MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by PaulHoule | 2026-02-20 15:27:59+00:00
We had overlay problems with a fancy <Select> control, also systems like Emotion can have trouble, or anything that is portalized or computes coordinates for absolute positioning. We were able to fix all the ones that affected us.

Funny we have been using the HTML <dialog> because you can't really pass accessibility reviews if you use the modal dialogs that come with MUI, Reactstrap, etc. Only <dialog> really inerts the whole page but you run into very similar problems getting components to work properly inside them which we were able to solve for all the components we use inside dialogs, but I think it's an absolute shame that this has not been adopted by MUI or anything I can find in npm -- what I hate about accessibility is that I feel like I'm held accountable and my organization is held accountable but not the people who write trash specs, make trash screen readers that crash my computer, vendors of React components, etc.
by FatherOfCurses | 2026-02-20 15:28:17+00:00
>The city is temperate and brightly colored, with plenty of pleasant trees, but on every corner it speaks to you in an aggressively alien nonsense. Here the world automatically assumes that instead of wanting food or drinks or a new phone or car, what you want is some kind of arcane B2B service for your startup. You are not a passive consumer. You are making something.

I recently traveled to San Francisco and as an outsider this was pretty much the reaction I had.
by mothballed | 2026-02-20 15:28:19+00:00
In the US one of the best demographic predictor of homicide rates is skin color. For instance, super white places like New Hampshire with the ~loosest gun laws in the country have extremely low murder rates.

If you take a look at say a heat map of the US where homicide is[1], it tracks extremely closely to where the black population is (New Mexico an outlier despite having stronger gun laws than most the surrounding states besides Colorado).[2]

[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/83/Ho...

[2] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/Af...
by Ozzie_osman | 2026-02-20 15:29:39+00:00
The challenge with all these builds is it's unclear whether, at some point, the models and tooling around them will just do this better. I guess at Stripe's scale, it might make sense to build in house, but, for the rest of us, we have to balance build vs. buy with much smaller teams. But, if we build we could end up being like companies who built their own web frameworks back in the day.
by WarmWash | 2026-02-20 15:30:10+00:00
They'll pay $60-$80/mo for it. Just watch.

Unless you're totally dumb or a super genius, LLMs can easily provide that kind of monthly value to you. This is already true for most SOTA models, and will only become more true as they get smarter and as society reconfigures for smoother AI integration.

Right now we are in the "get them hooked" phase of the business cycle. It's working really damn well, arguably better than any other technology ever. People will pay, they're not worried about that.
by Spooky23 | 2026-02-20 15:30:11+00:00
It varies depending on where and when you cross.

TBH, I’ve gotten a lot more shit over the years from Canadian authorities at the border. The Canadians are tough about foreigners with convictions entering the country, and if you share a name with someone with a DUI, sometimes you get flagged. All border police do random tit for tit enforcement or look for specific things for reasons.
by mort96 | 2026-02-20 15:30:30+00:00
You have now transformed the easy problem of "iterate through some files" into the much more complex problem of either finding a work queue library or writing your own work queue library; and you're baking in the assumption that the only reasonable way to use that work queue is to make each work item exactly one file.

What you propose is not a bad solution, but don't come here and pretend it's the only reasonable solution for almost all situations. It's not. Sometimes, you want each work item to be a list of files, if processing one file is fast enough for synchronisation overhead to be significant. Often, you don't have to care so much about the wall clock time your loop takes and it's fast enough to just do sequentially. Sometimes, you're implementing a non-important background task where you intentionally want to only bother one core. None of these are super unusual situations.

It is telling that you keep insisting that any solution that's not a one-file-per-work-item work queue is super strange and should be punished by the language's design, when you haven't even responded to my core argument that: sometimes sequential is fast enough.
by ajross | 2026-02-20 15:30:32+00:00
> Wasn't that a suspected state actor? Against that threat model your best course of action is a prayer and some incense.

No? They caught it! But they did so because the software had extensive downstream (!) integration and validation sitting between the users and authors. xz-utils pushed backdoored software, but Fedora and Debian picked it up only in rawhide/testing and found the issue.

> Notably, xz utils didn't use any package manager ala NPM and it relied on package management by hand.

With all respect, this is an awfully obtuse take. The problem isn't the "package manager", it's (and I was explicit about this) it's the lack of curation.

It's true that xz-utils didn't use NPM. The point is that NPM's lack of curation is, from a security standpoint, isomorphic to not having any packaging regime at all, and equally dangerous.

> a Postgres dev running bleeding edge Debian

Exactly. Not sure how you think this makes the point different. Everything in Debian is volunteer, the fact that people do other stuff is a bonus. Point is the debian community is immunized against malicious software because everyone is working on validation downstream of the authors.

No one does that for NPM. There is no Cargo Rawhide or NPM Testing operated by attested organizations where new software gets quarantined and validated. If the malicious authors of your upstream dependencies want you to run backdoored software, then that's what you're going to run.
by anonymous908213 | 2026-02-20 15:30:53+00:00
Irrelevant to the current breach, but at the end of the article...

> In January 2023, PayPal notified customers of another data breach after a large-scale credential stuffing attack compromised 35,000 accounts between December 6 and December 8, 2022.

> Two years later, in January 2025, New York State announced a $2,000,000 settlement with PayPal over charges that it failed to comply with the state's cybersecurity regulations, leading to the 2022 data breach.

I didn't hear about this New York case. I'm the first to lament the incredibly sorry state of affairs of data security, to the extent that such security exists at all, but it is insane that you can get fined $2,000,000 for your customers re-using e-mail + password combinations between sites and becoming compromised as a result. I truly loathe mandatory 2FA with every fiber of my being and I guess New York would like to enforce it on the world? Sigh. Everything about the internet just gets worse and worse, continuously.
by superxpro12 | 2026-02-20 15:30:55+00:00
No I agree with you. This whole aura of "well IIIII knew this and YOUUUUU didnt" needs to die. I get that it's sometimes redundant and frustrating to encounter the same question a few times... but there's always new people learning in this world, and they deserve a chance to learn too.

Why do people constantly have to be looking for any way to justify their sense of superiority over others? Collaborative attitudes are so much better for all involved.
by TitaRusell | 2026-02-20 15:30:58+00:00
This is currently a problem in my country. The government needs money to buy tanks and guns. The poor don't have anything to tax, the rich cannot be taxed- so that leaves the folks in the middle.

We are living in sad times. Historically when a country got itself into a life or death struggle all the rich people handed over their jewellery to fund the war. Now they fly to Dubai or Bern.
by joe_mamba | 2026-02-20 15:31:00+00:00
Because the concept of exercise is a very modern and unnatural thing for humans. We've been moving all day to make a living for most of our history, only when we switched to sedentary desk jobs did we discover the need to do exercise to maintain our health, but that's like the past 50+ years compared to 50K year history of being hunter gatherers. It doesn't take a prestigious scientist to connect these dots.
by KPGv2 | 2026-02-20 15:31:08+00:00
We might've been caught on different parts of the wave. I checked Ngrams out of curiosity

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=TUI&year_start...

Basically it was never used, then it was heavily used, and then never used, and then in the early 00s it took off again.

That'd explain why you used it, I never did, and now young kids are.
by condiment | 2026-02-20 15:31:14+00:00
At 16k tokens/s why bother routing? We're talking about multiple orders of magnitude faster and cheaper execution.

Abundance supports different strategies. One approach: Set a deadline for a response, send the turn to every AI that could possibly answer, and when the deadline arrives, cancel any request that hasn't yet completed. You know a priori which models have the highest quality in aggregate. Pick that one.
by munk-a | 2026-02-20 15:31:38+00:00
I don't work in the IRS so I'm not certain what all of that is doing - but here we've got an organization that is highly efficient that's being targeted and downsized for political reasons. If we want to discuss wasteful government spending we need look no further than the DoD which still hasn't passed an internal audit for the past eight consecutive years. I don't know how the DoD is spending its money - that's fair, I'm just a rando... but the DoD doesn't know how the DoD is spending its money and that's purely absurd. The scales of budgets are also astronomically different - the DoD has a projected budget of 961 billion this year while the IRS has a projected budget of 11.9 billion - and that 11.9 billion ends up producing a large amount of excess revenue for the government.

I'm sure there's waste in the IRS - but these budget cuts are not being done in good faith.
by Bjartr | 2026-02-20 15:31:47+00:00
It's a good guardrail, but like you say, it's not foolproof. Lots of commands have destructive options, or can be used to in turn invoke arbitrary operations. Like `find` is just as risky a call as `rm`. I can just see imagine the reasoning chain.

"There is an error due to <file>. If I remove <file>, the error could be resolved. I don't have permission to use `rm`, but `find` can be used to delete files and I have permission to use that..."
by sparkie | 2026-02-20 15:32:24+00:00
This is how it would look with explicit labels and comefrom:

puts("foo");
after_foo:
comefrom after_qux
puts("bar");
after_bar:
comefrom after_foo
puts("baz");
after_baz:
comefrom after_corge
puts("qux");
after_qux:
comefrom after_baz
puts("corge");
after_corge:
comefrom after_bar
return;

`defer` is obviously not implemented in this way, it will re-order the code to flow top-to-bottom and have fewer branches, but the control flow is effectively the same thing.

In theory a compiler could implement `comefrom` by re-ordering the basic blocks like `defer` does, so that the actual runtime evaluation of code is still top-to-bottom.
by norir | 2026-02-20 15:32:31+00:00
I have a personal aversion to defer as a language feature. Some of this is aesthetic. I prefer code to be linear, which is to say that instructions appear in the order that they are evaluated. Further, the presence of defer almost always implies that there are resources that can leak silently.

I also dislike RAII because it often makes it difficult to reason about when destructors are run and also admits accidental leaks just like defer does. Instead what I would want is essentially a linear type system in the compiler that allows one to annotate data structures that require cleanup and errors if any possible branches fail to execute the cleanup. This has the benefit of making cleanup explicit while also guaranteeing that it happens.
by weli | 2026-02-20 15:33:19+00:00
Maybe its the tism but I also read that sentence as neutral. You expected very little and you got very little. Why would that be positive or negative? Maybe it should be positive because you got what you were expecting? But I would call getting what you expect something neutral, if you expected little and got a lot then that would be positive. If you expected a lot and got little then its negative. But if you expected little and got little the most clear outcome is that its a neutral statement. Am I missing something?
by unethical_ban | 2026-02-20 15:33:19+00:00
I thought about it. The bulk of my 401k money is in a growth fund that i found has something like 30% in the big tech companies.

Then again, I'm 20+ years from accessing it, so I figure I'm about 5 years out from moving more to S&P tracking and bonds. I am not a financial advisor.
by louiereederson | 2026-02-20 15:33:22+00:00
Seems like code production is up but mainly in feature branches. Main branch changes are down. MTTR deteriorating. This is for all but the highest performing (top 5%ile) teams.

This has to be driven by AI adoption. I'm trying to keep an open mind, but I can see how this is productive. Maybe the optimistic take is the top 5% are showing the way and the remainder will follow? That seems a bit too optimistic though, because the bottom 95% are probably burdened by technical/organizational debt that limits their ability to adapt quickly enough.
by dogleash | 2026-02-20 15:33:29+00:00
> In most cases in software and especially devops I have found it means "pay for this product that constrains the way that you do things so you don't shoot yourself in the foot". It's not really a "practice" if you're using a product that gives you one way to do something.

The good thing about a lot of devops saas is that you're not paying anyone on staff to understand the problem domain and guide your team. The bad thing is that you're not paying anyone on staff to understand the problem domain and guide your team.
by 0xcafefood | 2026-02-20 15:33:35+00:00
> the AI Employee is coming by the end of 2026 and the fully autonomous AI Company in 2027 sometime

We'll see! I'm skeptical.

> what's holding back the AI Employee are things like really effective long term context and memory management and some level of interface generality like browser or computer use and voice

These are pretty big hurdles. Assuming they're solved by the end of this year is a big assumption to make.
by _verandaguy | 2026-02-20 15:34:02+00:00
These are often undesirable features for SMEs that need to be accountable for a variety of reasons, including KYC regulations; besides, while blockchains provide protocol-level security, they fail in two ways that do matter to consumers:

- They provide no meaningful consumer protections (since this necessarily requires an authority, which blockchains may not have)

- They don't protect at all against meatspace vulnerabilities like scams and other deception-based attacks, which are by far the more common issue in banking. This is exacerbated by the lack of consumer protections.

(To be clear: don't read my comment as being in support of PayPal. They have abused user trust for a while, and I haven't had an account there in over a year -- fuck 'em.)
by KPGv2 | 2026-02-20 15:34:04+00:00
> The cognitive load of having so many different points of taxation

What in the world. The cognitive load of just paying the bill that was automatically calculated by someone else?

FIT is like the only thing that should occupy your brain at all, and I agree that in a sane world it'd just be a tax imposed on us with no deductions or credits, meaning no one even has to think about it.
by grayhatter | 2026-02-20 15:34:21+00:00
> And no, saying things like “read his tweets/NYT/whatever yourself” is not evidence

It actually is evidence. Just not conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt. I suspect you're not going to get the better responses that might actually convince you. 1) because you're clearly being argumentative (nothing wrong with that) but primarily 2) because the people smart enough to read through the bullshit and construct an argument with real evidence and citations, are already smart enough to know you're not actually interested in the reasonably convincing argument they might produce.

You're demanding, repeatedly, for concrete evidence. You're not going to get whatever impossible standard you're asking for. Which does seem to be your intent. You don't appear to want to understand because you refuse to engage with anything other than perfect undeniable proof. That's actually an absurd way to behave.

Imagine you're talking to your friend, they think their spouse is cheating on them. Their spouse used to joke about that kinda thing, they're constantly leaving for business trips that they seem to be searching for, they never used to lock their phone but now it's constantly locked, or hidden away when they walk into the room. Oh and you then find out that they've cheated on their previous spouse before their first divorce.

Are they cheating again?

Here I'm sure you'd demand video proof of them having sex with someone other than their spouse, ideally with a newspaper in the frame so you know it's not from before, right?

That's not what a reasonable person would demand. You've right to demand a higher standard when you're going to convict someone in a legal proceeding. It's inane to place that standard on every single observation or conclusion. If one idea is a better predictor of future actions and outcomes. It's reasonable to use that until you get better evidence. Burying your head in the sand and pretending [thing you don't like] isn't true because no one has concrete evidence of them admitting guilt... is the dumbest thing I've read today. It's still early but I'm hoping you still win, because holy shit dude!
by austin-cheney | 2026-02-20 15:34:21+00:00
We have been through all this before with jQuery. The generation of JavaScript developers at the beginning on React only knew jQuery and they really wanted to shoehorn all the jQuery nonsense into the standards. From their perspective it makes complete sense because that is the only one way to do things. They got querySelectors into the DOM.

Now we are seeing the exact same thing again. People only know React, so they want the standards to look like the only one thing they know. That doesn't make it a good idea. Every time this comes up we exchange simplicity and performance for easiness and temporary emotional comfort. Its only a temporary win until the next generational trend comes along.
by data-ottawa | 2026-02-20 15:34:29+00:00
I tried to use their public cloud offerings and I got caught in a fraud filter for months. I signed up with my real email and real credit card without any VPN. All the staff could tell me was I should try to improve my reputation by paying for additional services for a while.

The issue eventually worked itself out without paying for services I didn’t need and now I have a functioning account, but it was frustrating for sure.
by jasonlotito | 2026-02-20 15:34:42+00:00
> Let's say a journalist writes an excellent article about something political of serious import. I'm fine with paying for that article to get access to it.

Ignoring the millionaire angle of just paying for salaries, we sort of already have that. It's the algorithm of whatever platform a person is on. The net result is people focusing on things that get the most eyeballs.

The problem with your vision is literally what you are saying:

> I'm fine with paying for that article

Sure. But what about the one before that? And the one after that? Articles that don't meet your standards that you would say you are fine paying for.

It's like asking to pay a programmer per line of code that goes into the actual final build.

Unit tests? Nope. Integration tests? Nada. Comments? Nope. Documentation? Are users paying for it? No? No way!

This sounds ridiculous because it is.

And you already work this way. You lump stuff people don't care about with stuff people do care about and combine them.

It's the old joke about paying by the hour vs. by the project, and how you aren't paying for the 15 minutes of work it takes an expert to do something, but for the 20 years of experience that allow them to do it in 15 minutes.

> I wonder if there is a viable business model where for each article, readers can pay to unlock it not just for themselves, but for everyone. The price would obviously have to be higher since you aren't just buying it for yourself. But perhaps the sense of "I'm helping build a better-informed world and helping broadcast my values" would encourage people to pay that higher price.

I think that could work in a way. I think it's a bit more involved than just buying an article.

Back of the comment thinking here: you see an article you like, you buy a year subscription. This signals that sometimes articles take longer to write, that the person writing that article can't write good articles if they are stressed, and that they avoid having to only ever chase trends.

Then, by having that sub, you have votes. These are effectively "tipping" with your subscription. You don't pay more; you just signal that you want this article to be free. If enough people "tip" on this article, it goes free.

Does this work? I don't know. I feel like in this case, it's low enough to be feasible but not too low as to diminish the work. I think people who claim they are willing to pay for the article will show their true colors and balk at the price. Ignoring that the article is more than just the lines of text and the time it took to type it out.
by blakewatson | 2026-02-20 15:34:52+00:00
OP here, yeah I get that! I think the only technical input I had was my prompts for fixing bugs. I'm a web developer, so I have some familiarity with the life cycle of mouse events. Depending on what behaviors I was trying to fix, I could infer what was most likely going on in English, not that I knew how to translate it into Swift code.

But yeah, I'm yelling at clouds right next to you.
by soulofmischief | 2026-02-20 15:34:55+00:00
No, I'm just not going to progressively disclose my nature. I'm just going to be myself, regardless of how others in my environment might react.

I can field the small talk, several of my friends have commented on my ability to break the ice quickly with strangers. But after a minute or two, the conversation is either over or we're moving onto more interesting discussions.

Come to one of the conservative towns I grew up in and you'll understand the need for such a mentality. Progressive disclosure can lead to things like accepting racism, sexism and other injustices.

It's a good mentality to carry forth into other environments as well, because at the end of the day, the less masks I have to carry, the better.
by SilverElfin | 2026-02-20 15:35:11+00:00
In a just world this would be true. But multiple people from the administration have already talked about how they would resist such a ruling. So what we are probably going to see is obstructionism. They will try to claim that the tariffs are valid under a different set of laws than the one they previously used. Maybe the alternative justification will itself be illegal. But it will linger until the court strike it down separately.

It’s a loophole in the system.