MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by jcrawfordor | 2026-03-08 00:48:24+00:00
USPS doesn't care; each ZIP code has a single preferred city name and a list of acceptable alternate city names to account for cases in which a ZIP code spans multiple cities. However, USPS's address validation will prefer to use the preferred city name for the ZIP regardless of whether the recipient actually lives within the boundaries of that city. That's because USPS has opted to organize addressing entirely around the ZIP codes, and other political boundaries are irrelevant except in cases of problems interpreting the address.

This does mean that you might autofill a city name that is "wrong" in the view of the person completing the address form, but much of the bulk mail they receive probably uses that city name anyway.

Technically speaking ZIP codes are not "supposed" to span states but, in exceptional cases, some do. In this case USPS handles it the same way: the state of the preferred city is the preferred state for the ZIP code.

The preferred city is almost always the location of the post office serving the ZIP, which makes this situation fairly intuitive. You can find some interesting edge cases where a post office in located in a suburb city, resulting in a ZIP that includes part of a major city having the suburb as its preferred city name.

You can look up the city name and alternates for a ZIP here: https://tools.usps.com/zip-code-lookup.htm?citybyzipcode
and the Domestic Mailing Manual covers this, although it's scattered across several sections and mostly part of how the City State database (the database used for validating city and state names in addresses) works.
by mbirth | 2026-03-08 00:48:29+00:00
Yep, just think of those people in front of you, that pass the same several large signs telling them to make sure that all their liquids are in a 1 litre ziplock bag and have that bag ready for inspection (this is in Europe) … and then doing a surprised Pikachu when the security personell asks them about why their perfume isn’t in said bag. Then starting to repack their hand luggage while the whole queue has to wait and watch.

And you only experience those few people in front of you. The security staff has them all day long.
by TheOtherHobbes | 2026-03-08 00:48:36+00:00
The Globe is full of tourists, so it's multibrow at best.

Bourdieu's take was that the working classes like simple sentimental art, the middle classes like aspirational, middlebrow art because they feel they have something to prove, and the upper classes often prefer kitsch.

Although sometimes it's high status middlebrow kitsch, such as a lot of opera and light classical music, which is more sentimental than technical.

Most opera lovers have no idea who Luigi Nono was, and would care less if they did know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joteZTLpHdE

Highbrow art is the exclusive niche domain of intellectuals and academics UNLESS it's been commodified into a Veblen good, like contemporary art.
by avaer | 2026-03-08 00:49:56+00:00
Insider trading has been a staple of making money in US politics for a long time, it's just more transparent now.

I don't believe a targeted ban on participating in prediction markets would do much to weed out corruption while "predictions" hide behind government officials pumping memecoins, buying stocks, using proxies, or simply sharing war plans over messaging apps. The floodgates are already open, prediction markets are just the most honest and obvious version of the corruption.

This approach to legislation is an interesting contrast to the CCP's supposed 2.3 million people prosecuted for corruption, if you believe Wikipedia [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-corruption_campaign_under...
by mrcwinn | 2026-03-08 00:50:21+00:00
Good for Caitlin. Sam Altman is awful. He literally admitted on Twitter that they rushed their military contract to get it done. Are you kidding me? You rushed your military contract?

Any employee who stays, especially given the financial cushion they have, is complicit. Shame on all of them.

But here’s the sad truth: most of the knowledge workers at OpenAI won’t be of any value sometime soon because of the very tool they’re building.
by operatingthetan | 2026-03-08 00:50:56+00:00
If they are actually "exactly the same" and your criteria is a "random" developer then does it matter which you pick? Look for extracurriculars like active github, personal website/blog, open source contributions, vibe coding skills, etc. I bet 75% of the job market right now is being done on referrals anyway. Tap your network.
by osigurdson | 2026-03-08 00:53:29+00:00
I'm not sure if this is what you mean but in some ways it would be nice to have tighter coupling with a registry. Docker build is kind of like a multiplexer - pull from here or there and build locally, then tag and push somewhere else. Most of the time all pulls are from public registries, push to a single private one and the local image is never used at all.

It seems overly orthogonal for the typical use case but perhaps just not enough of an annoyance for anyone to change it.
by gavmor | 2026-03-08 00:54:10+00:00
I really like these sorts of frameworks from an architectural perspective, but what's the use-case? Maybe I'm too SPA-pilled, because to me all the fun of Web development is in providing really fluid, skeuomorphic experiences like those enabled by, eg pragmatic-drag-and-drop[0] or yjs[1].

I just struggle to envision what application benefits from the efficiency that this or htmx offer, but from neither the ultra-interactive, nor the ultra-collaborative. Maybe updating stock ticker prices? Fast-service back-of-house ticketing displays?

I would love to feel called to reach for this library.

0. https://github.com/atlassian/pragmatic-drag-and-drop

1. https://github.com/yjs/yjs
by danielheath | 2026-03-08 00:55:27+00:00
Having a visual builder tool in an IDE like Delphi or Visual Basic or any of the others.

They ship with an existing library of components, you drag and drop them onto a blank canvas, move them around, live preview how they’ll change at different screen sizes, etc… then switch to the code to wire up all the event handlers etc.

All the iteration on design happens before you start compiling, let alone running.
by AnimalMuppet | 2026-03-08 00:55:51+00:00
I like it. Now, what are you going to do to employees? How do they verify (to the board and/or the employer) that they're who they say they are, and are serious about looking?

I like this for employers. Money talks and baloney walks; if you're serious, prove it. But that could come down badly on desperate employees - Either take a job that you decide you don't like, or lose a significant amount of money. And yet, the "not seriously looking" issue is on both sides.

And even for employers, you have to gate this. Something like, they get the $1000 back if, after six months, the board has not supplied them with N qualified candidates. (Which gets back to the employee issue: How do you prove they're qualified?)

I like the idea in general. Really, I do. But I'm not sure it solves the whole problem. (And maybe it doesn't need to in order to be a good step forward.)

For amusement value, consider the following wrinkle: If a company forfeits the $1000, the board keeps $200. The other $800 gets split among the candidates whose time the company wasted.
by tomhow | 2026-03-08 00:57:59+00:00
Downvote it, flag it and if you want to be super-helpful, email us about it (hn@ycombinator.com).

We want HN to be free of generated articles and comments, and will kill such submissions/comments and ban accounts that do it repeatedly.

We also ask commenters not to make accusations in the discussion threads, because it's off topic. Please just flag generated content and email us if you really want to.
by hamandcheese | 2026-03-08 00:58:02+00:00
This post has a great overview: https://grahamc.com/blog/nix-and-layered-docker-images/

tl;dr it will put one package per layer as much as possible, and compress everything else into the final layer. It uses the dependency graph to implement a reasonable heuristic for what is fine grained and what get combined.
by atombender | 2026-03-08 00:58:07+00:00
When you say clench, do you mean clench the muscles (i.e. as if biting down), or do you mean jutting your jaw forward?

There is a well known phenomenon among people with (at least some types of) tinnitus that moving the jaw forward increases the sound, but that this also makes the tinnitus go away for a bit. The way my ENT explained it, it has to do with how your brain calibrates sound. Pushing the jaw forward makes the sound louder, which also causes your brain to adjust your hearing to be less sensitive. Or something like this.

With some types of tinnitus, there is a specific connection to the temporomandibular joint. My understanding is that the causes tinnitus are poorly understood, however. There are many hypotheses, but little solid evidence.
by bandrami | 2026-03-08 00:59:01+00:00
The closest analogy is to a music producer sampling public domain audio. The composition will be protected by copyright but each individual sample will not.

Every single CGI rendered frame of Shrek is protected by copyright because it was human authored. It they used a diffuser to make Shrek 7, the individual frames would not be protected by copyright but their arrangement into a movie could be. That's a hugely different legal situation (for instance, if I chopped it up and made my own remix of it that would be protected).
by ajb | 2026-03-08 00:59:28+00:00
I used to use brown noise, but I find that rain/ thunderstorm sounds are better. It's a noise that your brain is used to ignoring, and other sounds blend into it - even if they are almost as loud -while with the more homogeneous brown and white noise, it has to be louder than the sounds it's trying to mask.

Having said that, I'm not sure how well it would do for high pitched tinnitus.

Edited to add - now listened to the neuro modulator, nice one.
by krapp | 2026-03-08 00:59:57+00:00
>Everywhere that people have ever asked why people join Bluesky and not Mastodon, the objections to Bluesky are always philosophical (not actually decentralized, corporate overlords, and so forth) and the objections to Mastodon are always practical (signup sucks[ed?], search sucks[ed?], feed curation sucks[ed?]).

Untrue. People complain about Mastodon's politics and make many of the same "philosophical" arguments as they do with Bluesky. People even argue Mastodon isn't even decentralized.

>Bluesky's selling point has always been "like Twitter, better control, none of the bullshit of Mastodon".

None of Bluesky's marketing has ever mentioned Mastodon as far as I'm aware.

>Look... I'm not telling you my opinion, I'm communicating the common message given over and over and over by everyone who looked and bounced and talked about it.

No, you are literally telling me your opinion. Your ever-increasing use of hyperbole rather than sources demonstrates that you're making an emotional argument grounded in hypotheticals.

>And when people say over and over and over that Mastodon is frustrating, and people have indeed said that over and over and over, all you need to do is believe them instead of saying they're wrong.

I think a lot of them are wrong, and are intentionally overstating how difficult Mastodon is because they view it as "leftist" and feel obligated to shit on it as much and as often as possible. I find it difficult to believe so many of the brilliant technically gifted minds on HN can't figure out how it works, but George Takei, random scientists, gardeners, musicians, authors and other "normal" people can. And a lot of those people also have accounts on Bluesky.
by nineteen999 | 2026-03-08 01:00:56+00:00
Same. After 40+ years of typing code on a keyboard, my hands aren't as nimble as they were, a little pain sometimes builds up (whether it's arthritis or carpal tunnel or something, I'm not sure). Being able to have large amounts of code written with much less input is a godsend - and it's been great to learn and see what models like Claude can really do, if you can remain organized and focussed on the API's/interfaces.
by hamasho | 2026-03-08 01:01:40+00:00
I grew up on a small village in a small island.
The yogurt lady was an essential part of the community.

Many stay-at-home moms (including my mom) seemed to enjoy her visit.
She and my mom talked a lot, sometimes for hours (I still can't figure out how she completed her job when she spent so much time with one person).
They chatted about recent events, like the daughter of the fisherman gave birth, the great-grandpa of the liquor shop died of cancer, a newly opened restaurant in the nearest town sucked, and sometimes shared even personal struggles or family matters.
It really helped a lot of people combat mental struggles caused by the isolation of being traditional stay-at-home wives in a super rural area.
The only downside was anything you shared with her would be spread in the entire village before dawn.
by Normal_gaussian | 2026-03-08 01:01:43+00:00
You are quite right to call this out - and quite right in general. With AST verification alone your statement holds strongly.

I was remembering a professor I had who was very into formal verification and had an IDE that would only accept valid programs - however his validity checks were more than just tree based, they involved passing a type check. Which now you've called me on it, is quite definitely beyond valid AST editing.

The base case: if you have a structure with a mandated cyclical reference that doesn't accept a second (e.g. nil) type, you cannot construct it without creating an intermediate invalid program. This doesn't tend to show up if the cyclical reference is all the same type (A1 -> A2 -> A1) because you can often cheat and self reference, but it does if it is different types (A1 -> B1 -> A1). You can't construct an A without a B, which cannot be constructed without an A.

But that's still not a problem you cry! And quite right, you can edit the type itself to remove and re-add the reference.

That is until the type is built into the language, or a library.
by skeledrew | 2026-03-08 01:02:04+00:00
Not really. The query was re the value-add of AI to a target identification task, which I addressed using a conceptually parallel case that I personally encountered. The AI has no concept of "life and death" or "bugs". It's just generating a response based on the patterns in the data it's been given, and it's training makes that response something the user desires (ideally).
by JumpCrisscross | 2026-03-08 01:02:59+00:00
> thinking derivatives are legalized gambling, and being against gambling entirely, doesn't require a lack of understanding of derivatives to be against them

No, but anyone who has an introductory knowledge of derivatives and their history will know of the Onion Futures Act, which banned "the trading of futures contracts on onions" to predictable (albeit long term) effects.

Broadly speaking, the less someone knows about derivatives and the further their work is from the production of any good (versus services), the more likely they are to get upset about it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_Futures_Act#cite_note-fo...
by gavmor | 2026-03-08 01:03:53+00:00
That's an awfully cynical perspective, but these terms evolved because they're useful. No one is forcing us to speak them (although they are forcing us to hear them.)

I would rather refer to affordances than to "user-facing touchpoints", because that's a more specific abstraction aimed at, specifically, interactive elements whereas "touchpoints" is, to me, vague; does it refer, also, to the merely visual aspects which "touch" our retinas?

"Friction" is a metaphor, and there's nothing wrong with that! I imagine that one monitoring a conversion funnel would naturally ask "what's causing the members of this cohort to drop out of the flow?" Well, it's friction that challenges spatial progress, and spatial metaphors make good use of some underused cognitive hardware.

"Increase stickiness... but also keep it lean", though is, at worst, an oxymoron and, at best, lazy along the lines of "... just make it good and not bad."
by rvz | 2026-03-08 01:05:28+00:00
That's fine. But they shouldn't be lecturing to anyone about "principles" or moral superiority and at the same time being either paid or holding RSUs as well, since that would make them completely dishonest themselves.

It just shows that they have done poor research about the company before joining (Meta is just as bad) and are in on the grift (joined OpenAI only after post-ChatGPT) and this employee does not believe what they are saying.
by artyom | 2026-03-08 01:05:39+00:00
What prevents the malicious piece of a package from just staying dormant for the cooldown period so nobody notices? What happens if everyone waits for a week to cool down, so the exact same problem happens, only a week later?

This may work in the case the maintainer becomes aware of the compromised account/credentials/package before the cooldown period, otherwise if it's about vendors and "other people", it's a roll of the dice. They may have longer cooldown periods than you.

Then we absolutely need an override for the cooldown period when we have to pull a zero-day patch the moment it's released.

The only reason cooldown periods haven't been exploited it's because they're not widely utilized. If they become mainstream it'll take a couple weeks to be rendered useless (yes this last part is 100% futurology)
by ausbah | 2026-03-08 01:06:00+00:00
two unthought out thoughts:

1. llms allow devs to be more productive, so more free time is seen as opportunity for more work. ppl overshoot and just work more

2. generalized tooling makes devs seem more replaceable putting downward pressure on job security (ie work harder or we’ll get someone who will, oh and for less money)

3. llms allow for more “multitasking” (debatable) via many running background tasks, so more opportunities to “just finish one more thing”
by sdenton4 | 2026-03-08 01:06:38+00:00
They don't actually solve the problem in 2 seconds - at that point, they are running on a sample of only 3,000 vectors! Then they get it down further, but still find it will take a loooooong time to get through all 3B:

"With these small improvements, we’ve already sped up inference to ~13 seconds for 3 million vectors, which means for 3 billion, it would take 1000x longer, or ~3216 minutes." ...which is about two days.
by shagie | 2026-03-08 01:06:42+00:00
That would provide the machine readable version... but not the human documentation of time. You wouldn't be able to debug the Moroccan Ramadan rule (which is provided as some elisp code) and its predictions for future changes.

Having it be managed by governments would mean that the whim of a politician could break things by changing the established name... say from "US/Pacific" to "USA/Pacific" or deciding by fiat to change the timezone for a political enclave within another one that doesn't have a TLD. ( https://github.com/eggert/tz/blob/main/northamerica#L821 )

This also describes the compromises in the design of the system to accurately record the time.

# From Paul Eggert (2026-03-07):
# The law says that 21 hours after the usual 2026-03-08 02:00 switch from
# PST to PDT, the next day inaugurates the new standard time Pacific Time,
# i.e., just one clock change but two name changes separated by 21 hours.
# PT, the obvious abbreviation for Pacific Time, is one letter too short
# to conform to TZDB’s (and POSIX’s) [-+[:alnum:]]{3,6} requirements.
# I asked the BC government for advice, with no response. For now, do this:
# 1. As a temporary hack, pretend that the BC law takes effect
# not on 2026-03-09 at 00:00, but on 2026-11-01 at 02:00.
# This pretense works around a limitation in CLDR v48.1 (2026-01-08),
# which would otherwise say the interval uses “Pacific Standard Time”.
# (Below, this temporary hack is marked “Temporary hack; see above.”)
# Strictly speaking this hack is incorrect since the interval uses
# standard time, but it does have the right UT offset and it
# works around the CLDR limitation. We should be able to remove
# the temporary hack after CLDR is fixed.
by rablackburn | 2026-03-08 01:06:55+00:00
Fantastic comedic writing (and project, of course). It had me guffawing.

To add my own "most relatable" quote to this thread:

> As always, please save any important work before running anything I ever write.

:')

But really I just want to add to the cacophony of appreciation in this thread :)

0x0mer, I hope you feel the love from this reaction and can bask in that warm inner glow for years to come.
by bilbo0s | 2026-03-08 01:07:44+00:00
This.

Everyone will do this, because everyone will believe that everyone will do this.

Even worse, there really is no guarantee that the great powers will create the best terminators. Everyone talks about China and the US. (And we should.) At the same time however, we should all keep in mind that nations from India and Indonesia, to North and South Korea will not be simply sitting on their hands while the US and China forge ahead.

A future where 4 million dollar American or Chinese terminators are easily overwhelmed by thousands and thousands of 5 dollar Indian autonomous devices is not at all outside the realm of future possibilities.

That's what makes it all so concerning. We can kind of see where it leads in terms of enhanced capability potential for non-state actors, but we can't really see a way to avoid that future.
by sinkasapa | 2026-03-08 01:08:32+00:00
Having a detailed and auditable report of how money is being used is really helpful for creating the understanding you are talking about. That is what accounting is for and why it is so essential to modern life.

The site is obviously just an advertisement for a weird camera surveillance system, but the concern about incomplete accounting is very real. In many places one might want to contribute to non-profit efforts, IRS information isn't even available. In my work in Ecuador, I have seen a lot of fraud, and half-baked charities. Some rich NGOs sometimes walk in on some field trip that donors have paid for, make some statements about all they are going to do and disappear without follow-up. Basically they are just tourists on a free vacation taking publicity photos. There is a specific organization that comes down to build environmentally safe toilets. Not only are these built by young middle class volunteers that know nothing about building anything but their CVs, the communities they are helping don't even need new toilets. The building supplies tend to be repurposed after the volunteers are gone, every single year. I'd like to know if I paid for that. There are seeds of merit in the program, but also unnecessary waste.

Despite negative examples, there are many worthy things that are done, and could be done in the region. Northern money can go very far in the areas I work. It can do a lot to not just improve but transform people's lives. So you suggest that an answer to money misuse is to have personal experience with any organization you donate to. How many people who have the money are going to spend any real time in Amazonian Ecuador? They aren't there now. What is going to change? Since there are few people with money who can be personally involved, does that mean that no effort should be made to better people's lives there? Obviously, that is what accounting is for. I think the article is absolutely right about that. I find their solution to be creepy and invasive. Maybe just having better auditing and reporting standards makes more sense than pointing cameras at hospital patients, but what do I know?