skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Well okay. But what if you're impoverished and must work every day simply to make enough food to survive the winter. That's as much a life "for pleasure". It's not sportscars and caviar, but it's the same drive to acquire, accumulate, thrive, gain wealth (survival). These people are also working for the good of the civilization. How do you know that the big spender dedicating their time to redistributing wealth they generate isn't contributing anything? Surely civilization does not live on ideas alone. We can't all be depressed pontificators, and i for one believe there's nothing wrong with not wanting to live the ideas you're stating here. Sure, there are hard truths, but there's also ways to state them with beauty and not brutalism and disdain.
AppImages still leave traces in your home directory. If you're luck it's just a dot file or folder that can easily be deleted but I've seen some that pollute a lot more.
Why can’t something be faster than C? If a language is able to convey more information to a backend like LLVM, the backend could use that to produce more optimised code than what it could do for C.

For example, if the language is able to say, for any two pointers, the two pointers will not overlap - that would enable the backend to optimise further. In C this requires an explicit restrict keyword. In Rust, it’s the default.

By the way this isn’t theoretical. Image decoders written in Rust are faster than ones written in C, probably because the backend is able to autovectorise better. (https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/1ha7uyi/memorysafe_pn...).

grep (C) is about 5-10x slower than ripgrep (Rust). That’s why ripgrep is used to execute all searches in VS Code and not grep.

Or a different tack. If you wrote a program that needed to sort data, the Rust version would probably be faster thanks to the standard library sort being the fastest, across languages (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124032). Again, faster than C.

Happy to give more examples if you’re interested.

There’s nothing special about C that entitles it to the crown of “nothing faster”. This would have made sense in 2005, not 2025.
simd and allocator_api are the two that irritate me enough to consider a different language for future systems dev projects.

I don't have the personality or time to wade into committee type work, so I have no idea what it would take to get those two across the finish line, but the allocator one in particular makes me question Rust for lower level applications. I think it's just not going to happen.

If Zig had proper ADTs and something equivalent to borrow checker, I'd be inclined to poke at it more.
I am at the point of abandoning coding copilots because I spend most of my time fighting the god damned things. Surely, some of this is on me, not tweaking settings or finding the right workflow to get the most of it. Some of it is problematic UX/implementation in VSCode or Cursor. But the remaining portion is an assortment of quirks that require me to hover over it like an overattentive parent trying to keep a toddler from constantly sticking its fingers in electrical sockets. All that plus the comparatively sluggish and inconsistent responsivity is fucking exhausting and I feel like I get _less_ done in copilot-heavy sessions. Up to a point they will improve over time, but right now it makes programming less enjoyable for me.

On the other hand, I am finding LLMs increasingly useful as a moderate expert on a large swath of subjects available 24/7, who will never get tired of repeated clarifications, tangents, and questions, and who can act as an assistant to go off and research or digest things for you. It’s mostly decent rubber duck.

That being said, it’s so easy to land in the echo chamber bullshit zone, and hitting the wall where human intuition, curiosity, ingenuity, and personality would normally take hold for even a below average person is jarring, deflating, and sometimes counterproductive, especially when you hit the context window.

I’m fine with having it as another tool in the box, but I rather do the work myself and collaborate with actual people.
The only guaranteed way of avoiding translation in your head that I know of, is to in fact never translate. Learn the bare minimum to get somewhere to start from, and get comprehensible input from there on. Something which you enjoy, something which fascinates you, and if it's a story, something which can get your mind images going, and this is where reading works. Something which can make you forget that it's actually words on a page, you're barely aware of that. That's when the mind starts to figure out things subconsciously. The problem is finding the input.

Incidentally the above is exactly how I learned English. I didn't try to learn English, I just wanted to read the computer magazine or the fiction or whatever I was able to digest at the time.

The side effect is that you'll be horrible at translation.. there's no connection to the same association.
I always assumed it was to avoid translation work?
To me the most sobering cautionary tale from the dotcom bubble is the story of Cisco. Cisco manufactured, in a very real sense, the physical infrastructure of the internet: the routers, switches, modems, etc. that directed the IP packets to their destinations. (To a significant extent they still do, though nowadays they have more competition in that area.)

Savvy investors piled in to the stock, reasoning that, while internet startups might come and go, the internet itself was surely here to stay. It was popular to observe that, in the California gold rush of the mid-1800s, the purveyors of mining equipment made it rich more reliably than the prospectors for gold.

Anyway the Cisco stock price peaked in March 2000, and to this day it still has not reached that level again. The savvy investors were of course correct in their belief that the internet would continue to be important, and that Cisco would continue to be an important manufacturer of internet networking equipment. But they lost money anyway, because once the euphoria had worn off the market consensus was that the stock just wasn’t worth as much as the price it had been selling for at the height of the mania.

Any parallels to hot contemporary stocks are left as an exercise for the reader — and I do not mean to suggest that history must always repeat exactly.
LRADs have been used against protesters in Australia, New Zealand, the United States, France, and Germany.
We already knew this to be true by the clusters of Tesla fatalities around certain bay area off ramps.
I found the disney side video extremely interesting and entertaining. It would have been nice to just pad each of them out individually with enough content to have them stand on their own while meeting the criteria he needs to appease the algorithm.
The first half explains lidar in laymen's terms
Apple was the first company to reach a $1 trillion market capitalization, achieving this milestone in August 2018.

Microsoft reached a valuation of $1 trillion on April 25, 2019.
All countries are in continual struggle for influence, to further their own interests. Doing this through soft power means (student exchanges, radio programs, films, music, building roads, blue jeans etc) is surely preferable to doing it through violent means. If the US reduces it's soft power, then no doubt it's influence will wane compared to other countries.
It can be a little more refined than that. This is cheap and replaces the wired PWR/RST buttons: https://www.silverstonetek.com/en/product/info/expansion-car...
Maybe if I can make a counter-point: a lot of these patterns are common place right now! And much more so than whatever golden era we want to imagine existed long ago.

- Gestures in a lot of applications have made things more confusing by hiding functionality that you now need to stumble into to discover.

- Sound cues are used all over the place. Anyone who's ever worked in a kitchen hears the godforsaken ubereats alert sound in their nightmares.

- About ten minutes ago, I got startled by my phone deciding that the "you should stand up" vibration pattern should be three long BZZZZ-es... amplified by it sitting on my hollow-sounding printer.

- If another fucking god damn website asks me to chat with an AI agent in it's stupid little floating chat bubble, only appearing AFTER I interact with the page so it's allowed to also make an annoying "chirp!" sound, I WILL become a chicken farmer in some remote forest eating only twigs, berries, and improperly-raised chicken eggs.

All of these things annoy me, and actively make me hate computers. A silent glass brick can go in my pocket because I know it's not going to bother me or beg me to talk outloud to it. If it was some sensory-overload distraction machine (which, by default, it is) it would find itself over the side of a bridge rather quickly. It's getting in the way of my human experience! The one where I'm the human, not the computer!!
I am not claiming that Tesla FSD is at this point, but it is obviously possible to use cameras and neural networks to drive a car, because that is literally how humans drive.
> I dislike the fact that Mark's videos appear to increasingly borrow from the Mr Beast style, which is very distracting.

Yeah. My daughter likes him, but this latest thumbnail made me roll my eyes.
Ah I see. Thank you for clarifying this point
That struck me as well. Whatever interesting message the author may have been trying to convey was lost on me, and probably many others, because of the visual distractions. Visual distractions are precisely the problem that we're facing with modern interfaces.
But that wall may come to you. There's a few large truck trailers I've seen completely covered on a side with a picture which could be interpreted as a road / sidewalk / smaller car / whatever.
> What does the "particle" model bring to the table that a localized (wavelength-sized) wave/vibration could not?

A lot of the article is about this. Start with the section "The Wave Function of Two Particles and a Single Door". The wave packet view can't explain why you don't for example see a "particle" (that is, a dot on a detector) show up simultaneously having gone through two different doors. You have to think about it in terms of a wave in the space of possible joint particle positions.
Ask HN: Let's Talk about Brain Rot
Is it just my ADHD brain, or does it feel like everything these days is an all-out assault on our dopamine receptors? Like many of you, I want to know what my friends and the world are up to—then move on to productive or enriching pursuits. But social media? It’s engineered to capture our attention.

I used to get all my updates from platforms like Twitter and Instagram. The problem is twofold:

• Social media feeds are designed like slot machines, offering unpredictable dopamine hits that leave you restless and unfulfilled. They hijack your focus, dragging you into endless scrolling even when you don’t really enjoy it.

• Traditional news isn’t much better. SEO-driven word salads bury real meaning in fluff, and sensational headlines trigger outrage and anxiety, leading to doomscrolling and emotional burnout. Plus, there’s a disturbing lack of diverse thought—everything starts to feel recycled.

So here’s the question: If we could design a social network from scratch—one that keeps us connected and informed without sautéing our brains—what would it look like? Let’s discuss.
> There's no standardization of simd in Rust yet

Of safe SIMD, but some stuff in core::arch is stabilized. Here's the first bit called in the example of the OP: https://doc.rust-lang.org/core/arch/x86/fn._mm_clmulepi64_si...
Is this a thing about how restaurants in some European countries charge for water?
Ask HN: How to get into macOS/XNU kernel development?
It's still nightly-only.
Review it to find what?
That means nothing. Big companies fail all the time. There is no guarantee any of them will be here in 50 years, let alone 500.
In The Great Flattening section of the post the author literally argues that the way we interacted with computers back in the 50s-70s was better because it was more of a full-body experience. That's a silly argument to make. As far as the status quo HCI paradigm goes, we've obviously made a lot of progress over the last 50 years.

However, I think the post is striking a chord because it's pointing to a deeper truth: after 70 years, we are still only scratching the surface of all the ways that humans and computers can potentially interact with each other.
Or on a beautiful beach surrounded by lovely people.
You lose the nice guarantees inside the `unsafe` block, but the point is to write a sound and safe interface over it, that is an API that cannot lead to UB no matter how other safe code calls it. This is basically the encapsulation concept, but for safety.

To continue the analogy of the dog, you let the dog get wet (=you use unsafe), but you put a cleaning room (=the sound and safe API) before your sealed room (=the safe code world)
You are entirely right about my word choice, good point! (it's a bit ironic in retrospect)

However, let's not pretend that choosing a licence is a fully informed decision free of any kind of pressure. If you pick a non-OSI licence, that has social costs (as you said, less interest from other developers for example)

The problem is two-sided: both those companies exploiting the FOSS landscape and the participants in the FOSS landscape more concerning themselves with uploading the status quo than to try to do something about the problem.

P.S.: The OSI are not even sellouts - they mostly consist of exactly those corporations themselves. The FSF are much better but the FSF's philosophy was mostly informed by RMS not being able to fix his printer in the 80's.... times change, y'know? A philosophy/worldview which worked for the 80s and the 90s might not be appropriate for the 2020s.
The entire premise that "bots" need to be blocked is, in most contexts, just a social hysteria and not coming from actual technical or economic requirements. "Bot" blocking causes far more harm to human persons than would occur if we just lets all agents access public web sites.
They are in the process of marking them safe, which is enabled through the target_feature 1.1 RFC.

In fact, it has already been merged two weeks ago: https://github.com/rust-lang/stdarch/pull/1714

The change is already visible on nightly: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/core/arch/x86/fn._mm_xor_s...

Compared to stable: https://doc.rust-lang.org/core/arch/x86/fn._mm_xor_si128.htm...

So this should be stable in 1.87 on May 15 (Rust's 10 year anniversary since 1.0)
The purpose of a system is what it does.

We speak of an arms race between cloudflare and (bad actors) that results in unintended consequences for end users and independent browsers ... and we need to stop.

There is an arms race: between end users and cloudflare.

The fact that a human chimes in on a HN discussion carries no information.
It’s called boundaries.
> And the model creators not even paying lip service to this, and instead saying they will replace Wikipedia

What model creators are saying this? It's very easy to put this assertion to the test btw: just pick your favorite Wiki article, ask a LLM to "improve" the writing, and check how much stuff it ends up rewriting in a confusing way, or even gets outright wrong. Compared to your average high-quality Wiki article, a LLM is just a very confused parrot.
SQLite has the same origin story. (That's the reason for SQLite's confusing type system: it makes perfect sense as a Tcl type system.)
>Midwest thing.

Southwest I think.
The compiler won't allow you to compile such code without the unsafe. The unsafe is *you* promising the compiler that *you* have checked to ensure that the address will always be legal. So that the compiler will allow you to compile the code.
> The style and emotional feeling of the page is the message.

And for many people, that message is, "go away, this is not for you".

Which is a valid take if that's what the author intended, but generally speaking, when people take time to pen manifests, they expect them to be read and heeded.
I have compared AI to junior engineers a few times. Not in terms of treatment, but in terms of output quality. Is there a better analogy I should prefer? Or if my thinking is horribly wrong, I'd love a different perspective to think on.
I don't think so. What's described isn't one party attacking another for positions they supposedly support. Neither of the mainstream parties supported the "end of the American Empire" - that's something you really only heard from paleo-socialists, anarchists and contrarians regurgitating Cold War Soviet propaganda.
The strategy is, "this will make trump feel good today." Trump is terminally online, or in front of a tv, never ending his media diet while simultaneously absorbing no real information about the world.

There is no strategy outside of that. They are a cult and sycophants lashing out at anything they enjoy being belligerent towards. In their minds, the abandonment of soft power is being strong by just throwing away all the mamsy pansy stuff "they" wanted.

Edit: sorry for the tone; I'm a bit perturbed.
C has type-changing stores. If you store to a buffer with a new type, it has the new type. Clang does not implement this correctly though, but GCC does.
David Lynch is not making a very convincing argument here.

Just because Van Gogh was (presumably) happy while doing his painting, doesn’t mean that the suffering previous wasn’t an important component in portraying it in his art.

One of my favourite novellas is Dostoyevskys White Nights, which portrays a young man in love.

His portrayal is so vivid that I doubt it could have been written by anyone who hasn’t experienced heartbreak.
Pretty much everything that's

- High fixed cost

- Low or zero marginal cost

and

- very important to a lot of people

fits the bill for a public service?
Blast from the past. Haven't thought about Mason since the 90s.
Can’t you just replace the “cargo” command with “cross”

cross build —-target=…

https://github.com/cross-rs/cross
Humans have more senses than just vision. Also a few cameras aren't completely covering the range of human vision.
Nope, it's not disingenuous. It's a genuine critique that it's just stupid way to think about things. You don't check in a bunch of prompts, make changes to the prompts, run them through a model, compile/build the code.

It's simply not the same thing as a high level web framework.

If you have an intern, or a junior engineer - you give them work and check the work. You can give them work that you aren't an expert in, where you don't know all the required pieces in detail, and you won't get out of it the same as doing the work yourself. An intern is not a layer of abstraction. Not all divisions of labor are via layers of abstraction. If you treat them all that way it's dumb and you'll have problems.
Serbia is one of the Russian-controlled Governments, along with Hungary and Georgia; these are the countries where we expect to see such attacks made to suppress protest.

(USA is not controlled, any more than say China is controlled, but is an authoritarian regime (so no real elections), so there's a shared world view, and here also I would expect to see much the same.)
Long ago I loved Windows, it wasn't pretty, but it was utilitarian and it worked and I could strip it down to what I needed and I was good to go.

I still fondly remember the old windows 95 start me up commercials https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRdl1BjTG7c, wonderful time.

Then they started introducing all sorts of incomplete UI and UX, then the updates kept undoing my explicit settings, now Windows just seems like an ad-supported Operating System ...

I ran to Apple and haven't looked back. All I see are reasons to stay away if at all possible.
Undergraduate Upends a 40-Year-Old Data Science Conjecture
On social media I try not to follow people who show hostility at all. I think there are two kinds of people on Mastodon: ones who have a list of people they don't want to follow on their profile and ones who don't. I certainly have a list, but I keep it to myself.

There are a few people I follow who do express some hostility who I make an exception for because I really value them, the same way that I take some crap from my friends, family, co-workers and such. I don't usually tell them directly that they're on that list but I might tell them what I just told you.
Right, I'm saying "allow" has two different connotations, and only one of them, the one that you're talking about, applies.
Is this a parody comment? Hard to tell on this website to be honest.
Computers were never "physical beasts" in terms of their connection to the human senses. If anything computers are vastly improving in the way they interact with the human senses. I'm an optimist. I think we're in the early days and in 100 years the current computers will seem terribly primitive from a sensory standpoint.
SIMD intrinsics are unsafe because they are available only under some CPU features.
> unsafe even a single time, you lose all of Rust's nice guarantees

Not sure why would one resulted in all. One of Rust's advantages is the clear boundary between safe/unsafe.
The Basque Country has been a huge sandbox against the later leftist groups in the rest of Spain.
We’re moving to a future where average people can’t afford cars. America will be car free soon too. Maybe everyone will ride electric bicycles instead, but there’s no way an average household can afford a car in 30 years and in Canada we’re almost there already. We can hope for $10k Chinese cars can save us but the bigger issue is nobody can afford a driveway and public charging infrastructure is too slow.

A few people including most users on this site will still have cars, but you’ll be so happy with lower emissions, lower traffic, and more walkable neighborhoods that you’ll vote to keep the rest of us poor and immobile
Serious question, Grunt or Gulp?
If your unsafe code violates invariants it was supposed to uphold, that can wreck safety properties the compiler was trying to uphold elsewhere. If you can achieve something without unsafe you definitely should (safe, portable simd is available in rust nightly, but it isn't stable yet).

At the same time, unsafe doesn't just turn off all compiler checks, it just gives you tools to go around them, as well as tools that happen to go around them because of the way they work. Rust unsafe is this weird mix of being safer than pure C, but harder to grasp; with lots of nuanced invariants you have to uphold. If you want to ensure your code still has all the nice properties the compiler guarantees (which go way beyond memory safety) you would have to carefully examine every unsafe block. Which few people do, but you generally still end up with a better status quo than C/C++ where any code can in principle break properties other code was trying to uphold.
Most of the research on this, has been done in the US though...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_auditory_effect
Even without knowing the background of those protests: It is heartbreaking to see a crowd of peaceful people (seemingly during a moment of silence) being attacked by their own country and fleeing in panic and pain.
Remember, you gotta break some eggs to make an omelette; every time something crashes, explodes, or kills – that's a good thing! /s
Who's going to open a new copper mine based on Trump's insane tariffs? They'll probably be gone in 4 years if not sooner.
> so I switched it back.

Google has helpfully decided that you don't actually want to do that:

https://blog.google/products/gemini/google-assistant-gemini-...

later this year, the classic Google Assistant will no longer be accessible on most mobile devices
Presumably you don't throw out the c code and just check in the assembly.
This, by the way, is partly why MacBook trackpads are so good - they have excellent haptic feedback for clicking that is superior to most (all?) physical trackpads.

> buttons and switches and knobs are not all that tactile

But they are, though. You can touch them without pressing, and, once you get used to them, they have different textures.