MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by HocusLocus | 2026-01-27 17:03:32+00:00
I have always believed that the human evolution consensus which is usually based upon finds of advanced toolmaking in absence of culture cues, to be questionable by orders of magnitude. So it seemed natural to simply double generational concepts of the village along a trade route, from ~500kya (like the Nile) to 1 million YA as a hyperstable span of evolution of the 'trade route village'. I even wrote a book about it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtxgpaXp9vA that might seem like whole fiction. But science seems not to ask, how many times might we have started over?
by littlestymaar | 2026-01-27 17:03:36+00:00
> Especially for native apps and automotive / medical use cases.

It used to be the case, but even those sectors made the move to web GUIs. Heck even the Windows start menu is an Electron app nowadays.

> 2. I think you might be living in a bubble if you think “barely anyone uses them”. Qt still has massive use , entire industries are dependent on it.

I'm not. I've worked in medical devices and train control systems, on projects that would have been Qt based a decade earlier but had moved to web UIs. I even have a friend working for a defense company who told me that the UI for their latest AA weapon system was built with web technologies! That even the most conservative industry out there has started migrating tells you all you need to know.

Qt is definitely in the “legacy technology” category at this point and has been for a while. That doesn't mean it's dead, like Cobol it won't die before the last system using it will, but it's still far less relevant than it used to be.

> SwiftUI being better doesn’t mean that the old paradigms were inherently bad or unsuitable like you suggested

I'm not saying they were unsuitable, but they definitely weren't good enough which is why the entire industry has moved to something else. (The said alternative is far from perfect either, though).
by freedomben | 2026-01-27 17:03:59+00:00
> There was plenty of other concerning stuff in that article.

Yeah for sure, I probably didn't make it clear enough but I do fault OpenAI for this as much as or maybe more than Apple. I didn't think that needed to be stressed since the article is already blasting them for it and I don't disagree with most of that criticism of OpenAI.
by 0x3f | 2026-01-27 17:04:09+00:00
You understand that e.g. in Chinese cities they restrict car ownership and you have to enter a lottery/bidding system to get valid plates. Cars are a luxury. European cities have their own restrictions and discouragements. Rationing happens in many ways.

I have still never experienced an airport with pick-up/drop-off traffic as bad as JFK, and I've travelled to almost every country in Europe, plenty of countries in Asia, and Canada. Maybe South America can beat it though, TBD.
by wtallis | 2026-01-27 17:04:13+00:00
> I read somewhere that TearFree is triple buffering, so -if true- it's my (perhaps mistaken) understanding that this adds a frame of latency.

True triple buffering doesn't add one frame of latency, but since it enforces only whole frames be sent to the display instead of tearing, it can cause partial frames of latency. (It's hard to come up with a well-defined measure of frame latency when tearing is allowed.)

But there have been many systems that abused the term "triple buffering" to refer to a three-frame queue, which always does add unnecessary latency, making it almost always the wrong choice for interactive systems.
by LexiMax | 2026-01-27 17:04:31+00:00
> Then they will diverge too much, like it happened with countless number of other languages, like Lisp.

Forgive me if I am unconvinced that the existence of DSP-friendly dialects of C++ will cause the kinds of language fracturing that befell Lisp.

DSP workloads are relatively rare compared to the other kinds of workloads C++ is tasked with, and even in those instances a lot of DSP work is starting to be done on more traditional architectures like ARM Cortex-M.
by buran77 | 2026-01-27 17:04:33+00:00
> but it is the truth

It's a very superficial "truth", in the "I don't really understand the problem" kind of way. This is visible when you compare to something like ME. Vista introduced a lot of things under the hood that have radically changed Windows and were essential for follow-up versions but perhaps too ambitious in one go. That came with a cost, teething issues, and user accommodation issues. ME introduced squat in the grand scheme of things. It was a coat of paint on a crappy dead-end framework, with nothing real to redeem it. If these are the same thing to you then your opinion is just a very wide brush.

Vista's real issue was that while foundational for what came after, people don't just need a strong foundation or a good engine, most barely understand any of the innards of a computer. They need a whole package and they understand "slow" or "needs faster computer" or "your old devices don't work anymore". But that's far from trash. The name Vista just didn't get to carry on like almost every other "trash" launch edition of Windows.

And something I need to point out to everyone who insists on walking on the nostalgia lane, Windows XP was considered trash at launch, from UI, to performance, to stability, to compatibility. And Windows 7 was Vista SP2 or 3. Windows 10 (or maybe Windows 8 SP2 or 3?) was also trash at launch and now people hang on to it for dear life.
by volkercraig | 2026-01-27 17:04:33+00:00
Your boss tells you to choose a vendor for your AI integration. Your options:

Company A - First to the market, Reasonable Cost, Most well known name. Very easy integration.

Company B - Well regarded tools, Higher cost, Better performance and reviews from team. More difficult to integrate

Company C - Reasonably Priced, Performance is reasonable, Has a connection to an extremely controversial individual, Currently being lambasted for being an CP/Revenge Porn generator

Ok, now pretend you're talking to a guy who signs your paycheques. Which one are you NOT gonna pick?
by embedding-shape | 2026-01-27 17:04:39+00:00
> I think the human + agent thing absolutely will make a huge difference.

Just the day(s) before, I was thinking about this too, and I think what will make the biggest difference is humans who posses "Good Taste". I wrote a bunch about it here: https://emsh.cat/good-taste/

I think the ending is most apt, and where I think we're going wrong right now:

> I feel like we're building the wrong things. The whole vibe right now is "replace the human part" instead of "make better tools for the human part". I don't want a machine that replaces my taste, I want tools that help me use my taste better; see the cut faster, compare directions, compare architectural choices, find where I've missed things, catch when we're going into generics, and help me make sharper intentional choices.
Is this the Year of Linux paid Apps?
by DonnyV | 2026-01-27 17:04:51+00:00
It seems Microsoft has finally pissed off enough people. Especially with this recent news of giving away BitLocker keys. That people are jumping to Linux for Desktop. I'm currently looking at Linux tools that can replace my Windows tools. e.g. Google Drive syncing

I think this might grow the paid apps market for Linux. Windows users don't have a problem paying for something if we don't have to manage it and deal with drivers.
by adgjlsfhk1 | 2026-01-27 17:04:51+00:00
> then there are the intentional burials from millions of years agoby a tiny hominum in SA, deap in a cave complex that requires extream cave crawling to get into

This is very heavily disputed and very much not consensus opinion. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_naledi#Possible_burials and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00472...)
by jeyjeyemem | 2026-01-27 17:04:54+00:00
Externalized Properties was inspired by the The Twelve Factor Methodology's section III. Config.

The goal of this library is to make it easy for applications to implement configuration best practices by providing easy-to-use APIs as well as providing the flexibility to choose where to store their configurations/properties.

Externalized Properties takes full advantage of Java's Dynamic Proxies.

Why Dynamic Proxies?

* Dependency Injection Friendly

Since Externalized Properties works with interfaces, it makes it easy to integrate with dependency injection (DI) frameworks. it's as simple as building ExternalizedProperties, initializing a dynamic proxy from an interface, and registering the proxy interface to your chosen DI framework.

* Testing Friendly

Another side-effect of being dependency injection friendly is that it also makes it easy to mock/stub out configurations/properties on unit tests. It's as simple as creating a stub implementation of the proxy interface or using mocking frameworks to mock the proxy interface.
by Traster | 2026-01-27 17:05:11+00:00
I think this article doesn't really engage with why TSMC is in the position it is in. It is in the position it's in due to 2 key reasons. The first is scale, in order to make the R&D worth it you need to sell a hell of a lot of chips. So you need scale in order for the economics to work. One of the things a lot of people point to in the downfall of Intel is they missed mobile and that just cut the legs out of their scale.

The second reason is the opposite though. The industry is cyclical. If you invest a tonne now, and that investment comes to fruition just as you hit the bottom of a cycle you're just going to go bankrupt. You'll have a tonne of capacity, no demand and businesses are designed to go bankrupt in exactly that way. You only need a small surplus of demand to skyrocket prices, and you only need a small deficit of demand to turn into a fire sale.

Let's put it this way - Ben points at a graph and says "Look, here's where ChatGPT got released - and the YoY CapEx went down!". Yes, that is exactly the cyclical nature. It takes a long term to sort the logistics for this industry, so if you see demand in early 2023, that's going to turn into CapEx in 2025 - and it did, a 35% increase in CapEx YoY is yuuuge.

The problem is that if you say competition is the answer what you're really saying is you want one player in the industry to chase a pro-cyclical demand cycle and that will blow them up. The result of this strategy is just to sacrifice the leading players each cycle.

The logical answer is actually, if Google wants TSMC to push CapEx into a bubble, Google should under-write it. Judge where you expect demand to be and hand over cash to buy the chips now. TSMC will build it. If you guarantee revenue in 2029, TSMC will absolutely guarantee you capacity. But Google doesn't beleive it, and they certainly won't pay up front for it. No, what you'll get is special purpose vehicles that look a lot like the big tech companies guaranteeing projects - in a way that doesn't show up on their balance sheets now - but turn out not to be guarantees if it turns sideways. And TSMC can't afford that counter party risk.
Show HN: Dexicon – Capture AI coding sessions so your team never loses context
by kpam | 2026-01-27 17:05:17+00:00
We built Dexicon because there's invaluable context in AI coding sessions that disappears the moment you close the tab. Architectural decisions, debugging rabbit holes, the "why we did it this way" - gone.

Dexicon captures sessions from Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, and others, then makes it all searchable via MCP. You can also upload sessions manually along with relevant docs. It extracts atomic pieces of context into a knowledge graph - for V1, that means completed tasks and debugging/root-cause analyses, the non-trivial stuff that helps when someone hits the same issue a few weeks later.

It's designed to be useful for solo devs who want searchable insights into their own sessions, but scales to teams as a way to solve the tribal knowledge problem.

We're pre-seed with a handful of paying customers. The developers we've been working with have surprised us with use cases we didn't anticipate: encoding team best practices, speeding up onboarding for new teammates, and generating optimized agent instructions from their own session history.

Now we're opening up access to more users and would love feedback from HN community.
by namibj | 2026-01-27 17:05:30+00:00
By law the demarcation is a passive one; the provider is not allowed to mandate you operate ANY of their active hardware. If they want to sell you internet only via e.g. RJ45 Ethernet they better consider asking your landlord to rent them space and power and Cat.5(+) wiring access to put a switch/router, because by law they can't dump that on you the residential apartment renting customer.
by randusername | 2026-01-27 17:05:45+00:00
> More of a issue that power goes to their heads.

I'm sure this exists too, but isn't the mundane rationale more likely? That gruffness is inevitable because the work sucks?

Overworked, understaffed, the days blur together because it is boring, mostly sedentary work. They are ground down from dealing with the juxtaposition of their role; internally TSA are told they are important because their vigilance is heroic and prevents catastrophe, yet the general public views them with annoyance if not disdain. _Everyone_ they interact with is impatient, and at the that scale of human interaction nobody is really a person anymore, just a complication to throughput.
by adeebvaliulla | 2026-01-27 17:05:53+00:00
This resonates with a pain I see repeatedly in production agent systems: humans acting as the reliability layer.

Most teams I work with hardcode a single “golden path” for agents, then rely on dashboards, alerts, and tribal knowledge to notice when behavior degrades. By the time someone debugs model choice, tool params, or prompt drift, the environment has already changed again. The feedback loop is slow and brittle.

What’s interesting here is the explicit shift from observability to outcome-driven control. Routing based on actual production success rather than static benchmarks or offline evals aligns with how reliability engineering evolved in other domains. We moved from “what happened?” to “what should the system do next?” years ago.

A couple of questions I’m curious about:

- How do you define and normalize “success” across heterogeneous tasks without overfitting to short-term signals?

- How do you prevent oscillation or path thrashing when outcomes are noisy or sparse?

- Is there a notion of confidence or regret baked into the routing decisions over time?

Overall, this feels less like a router and more like an autonomous control plane for agents. If it holds up under real-world variance, this is a meaningful step toward agents that are self-healing rather than constantly babysat.
by freedomben | 2026-01-27 17:06:16+00:00
I don't disagree, but that reinforces my point above I think. If AI has to assume the data is of poor quality, then there's no point in even trying to analyze it. The options are basically:

1. Trust the source of the data to be honest about it's quality

Or

2. Distrust the source

Approach number 2 basically means we can never do any analysis on it.

Personally I'd rather have a product that might be wrong than none at all, but that's a personal preference.
by mmooss | 2026-01-27 17:06:23+00:00
> I've worked in museums and research settings

You've worked in those settings, and you think archaeologists reject tool use older than 1 mya?

Also, you don't understand that science is a process, based on evidence, and revision is an essential part of that process? Archaeology especially advances regularly, because evidence can be relatively very rare. If they weren't revising it, it would mean the whole research enterprise - to expand knowledge - was failing.

> how many times has the earliest dates of hominids and tool use and human thresholds of development been pushed back by tens of thousands of years?

I don't know, how many times? Tool use is universally believed, in the field, to have begun at least 2.58 million years ago, and with strong evidence for 3.3 mya. Tens of thousands of years isn't in the debate. See this subthread:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46782072
by threethirtytwo | 2026-01-27 17:07:01+00:00
>If you want to be any good at all in this industry, you have to develop enough technical skills to evaluate claims for yourself. You have to. It's essential.

This is an orthogonal off topic point. My or anyones skills don't have to do with the topic at hand. The topic at hand is AI.

>Because the dirty secret is a lot of successful people aren't actually smart or talented, they just got lucky. Or they aren't successful at all, they're just good at pretending they are, either through taking credit for other people's work or flat out lying.

Again orthoganol to the point. But I'll entertain it. There's another class of people who are delusional. They think they're good, but they're not good at all. I've seen plenty of that in the industry. More so then people who lie, it's people who lie to themselves and believe it. Engineers so confident in their skills, but when I look at them I think they're raw dog shit.

>I've run into more than a few startups that are just flat out lying about their capabilities and several that were outright fraud. (See DoNotPay for a recent fraud example lol)

Again so?

>Pointing to anyone and going "well THEY do it, it MUST work" is frankly engineering malpractice. It might work. But unless you have the chops to verify it for yourself, you're just asking to be conned.

Of course. But it's idiotic when there is a huge population of people who are smarter than you better than you and proven to be more capable than you saying they can do it. I need to emphasize it's not just one person saying it. Tons and tons and tons of people are saying it.

Fraud happens in the margins of society it rarely ever happens at a macro level, and if it does happen at a macro level the trend doesn't last long and will mostly die within a year at most.

So when multitudes of highly reputed people are saying one thing, and your on the ground self verification of that thing is directly opposite of what they are saying. Then you need to re-evaluate your OWN verification. You need to investigate WHY there is a discrepancy, because it is utter stupidity to deny what others have seen as fraud and believe that your own judgements and verifications are flawless.

No offense, my dude, but your philosophy on this topic embodies the delusional stupidity I am talking about. People lie to themselves. That is the key metric here.

I don't need to explain ANY of this to you. You know it, because every explanation I just gave is an OBVIOUS facet of life in general. It needs to be explained to someone like you despite it's obviousness because of self delusion.
by captain_coffee | 2026-01-27 17:07:01+00:00
Yes OK, but that was not the point that I was trying to make.

You are developing in a language + framework that you are not familiar with, without having any human feedback in the process at all - see where I am going with this?

Even with a quarter of a decade of experience you are still in what can basically be reffered to as uncharted territory.
by tacostakohashi | 2026-01-27 17:07:35+00:00
For whatever reason... this is a very common/recurring question on reddit r/RealEstate.

I think it's pretty simple - sellers pay to list properties via agents. Agents pay Zillow for leads. None of those revenue streams would benefit from hosting free/comments from randos.

Also, if the comments are anonymous... it seems inevitable that neighbors, people wanting to buy at a discount, sellers, etc. would post misleading garbage on there to further their own interests. It's pretty much inevitable that any information rom third parties would be dubious garbage. e.g. "this house has a leaky roof/mice in the basement/mold in the bathroom..." well, sure, most housed do at one point at another, doesn't mean it wasn't fixed/already priced in etc.
by alnwlsn | 2026-01-27 17:07:56+00:00
You don't need to learn BASIC first but it might be helpful for bootstrapping at the beginning. Since it's included in the computer you can PEEK and POKE memory locations from BASIC and get a feel for how memory and machine code works without needing to understand the whole entire hardware, bootloading process, etc. first.

In my opinion BASIC, with its line numbers and GOTO / GOSUB feels assembly-ish anyway - you'll be doing a lot of JMP / JSR to control program flow which is different to how modern high levels are normally written.
by jjaksic | 2026-01-27 17:08:13+00:00
Have you tried Bazzite or Aurora? A well-made and full-featured atomic distro is basically as easy to use and as reliable as ChromeOS, but with most of the flexibility that Linux offers.

I had Ubuntu for 8 years and it was as you describe (things broke all the time and every time I had to spend hours searching forums for arcane command lines etc). With Bazzite everything just works and nothing ever breaks. KDE with Wayland looks and feels amazing. I love love love the experience!
by lbrito | 2026-01-27 17:08:18+00:00
You don't understand.

Its different: _they_ were doing it. The Bad Guys. Now _we_, the Good Guys, are doing it. Therefore, the thing itself is no longer Bad - it is Good.

The comment above was ironic. I have to specify because supposedly intelligent people really think that way: https://x.com/garrytan/status/1963310592615485955
by eslaught | 2026-01-27 17:08:32+00:00
But this is exactly my point: if your "code" is different than your "pseudocode", something is wrong. There's a reason why people call Lisp "executable pseudocode", and it's because it shrinks the gap between the human-level description of what needs to happen and the text that is required to actually get there. (There will always be a gap, because no one understands the requirements perfectly. But at least it won't be exacerbated by irrelevant details.)

To me, reading the prompt example half a dozen levels up, reminds me of Greenspun's tenth rule:

> Any sufficiently complicated C++ program contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Common Lisp. [1]

But now the "program" doesn't even have formal semantics and isn't a permanent artifact. It's like running a compiler and then throwing away the source program and only hand-editing the machine code when you don't like what it does. To me that seems crazy and misses many of the most important lessons from the last half-century.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenspun%27s_tenth_rule (paraphrased to use C++, but applies equally to most similar languages)
by bayarearefugee | 2026-01-27 17:08:44+00:00
> Since that story broke nobody there seems to want to talk about “just walk out” anymore.

Optimus and Robotaxi are just as fake and Elon Musk never shuts up about them.

I guess Amazon never learned the important lesson that the OP meta for modern technology companies is just to consistently and blatantly lie.
by buildsjets | 2026-01-27 17:08:44+00:00
Food deserts do exist, but Seattle's Central District is not one of them. This US government tool used to literally be called the "Food Desert Locator" until the current administration re-named it to "Food Access Research Atlas"

https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-access-research-...

It's really the suburban areas of Seattle that develop food deserts, likely due to restrictive zoning for commercial properties and minimum lot-size requirements that make sure that every grocery store is a long SUV ride away from the cu-de-sac neighborhood.

If the term Food Desert offends you, I can gladly switch to calling it Food Apartheid instead.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/may/15/food-aparthe...
by erezsh | 2026-01-27 17:09:09+00:00
> while brutality was even higher than Iranian regime.

How are you not ashamed to write this to an Iranian?

> I don't see Iran bombing own people

Only machine-gunning and cutting their heads off in the street with machetes. Nothing to see here!

> or killing 10% of its own population

What does that even mean? No one did that. Even Hamas doesn't claim that.

Just admit you hate Jews and don't give a damn about anyone else in the middle-east.