fej | 2026-01-20 03:28:13+00:00
Do older versions of Nova have any security flaws which preclude using them?

I've been using this app for ages and it's been essentially feature-complete for several years. A part of me wants to switch launchers for no other reason than "it is supported and not tracking me", but it is possible for software to be finished, and I believe Nova falls into that category. If there's no meaningful vulnerabilities in it, there's really no reason for me to switch away, at least not immediately.
by starkparker | 2026-01-20 03:28:44+00:00
The submitted URL is the NoScript redirect target.

Hackaday story: https://hackaday.com/2026/01/19/washington-state-bill-seeks-...

Link to the PDF from that story: https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Ho...
by mschaef | 2026-01-20 03:29:06+00:00
What do you mean by respect? Here's a layperson's perspective, at least.

Up through the 486 (with its built in x87), the x87 was always a niche product. You had to know about it, need it, buy it, and install it. This is over and on top of buying a PC in the first place. So definitionally, it was relegated it to the peripheries of the industry. Most people didn't even know x87 was a possibility. (I remember distinctly a PC World article having to explain why there was an empty socket next to the 8088 socket in the IBM PC.)

However, in the periphery where it mattered, it gained acceptance within a matter of a few years of being available. Lotus 1-2-3, AutoCAD, and many compilers (including yours, IIRC) had support for x87 early on. I would argue that this is one of the better examples of marginal hardware being appropriately supported.

The other argument I'd make is that (thanks to William Kahan), the 8087 was the first real attempt at IEEE-754 support in hardware. Given that IEEE-754 is still the standard, I'd suggest that x87's place in history is secure. While we may not be executing x87 opcodes, our floating point data is still in a format first used in the x87. (Not the 80-bit type, but do we really care? If the 80-bit type was truly important, I'd have thought that in the intervening 45 years, there'd be a material attempt to bring it back. Instead, what we have are a push towards narrower floating point types used in GPGPU, etc.... fp8 and f16, sure... fp80, not so much.)
by _DeadFred_ | 2026-01-20 03:29:38+00:00
Got it. You don't believe the Constitution is in effect any longer because cases have gone in ways you disagree with. You think nothing of ignoring an Article of the Constitution.

The Supremacy Clause IS IN the Constitution. And IT (the Supremacy Clause) elevates treaties to be equal to and effectively law of the nation. Not treating treaties as such IS violating the Constitution.
by mrandish | 2026-01-20 03:29:48+00:00
To me the annoying part isn't that they don't accept Apple Pay (or any phone-app pay except their own). I don't have any Apple devices and I don't use Google Pay (or anyone else's phone-app pay). While TFA is correct that Apple Pay (or Google/Samsung/whatever pay) doesn't cost WalMart more than a physical credit card - TFA doesn't mention a highly relevant detail: a phone-app payment company can act as the 'issuing bank' and make a tiny fraction of a percent more (like ~0.3%) for being the clearinghouse. Not all phone-pay apps set up as an issuing bank as there's some overhead but it's more than worth it if you're the world's largest retailer. Note: this fee is not the same as the 2-3% "merchant fee". The clearinghouse fee is much smaller and never goes back to the merchant - unless the merchant IS is the phone-app company. I think WalMart figures "If anyone is 'playing bank' and making even a tiny rake in our store, it should be us."

The collateral damage is that, as a result, WalMart stopped taking plain old plastic credit card tap-to-pay which I prefer to use because it's faster, more secure and far more reliable than 'swipe card' or 'insert card chip' (because WalMart's physical readers are often flaky on self-checkout stations due to their high volume usage).

I suspect the main reason WalMart attaches a metal plate over the contactless area on their payment terminals which blocks ALL forms of tap-to-pay is simply that credit card tap-to-pay appears the same as phone-app tap-to-pay (because both are 'contactless') and one type of tap-to-pay working while the another type doesn't "would confuse customers". Which is a dumb reason to disallow a faster, more reliable form of payment that some people would like to use. It's not a money thing because to WalMart a credit card tap-to-pay is exactly the same as a swipe or chip insert of the same card, whereas a phone-app tap-to-pay isn't the same - even if the user settles the phone app bill using the same physical credit card.
by starkparker | 2026-01-20 03:29:52+00:00
HB 2321 2025-26: https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/?BillNumber=2321&Year=202..., https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Ho...

Sponsors: Salahuddin, Peterson, Berry, Taylor, Farivar, Reed, Ramel, Santos, Obras, Fitzgibbon, Leavitt, Nance, Callan, Kloba, Thomas, Ryu, Doglio, Gregerson, Ormsby, Berg, Reeves, Macri, Fosse, Bergquist, Hill, Pollet
by keepamovin | 2026-01-20 03:30:21+00:00
I think this confuses two different things:

- LLMs can act as pseudocode to code translators (they are excellent at this)

- LLMs still create bugs and make errors, and a reasonable hypothesis is at a rate in direct proportion to the "complexity" or "buggedness" of the underlying language.

In other words, give an AI a footgun and it will happily use it unawares. That doesn't mean however it can't rapidly turn your pseudocode into code.

None of this means that LLMs can magically correct your pseudocode at all times if your logic is vastly wrong for your goal, but I do believe they'll benefit immensely from new languages that reduce the kind of bugs they make.

This is the moment we can create these languages. Because LLMs can optimize for things that humans can't, so it seems possible to design new languages to reduce bugs in ways that work for LLMs, but are less effective for people (due to syntax, ergonomics, verbosity, anything else).

This is crucially important. Why? Because 99% of all code written in the next two decades will be written by AI. And we will also produce 100x more code than has ever been written before (because the cost of doing it, has dropped essentially to zero). This means that, short of some revolutions in language technology, the number of bugs and vulnerabilities we can expect will also 100x.

That's why ideas like this are needed.

I believe in this too and am working on something also targeting LLMs specifically, and have been working on it since Mid to Late November last year. A business model will make such a language sustainable.
by yummybrainz | 2026-01-20 03:32:00+00:00
KISS launcher is excellent. I've been using it for years now and would never go back to any other style of launcher.

The only improvement I could imagine is supporting multiple screens of widgets (i.e. swiping left/right or scrolling up/down).

For folks interested in checking it out:

Website: https://kisslauncher.com/
Source: https://github.com/Neamar/KISS
Store: https://f-droid.org/packages/fr.neamar.kiss/
by anonzzzies | 2026-01-20 03:32:48+00:00
My homecountry the Netherlands is the worst. The push for becoming 'small America' had us sell of everything we could possibly be proud off to other countries, including the US (mostly Blackrock and Vanguard) and India and China. Privatize everything because it works so well in the US, sell it all (private and public) off to the highest bidder and hope for globalization and the market. NL is doing well economy wise still, but I wonder how much better we could've done if we kept it all to grow.

I studied math at the University of Eindhoven which, at the time, basically meant you would work at Philips or one of its companies. I did not and in hindsight I don't think I could've handled the downfall of that company up close.
by ambicapter | 2026-01-20 03:33:38+00:00
The existence of "yellow journalism" in the 19th century would disagree with that statement. That outrage and emotionalism trigger human's attention more so than other feelings is a biological fact that has been exploited for centuries and centuries. The same way gambling has been around for the entirety of recorded human history. It's a default behavior pattern installed in every humans, some can override, most don't.
by gsf_emergency_6 | 2026-01-20 03:33:52+00:00
To take it out of that frame, could you summarize book's main message and your main objection to it? I trust you more than LLM :)

Aside: three of my favourite people on HN are here!

Aside number 2: that's why a simple "trust me bro", if used correctly (usually ironically, these days), works wonders!
by zdragnar | 2026-01-20 03:34:06+00:00
It's worth pointing out that the F150 has been the best selling truck for 40 years and the best selling consumer vehicle for most of them as well. There's bound to be plenty of parts for them sitting around.

I've got one from 2011 that I'm still driving myself, and aside from one minor thing, I've not had a single problem with it, despite putting it through its paces.
by asdff | 2026-01-20 03:34:52+00:00
What is crazy about some of these old car brands is that they have some IP that would sell like hotcakes. Aircooled 911s went from 30k cars to 130k cars on the used market over the last 10 years. If they managed to work around crash regulations, maybe with some stroking of Donalds ego right now, they'd be making money hand over fist off those old designs.

I can't exactly remember the situation but I'm pretty sure there was a car company that did something like this in recent history, restarting a production run on a classic model and selling it out.
by leptons | 2026-01-20 03:35:54+00:00
>I don't care. If you make arrogant little statements like that, expect that response.

Okay, Mr 6-day old account. I'm sure you'll just create another one when this one gets banned (again).

Your insistence that you are correct even in the face of evidence to the contrary tells me I'm done with this conversation, completely. Goodbye.
by pixl97 | 2026-01-20 03:36:25+00:00
Exactly, I grew up during the beginning if the Japanese auto boom in the US. My grandfather was one of the first people in his group to buy one of the Japanese cars when they became highly reliable and his friend heckled him about it for awhile. Until that is he wasn't constantly repairing the thing. It got much better gas mileage. Wasn't getting ate up by rust. And it ran well over 150k miles, when US cars typically fell apart before 100k miles.
by kingstnap | 2026-01-20 03:36:39+00:00
Backup cameras have been legally required on new vehicles for like a decade. It is well understood to prevent accidents.

There are hundreds of millions of drivers with new ones entering and old ones exiting the roads all the time.

If you want to practically improve safety you have to make the vehicles safer, you can't just hope pointing fingers at bad drivers is gonna do anything.
by yndoendo | 2026-01-20 03:38:35+00:00
EU, as a US citizen, go all in and ditch the US as much as you can. Not only will this bring competition, it also means that the US Government cannot grab the balls of Amazon and squeeze the EU market.

I wouldn't trust Amazon with my data if I was an EU citizen. As a US citizen I don't even trust Amazon with my own data. This is why I support de-Google, de-Microsoft, and de-Apple computing.
by betty_staples | 2026-01-20 03:38:43+00:00
relevant lesser known fact - 3G crypto is broken. In such a way that is a bit suspicious - a couple terabyte-sized rainbow table will crack it.

I found a guy with the tables at one point, it's buried deep on the internet -- but this for example -- https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6645525
by efitz | 2026-01-20 03:40:10+00:00
No word games at all.

Every American, even the president, even (gasp) Donald Trump, has the right of appeal of judicial orders and rulings. I could just as well say that people and organizations who oppose Trump's immigration policies go "judge shopping" or "jurisdiction shopping" to find sympathetic judges, which happens all the time (For example, there is absolutely no justification for Judge Boasberg in the DC Circuit to have adjudicated the issue of the deportations from Texas; it should have been a local judge in TX).

Inferior court judges (i.e. judicial branch judges that are not Supreme Court justices), only have judicial authority as granted by Congress, and it's not clear whether they do or should have jurisdiction outside their circuit- the Supreme Court is currently deciding that one. Congress explicitly has denied judicial branch judges from jurisdiction over immigration issues, in favor of immigration judges. I believe that most of the judicial actions against the administration wrt immigration are largely lawless (illegal) actions by judges, but I am very much not worried about Trump because his administration is NOT ignoring court orders.

There is a lot of FUD in the news that you have to do a bit of reading to understand (for example, why district court judges may not lawfully order a halt to a deportation that has been properly adjudicated by an immigration court).

My bottom line is that I don't see a Constitutional crisis in Trump's actions, although I very much see many reasons why many people would be upset; he has a very polarizing personality and demeanor.
by smeej | 2026-01-20 03:40:20+00:00
But the hitman still does not get the entire value of the contract. The hitman gets the value of the number of shares he can afford to buy, but that's not the whole contract by any means.

I think I understand what you're saying about the pricing. Am I correct in saying, then, that if the odds are 90% in favor of my living through the contract, the "No, smeej won't die today" price should be close to $0.10 (again, ignoring fees and the time value of money)?

If the hitman tries to buy in with 10% of the total funds already in the market, the odds/price are going to shift hard. It's going to devour a huge chunk of the order book. Any market that suddenly has someone come in at 10% of the whole market value is going to get a massive trading wick. So yeah, he'd get some shares at $0.10, but he's probably going to eat the open order book to a much higher cost. He can 10x some very small portion of his money (however many shares are on the book at $0.10), but he can only 5x his money at $0.20, or 3x at $0.33.

Even if we assume he does have $50k to dump into the market, I still don't see how he's going to more than triple his money, which is a heck of a lot less than taking the entire market's value as though it were a bounty.
by throwerxyz | 2026-01-20 03:41:20+00:00
Sorry there's a bit of a typo/error in my comment. In "nothing more than" I mean it is just drama.

I am surprised people think it is something more than just a drama spat.

The US will do something on the back of this cover eventually or it's just hiding other bad news.

Tech professionals used to be more conservative and even more moderate but these days they've been conditioned to drink from the liberal Koolaid.