skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Not to detract from your post, which I found super interesting to read. I hadn't heard of most of the software you listed and most of it was pretty interesting.

But I wouldn't find it convincing as a list of Adobe alternatives, the main thing that seems missing is expertise with Adobe software.

The type of review I'm primarily interested in is from folks who have used the software semi-daily for a long time, often at least a decade. The feedback usually looks something like this (e.g., something I'd imagine reading comparing NLE packages): "I edit ~10 documentaries a year in Premiere and DaVinci Resolve, DaVinci's color workflow is clearly superior, the UI is deeper, and the way the color wheels work makes it easier to make fine-grade adjustments. The node-based color workflow also makes it easier to separate making color corrections from actually color grading. But on the other side, Premiere's Dynamic Link integration, makes it easier to maintain and iterate on shots that involve a lot of 2D motion graphics."

A couple of points that I look for:

- Someone that's done something so many times that they no longer care about anything other than the best tool for the job. Often times the best tool is different if your goal is quality vs. speed, it's a good sign if that's specifically called out.

- They don't have chip on their shoulder. A lot of folks don't like paying at all, so will always prefer the cheaper software. Or they prefer open source software inherently. Or they have some other priority, like not wanting to install Adobe Creative Cloud (which starts a permanent process always running on your machine, which is icky). All of those are perfectly fine priorities for someone to have, but care absolutely zero about anyone else's opinion on any of that stuff, because I can already gauge for myself how I feel about those things. I.e., I already know how I feel about the price of software, so I don't care about someone else's opinion. What I want to know is if I invest in learning this software for a decade daily, how am I going to feel about it then? Would I have preferred investing in another package? The only way to gauge that is hearing from folks that have already done that. Note they don't need a decade of experience in the second package to compare, but they definitely need it for the first.

Just for completions sake, the other thing I noticed about your list is a lot of the packages were for one specific niche, which is a different category of software. All of the Adobe flagships are general purpose.
https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ is great. I’d been writing Rust for months before I started reading it and still began learning new things from the start. Oh, that’s why it does this!

Edit: Oh! And use “cargo clippy” regularly. It makes excellent recommendations for how to make your code more idiomatic, with links to docs explaining why it’s nicer that way.
Rust, like ocaml, is best when used purely functionally until you run into something that isn't performant unless its imperative. But unlike ocaml or haskell there is a safe imperative middle ground before going all the way to unsafe. People who write modern C++ with value semantics etc. seem to have a lot less trouble than people coming from Java.
msbill.info's DNS points to the same IP addresses as microsoft.com, and their servers give a specific 301 response for the header "Host: msbill.info", so msbill.info is almost definitely owned and operated by Microsoft. I don't think that confirms that the charges are coming from Microsoft, though.
I think your life is better off if you don't know what that means, so feel free not to look it up.
relevant video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD3Y1l8XyUw

It appears that the hardest part of echolocation for humans is the "produce a directed, crisp click" part. The "process the sound" part is readily handled by our brains with a relatively mild learning curve.
Senators call for probe into Musk's alleged contact with Russia
I used it for an API server and it was pleasantly fun. “Systems” is a broad brush.
hahaha.... oops, I had to send that to Comcast because they're now thinking if I restart my modem for the third time, it will fix the problem.
I used HighLevel for 2 years and have gone to the HL Summit. HighLevel is good, but it's a Zoho-burger: A mish-mashed suite of features, products, and toolset that each deliver a 6-7/10 rating on their own, with the promise of convenience by having those feature suites in 1 place.

For those using HighLevel, they're usually saving up to use HubSpot for their clients as an agency or freelance marketer - as I did. HighLevel is just a budgetary HubSpot.
O2 Ad: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RV_SdCfZ-0s
As an example, Facebook has a sordid history of leaving actual snuff movies up for days.
It has an "Impersonation" tag: "Pretending to be someone else without permission." Dunno if that's accurate though.

But let's be real: Jordan B. Peterson on Bluesky is not going to be a different Jordan B. Peterson than he is anywhere else. If you don't want to interact with Jordan B. Peterson on e.g. Twitter, then you probably don't want to interact with him on Bluesky either.
Depends who your users are and what the context is.

Having been in quite a few data teams, and supported businesses using dashboards, a very large chunk of the time, the requests do align with the composable feature: people want “the data from that dashboard but with x/y/z constraints too” or “<some well defined customer segment> who did a|b in the last time, and then send that to me each week, and then break it down by something-else”. Scenarios that all benefit massively from being able to compose queries more easily, especially as things like “well defined customer segment” get evolved. Even ad-hoc queries would benefit because you’d be able to throw them together faster.

There’s a number of tools that proclaim to solve this, but solving this at the language level strikes me as a far better solution.
Don't read too much into something happening. That was about the narrowest possible loss and it doesn't validate most reasons it could've happened.
IMO it's not excellent. It's not like SICP, it's obtuse for no reason, I find it a hard slog. Flexibility is good but it seems to try to make every bit of your program flexibile and pluggable and you just need to do something eventually.

My opinion, I'd welcome others on the book; there was a small splash when it came out but not much discussion since.
It's not entirely fair to say it happened in a vacuum, either, since car doors are damaged and fail-shut enough that almost every fire department has hydraulic rescue tools to force open trapped cars.

The spontaneous combustion of Tesla's battery pack was the proximal cause of death here, but that's an EV problem in general, and will probably only grow as they take over the car market.

Maybe we need the car version of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUBSAFE to account for EV combustion risks that prevent FDs from responding in time for locked doors.
Previously (10 points) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42151704

Related Elon Musk's Conversations with Vladimir Putin (91 points, 23 days ago, 49 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41941415
Fun concept, love it.
But won’t scammers be able to pick up pretty quickly now that it’s promoted?

Surely it has some tells? I mean changing name is easy enough but what about the accent or the repeated use of dear. How long you reasonably think this can be in play for?
1D video game you can play with 3D glasses [video]
The borrow checker exists to force you to learn, rather than to let you skip learning.
To make an analogy, I think it would be weird if I complained that I had to "memorize the rules" of the type checker rather than learning how to use types as intended.
I'd bet that this is what some of the sightings are
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2020/05/11/us-nav...
Link to game: https://mashpoe.github.io/1D-Game/
Maybe they did. We don't know they did not. But problem is that real world traffic will still be always totally different, varied and dynamic in many unexpected ways and a certain link might be under certain effect causing a ripple effect.
For an event like this, there already exists an architecture that can handle boundless scale: torrents.

If you code it to utilize high-bandwidth users upload, the service becomes more available as more users are watching -- not less available.

It becomes less expensive with scale, more available, more stable.

The be more specific, if you encode the video in blocks with each new block hash being broadcast across the network, just managing the overhead of the block order, it should be pretty easy to stream video with boundless scale using a DHT.

Could even give high-bandwidth users a credit based upon how much bandwidth they share.

With a network like what Netflix already has, the seed-boxes would guarantee stability. There would be very little delay for realtime streams, I'd imagine 5 seconds top. This sort of architecture would handle planet-scale streams for breakfast on top of the already existing mechanism.

But then again, I don't get paid $500k+ at a large corp to serve planet scale content, so what do I know.
That’s about what Paul Tyson was looking like at times.
Previous discussion:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42160659
This is true but misleading: analogously, typechecking depends on parsing, but IDEs typically make a best effort to typecheck syntactically ill-formed programs.
Why should they not be exempted when we today understand how and why it’s happening and they are following the environmental rules set forth for their operating permit?

For example ensuring plants don’t get built in endangered bird habitats and rules concerning operation during endangered birds migratory periods.

Seems like you want wind power to fail, like nuclear is, and are attempting to sling any potential mud you can find.
Understanding Media by Marshall McLuhan might have some insight that you might find usefull.
I thought the conversation was interesting. This post is clearly related to the interests of HN and it was going for the front page. Which specific guidelines did it break, if any?
It's a high level language with algebraic data types and fantastic type checking. I'll use it where ever I darn well please.
"I flew into LHR on Monday" - frequent flyer

"I flew into EGLL on Monday" - pilot
Here in New Zealand there used to be state care for various children. They ended up in ‘care’ for various reasons. However, for way too many it was basically just state sanctioned sadistic torture. Every sort of abuse you can name.

The number of survivors that ended up in gangs is significant. It’s an utterly shameful part of New Zealand history.

https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/07/25/state-care-has-key-role-i...

https://www.abuseincare.org.nz/about-us/news/gangs-first-eve...
The "AARO" text itself reminds me a lot of Scientology material
It really seems you have not seen the way kids bully each other these days. Example: two kids were friends a year ago shared a lot of personal thoughts with each other. Now guess what? That was all recorded, because it was all in chat. Fast-forward a year later and one kid absolutely humiliates the other by posting the private chats in a group setting. How the hell could that have ever happened in the past?

Same with recording silly videos or taking photos of themselves to share with friends. When the relationship turns sour, that is raw material to humiliate the other.
> had to spawn pretty near our solar system

Why do you believe that our current understanding of physics is the final one?

Let me propose a thought experiment. Let’s just say for the sake of argument that humanity has survived 100,000 years into the future. Now, let’s put you in a time machine and fast forward you to that distant future.

Would you be surprised to learn that relativity, and the limits it imposes, are viewed by those future humans as anachronistic and silly? Barely remembered artifacts of humanity’s Stupid Ages? That new discoveries were made over those thousand centuries, discoveries that we 21st century humans can only vaguely begin to comprehend?

Because you raised my biggest problem with modern cosmology: it’s arrogant assumption that Einstein is the end. But more importantly, that evidence indicating that relativity is not in fact the end — such as UAPs — is completely disregarded.

And the reason it is disregarded? Because relativity is the end! It’s circular reasoning at its absolute worst.
I filed a chargeback via AMEX against Microsoft just a few days ago. I couldn't figure out where a recurring charge was coming from. Microsoft support expressly suggested that I take this action against them.

I don't think it's malicious. I think it's incompetence that has been accumulating for a long time.
I haven't figured out email marketing yet for my startup, but I'll give Kiela a try. Love open source, and would rather pay for emails then contacts. And mailchimp sucks.
One issue with wanting a big house in Palo Alto is that most of the lots there are fairly small. There's not that many lots that can accomodate a larger home, so at best there's not many options, and sometimes there are none.
> Netflix has streaming issues running on AWS infrastructure

I think the performance of Netflix is highly dependent of ISP's data centers [1].

But yeah, there are still limits where the cloud won't help you.

If you whole infrastructure is designed to serve "historical" content instead of streaming, some bottlenecks cannot be avoided if you want to server low-latency sports stream. This came by surprise for me, but apparently betting has still significant role for the viewers.

[1]: https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/
JPEG codec

MPEG 1 codec

Minimal HTTP server of actually used features.
> Rust is not the answer, it is simply a step towards the answer.

True that.

On one hand, it's amazing. On the other hand, the nagging feeling that we still have work to go in programming language design has not gone away.
Hot take: SICP and SD4F "considered harmful (without counterpoint)"*.

Why? The modus operandi of problem solving in these books is object oriented programming masquerading as functional programming, and it is presented as a _neutral_ beginner book. It is _not neutral_. This is a very opinionated approach to programming.

To be fair, I do not believe the authors intended for this style of programming to be taken as gospel, but it is often presented _without counterpoint_.

The most powerful technique introduced -- implementing complex behavior via extensible polymorphic generics -- is virtually unmaintainable without a compiler-supported static type checker. You would know that if you ever tried to implement the code yourself in a dynamic language of your choice.

The ramifications of these choices can be felt far and wide and are largely unquestioned.

Ironically, they make code hard to understand, hard to extend, and hard to maintain. I need to reiterate, I do not believe the intention of the authors was to suggest these ideas should be used beyond a pedagogical setting, but they often are.

As a specific critique to SD4F, which states as a goal making code more resilient by emulating biology, I would point to Leslie Lamport's talk on logic vs biology[1].

I would add that I think SICP would be fine if it were taught in tandem with Paradigms of Artificial Intelligence Programming by Peter Norvig[2]. PAIP offers a completely different approach to solving problems, also using lisp. This approach is much closer to constructing a language to model a problem and then solving the problem symbolically using the language created. Areas that use OO techniques, such as the chapter in CLOS, are clearly marked as such.

In other words, I say "SICP considered harmful" because thrusting it upon an eager newcomer as a trusted neutral guide to beginner coding (without offering any counterpoint) could set them back by a decade, filling their head with "functional object oriented programming" concepts that don't translate well to industry or CS.

[*]: I say this as someone who has thoroughly studied both books,
implemented the code, taken Dave Beazely courses to have the information spoon fed to me (dabeaz is awesome btw, take all his stuff) and used the techniques in production code bases.

[1]: https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/pubs/future-of-computing.p...

[2]: https://github.com/norvig/paip-lisp
I think it's the natural state of affairs for a "folk standard library" to emerge. I don't think pydantic or serde should be part of their standard libraries. But I will use them in most projects. In ten years, the "folk stdlib" will probably be a different set of packages (perhaps a superset, perhaps not). Don't push the river; if it's natural, manage it rather than fighting it.

Trying to anticipate all or even most use cases in the standard library is a fool's errand (unless we're talking about a DSL, of course). There are too many and they are too dynamic to be captured in the necessarily conservative release process of a language implementation. Languages should focus on being powerful and flexible enough to be adapted to a wide variety of use cases, and let the community of package maintainers handle the implementation. Think of this as a special case of the Unix philosophy; languages should do one thing very well, not a million things unevenly.

I bet most people here don't believe a command economy could ever work in a market for goods and services. Why should it work in a marketplace of ideas?
My best friend recently said microeconomics is "bullshit" and I don't know how to handle that. I take it for granted, like algebra, it's like saying gravity is bullshit. What other model is there? They didn't propose one.

> Soon you’ll have no friends

At the rate I'm going. Of course this could all be fallout from the biggest Shiri's Scissor ever fired, hitting the US.
The only other bid besides the Onion’s was $3.5 million from First United American Companies LLC, the company that operates Jones’ online supplement store.
With FIFO the difficulty simply moves to whether you go on the list or not. What should the threshold be for being on the list. If you make it too high then people die without ever being given the opportunity for a liver, if you make it too low then too many people die waiting.

It also creates a weird scenario where all of the worst cases past some level will have no hope of getting a transplant. I.e. if the wait time is uniformly 3 years, then anyone with <3 years of expectancy has little hope despite being the ones who need it most, meanwhile everyone with >3 years expectancy can happily hang out on the list waiting for their transplant.

Simplified a little, but you get the idea. It’s arguably fairly obvious that livers should be assigned based on urgency in some form. I absolutely agree that this should be open and explainable though.
Maybe the creep towards surveillance everywhere will help with this? Get a bit of AI in there and school bullying is solved.

A sarcastic suggestion.
I have memorised the UB rules for C. Or rather, more accurately, I have memorised the subset of UB rules I need to memorise to be productive in the language and am very strict in sticking to only writing code which I know is well defined (and know my way around the C standard at a level where any obscure code I sometimes need to write can be verified to be well defined without too much hassle).
I think Rust may be difficult
But, if I forget something, or make a mistake, I'm screwed. Yes there's ubsan, there's tests, but ubsan and tests aren't guaranteed to work when ub is involved.

This is why I call C a minefield.

On that note, C++ has such an explosion of UB that I don't generally believe anyone who claims to know C++ because it seems to me to be almost infeasible to both learn all the rules, or at least the subset required to be productive, and then to write/modify code without getting lost.

With rust, the amount of rules I need to learn to understand rust's borrow checker is about the same or even less. And if I forget the rules, the borrow checker is there to back me up.

I still think that unless you need the performance, you should use a higher level language which hides this from you. It's genuinely easier to think about.

That being said, writing correct rust which is going to a: work as I intended and b: not have UB is much less mentally taxing, even when I have to reach for unsafe.

If you find it more taxing than writing C or C++ it's probably either because you haven't internalised the rules of the borrow checker, or because your C or C++ are riddled with various kinds of serious issues.
Let me stop for a second. Let's assume for a minute that the information you're linking us to is in fact excellent and if I peruse the whole protocol I'll eventually adapt myself to a morning routine.

Why?

Why do I have to do all that? Why do I have to go through all this trouble, spend so much time, and energy and money figuring all this out? What happens until I do eventually figure it all out?

Why am I being required to adapt? All I need is to be left alone for maybe another couple hours each morning. That's all.

Imagine if the situation was reversed, and you had to work 1h past your bed time. Would you then be looking for multi-intervention protocols to shift your circadian clock forward so you wouldn't be falling asleep during some of your work hours? Would you happily and willingly spend all this time, energy and cash into adapting yourself to this madness?

Back to the original problem, I don't think any of this will make a difference. Maybe it will marginally improve the quality of my sleep, but at what cost? My genes are what bias my circadian rhythm that way. Will these interventions permanently alter my gene expression so I don't "fall back" into being a night person again? I doubt so. Which means these interventions will need to become a permanent fixture, causing more stress and giving me yet more work and routines to follow.

I really don't see how this can be considered a solution to anything, even if it works - and I honestly cannot see how it would. I would appreciate it if the gaslighting would just stop and we could discuss real ways to deal with the issue - like having more flexible work and life arrangements so different people could exist the way they're meant to.
What’s in it for you? Are there fees involved for the end user to send a gift? If so, how much is it?
X has ads. Bluesky will inevitably have ads.

So which platform do you see them moving to ?
Hey, teacher, leave those kids alone.
Rust can be hard to get right because of the borrow checker.
I had a similar situation happen to me where I went about refactoring the code to make borrow checker happy ... until the last bit when things stopped compiling and I realized my approach was completely wrong (in the rust world, I had a self-reference in the structs)

Having said this, the benefits of borrow checker out weight the shortcomings. I can feel myself writing better code in other languages (I tend to think about the layout and the mutability and lifetimes upfront more now)

My rust code now is very functional, which seems to work best with lifetimes.

I would love to know more about the authors pain, I do hope rustc gets better at lifetime compilation errors cause some of them can be very very gnarly.
> The legacy of BASIC on our industry can hardly be understated.

The expression you're looking for is “the legacy of BASIC on our industry can hardly be overstated.” You're trying to say its legacy is huge; whatever anyone says, it won't be an overstatement. If it “couldn't be understated”, however insignificant one said it is, that would still be true. That wasn't what you meant, was it?

(And yes, that means user emptiestplace’s comment didn't deserve to be downvoted into oblivion.)
Sometimes I write Rust with Arc and Rc sprinkled everywhere because I just need a dialect of OCaml.
The Search for Critical Minerals Is Going High Tech
That's very nice. Being from the Conservative-run city of Dallas, I've personally never seen a sandwich-board in real life.