skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Hmm there are some oversimplifications of designers' work. "you're coupling how something looks to how it works" – how something looks is actually just a tiny part of designers' work. It's almost negligible, even overrated :-)

I tend to say devs program the machine, designers program the human using that machine. Most design is about understanding how brain works and "coding" a flow that the brain will execute, hopefully the way you expected.

Decoupling is a big topic. I've witnessed a lot of organisations where this decoupling was basically a complete detachment, and the result was a disaster. As a designer & developer at once, my step 1 in all teams was to build the bridge between these two sides.
Perhaps a gateway to run computer use locally?

https://www.anthropic.com/news/3-5-models-and-computer-use
Do you use macOS with this and if yes, do you often share your screen? I find large monitor unusable for screen sharing on macOS in general as it will share a lot of blank space and the window you want to share, making the window minuscule for anyone that does not have an 8k monitor like you.

Admittedly it’s a macOS issue.
> You're mis-representing my examples by shifting the context,

Specific example of where I did this?

> literally gives the same examples to two of the main ones I mentioned at the very top of the article as key examples of security through obscurity: "Examples of this practice include disguising sensitive information within commonplace items, like a piece of paper in a book, or altering digital footprints, such as spoofing a web browser's version number"

I mean, I don't disagree that what you said about changing port numbers, for example, is security through obscurity. My point is that this is not any kind of defense from a capable and motivated attacker. Other examples like the OpenBSD mitigation you mentioned are very obviously not security through obscurity though.

> If you're not understanding how memory allocation randomization is security through obscurity- you are not understanding what the concept entails at the core.

No, you still don't understand what 'security through obscurity' means. If I use an open asymmetric key algorithm - the fact that I can't guess a private key does not make it 'security through obscurity' it's the obscuring of the actual crypto algorithm that would make it 'security through obscurity'. Completely open security mitigations like the one you mentioned have nothing to do with security through obscurity.

> The flaw in your firewall example is not using obscurity itself, but: (1) not also using traditional methods of hardening on top of it

Sooo... you think adding more obscurity on top of a closed, insecure piece of software is going to make it secure?

> if an external person could infer what software you are using by interacting remotely,

There are soooo many ways for a capable and motivated attacker to figure out what software you're running. Trying to obscure that fact is not any kind of security mitigation whatsoever. Especially when you're dealing with completely closed software/hardware - all of your attempts at concealment are mostly moot - you have no idea what kind of signatures/signals that closed system exposes, you have no idea what backdoors exist, you have no idea what kind of vulnerable dependencies it has that expose their own signatures and have their own backdoors. Your suggestion is really laughable.

> not also using traditional methods of hardening on top of it

What 'traditional methods' do you use to 'harden' closed software/hardware? You literally have no idea what security holes and backdoors exist.

> if an external person could infer what software you are using by interacting remotely, and then obtain their own commercial copy to investigate for flaws.

Uhh yeah, now you're literally bringing up one of the most common arguments for why security through obscurity is bullshit. During WW1/WW2 security through obscurity was common in crypto - they relied on hiding their crypto algos instead of designing ones that would be secure even when publicly known. What happened is enough messages, crypto machines, etc were recovered by the other side to reverse these obscured algos and break them - since then crypro has pretty much entirely moved away from security through obscurity.
Would someone even want to circumvent it though? Most sites won't care very much about encouraging scrapers to include them in LLM training data, it's not like you get paid.
Wow, that's really different to rule 34. :P
You can do exactly the same with a PWA without Electron garbage.
In college, I took a discrete math course with the world's most unprepared, distractible professor. It was incredible. He would come in with nothing planned in particular, we could ask about concepts from the textbook and he would invent a problem on the spot. Then he'd run through various problem-solving strategies until one worked. I learned so much about how a mathematician thinks from this class.

This was in sharp contrast to my calculus classes where the results were basically thrown at you fully-formed. If you're lucky, you might get to walk through a proof with the professor, but you're never going to see how they mentally navigate the search space.
I've spilled liquid on my MacBook's once every 10 years on average. Last in 2014, then again last month. Accidents happen.

As I've noted in a sibling comment, I'll probably stop purchasing mobile Macs until the repair story on Macbooks is improved -- the risk for accidents and repairs is simply much higher on portable machines. That's only going to happen through third-party repair (which I think would simultaneously lead Apple to lower their first-party repair costs, too).
NVIDIA CEO said there would be no more developers too and it totally wasn't a marketing thing.
Are those standards really useful though? I'm under the impression that Perl/Ruby/Python/etc. have done well enough without.
I bought a used F-150 Lightning with 1000 miles on it. I paid $21k under the sticker price. It was still expensive. I have no range concerns but I'm mostly in the city.
ChatGTP and other variants with a Levenshtein distance of 1 from ChatGPT have been typosquatted to death by subscriptionware wrappers on the App Store and the Play Store. Many of them seem to be quite successful.
> But we as engineers try to do both. We're already in the code, we have the CSS and components, so we start designing and engineering at the same time. When I hear about a feature request, my brain starts churning: can I build this? How does it align with the code I already have? I start estimating the work, and like any engineer, I begin to think about how I can do the work faster by cutting scope.

> This isn't how designers work.

It sort of is! The designer at a product organization has to keep in mind the same set of constraints: how would this work, how does it align with the rest of the product, how long is it going to take, and what is the tradeoff between essential functionality, and nice-to-haves? When working on blue-sky designs, some of that doesn't apply, but I don't believe most of his engineering considerations apply in that case either.

In general—speaking as someone who did both for a long time—I consider engineering a kind of design, just as UX and Product and so on are kinds of design. Design is just intentionally solving a problem while adhering to a set of parameters which includes goals, requirements, and constraints. That's engineering, that's UX, that's graphic design to a large extent, that's certainly product design. It's a lot of things, when you think about it. Mostly the tool sets and culture vary, but the central activity is equivalent. That's why I don't think turning off your engineering brain and turning on your design brain makes a lot of sense.
Disruption at work. Ford can't make money on selling EV's, their overall margin suffers with every EV they sell. They have large existing investments in factories, processes and people that produce combustion engines. They can't lower prices and sell enough of them for economies of scale to start working.

Tesla is the new Ford. Ford (and most other car manufacturers) will have a difficult time, most manufacturers are probably doomed. After the current hesitation phase, when the economics are there (very soon), customers will almost all go electric.
Software developers who love their job generally are into fantasy worlds, RPG games, astronomy and whatnot. If we nitpick every name choice, then life will have no fun.

I have computers named after stars and galaxies. Some codenames of the applications I have developed myself has stupid connections to characters because of what they (the software) do are similar to characters themselves. I named a module "Scrat" because it was a state machine which changed thousands of states per second according to input it received from a file I/O module called Manfred (which carries things on his back or with its trunk).

I have my names clash with others, and others' names clash with mine. Who cares, it's fun and makes things enjoyable for everyone, plus it allows one to inspire themselves by setting a vision for their software.

Or, maybe we should start naming our software with UUID strings. That won't clash in a long time. :D
Alvin M. Johnston
Wow, words changing meaning over time. Imagine that. The internet would lead me to believe that’s something horrific that must not be allowed.
To solve that problem you have to solve all the issues that make me not trust the results. As search, it's fine, since I am perusing and evaluating them. But as an agent, hallucinations and inaccurate answers have to disappear (or very close to disappear).
It can be faster than a normal web page depending on how they configure it though.
I understand the cost issue for a large family, but he said "so that we don’t have to deal with flying", not "it's too expensive".

Also, SFO to JFK is as low as $640 round trip for a family of 5 on the right days, and $760 in gas at 25 MPG and $3.30/gal. Plus you're going to need several nights of lodging unless you want to spend 40 straight hours in a car packed with kids.

I see you edited your comment to change the destination to Nebraska to make your numbers look better. Round trip SFO to Omaha for a family of 5 can be had for $655 according to Google Flights, vs. $440 in gas at 25 MPG and $3.30/gal, but again you'll need at least two nights of lodging for the whole family, and on a trip that long you should also account for part of an oil change and tire change and other car maintenance expenses.
> but at the very least there should be some form of punishment for bogus DMCA claims

As numerous other comments accurately point out, this was never a DMCA claim.

However, for actual bogus DMCA claims, there is a "form of punishment" written into the law. The sender of an actual DMCA claim has to swear under penalty of perjury that they are the proper rights holder and that the claim they are making is truthful and accurate.

The punishment would then be the recipient suing the sender for perjuring themselves in the sending of the bogus complaint. The problem is that is a very hard case to prove, and requires the expense of a lawsuit, so it is seldom ever taken by those who receive bogus complaints.
I don’t get what the author means by “design”. Do they mean architecture or UX design or ???

I have a much simpler approach. Most engineers I have met (myself included) tend to design an architecture and data model, then overlay an API on that and finally overlay a UX. Both UX and API tend to be CRUD shaped around whatever object model the engineer implemented.

I’ve found that you get better results if you work backwards. Start with the goals/tasks that your typical user will want to perform, and design a clean, minimal UX to do those tasks. Then design the APIs that you need to enable that UX. Business logic should be in the code that calls the APIs, not in the APIs themselves- an app then becomes an API call composer/orchestrator.

Finally, define the service and data model/stores needed to support your API.

If you’re just doing an API and not a UX, then start out by writing the program that your customer would write - make up the APIs/objects & methods that most elegantly match user concepts, goals and expectations. Then work backwards to the service and object model.

This also works for classes and libraries as well- be your own user/customer first, then implement the code to deliver that experience.
This is exactly how the Old Pochmann method works for solving a Rubik's cube blindfolded! You can effectively come up with and memorize a sequence of corner swaps and edge swaps. It is probably the simplest method for solving a Rubik's cube sighted as well because of how simple it is.
the big bang is a singularity; we can't ever experimentally learn anything about what came before it.

that doesn't mean there was no time before the big bang, or no gravity, or that there wasn't another universe just like ours. But due to the singularity, for the sake of convenience, we simply _say_ that those things came into existence at the big bang.

cite: https://www.hawking.org.uk/in-words/lectures/the-beginning-o... , search for "may as well"
Yeah, see...I just deleted the 450 degree part (right before I saw your response), because somehow I knew someone would pick at it.

The temperature is the least relevant part of what I wrote.
Yesterday's discussion:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41994640
The question was somewhat facetious. Being able to click "Find Match" and be able to match up against someone close to your skill level in a few seconds is a feature that players want. A ranked leaderboard that's somewhat legitimate and has prestige in climbing is a feature that players want.

You don't need this stuff, of course, but people (who don't play games) love to dismiss these things as if they don't matter.
This makes sense if you're playing games for fun with people you know, like on the old community servers, but nowadays games like CS are played competitively for money and clout, and usually with complete strangers. Fun isn't part of the equation anymore, or at least comes as a side-effect.
Server side cheat detection is not just about actually detecting active cheating on the server side. It's also about the server providing the client the absolute minimum amount of information needed to function/render.
This was still largely true with Windows 7. Starting with Windows 8 the UI story really went to hell.
We're 2-3 sprints away from a claude popup saying "It looks like you're writing a resume, would you like help with that?"
Honest question. Believe it or not, people who aren't into AAA multiplayer games don't necessarily know a whole lot about them.
There's some truth to that, but Netflix, YouTube, etc seem to be OK with both ad-supported and paid ad-free versions, so I think the logic you described does not always dominate the considerations.
That's all just good money after bad.

How many more trillion $$$ are going to be pissed away on this?

I'd say, shelve the idea for 50 to 75 years and then look at it again.

In the mean time, I think we could make major headway on a global elecrtic grid, that connects whatever part of the planet is sunny with all the rest. Add to this some major storage capacity, and I think we could resolve almost all of our energy problems with the money that would be wasted on further fusion efforts.
I wish Apple would include a USB-C data port or 2 on their big charger brick for the same single-cord bliss that the iMac enjoys (while plugged in). My little USB hubs that I carry around cant sufficiently power the MacBook pro
I think you need to define "decent search skills" since google will straight up ignore most boolean stuff or return ads.

The LLMs are nice because they are not yet enshitified to the point of uselessness.
I had an odd interaction with my doctor recently re: long Covid: he feels that we won't be talking about it much in 10 years, and I got the impression he felt it's not a "real" thing. Some points he brought up: (1) historically these sorts of reported effects often happen after an outbreak, and they taper off after some years, even though the original disease is still around and (2) it's mainly reported in women and young people, who are not the ones most susceptible to the original disease.

I brought up that it seemed reminiscent of Chronic Lyme's disease, and he said that yes, that's also a very questionable diagnosis.

I didn't really get into the weeds of that discussion, but it kinda put me off, since I have had several friends over the years who have had a hard time convincing the medical establishment that they have a real condition. Things like Chronic Fatigue, Ehlers-Danlos, Lyme's as mentioned, etc.

There's this historical view that since it is mainly self-diagnosed women affected by all these, it's just a case of "women complaining" or somesuch (maybe not stated so directly) and not a real condition or mostly psychological.

It gets dismissed, so it gets less research. Since it gets less research, doctors can say "there's not strong evidence to support it," and so the cycle continues. There's some sexism (and other -isms) inherent in the system, I do believe.

It's entirely possible that women, for biological reasons, could be more susceptible to these system-wide hard-to-pin-down chronic issues. I really don't know; I wish there was more research being done.

But it was just a weird moment where I got to witness that dismissiveness firsthand, from someone who otherwise I generally respect.
Alphabet's Waymo Valued at More Than $45B After Funding
Unfortunately, yes. I still don't understand why it is impossible to consider the possibility that a medical intervention might in fact have consequences. Its obviously within the realms of possibility.
Because they are massively structurally unprofitable right now?
> Windows XP was the last version of Windows where usability and UI consistency seemed to be central to the design.

Ever used Win 7? Way better, and not a candy UI.
Just keep in mind gp is talking celcius. A good sear on a steak will happen around 200-250°c
Goose: On-machine developer agent in IDE or terminal
>Only after we had written a really simple depth-first search did I realize that it would take several lifetimes to run.

I wonder if just making random moves over and over would be faster.
Why are enterprise SANs so good at dedupe, but filesystems so bad? We use HPE Nimble (yeah, they changed the name recently but I can't be bothered to remember it), and the space savings are insane for the large filesystems we work with. And there is no performance hit.

Some of this is straight up VM storage volumes for ESX virtual disks, some direct LUNs for our file servers. Our gains are upwards of 70%.
We've achieved inner-platform-ception. Again. It's recursive.
This line of reasoning was why I was hopeful that PWAs on the desktop would become first-class citizens, as far back as Mozilla Prism[1] in the late 2000s. They never really did seem to take off.

1. https://wiki.mozilla.org/Prism
I'm working with barcode scanners and difficulties handling a variety of inputs.

My boss keeps telling me "it's not that difficult". I keep telling him "it's more difficult than you believe".
I suppose that depends on the type of soap. Do you have a source that I could read? Thank you!
This sounds nice, but it isn't a thing that would really work. This excellent post in this same thread explains why:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42004965
California introduced a 'click to cancel' law a month or two back - because a large number of subscription companies engage in a lot of sketchy behaviour, like making it almost impossible to cancel.

So this is already a pretty seedy area of business.

Now add to that the fact that the customer has ignored the payment-failed e-mail, and ignored the warning banners on the site during the grace period, and doesn't mind when they get cut off entirely. Clearly, this subscription isn't producing much value for the customer.

And then consider the ethics of offering expensive services to people who can't afford them. If a person lives in such abject poverty that their bank account has literally zero dollars in it, should I be pushing them to keep their subscription? Even when the service has so little value to them?

It's not technically illegal though.
Would that have been pre-apple store, an effort to use HP's distribution/sales channels to get iPod into, like CompUSA or CircuitCity?
A very important step is buried right at the bottom:

> Hand drawing is ideal because everyone can do it, it's fun, it encourages simplicity, and it's easy to start over. When the timer ends, I show the work to someone or wait a while and review it with fresh eyes.

Working in a fast, low-commitment medium is key. It really doesn't matter what it is, as long as it's easy for you to churn out many ideas. It makes you more open to feedback as you didn't put a huge amount of work into it, and for the same reason others will be more willing to give genuine feedback about it. It promotes many iterations before you actually start building.

One step that could be added is spending a few minutes before starting the design phase is collecting context about the issue.
- Who is this feature for?
- In what scenario will they use it?
- What is the issue they're facing?
- Can I collect some real-world examples of people with this issue?
- How would this idea be useful to them?

It might seem really obvious at first, but as you get deeper into the design process it's easy to get sidetracked. Starting with a clear understanding of the user's problems makes the whole process go soooo much easier.
Agreed, the old Visual Basic, Visual C++, Borland Delphi, Visual C# experiences were how I dove into the deep end of several languages back in the late 90's/early 2000's. Things were VERY discoverable at that point. Obviously a deeper understanding of a language is necessary for doing real work, but noodling around just trying to get a feel for what can be done, is a great way to get started.
The MLS did this with their Apple deal (pay a maximum of $120 for a season and you're guaranteed to get every league match of the season through the "TV" app), and it's been reasonably successful. That said, the league used that money in part to bring in Lionel Messi, and his significant international following came along with him, so it's hard to parse out how much of that is because they made the games easy to access (with the significant asterisk that Linux and Android users are stuck with a web app) versus his singular impact.

The other part of this is that MLS is significantly smaller (~$275m in non-team-sponsorship revenue in 2023) than other North American leagues (the NHL, the next-largest league, had ~$6.75b in non-team-sponsorship revenue in 2023), so I don't know how reasonable it is for other leagues to follow the MLS's path.
DOSBOX-X and x86box emulate 3d graphics accelerators properly, and the native drivers in Windows support these. That means you can run games that require 3D acceleration. VirtualBox, VMWare often do not support 3d acceleration for older OS - not sure about qemu though.
With eating out so much, try to ask it about sodium intake as well.
Why would two shots be any more suspect than the 158 other supplements and medicines she has taken?
Gotcha. So you're saying that it's really about protecting a revenue model with pay-to-win elements?

If that's so, then do we typically only see KLA on games that are mostly funded by microtransactions or live service models?
If you took all of your blood vessels and set them in a line, you would die. Keep your blood vessels inside of your body.
If CS is not overrun with cheaters why do we have faceit and other off ranked leagues with stronger anticheat?

Personal "insult" as your comment was so wrong I didn't know where to begin.
On the contrary, skill-based matchmaking is a godsend for casual players, as long as they don't care about their rank. If you're a bottom 50% player, you really don't want to get matched up against a Challenger League of Legends player or Master Street Fighter 6 player or The Wazzler in Marvel vs Capcom 2.