MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by xp84 | 2026-01-23 20:44:53+00:00
Yeah. Path Finder was a common power user tool.

I recall you used to be able to flip some bit somewhere to allow you to Quit the Finder, but I assume that's disappeared inside the encrypted and signed partition where Apple keeps all the things us stupid users shouldn't be allowed to touch.

But even then, you'd want more than just that, as when you tell the OS to "Reveal" a file or open a folder, that's the association I'd want to be able to change.

Honestly I'd really prefer the Windows XP File Explorer to the pile of crap the Finder has turned into.
by MiddleEndian | 2026-01-23 20:45:10+00:00
I think that's fine. If 20% of the emails from some company (let's say Paypal) are spam, then all email providers (especially Gmail, the largest provider) should mark ALL of their emails as spam by default until they stop spending spam. If they want to keep spamming, they can at least humiliate themselves by telling people to check their spam folders for their emails.
by ajross | 2026-01-23 20:45:17+00:00
Seems like this has nothing to do with Rust or protobufs. The underlying PostgreSQL abstraction engine they'd picked had a wasteful serialization implementation (that happens to have been using protobuf). So pgdog dropped it and open-coded a serialization-free transfer using the C API.

Well, yeah. If there's a feature you don't need, you'll see value by coding around it. Some features turn out not to be needed by anyone, maybe this is one. But some people need serialization, and that's what protobufs are for[1]. Those people are very (!) poorly served by headlines telling them to use Rust (!!) instead of serialization.

[1] Though as always the standard litany applies: you actually want JSON, and not protobus or ASN.1 or anything else. If you like some other technology better, you're wrong and you actually want JSON. If you think you need something faster, you probably don't and JSON would suit your needs better. If you really, 100%, know for sure that you need it faster than JSON, then you're probably isomorphic to the folks in the linked article, shouldn't have been serializing at all, and should get to work open coding your own hooks on the raw backend.
by Veserv | 2026-01-23 20:45:30+00:00
Oh no, they are nowhere near confident enough for remote monitoring. They have a chase car following directly behind [1][2] which presumably has the power to initiate a remote emergency stop.

Of course this is the same system that likes to ignore train crossing red warning lights [3] so it can run into crossing trains. Very advanced.

[1] https://xcancel.com/joetegtmeyer/status/2014410572226322794

[2] https://electrek.co/2026/01/22/tesla-didnt-remove-the-robota...

[3] https://xcancel.com/RealDanODowd/status/1968788791805583629
by fsflover | 2026-01-23 20:45:40+00:00
You mean, trust and reputation of Apple? They're not exactly high:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46252114

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45520407

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42014588

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26644216
by borroka | 2026-01-23 20:45:43+00:00
I have a Subaru with driver's assistance. Basically you input speed and distance from the vehicle ahead, and the car turns, accelerates, and brakes. It disengages quite often, in particular when the lanes are not clearly marked.

I used it a couple of times, but then I stopped; for me, as a driver/passenger, it has very little value. Yes, maybe I can lower my attention from 100% to 95%, but it does not make much difference: I need to keep my hands on the wheel, it disengages at random (for me) times.

True autopilot is very different.
by Someone1234 | 2026-01-23 20:45:46+00:00
I agree; but Autopilot unlike FSD hasn't been updated in several years.

It doesn't contain maps or context of the roads, it is just Auto-Steer + Lane-Change + Full-Range Cruise Control under one brand-umbrella. Mostly useful on the Motorways/Freeways, and commonly found in competitor's vehicles.
by wolvoleo | 2026-01-23 20:46:37+00:00
Personally it's not all about money. I even moved to a lower wage country in Europe for better quality of life.

Having enough is what I care about and things are a lot cheaper here too. Not to mention free healthcare, social security. I don't need a car and a public transport pass is 25€ a month. That alone saves me so much money. The time till the next metro train counts down in seconds here.

When I had a car in the past it would cost me hundreds per month and it was such a headache.

I'd never move to the US even if I could make 3x as much. In fact I got an offer from a FAANG once (with the whole H1B managed by some agency I think) but I declined. I only applied because they advertised it as a local job but then when the offer came it was in California. Nope.
by pm90 | 2026-01-23 20:47:27+00:00
stripe bought a stablecoin and its leadership seems to talk about it a lot https://www.pymnts.com/news/ipo/2026/stripe-co-founder-says-...

> Cryptocurrency and stablecoins are also starting to see traction after an extended struggle to gain mainstream adoption, John Collison added, per the report.

> William Gaybrick, Stripe’s president of product and business, referred to agentic commerce and stablecoins as “twin revolutions in intelligence and money” at a company event in 2025, the report said.
by HendrikHensen | 2026-01-23 20:47:28+00:00
> Rust and Go call these panics but they are implemented like exceptions.

I don't know about Rust, but a very important difference between Java exceptions and Go panics, is that a Go panic kills the entirely process (unless recovered), whereas a Java exception only terminates the thread (unless caught).

It's a little off-topic, but I wanted to clarify that for passer-bys who might not know.
by notepad0x90 | 2026-01-23 20:47:47+00:00
How can you say "wrong." and then go on to say scale matters, that means scale is the problem, not who is reporting it, you contradicted yourself.

We're in agreement that it is a scale issue. When something needs to scale, you address the scale problem. Obviously the devs can't handle this volume, and I agree with that there too. Our disagreement is the response.

I guarantee that if they asked for volunteers they'll get at least 100 within a week. They can filter by previous bug triage experience and experience with C and the code base. My suggestion is to let people other than the devs triage bug reports, that will resolve the scale problem. curl devs never have to see a bug not triaged by a human they've vetted. There is also no requirement on their part to respond to a certain number of bug reports, so with or without help, they can let the stack pile up and it will still be better than nothing.
by dogma1138 | 2026-01-23 20:48:16+00:00
Mailbox encryption is near pointless since at the least it needs to be encrypted at both ends not to mention relays.

For email each individual message should be encrypted if you want any confidentiality and even then the meta data is in the clear.

And this is because in order to send or receive an email the provider needs to access it. If they put it into a box later on to which they do not hold the key that is just security theater at that point.
by xp84 | 2026-01-23 20:48:18+00:00
The confusing part is that it sometimes remembers things when you open a folder directly, like from an alias you open on your desktop, or typing `open ~/Documents`... But when Finder gets confused seems to be that when you shift between folders using the "browser-like" tools (back, forward, double-clicking a folder from the current folder), there's a disconnect: Should it act like a browser and use the current view, details columns, etc? or should it totally transform the view into what you had open at some point in the past?

I tend to try to hammer the Finder into always using "list view" with command-J, Always open in list view → Use as Defaults, but random folders can have their own settings attached, probably, so nothing works.
by MarkusWandel | 2026-01-23 20:48:30+00:00
I've never actually tested what happens if you ignore the "steering input required" nags from LKAS. Does it truly keep driving at cruise control speed? I assumed it would eventually slow to a stop.

As for the safety feature. I inherited (literally) a second car that's 10 years older than the primary one. You get used to LKAS. I was driving a long distance in the older one while somewhat overtired and had several rumble strip excursions that would not have happened in the LKAS-equipped car. And for the asleep guy in the parent post, it may have made the difference between still being alive and dead in head-on collision or rollover.
by mnazzaro | 2026-01-23 20:48:31+00:00
1. The pools are very shallow- two machines per pool. While it's certainly possible for 3 tasks to get requested in the same region within 30 seconds, we handle that by falling back to the next closest region if a pool is empty. This is uncommon, though.
2. I haven't considered it, but yeah- the caching seems to work great for us.
3. The tokens are generated per-task, so if you are worried about your token getting leaked, you can just delete the task!
by bigyabai | 2026-01-23 20:48:37+00:00
You can (and should) read Mr. Fart's Favorite Colors as a response, explaining how "perfect" security becomes the enemy of principled security: https://medium.com/@blakeross/mr-fart-s-favorite-colors-3177...

Unbreakable phones are coming. We’ll have to decide who controls the cockpit: The captain? Or the cabin?

The security in iOS is not to designed make you safer, in the same way that cockpit security doesn't protect economy class from rogue pilots or business-class terrorists. Apple made this decision years ago, they're right there in Slide 5 of the Snowden PRISM disclosure. Today, Tim stands tall next to POTUS. Any preconceived principle that Apple might have once clung to is forfeit next to their financial reliance on American protectionism: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/05/trump-threatens-trade-probe-...
by modernpacifist | 2026-01-23 20:49:12+00:00
A leased line though will only get you A<->B where sure, A and B can be anywhere but have to be concrete locations/hand off points when provisioned. It does ultimatley come down to the service that one orders from a commercial entity.

A hypothetical court order saying something like "kill internet access" would likely cause an IP transit service to stop working (implemented by said provider no longer announcing global IP routing tables to that service) but a leased line between two locations would likely remain untouched since that isn't an "internet" service. So they might not need to come knocking if they're reasonably confident that all such edge cases like leased lines end up at dead-ends because any internet-capable product they might be enabling access to is sufficiently disabled.

I do imagine though that if they get as far as "kill the internet" that obtaining a subsequent court order to go after some suspicious leased line would be trivial.

As a side note, I find that IP transit is typically the cheapest aspect of providing an internet service since a cross-connect at a well connected DC will cost well under $1/Mbps/month unmetered. Plus the cost is very well amortized when residential users are the target. This has tended to hold when one takes into account the co-lo costs as well since network gear doing relatively basic packet forwarding/internet table routing doesn't take up that much space or power.
by hvb2 | 2026-01-23 20:49:32+00:00
But most debit cards cannot be used with just the numbers. So I can give you my debit card and you can't do anything with it.

You typically need a PIN for any decent purchase. Sure you can tap to pay but that wouldn't be a lot of money fast as it asks for a PIN above a certain amount. That problem of copying the card data is only because it's a credit card and that's all you need to make a purchase.

As to skimming, in Europe there was some active skimming going on in the early 2000s which is why I can't even recall seeing a terminal here that still issues the magnetic strip.
by ssl-3 | 2026-01-23 20:49:34+00:00
It's not the same, though.

A widget is a thing that runs. It's an active process with a channel to create its own on-screen display, and the mere existence of it consumes non-zero CPU even if never invoked.

A shortcut is more like an icon on a Windows desktop, or perhaps a unix symlink. If it is never used, then it never really does anything at all.

Anyhow, Octopi. It does support shortcuts, but it seems like there's two different pathways for them and they do not work the same at all.

One pathway: Long-press the wallpaper and there's a list of them a tap or two away for some apps and it's easy to add them to the home screen. Home Assistant is in this list, but Shazam is not.

The other pathway: Long-press an app icon and a list of named shortcuts may appear. These are impossible to link to a home screen icon. And the per-app behavior is opposite: Long-pressing Home Assistant does not present this list, while long-pressing Shazam does.
by 0xbadcafebee | 2026-01-23 20:49:54+00:00
> Chefs do learn the chemistry, at least enough to know why their techniques work

Chefs are idiots (many are either illegal immigrants with no formal education or substance-abusing degenerates who failed at everything else) who repeat what they're told. They think ridiculous things, like that searing a stake "seals in the juices", or that adding oil to pasta water "prevents sticking", that alcohol completely "cooks off", that salt "makes water boil faster", etc. They are the auto mechanics of food. A few may be formally educated but the vast majority are not. They're just doing what they were shown to do.

> A better analogy is just shoving the entire contents of the fridge into a pot, plastic containers and all, and assuming it'll be fine.

That would never result in a good meal. On the other hand, vibe coding is churning out not just working software, but working businesses. You're sleeping on the real effect this is having. And it's getting better every 6 months.
by ASalazarMX | 2026-01-23 20:49:58+00:00
I was doing a somewhat elaborate form/graph in Google Worksheets, had to translate a bunch of cells from English to Spanish, and said "Why not use Gemini for this easy, grunt work? They tend to output good translations".

I spent 20 minutes between guiding it because it was putting the translation in the wrong cells, asking it not to convert the cells to a fancy table, and finally, convincing it that it really had access to alter the document, because at some point it denied it. I wasn't being rude, but it seems I somehow made it evasive.

I had to ask it to translate in the chat, and manually copy-pasted the translations in the proper cells myself. Bonus points because it only translated like ten cells at a time, and truncated the reply with a "More cells translated" message.

I can't imagine how hard it would be to handhold an LLM while working in a complex code base. I guess they are a godsend for prototypes and proofs of concept, but they can't beat a competent engineer yet. It's like that joke where a student answers that 2+2=5, and when questioned, he replies that his strength is speed, not accuracy.
by nwienert | 2026-01-23 20:50:25+00:00
Have a EX90 I got on a really great deal, we drove it cross-country and it was mind-blowing how little I had to do. If it didn't make you touch the wheel / pay attention we could have basically done the entire trip without incident minus off-ramps.

But there was one thing that was quite bad, similar to yours. While passing a semi I pulled it to the left side and it actually yanked us right so hard and then over-corrected once again. Super scary moment, the only issue of the whole trip, but basically never passed with it on again.
by mnazzaro | 2026-01-23 20:50:32+00:00
I have! It's pretty interesting and handles a lot of the problems discussed here, but is a little young for us. For one thing, it doesn't have fly replay, so we'd have to build a separate proxy again.

If we were starting from 0, I would definitely try it. My favorite thing about it is the progressive checkpointing- you can snapshot file system deltas and store them at s3 prices. Cool stuff!
by LeifCarrotson | 2026-01-23 20:50:55+00:00
On one end, a farmer or agronomist who just uses a pen, paper, and some education and experience can manage a farm without any computer tooling at all - or even just forecasts the weather and chooses planting times based on the aches in their bones and a finger in the dirt. One who uses a spreadsheet or dedicated farming ERP as a tool can be a little more effective. With a lot of automation, that software tooling can allow them to manage many acres of farms more easily and potentially more accurately. But if you keep going, on the other end, there's just a human who knows nothing about the technicalities but owns enough stock in the enterprise to sit on the board and read quarterly earnings reports. They can do little more than say "Yes, let us keep going in this direction" or "I want to vote in someone else to be on the executive team". Right now, all such corporations have those operational decisions being made by humans, or at least outsourced to humans, but it looks increasingly like an LLM agent could do much of that. It might hallucinate something totally nonsensical and the owner would be left with a pile of debt, but it's hard to say that Seth as just a stockholder is, in any real sense, a farmer, even if his AI-based enterprise grows a lot of corn.

I think it would be unlikely but interesting if the AI decided that in furtherance of whatever its prompt and developing goals are to grow corn, it would branch out into something like real estate or manufacturing of agricultural equipment. Perhaps it would buy a business to manufacture high-tensile wire fence, with a side business of heavy-duty paperclips... and we all know where that would lead!

We don't yet have the legal frameworks to build an AI that owns itself (see also "the tree that owns itself" [1]), so for now there will be a human in the loop. Perhaps that human is intimately involved and micromanaging, merely a hands-off supervisor, or relegated to an ownership position with no real capacity to direct any actions. But I don't think that you can say that an owner who has not directed any actions beyond the initial prompt is really "doing the work".

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_That_Owns_Itself
by nntwozz | 2026-01-23 20:51:13+00:00
I'm 41 and I've never been comfortable with even cruise control, when I drive I DRIVE.

I can't shake the feeling of trusting an already complex mechanical machine to yet another layer of complexity through software.

---

The more they overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain.

— Scotty, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
by redohmy | 2026-01-23 20:51:31+00:00
Major manufacturers are prioritizing AI memory (HBM and high-density DDR5), limiting availability of commodity DRAM and client NAND.

DRAM prices surged in 2025, and forecasts indicate continued steep inflation into early 2026.

DDR4 and DDR5 contract prices are expected to rise 50–60% in Q1 2026, while NAND contracts may jump 33–38%.

SSD market is bifurcating: enterprise SSD demand is surging while consumer demand remains weak, yet prices rise due to constrained wafer supply.

Short-term outlook (2026): prices remain elevated with strong inflation; medium-term relief (2027–2028) depends on new fab capacity.

Buyers should secure supply early, while resellers can maximize returns by optimizing inventory and focusing on high-demand enterprise-grade products.
by clpm4j | 2026-01-23 20:51:34+00:00
I've tried the various flavors of self-driving in my Tesla over the past several years, and essentially it came down to a three-strikes rule for me - after the third time that car jerkily exited the self-driving mode on it own (the third time being in a slight bend on the highway at night) and spiked my heart rate to must have been an all-time high as I manually corrected in time to avoid disaster.. I said "nope, this is a decent electric car but I'm driving it myself from now on."

Waymo on the other hand, I trust it with my life on a weekly basis and have never had cause for concern (fingers crossed I didn't just jinx it).
by square_usual | 2026-01-23 20:51:36+00:00
First, you're talking about a different product, FSD vs Autopilot.

Second, I have a 2025 Model 3, and even with the latest v14.2.2 FSD I had an intervention rate of roughly every ten miles in Washington DC/VA suburbs. I shudder to think what it would do if I didn't pay attention, so I don't think it's an improvement over me driving myself.
by nosianu | 2026-01-23 20:51:55+00:00
That would be possible if you had just the spec, but after sometime most of the code will not have been generated through the original spec, but through lots of back and forth for adding features and big fixing. No way to run all that again.

Not that old big non-AI software doesn't have similar maintainability issues (I keep posting this example, but I don't actually want to callthat company out specifically, the problem is widespread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18442941).

That's why I'm reluctant to complain about the AI code issues too much. The problem of how software is written, on the higher level, the teams, the decisions, the rotating programmers, may be bigger than that of any particular technology or person actually writing the code.

I remember a company where I looked at a contractor job, they wanted me to fix a lot of code they had received from their Eastern European programmers. They complained about them a lot in our meeting. However, after hearing them out I was convinced the problem was not the people generating the code, but the ones above them who failed to provide them with accurate specs and clear guidance, and got surprised at the very end that it did not work as expected.

Similar with AI. It may be hard to disentangle what is project management, what is actually the fault of the AI. I found that you can live with pockets of suboptimal but mostly working code well enough, even adding features and fixing bugs easily, if the overall architecture is solid, and components are well isolated.
by wasmperson | 2026-01-23 20:52:06+00:00
I think it's best to avoid this kind of "re-inventing OOP in C" thing, even though it can be tempting when coming from other languages. Regardless, some notes:

- It's UB to alias one struct pointer with that of a different struct type, even if the two structs have the same first few members. Clang and GCC both exploit this for optimizations, although you can configure them not to.

- Casting function pointers is also problematic, although I think that one is more of a portability issue.

- If you want to "downcast" from a "base" struct to an "inheriting" struct, you can use the `container_of` macro, which is robust against member re-arrangement and supports multiple inheritance:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdint.h>
#include <stddef.h>

#define container_of(p, t, f) ((t *)((char *)(0?&((t *)0)->f:p)-offsetof(t, f)))

struct reader { size_t (*read)(struct reader *self, uint8_t *p, size_t len); };
struct zeros { struct reader base; size_t total; };

size_t zeros_read(struct reader *self_, uint8_t *p, size_t len){
struct zeros *self = container_of(self_, struct zeros, base);
//...
}

- Interfaces in other languages exist to add type safety to dynamic dispatch. You get none of that in C, though, due to the casting you have to perform regardless. Code which just "does the obvious thing" using void pointers will be much simpler, making it better IMO despite the lack of type "safety":

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdint.h>

typedef size_t read_fn(void *ctx, uint8_t *p, size_t len);

size_t work(void *ctx, read_fn *read){
uint8_t buf[8];
return read(ctx, buf, sizeof buf);
}

struct zeros_reader { size_t total; };

size_t zeros_read(void *self_, uint8_t *p, size_t len){
struct zeros_reader *self = self_;
for(size_t i = 0; i < len; i++) p[i] = 0;
self->total += len;
return len;
}

int main(void){
struct zeros_reader z = {0};
work(&z, zeros_read);
work(&z, zeros_read);
printf("total = %zu\n", z.total);
}