MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by AnthonyMouse | 2026-03-12 18:59:12+00:00
> Coalitions are pretty static in most parliamentary democracies except sometimes when forming governments post-election.

The "except when forming governments post-election" is a major difference. It also presumes that a coalition in the legislature is required to persist for an entire election cycle rather than being formed around any given individual piece of legislation. You don't have to use a system where an individual legislator or party can prevent any other from introducing a bill and taking a vote on it.

In less partisan periods in US history, bills would often pass with the partial support of both major parties.

Moreover, the US coalitions being tied to the major parties makes them too sticky. For example, the people who want lower taxes aren't necessarily the people who want subsidies for oil companies, or increased military spending, but they've been stuck in the same "coalition" together for decades.

Suppose you want to do a carbon tax. People who don't like taxes are going to be a major opponent, so an obvious compromise would be to pass it as part of a net reduction in total taxes, e.g. reduce the federal payroll tax by more than the amount of the carbon tax. But that doesn't happen because the coalition that wants lower taxes never overlaps with the coalition that wants to do something about climate change. Meanwhile the coalition that wants lower taxes wouldn't propose a carbon tax on their own, and the coalition that wants a carbon tax to increase overall government revenue gets shot down because that would be extremely unpopular, so instead it never happens.
by ptak_dev | 2026-03-12 18:59:31+00:00
Building CareerCraft AI - an AI career consultant that generates tailored resumes and cover letters through conversation instead of filling out form fields.

The idea came from watching job seekers rewrite the same resume 20+ times for different applications. Instead of a template-based approach, it works like talking to a real career consultant: asks about your experience, understands the target role, then generates a properly formatted document.

Built on SuperNinja (a no-code AI app platform). The interesting technical challenge was getting the conversational UX right - making the AI ask the right follow-up questions without feeling like an interrogation.

Try it: https://super.myninja.ai/apps/6de082c7-a05f-4fc5-a7d3-ab56cc...
by ptak_dev | 2026-03-12 18:59:36+00:00
Building CareerCraft AI — an AI career consultant that generates tailored resumes and cover letters through conversation instead of forms.

The idea came from watching people spend hours rewriting their resume for every application. Instead of template-filling, you talk to it like a real career coach: describe your background, paste the job listing, and it produces a targeted resume.

Built on SuperNinja (no-code AI app platform). The AI handles intake, asks clarifying questions about experience, then generates formatted documents.

Try it: https://super.myninja.ai/apps/6de082c7-a05f-4fc5-a7d3-ab56cc...
by 9rx | 2026-03-12 19:00:30+00:00
> You omitted Smalltalk.

Exactly. It isn't functional. It doesn't use functions. It uses message passing instead. That is exactly why the term "object-oriented" was originally coined for Smalltalk. It didn't fit within the use of "imperative" and "functional" that preceded it.

> But that kinda ruins the common ground thesis.

That is the thesis: That Smalltalk is neither imperative or functional. That is why it was given its own category. Maybe you've already forgotten, but I will remind that it was Smalltalk's creator that invented the term "object-oriented". It being considered different is the only reason "object-oriented" exists in the lexicon.

Erlang is the language that challenges the common ground thesis: It has both functions with encapsulation and message passing with encapsulation. However, I think that is easily resolved by accepting that it is both functional and object-oriented. That is what Joe Armstrong himself settled on and I think we can too.

> What I prefer is looking at it as it's used.

And when you look you'll soon find out that there is no commonality here. Everyone has their own vastly different definition. Just look at how many different definitions we got in this thread alone.

> No one would agree that a cucumber is a fruit.

Actually, absent of context defining whether you are referring to culinary or botanical, many actually do think of a cucumber as a fruit. The whole "did you know a tomato is actually a fruit?" is something that made the big leagues in the popular culture. However, your general point is sound: The definitions used are consistent across most people. That is not the case for object-oriented, though. Again, everyone, their brother, and pjmlp have their own thoughts and ideas about what it means. Looking at use isn't going to settle on a useful definition.

Realistically, if you want to use "object-oriented" in your communication, you are going to have to explicitly define it.
by easterncalculus | 2026-03-12 19:00:58+00:00
0-days mostly got expensive from compiler optimizations and other security guarantees that carry over to webassembly, like ASLR and pointer authentication, as well as sandboxes and multi-process architectures. It's not all thrown away here.

Browsers are millions of lines of code, the amount of UAFs, overflows, etc so far is not the bottleneck.
by hombre_fatal | 2026-03-12 19:01:02+00:00
What do you mean nobody has done it?

It's an inevitable outcome of automatic code generation that people will do all the time without thinking about it.

Example: you want a feature in your project, and you know this github repo implements it, so you tell an AI agent to implement the feature and link to the github repo as a reference.

You didn't tell the agent to maliciously reimplement it, but the end result might be the same - you just did it earnestly.
by secstate | 2026-03-12 19:01:04+00:00
This. I'm as exhausted as anyone about the latest macro/micro nutrient diet. But also, when I binge on a bag of potato chips, I assume (correctly) that I'll feel like shit later. Calorie dense food that's easily procured and eaten to excess was not part of our evolutionary path up to now. Every individual person is a cornucopia of variables though too, and one persons perfect diet would kill someone else. So advice is hard to give out, but there are clearly some broad guidelines to eating and health that help you mitigate bad dice rolls.
by vharuck | 2026-03-12 19:01:23+00:00
It went up by 4 per 100k. And, since it was at 6 in 2000, that's a large increase.

>Zoom the chart out, and you would probably be excused for assuming it is flat with some noise.

That's true of all cancers, if not all statistics.

The concern here is two-fold:

(1) The people under 50 now will be over 50 in a decade or so. We can already see that the trend of colorectal cancer among those aged 50 to 64 was decreasing until 2012, but had since gone up. This will likely get worse. Early onset colorectal cancer is a canary in the coalmine.

(2) Unless this trend is caused by a specific chemical exposure or a purely dietary reason, the behavior/lifestyle/health conditions behind it are likely to lead to other types of cancers. Obesity and lack of exercise have been linked to a lot of cancers. I'm worried about losing progress across the board when these young people reach their 60s.
by Barrin92 | 2026-03-12 19:03:27+00:00
>I now believe China’s actual population may be as low as 300–400 million

that we now live in a world where people are confident enough to make claims this stupid in front of a camera should frighten anyone.

Some basic logic, if China had the population of the United States it would have magically acquired the per capita economic output of the US in ~30 years, consume several times the energy and food it imports and somehow have produced several cities the size of Tokyo. The fact that China produces ~50% of the world's ships and has the manufacturing output of of the G7 combined is impressive with over a billion people, but hey they must have some space age technology to do it with 3% of the world's population!

In philosophy there's a concept called the coherence theory of truth, if you want to know if something is true check if it doesn't defy basic logic or other facts you know, great tool instead of believing what youtubers say
by qsera | 2026-03-12 19:04:04+00:00
>The problem is that you can't just verify everything yourself..

But one should be free to reject (in the sense that they should be free not to depend on it, or take decisions based on it) things that they did not themselves verify. But today if you do that, you become "anti-science"...and in-fact the people who wants others to "believe" science is anti-science..

The joke times we live in..
by CamperBob2 | 2026-03-12 19:04:28+00:00
You don't understand. He's a narcissist. He 'wins' when his name appears in a headline.

When he loses a case, the worst thing that ever happens is that we, the taxpayers, pick up the tab. It doesn't affect him at all, or discourage him from trying again. Because as you say yourself, it is seldom actually about winning and losing in court; instead, it is about rolling rocks downhill at his enemy and garnering publicity in the process.

When he wins, well, he wins, and the newspapers have to say so.

As for your last point, you cannot win a war of endurance against a guy who gets to use US DOJ as his own personal law firm, and whose cases are often tried by judges he appointed himself. You might not lose, but you aren't going to win.
by themafia | 2026-03-12 19:04:30+00:00
> started growing much faster than the tax base

So you have two unaddressed problems.

> A better solution would have been to fund education more equitably at the state level

Which could only work if the state was "richer" than the local district. So by playing abstract and unnecessary games with money and districting we intentionally prevent schools from accessing the funding which could obviate concerns over this "fraud" issue entirely.

> but that was not a lever that the school district had at the time.

The idea of a parent "fraudulently" getting their child an education from a "district" is still just hilarious to me. What is the point of this system? To make parents play games or to educate children?
by pron | 2026-03-12 19:04:42+00:00
Validating programs against a formal spec is very, very hard for foundational computational complexity reasons. There's a reason why the largest programs whose code was fully verified against a formal spec, and at an enormous cost, were ~10KLOC. If you want to do it using proofs, then lines of proof outnumber lines of code 10-1000 to 1, and the work is far harder than for proofs in mathematics (that are typically much shorter). There are less absolute ways of checking spec conformance at some useful level of confidence, and they can be worthwhile, but they require expertise and care (I'm very much in favour of using them, but the thought that AI can "just" prove conformance to a formal spec ignores the computational complexity results in that field).
by mcmcmc | 2026-03-12 19:05:12+00:00
I’m sick of this idea that “free” services are beneficial to society. There is no such thing as a free lunch; users are essentially bartering their time, attention, IP (contributed content) and personal/behavioral data in exchange for access to the service.

By selling those services at a cost of “free”, hyperscalers eliminate competition by forcing market entrants to compete against a unit price of 0. They have to have a secondary business to subsidize the losses from servicing the “free” users, which of course is usually targeted advertising to capitalize on the resources paid by users for access. Or simply selling to data brokers.

With the importance of training data and network effects, “free” services even further concentrate market power. Everyone talks about how AI is going to take away jobs, but no one wants to confront how badly the anticompetitive practices in big tech are hurting the economy. Less competition means less opportunity for everyone else, regardless of consumer benefit.

The only way it works if the “free” service for tutoring or healthcare is through government subsidies or an actual non-profit. Otherwise it’s just going to concentrate market power with the megacorps.
by andriy_koval | 2026-03-12 19:05:19+00:00
Here is example: https://news.usni.org/2023/04/27/centcom-iranian-naval-force...

> interestingly none of these scenario would even have happened if they had nukes to begin with, how weird

this is very weird speculation, Iran would be way more aggressive in its action in the region if they would have nukes.
by xorcist | 2026-03-12 19:05:29+00:00
> The IPv4 32-bit address space should have been included in the IPv6 address space,

That's ... exactly how IPv6 works?

Look at the default prefix table at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_address#Default_address_s... .

Or did you mean something else? You still need a dual stack configuration though, there's nothing getting around that when you change the address space. Hence "happy eyeballs" and all that.
by cromka | 2026-03-12 19:05:35+00:00
Definitely not 5h, not anymore. I just got off the train after working on my laptop for 3.5h, connected over wifi to the internet, browsing, searching files, etc., and ended with my battery down to 65%. I have no complaints, this is as good as it gets for Linux users. I think it's worth noting that Linux and its stack is probably most efficient OS nowadays, performance wise, so while not totally optimized for hardware, the software gets extra 10% or so over macOS and it might be showing.
by general1465 | 2026-03-12 19:06:01+00:00
Not really, China has 232 times the shipbuilding capacity of US. See: https://www.americanmanufacturing.org/blog/chinas-shipbuildi...

The problem with Iron curtain has been that you were not allowed to import stuff from the West unless you were specifically permitted to (i.e. military purposes). The ideology of Eastern block was to employ everyone, that caused low automation demand which caused high prices for goods. Furthermore lack of quality processes caused that products were expensive and also garbage. So after iron curtain fell you can buy cheap garbage from the east or expensive quality goods from the west.

That compounded with USSR imploding (losing market) and management of communist companies not being able to innovate because there was no demand for it and you got industries falling apart like Hindenburg.

Jones act has created exactly same trap. US shipbuilders are not being forced into innovation nor automation (so they can reduce labor costs) because they don't need to. And now with China eclipsing them 200 times, Jones act can't be repelled
by quuxplusone | 2026-03-12 19:06:03+00:00
I believe it. People born after the payphone era might not realize that the telephone cord in this case wouldn't be the cushy plastic home-telephone cord such as you can find by googling "strangled with telephone cord," but rather a "payphone armored cord", which looks almost like a "metal-clad electrical cable" except more flexible and stretchy (such that you conceivably could get a nasty pinch from it when it contracted again).

Also, while I believe a payphone-cord pinch could draw blood, I don't believe any hospital staffer could mistake an actual stabbing wound for such a pinch. So the guy couldn't have actually gotten stabbed. Although I guess he could have been covering up for the drunk friend who dared him to pinch his neck in a payphone cord...
by financltravsty | 2026-03-12 19:06:09+00:00
Background: I work for a PE-owned company and I have friends in PE (associates up to MDs).

On your second point: LBOs aren't the only tool in the toolkit, and it's not as popular as it was decades ago, so I would lean towards the parent simply conflating "buying an ownership stake in a business in some capacity using other people's money" with the strict definition. Regardless, yes PE firms need to figure out how to get 20%+ IRR throughout a short timeframe (usually a 5 year holding/funding cycle) -- however this is through any means necessary. Philosophically, it's about increasing efficiency of operations and growing the business. In practice, it's financial engineering because PE firms do not have the operational skills to make any value-added changes to firms besides driving costs down.

Saddling a business with debt is reductionist. I've seen absolutely nonsensical financial structures that make no sense for a layman, but in practice end up "using the business' finances to 'own' (beneficially) the business" (see: at the most vanilla, the strategy of seller financing in SMBs). No this is not technically "putting debt on the books" but it is in all practical respects a novation/loan transfer that can leave the purchased co financially responsible for servicing any debt that was used in its purchase.

On your third point: what I wrote above can be used as context. It's not risk free revenue, frankly it's very risky unless you're in an inflationary environment where your assets will grow regardless of your business operations solely because the overarching economy is growing and you're riding a tailwind. However, it again boils down to financial engineering. It's not as simple as assets - liabilities = equity. The calculations used to determine valuations are so ridiculously convoluted. The amount of work that goes into financially analyzing businesses and finding "loop holes" that can justify higher prices is the core business model. The debt factors into it, but there's ways to maneuver around it through various avenues.

For example:

* debt-to-equity conversions (reclassification of debt as equity)

* refinancing

* sale-leaseback (selling company's assets to a 3rd party and using that money to pay down the debt, then leasing the equipment back)

* creative interpretations of what is actually debt (e.g. reclassifying real debt as a working capital adjustment or a "debt-like")

* dividend recapitalization (a nasty trick of loading the company with debt, paying that out as a dividend to the holdco, then selling the company at lower enterprise value. They still extracted value for their LPs/investors, despite the exit being lower)

* separating the debt from the operating company into a different holding company that services the debt
by teleforce | 2026-03-12 19:06:13+00:00
>I can't guess what valid use they might have had,other than religious. They seem pointless.

I agreed there are for religious purposes but certainly not pointless for them.

My hypothesis is that it is for their offerings to God, perhaps a fraction from the population fresh produced. In religion like Islam you need to set aside 2.5% of yearly income for charity from farming produces, for example.

These rectangular structures namely Mustatil (rectangle) are very common (over 1000 of them) in built in ancient Arabia and they probably also being used for religious offerings [1]. The location are normally on top of the hills or elavated places similar to this.

Fun facts, Abrahamic religions have common rectangular religious structures. The Kaaba in Mecca was originally in rectangular shape before taking the modern square footprint or iconic cube structure [2]. According to Islamic tradition it's believe to be the first house of worship ever being built in the world by Adam. It's later reconstructed and renovated by Abraham and his son Ishmael.

The ancient Jews during Moses time also has rectangular portable worship structure so-called Tabernacle containing the infamous Ark of the Covenant [3].

Recently in 2025 a unique, 2,800-year-old First Temple-period cultic structure, featuring a 220-square-meter rectangular area, was discovered on the eastern slope of the City of David in Jerusalem. This site includes a ritual altar, a standing stone (masseba), a winepress, and an oil press, indicating significant ritual activity.

[1] Mustatil:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustatil

[2] Kaaba:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaaba

[3]Tabernacle:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabernacle

[4] Unique structure used for ritual practices during the time of the First Temple discovered in the City of David:

https://www.gov.il/en/pages/first-temple-period-structure-us...
by CobrastanJorji | 2026-03-12 19:06:16+00:00
Also, there's a difference between "willing to do a bad thing for money" and "actively searching out a bad thing, then proactively building a whole company out of it in the hopes of making money."

It's the difference between a developer taking a job at Palantir out of college because nobody had a better offer, and a guy spending years in his basement designing "Immigrant Spotter+" in the hopes of selling it to the government. Sure, they're both evil, but lots of people pick the first thing, and hardly anybody does the second.
by rkomorn | 2026-03-12 19:06:21+00:00
I guess to me there's just a big difference between what you're describing (which matches what I remember) and "stubbornly check-focused" as ancestor comment said.

I do find the money transfer options where I am in Europe much easier, though, and they do make checks and PayPal/Zelle/Venmo pretty obsolete too, IMO.
by whacko_quacko | 2026-03-12 19:06:31+00:00
Especially given that a popular open source project recently tried to do exactly that.

https://github.com/chardet/chardet/issues/327

I really got fooled here for a second, but the unfortunate reality is that people will try this soon, and someone will have to litigate this, if open source is to survive, which will take years and millions of dollars to resolve
by asdff | 2026-03-12 19:06:34+00:00
Honestly I think the dirty secret is most peoples work output, especially in white collar work, is not linear. I'm willing to bet if you are even able to quantify your output (I don't believe most people can do that unless they are merely a fungible cog in some production process), you'd get the same exact amount of work done in a year working 4 10s or 4 8s or 4 5s I'd even bet.

Think of the classic case of the deadline and what it actually means. Case A, you didn't procrastinate. You took plenty of time to think on the problem, work on a solution at an unhurried pace, put it aside, come back to it, and solve it before it is due. And then, it is done.

Case B, you did procrastinate. You have no time at all to think all day, you immediately do and iterate. Four hours later you've sprinted and delivered. And then, it is done, same as it would have been if you didn't procrastinate, maybe 10 fold reduction in time.

And that is worst case examples. Typical case is probably somewhere between these A and B, but the point is non linear time to output.
by NoiseBert69 | 2026-03-12 19:06:39+00:00
You’re considering whether it would be possible - and perhaps quite elegant - to use an XY‑scanner to raster‑scan the end of an optical fiber across a prism, disperse the light, and then capture the resulting spectrum with a CCD line sensor.

With that setup, each pixel on the line sensor would effectively record the full spectral content of the light at that scanned position, all in a single acquisition.
by Ajakks | 2026-03-12 19:06:52+00:00
Why exactly? I think the US ought to spend a few trillion on an actual space battleship - one that never comes down to the surface, just sits in orbit. There was a project regarding dropping telephone pole sized pieces of metal from space as an offensive weapon - put something like that on the space battleship and...

That is simply "Assured Destruction" with absolutely no mutual drawbacks or lingering consequences like radioactive wasteland. Just craters.

This is also something where the 1st country to achieve the "Space Battleship" could effectively prevent any other from also doing so...

In theory, Bezos or Musk could do it.

I don't understand why any country would bother with ground based military assets at this point.