skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don't think it is absurd to reason about individual contributions, just to focus on measuring them with metrics. I have been on the management side as well though I admit I am much more of an IC. But the way I think that should go is laddering up to business value by describing what the person did and why that contribution was important.

So for example I would say something like: X deserves a promotion because their work was important to delivering project A on time. Project A was difficult but worthwhile because it allowed us as a business to meet goals 1 and 2.

That said I mostly work in smaller orgs. I have never been in a situation where a manager would be so removed from a team they would need a sort of proxy metric to direct them where to focus their attention to understand what the people on their team are doing day to day. I can see how this would get more difficult as a company grows.
your double negative implies confidence

and confidence is the most effective quality

he who knows himself and the enemy will not lose in 100 battles

but who can foresee fate's fickle finger of luck?
There's plenty of other experts saying that peaceful cooperation with Russia is possible. Wouldn't that be preferable to war to the last man, or a new decades long cold war?

I don't understand why don't we talk more about achieving that, instead of blindly preparing for WWIII. NATO shouldn't even exist since the URSS collapsed.
The absurd part to me is that this is all internal to the framework, why on earth does NextJS need to wrap up an HTTP request and re-send it...to itself...?

(I think the answer is because of the "requirement" that middleware be run out-of-process as Vercel edge functions.)
At Vulkanised 2025 someone mentioned it is an HAL for writing GPU drivers, and they have acknowledge it has gotten as messy as OpenGL and there is now a plan in place to try to sort the complexity mess.
Oh I see. You're not adding a new feature or something
it's worth noting as well that the windows API has been a thing since 1985, _before_ C was standardized, such old versions of C were incredibly untyped
Wake me up when it is out of Early Access.
So… maybe, but to my mind counterfactuals don’t really help clarify thinking about this kind of thing. The range of futures available to us today doesn’t really depend too much on alternate futures that may have been available had we done things differently in the past.

I understand the political necessity of setting a concrete 1.5 degC warming target and messaging it as an all-or-nothing kind of goal, but “we missed it” isn’t an absolute. It’s not the line between “hellfire and brimstone” and “salvation”: there’s still a range of outcomes and behavior still matters.

The fatalism strikes me as counterproductive and paralyzing: people can and will continue to try to survive, even if there are wildfires now, or hurricanes, or heat waves, or worse. Better, it seems to me, to focus on what actually is changing, how people are responding, and how to mitigate and adapt.
> From what? There's no serious indication of a russian threat to invade western europe.

The current US president threates to annex Greenland. This would be an act of war. EU has to be able to defend itself.

As for the rest of your comment, I think at this point climate change is a secondary concern, when you need to stand up to threats from east and west.
My understanding is that our local climbing gym sees most of its non-bouldering accidents from people not clipping into autobelays before they start climbing.
You don't have to tolerate agent/AI going haywire. In a simple example, say of multiple parallel generations. It's compute intensive and it reduces the probability of your agent going haywire. You need mechanisms and evals to detect the best output in this scenario of course, that is still important. With more compute, you are preventing your final output to be haywire despite the variance.
>I got no positive reaction from the [climbing] industry at all

This was my experience trying to create a climbing tech product in the last few years.

The market for climbing is built through reputation, tradition, & thus a visceral rejection of new ideas & methods. This is very interesting, since many climbers work in forward-thinking tech companies.

Companies often resist growth to stay small. There are dirty secrets and bad blood among many competitors.

Amazing sport, hard fought market.
Thanks for sharing this.

I got curious and I wondered if a similar thing could be done using pexpect.

I went ahead and asked claude to create an MVP. Works pretty well for 20 mins worth of work. Pexpect is a great tool imo.

If anyone is curious: https://github.com/rusiaaman/pexpect-web
> every employer is basically the same in this regard.

This really isn't true. At least it's not true of companies I have worked for in Europe.
Assuming Russia is not already attacking in a low key way https://archive.ph/Mnl6E
We need to spend a lot more and do defence very differently than Russia, because Europe values human life a lot higher than Russia.

Russia can attack with ten million men armed with knifes and clubs. They will March on, kill and destroy, until they starve to death or someone stops them.

We won't defend by sending twenty million similarity armed persons into the meat grinder. We will want to arm and armour our troops so that there is minimal loss of life and limb.

Russian may attack with chemical weapons, we are not interested in hitting back the same way.

Russia will target hydro dams and other civilian infrastructure with potential for mass destruction. We care about protecting those things to avoid harm to our citizens, Russia does not care.

The conflict is assymetrical on many levels.
Planet – By Oskar Stålberg
Did you used StarLisp? It is always a bit hard to find testimonials about the experience.
> Code quantity is not correlated with value. In fact, it can be negatively correlated with value if it's buggy and laden with technical debt.

** "No Code" or Nihilist Software Engineering **

No code runs faster than no code.

No code has fewer bugs than no code.

No code uses less memory than no code.

No code is easier to understand than no code.

No code is the best way to have secure and reliable applications. Write nothing; deploy nowhere.

One of my most productive days was throwing away 1,000 lines of code. -- Ken Thompson

The cheapest, fastest, and most reliable components are those that aren’t there. -- Gordon Bell

Deleted code is debugged code. -- Jeff Sickel

Measuring programming progress by lines of code is like measuring aircraft building progress by weight. -- Bill Gates

* Master Foo and the Ten Thousand Lines *

Master Foo once said to a visiting programmer: “There is more Unix-nature in one line of shell script than there is in ten thousand lines of C.”

The programmer, who was very proud of his mastery of C, said: “How can this be? C is the language in which the very kernel of Unix is implemented!”

Master Foo replied: “That is so. Nevertheless, there is more Unix-nature in one line of shell script than there is in ten thousand lines of C.”

The programmer grew distressed. “But through the C language we experience the enlightenment of the Patriarch Ritchie! We become as one with the operating system and the machine, reaping matchless performance!”

Master Foo replied: “All that you say is true. But there is still more Unix-nature in one line of shell script than there is in ten thousand lines of C.”

The programmer scoffed at Master Foo and rose to depart. But Master Foo nodded to his student Nubi, who wrote a line of shell script on a nearby whiteboard, and said: “Master programmer, consider this pipeline. Implemented in pure C, would it not span ten thousand lines?”

The programmer muttered through his beard, contemplating what Nubi had written. Finally he agreed that it was so.

“And how many hours would you require to implement and debug that C program?” asked Nubi.

“Many,” admitted the visiting programmer. “But only a fool would spend the time to do that when so many more worthy tasks await him.”

“And who better understands the Unix-nature?” Master Foo asked. “Is it he who writes the ten thousand lines, or he who, perceiving the emptiness of the task, gains merit by not coding?”

Upon hearing this, the programmer was enlightened.

Source: http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/unix-koans/ten-thousand.ht...
Recent history from 2014 to 2022?
Ask HN: How does macOS have such great wallpapers?
I find the fact that bullets hit instantaneously and precisely way more fun!

In the article they say that parabolic math was not available in 1999 computer games, but the bio rifle seems to do it just fine, even at the time ;)

For the ones that want to have fun with the maths, this demo is awesome
https://youtube.com/shorts/akEGxm5rcC4

But this video also means, that you still aim at the player head when he is falling straight, you will just hit him a little lower than expected ;)
Show HN: Complete digital team collab tool-set
There are plenty of tools like TeamRetro, Planning Poker and so on. But why use these tools separately? We've built a place where all the essential tools are gathered. 1 integration - all products in one place! Give it a try! First 3 early adopters get 3 months for free.
Yes the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time, we created a lot of value for shareholders.
I Read Poems, with Aphantasia
> relational concepts are sneered at

That is remarkably dumb. Don't use an RDB if it doesn't fit your requirements. But "relational concepts" covers a lot of valuable ground, and rejecting them out of hand is a combination of ignorant and dumb.

Listen kids: Codd's 1970 paper on the relational model of data was absolutely revolutionary. Data processing involved low-level navigation of records. Separation of logical concerns from physical concerns (like 80-column cards) was regarded as crazy. Codd's message was this: a set-oriented data model, manipulated by a high-level, non-procedural language was the right way to process data. And yes, a lot of practical details need to be worked out, but it's still right.

And then followed decades of research into the implementation of relational database systems, which gave us working systems that fully realized that set of ideas. It was an incredibly bold research program, which delivered, and gave us incredibly valuable technology such as:

- SQL (love it or hate it, it's a mostly non-procedural high-level language that does a great job of data processing).

- Query optimization.

- Transactions, with levels of isolation and many different implementation approaches, most of which have proven practical at one time or another. Also, early work on distributed algorithms, e.g. two-phase commit.

Ignore these "relational concepts", and you will be reinventing it, badly, and at great expense.
Apple cares about that. With money.
Turning a 100+ lines function of 5+ intertwined control flow mess into a single expression using a combination of method chaining of just a few lines is always a delighting experience to my mind.
Advantages

- Its a transparent canvas

- Works great for copying, if starting from a detailed work (line art, complicated writing) easier to reproduce all the tiny details.

- The finished art can be transparent, translucent and incorporate index of refraction effects

- It can be layered and use either further glass layers, traditional canvas as a backdrop, or be shown in a way that exposes the scene behind. [1]

[1] https://www.artsyshark.com/2020/11/26/featured-artist-michael-frank-peterson/

- It can be easily backlit / sidelit

- It allows focusing on details if the art being produced is very detailed or line art in style

- It can often convey depth easier because of the translucent quality of the thick layers of paint

- Some pigments adhere better to glass than to traditional canvas, allowing other colors and mixtures normally difficult with canvas

- Techniques normally not available, like flowing, dripping, runny water (that would normally be absorbed) can be used. [2]

[2] https://iranian.com/Arts/1999/September/Azima/waterfall.html

- The reverse layering often makes foreground features standout and be "crisp" as they completely dry and there's very little chance of smears or blending [3]

- Techniques like using black additions behind colors to intensify them or increase contrast are available [3]

[3] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f2/QingDynastyArtist-LargePartyatThrone.jpg

- The finished art can easily be used for windows, portals, dividers, and other areas normally meant to be transparent (fishtank walls)

- It can be adapted to almost any material that's transparent (plastics, colored glass, consumer objects)

Disadvantages

- Details need to done first

- Means you need to have a really good idea of what you want to paint beforehand

- You can't miss any details, because otherwise you'll have scrape away large areas of paint to correct

- Can often take a long time checking and re-checking to make sure you didn't miss anybody's eyebrows or other tiny features

- You can't change your plans midstream, or improvise very easily

- Or the changes / improvisation need to mostly affect the background objects

- Its transparent glass (or it's not traditional canvas)

- Many of the art supplies and paint don't work the same (or even at all)

- Ex: Watercolors don't get absorbed and diffuse

- Several traditional art materials need additional adhesive layers to make them actually attach to glass

- Techniques available on canvas may not be available or have to be completely redesigned

- The painting surface itself is usually fragile, and significant risk of breakage / damage

- It's often historically been stigmatized (viewed as an art style of primitives, religious people, or "feminine")

Decent amount of concepts summarized from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_glass_painting
U.S. border officials have caught more people with eggs than fentanyl this year
The US defense complex is large but it’s also inefficient and sclerotic, partly as a direct result of those fat budgets that have created a many decades old culture of graft and waste.

A country with less of this cost disease could probably be competitive with 1/4 the spend or less, especially if they skip big heavy Cold War era tech in favor of faster cheaper stuff like drones and smart munitions. Aircraft carriers and manned fighters look cool but I’m not sure how much they matter anymore.

What I see from the EU is that while they do also have cost disease, it might not be as entrenched in that sector. They also have Russia directly adjacent to them, which motivates people to actually care.

If Mexico were belligerent with a history of imperialism, had nuclear weapons and a huge army, and had just invaded and taken Cuba, we’d be in a similar situation and similarly motivated. As it stands we have a “big beautiful ocean” between us and Russia and do not face a direct threat. The US is almost uninvadeable unless you sterilized it with nukes first, and we have those too.
This looks really interesting - Maybe someone with more knowledge on the subject could make a comparison with other frameworks and how far these guarantees can go? (e.g. fairness seems even ambiguous to define objectively)
The “benefitting from being friends with the US” is exactly the frame Trump would love for you to use. It’s a little more nuanced than that imo.

After WW2 the US wanted the European powers under its wings rather than rebuilding their own militaries to the level of a global power. There were to be two powers: the US and the Soviets.

It suited the US interests to force Europe in a dependent position. Partly for good reasons like preventing us fighting amongst ourselves starting another war. Which we’d just done twice, so fair enough.

But also to stop us from coming under communist influence voluntarily. And, just for imperialist reasons. They were just more modern and subtle about it than the empires they replaced, most notably the British Empire. The almost-century of western Europe being effectively part of an US empire culturally, financially and militarily is now coming to an end. How we’re gonna deal with that? No idea. It’s going to be pretty damn hard in a lot of ways.
Clevo Boot Guard Keys Leaked in Update Package
The simplest way is that all resources require an authenticated type for access, and getting that authenticated type requires an input (secret) only available on the server.

Facebook does something like this and it works pretty well
> This is also what puts many companies out of business

Those companies you mention just overdid it. Like with everything else on the market, there's a limit to how much value/quality you can optimize away before the end result stops being fit for purpose. However, existence of this limit doesn't stop companies from racing to the very edge of it.

> and create huge security issues.

Security is mostly a solved problem.

Yes, it truly is - at least from the business point of view.

Nobody except attackers and infosec people cares about the mathematical and technical details, or whether your stack or coding practice is secure enough. Not the customers, as they neither understand any of this, nor could do anything about it even if they did. Not the companies, since they manage it at a higher level of abstraction. Whatever holes and vulnerabilities the AI coding introduces, the industry will account for it. Some headlines will be made, some stocks will move, and nothing will change.

FWIW, I don't like either of these things. I'm an engineer in my heart, so it pains me to be constantly reminded that our work is merely means to an end, and matters only to the extent it can't be substituted by some alternative.
> Based on what data

History.

In general, divide and conquer (aka defeat in detail) is an excellent way to test and break the resolve of a military alliance, or a poorly organised but massively overpowering enemy in the aggregate.
Anecdotally I perceive there’s been less open source JS libraries/frameworks being released lately. I generally keep an eye on JS/node weekly newsletters and nothing has seemed interesting to me lately.

Of course that could be my info bubble (Bluesky instead of twitter, newsletters, slightly less attracted to shiny than I used to be)

Anybody else feel the same?
The may/must distinction in belief is a plausible cause for the power of propaganda.

Human beings want to believe things they like and want to be skeptical of things they don't like. This was so obscenely obvious to me as I was going up with religious extremist parents after studying some epistemology in college. After living with it on my mind, I think it takes a really, really stoic person to avoid this.

When we see a fact we like presented, we often just think that makes sense, and believe it. When we see some study backing it up, it gives us permission to believe it. For things we like, we use the "may believe" threshold for belief.

When we see a fact we don't like presented, we often think it's bullshit. When we see some study backing it up, we immediately dig into the study to find potential methodology problems. Until these issues are dealt with, we can refuse to believe it. With thinks we don't like we use the "must believe" threshold for belief.

Want to believe drinking wine makes us healthier: we accept that we may believe it, until decades later after numerous skeptics finally demonstrate the studies were flawed.

Want to doubt a controversial political: we refuse to believe it unless we must, when it is corroborated by outlets we trust, who may downplay or not dedicate resources to verifying the story.

Until and unless we hold the same level of skepticism for our facts, and unless we have verification services that don't play favorites in the same way, we will suffer greatly from this may/must belief dichotomy. It's why bad faith news sources are so pernicious. I don't think a chatbot has any hope of fixing this for us.
I believe it's fine now because there's been another, better, solution that doesn't rely on spending so many $$$ on it; the EU. USA is probably not at all as worried about Germany as a country going crazy again.

Ironically, Hitler wanted to establish a third Reich - basically a new Roman empire that spanned all of... Europe. Funny how these things goes. Old wine in new bottles.
Sure. Might be. But you are here asking for Europe to preemptively roll over and give in to Russian wars of aggression.

From a game theory point of view how is that supposed to bring peace? That just shows Russia that they can do whatever they want and reach their goals. We already had the Minsk agreement Russia violated. Why should Russia stop when we give in to their demands? What‘s the logic there?

At some point you have to show strength. And earlier is probably better if you want to prevent WWIII
I’ve been meaning to write essentially this article for a while now.

I’m currently prepping for some upcoming interviews, which is involving quite a bit of deep digging into some technical subjects. I’m enjoying it, but part of it feels… pointless. ChatGPT can answer better than I can about the things I’m learning. It is detracting quite a bit from my joy, which would not have been the case 5 years ago
For annexation threats the 100 mile line is irrelevant.
Please can you give us a typical daily schedule of these 80 hour week folks?

Do they have lunch? How long is their commute? I presume they are in the office, otherwise you’d have no way of verifying they work 80 hours. Are they working weekends? What do they do if they need to go to the doctor or dentist? Do they take holidays - how much? Sick days?

Do they take breaks during the day? How much time in the office is actually spent working?

I have never seen anyone consistently work more than 65 hour weeks, and the only person I can verify is me, and long term even that probably wasn’t sustainable.

Simple calculation 80 hours, let’s say spread over 6 days. 13 hour days. Say 30-40 mins for lunch now we are at 14 hour days.

Let’s say they can get up and out and to work and back and to bed within 1.5 hours.

Now you are at 17 hour days. Leaving them 7 hours to sleep, 0 hours to exercise, take any breaks, do any kind of life admin, speak to anyone on the phone, do any kind of social media. And that gives them one day off to do absolutely everything they need to do. Obviously none of them can have children or other dependents. And none can have hobbies, a gym routine, etc.

It just doesn’t add up. There is no world where people actually sustainably work 80 hour weeks where they work for 80 hours.
We can agree to disagree without name-calling, but the impact of compounding growth vs intentional stagnation is going to continue to widen the gap that's already opened up over a few generations.
This doesn't make sense though unless your company isn't growing. Most dev teams have large backlogs of work and any increase in productivity can lead to an increase in revenue generation.

Programmers aren't paid to generate code. They're paid to figure out how to do X Y and Z business initiatives. Unless you don't have that many initiatives, how much sense does it make to let go of the people who can do that for you? It makes sense when companies are trying to cut costs, but that happens when the cost of borrowing is higher than the realizable profit margin