skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
OK but US really is in a world of its own these for a lot of things. In the UK it's very common to get 0% interest installments.

Which is not to have a go at the US, but to just make the point that buying domestic appliances is not a simple "bad credit" case. Unlike chicken wings.
I think we will live longer, and even achieve suspended animation. But a brain deprived of oxygen is damaged way too fast be useful. But who knows, humanity in 10,000 years will be very different from now, if we survive that long as a species.
That's kind of along the lines of something I heard that Steve Jobs did to the iPhone prototype. He threw it in the fish tank and said, all those bubbles are wasted space. Could be this is an urban legend though.
> if you can just use one of those mics?

They're extremely omnidirectional and very sensitive. With a single mic with no beamforming you get basically all of the sounds from every part of the room, including and especially horribly loud sounds from (eg.) the keyboard and mouse.

Apple selected their microphones based on the constraints their system had (beam formed array) rather than the "usual" laptop microphone which is physically not very sensitive and highly directional towards the front of the laptop, and in turn, those microphones are not particularly useful without beam forming.

Other laptops with beamformed arrays simply don't expose the raw mics to userland, by doing the beamforming in firmware, but this of course comes with its own set of issues.
Which is good for Devin, though the ownership of nebula is a little complicated and basically that amounts to a 1/7 share of voting power:

https://medium.com/@cameron-paul/who-actually-owns-nebula-95...

I think several of the other cofounders (e.g. Wendell, also the guy from real engineering) seem likely to be decent people too.

But also, for the purposes of this discussion, we're talking about the ability of a capricious US president to make access difficult, and a bunch of YouTubers and a documentary maker are not going to have the resources to stand up to the US federal government.
Looks slick but your call to action is off; No one wants "more interviews" they want a job! So don't advertise that your product will lead to more interviews, advertise that it will lead to a job.
It depends on whether or not such a thing would be effective, honestly. I'd want to see some data on that.
deployments on Vercel and Netlify aren't affected so the thing he is actually a CEO of is doing its job
I've never been taught that Ford invented the car, but instead Ford invented the mass production of cars. Not really sure where "Ford invented car" comes from
> For example, it's simply rude to broadcast your new job when some people are struggling with it (will they ever get one? will they get fired? are they good enough?). Just the very fact that there are "some" should be enough to kickstart one's manners, even if that "some" is not a lot of people.

To be fair, LinkedIn is nominally a professional networking site. Broadcasting your new job is absolutely in scope for that site.

It’s the “what the death of my dog taught me about viral content marketing” or “how my child losing her soccer game made me a better manager” posts that are out of control.

My personal favorites are people bragging about working during their wedding / funeral / vacation. “Joe is such a dedicated worker! Look he is taking time out from his bachelor party to deploy this database schema change!”
That ship has sailed. http has been retired.
I also doubt the Romans had tools that could have machined a piston with sufficient precision either.
Show HN: Zarathustra – AI-powered sales research in 60 seconds
Hi all,

I'm a first-time startup founder genuinely looking for your brutal honesty and sincere feedback.

I’ve been building a tool that’s designed to save salespeople time on company research. Essentially, I created it to solve a real pain point my team had internally during sales outreach—we were wasting tons of time researching companies and prospects to craft personalized messages. So, I built something that does it in under 60 seconds.

After some friends encouraged me to share it publicly, I made it available for others to use because this problem seemed to resonate with a lot of people in subreddits and casual conversations.

The tool works like this: you type in any company link, optionally share a little about what you do, and it generates a detailed sales report for free. The sales report includes things like key insights, target audience, products and services, engagement strategies etc.

While our internal team loves it and it saves us a ton of time, something feels off since we launched it publicly. People are trying it, but engagement and retention is much lower than we expected.

I’d love to get your thoughts on a few things:

* Is company research actually a significant pain point for salespeople?
* Are we attracting the wrong users?
* What’s your brutally honest feedback? What’s good, what’s bad, and what could be better about the idea?

If you have a few minutes to give me your thoughts, I’d really appreciate it. Please don’t hold back—I value the truth more than comfort right now.

Thanks so much for your insights!
As a former Czech resident, I used to use this regularly. The UI is a bit weird, but the geographic database is from OpenStreetMap and it's excellent. It's much better than Google once you get to the level of house or building numbers, and it has better cycle mapping, too.

It's sponsored by Seznam, the Czech search engine (and email, auction site, etc.) Czechia is one of the few countries where Google is an also-ran in search.
Silicon Valley: boldly re-creating religion while claiming it is something entirely new and innovative.

Yep, we've seen this before.
Yeah. I was a huge, vocal fan of Elon, Tesla and SpaceX.
Now I’m just embarrassed.

When I see a Tesla, I always wonder if the driver regrets his choice. When they were new I greeted Tesla drivers with a smile and thumbs up.
You can actually turn off LinkedIn’s recommendations here: https://lnkd.in/gQHsR8ps

Change it to “Most recent posts” and you’ll stop getting random influencers in your feed telling you that vibe coding is the future.
I don’t think you fundamentally understand what makes a transhumanist. The differentiating line is not improve vs harm. Everyone wants to improve life with tech save maybe the Amish. It’s human vs not. A transhumanist is willing to entertain technology that enhances (carefully chosen term) some conscious experience even if it replaces our humanity. Others generally don’t take that stance axiomatically. A transhumanist would support replacing our dna with nanobots programmed to do things that keep a body alive if it means we can reduce the replication error rate and avoid cancer. Good outcome, dubious means. A transhumanist wouldn’t debate this and accept the nanobot outcome. Most others would at least debate this tech, even if we ultimately collectively come to the shared conclusion we can humanely replace parts of our DNA to cure cancer. The point is the transhumanist wouldn’t care about retaining our humanity, as evolving into “machines” is an acceptable outcome.
> What threat to its integrity?

Annexation of Greenland. It is part of Denmark as of now, even if it is not exactly a part of EU. The fact that you don't even seem to know that shows that you sre either arguing in bad faith or is ill informed.

> We do not have to protect you forever

Then leave. This arrangement benefits primarily the US.

> I don't know why the US taking itself off massively taxing it's citizens and increasing government revenue through tarrifs, is called a "Trade war".

You don't seem to understand how tariffs work either. Honestly, having this conversation with you is a waste of time.

> People seem to be so reliant on the US

Pehaps not anymore. We shall see. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
> I recently developed a new data structure called the Shift-To-Middle Array, designed as an alternative to std::deque, std::vector, and linked lists.

I notice you do not include ring buffers in this headline alternatives list. To me ring buffers seem the most natural comparison. I'd expect them to perform strictly better (no movement, no amortized constant time). But parsing APIs often can't handle the discontinuity where they wrap around, so I think this or something like it has value.

I do see you included this `ExpandingRingBuffer` in your benchmarks, and wrote the following:

> ExpandingRingBuffer performs well for small to medium container sizes but becomes less efficient for larger sizes, where Shift-To-Middle Array and std::deque maintain better performance.

Why do you think ExpandingRingBuffer's performance suffers? Is this about frequent expansion? Otherwise, as mentioned above, I'd expect a well-implemented ring buffer to be hard to beat.
Ah, I thought you were proposing something to use as an alternative to traditional speech therapy.
Kind of weird that this has 103 upvotes and all the comments are wondering what the point of this story is.
That's true, but Facebook also had innovations: it was one the first popular websites to ask what people's actual first and last name was, then use that as their handle. It used AJAX relatively early. It had a better design than MySpace.

Likewise, I suspect Reddit got more growth through innovation - allowing people to create arbitrary subreddits - than through the Digg v4 mess.

Having a design that encourages trust (with a clean UI video content) is a good innovation over LinkedIn.

Is it enough? Probably not.

Is LinkedIn weak in other areas? Yes, fraud is huge. People lie about job titles and work dates and even entire roles. Tying in with Rippling etc, could defeat that. There's catalysts like you mention too: Reid Hoffman has also been accused of funding political violence via the recent ActBlue scandal in which 7 board members resigned.
I agree, which is why the Wright Brothers less "invented flight" than "had the first sustained engine-powered flight." A lot of historical documents describe it similarly to the latter, but that doesn't quite roll off the tongue.

I think there's a loose threshold for when something is "viable," and that becomes the genesis of invention. Even in the Wright Brothers' case, the first flight was viable only in demonstration, there was no practical application for a few generations of aircraft.

And as this article highlights, US hegemony kind of ruled via the "winners write history" theory. Which is why some people still say Edison invented the light bulb.
Even neuroimaging isn't enough. fMRI doesn't have a great track record for predicting pain. It works to an extent, but it's not like there's a simple area that lets you accurately and directly decode the pain level someone is experiencing. And there's no new neuroimaging in the pipeline that would let us do this in a clinically relevant setting. There's a lot of hype around various optical methods, but it'll be a long road even if they work.

In the meantime, we should take much more advantage of the gap between the sensory and the affective components!

There are many other science-based pain management methods than just drugs. These other methods don't change the sensory part, the pain is there, but they can dramatically change the quality of your life with how you feel the pain.

CBT is very effective for pain management. Even something as simple as distracting yourself from a painful stimulus like a medical procedure can make a huge difference.

For example, your doctor doesn't routinely tell you to show your kids a fun video while they get a shot. But it makes a massive quality of life difference. Without Elmo, my daughter will cry for 5-10 minutes and just be miserable for half an hour. With Elmo, the shot comes, she's annoyed, there are tears for a 5-10 seconds, and then she's fine. There's no reason to not make this routine, except that we think of pain as something entirely objective instead of something that is largely subjective.

I think this research falls into that trap of "This is an important problem, this solution is obviously bad, but we have no good ones, so let's do it." This is likely to cause far more pain than to help anyone.
Covid was a hiccup for global trade. The just in time supply chains created by the constant whittling/looting of the MBA class were the problem.

Globalization died when the small minded monster Republicans had been farming for decades escaped its talk radio cage and found Trump. Trump (and his loser-mentality enablers) saw systems they didn't understand, and more irritatingly other parties who wouldn't just lap up shit as they were bossed around, and inferred this meant the US must have been getting a poor deal instead of an awesome one. (BuT tHE dEbT!!1!)
Of course, there is always something to do. But once you have reached the point where 'participation in anything is voluntary' and you don't have the necessity of work to show you the value of leisure time, I guess you need to come up with new reasons that make existence worthwhile purely for the sake of existing itself.
(Which is not to say that you weren't facing the same existential questions before, but 'the grind' is a very good way to keep yourself occupied and not ponder these things too closely, I suppose.)

And there definitely are good reasons that make existence worthwhile for its own sake, like using your freedom for discovery and mastery as you said, but unfortunately depression has the nasty side-effect of robbing you of the joy you could find in those causes, and the energy to pursue them.
I think it's because it's "classics." Your first couple of years excepted, everyone hears about a text years before they read it. By the time they read it, they already know a lot about it, and they read it closely and systematically to get a deep understanding of it.

There isn't a firehose of new text being created in Latin, and you never (or very rarely) scan over something to find out what it's about, extract a quick fact from it, or decide if it's worth reading. You know what's in it, you know the standard take-away from it, there's a good chance you've read the highlights in translation already, you may even know one or two hair-splitting academic controversies about it, and you are sitting down for a good hour or several hours with it. It's a completely different kind of reading from scanning a web site or a newspaper to find something worth reading more closely, looking for the answer to a concrete question, or scanning something to decide if you can afford to not really read it.
What about C is simple? Its syntax is certainly not simple, it's hard to grok and hard to implement parsers for, and parsing depends on semantic analysis. Its macro system is certainly not simple; implementing a C preprocessor is a huge job in itself, it's much more complex than what appears to be necessary for a macro system or even general text processor. Its semantics are not simple, with complex aliasing rules which just exist as a hacky trade-off between programming flexibility and optimizer implementer freedom.

C forces programs to be simple, because C doesn't offer ways to build powerful abstractions. And as an occasional C programmer, I enjoy that about it. But I don't think it's simple, certainly not from an implementer's perspective.
How can it be a rock solid investment, when Tesla’s market cap is twice as high as Toyotas?

Maybe it was warranted when the growth was crazy, but their early advantage has been squandered by their whack job CEO.
Burning teslas is literally the definition of terrorism.
Ongoing thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43457666
Do not understand why anyone would want google to retain this data in the first place.
Assault at Antarctic base could be a warning for future travellers to Mars
There are zero buzzwords. I was just being vague because again, the cost of just flipping https on is negligible, it's literally more work to have this conversation and work out all of the details of exactly what attacks you're protected against.

It is never worth asking "should I even do https?" The only variation worth considering is "is https enough?" And even then, start with https and then build on top.
Show HN: git-repo-name – CLI to sync repo name between local and remote
Hey HN,

I frequently create GitHub repos for new projects and sometimes have to rename them to keep things organized. To make renaming easier, I built a CLI tool that helps to keep local and remote git repository names in sync.

It works bi-directionally and supports these two main use cases:

- When you rename a repo on GitHub, you can run `git-repo-name pull` to update the local git directory name.
- When you rename a local git directory, you can run `git-repo-name push` to rename the repo on GitHub.

In both cases, it makes an API call to GitHub, compares the repo name to the local directory name, and automatically renames the appropriate side.

Feel free to try it out and let me know what you think!
I remember that after I had surgery on my finger (the bone healed wrong so they had to cut it and rotate it), a nurse asked me to rate my pain 1-10, and I said: "it's alright, like a 7?", and she was like "that's not alright, let me give you some meds".

It did actually feel like a 7/10, it really hurt, but somehow it didn't bother me. And it was like that for weeks after the surgery, I didn't really end up taking any pain meds when I got home.

And I wouldn't say my pain tolerance is generally particularly high, pain does usually bother me as much as anyone. Not sure what that was about.
> there are many people that (explicitly or implicitly) understand human body and mind as 'sacred' and would oppose intrusive technological improvements to that. So it makes sense to have a term for people who, on the other side, welcome such changes.

That still defines it in relation to the non-improvers, which isn't the most compelling position. Why not, "we want to augment human potential to maximize quality of life through technology?"

(I worry it isn't that argument because it is still too human-centric.)
Ask HN: Do you use AI to generate majority of your production code?
These days I often see extraordinary claims from reputable industry and other insiders that AI writes most of the code and human programmers are simply supervising it.

For example, this morning I was reading [1] and it had the following claim: “ If you really want to grasp how much better A.I. has gotten recently, talk to a programmer. A year or two ago, A.I. coding tools existed, but were aimed more at speeding up human coders than at replacing them. Today, software engineers tell me that A.I. does most of the actual coding for them, and that they increasingly feel that their job is to supervise the A.I. systems.

Jared Friedman, a partner at Y Combinator, a start-up accelerator, recently said a quarter of the accelerator’s current batch of start-ups were using A.I. to write nearly all their code.”

As a programmer myself, whenever I read this I feel like there’s a giant group chat going on and I’m excluded. I use AI in my work, mostly through Zed assistant, but with the latest available models the output and reasoning is nowhere in quality where I’d let it generate majority of the code and ship it to production.

Am I missing something? Do people really generate majority of the code that then successfully operates in production at any significant business scale?

[1] - https://archive.ph/XykVf
AI backend.
Many more spammers think their special and their crap doesn't actually smell.
This is basically just Forth or Factor.
They weren't. They were commenting on the "bully" term.
Doesn't really work if you're trying to navigate over an ocean. Cruise missile also operate over relatively short distances (1,000km - 5,000km, most being 1,000km - 3,000km) compared to long haul flights, plus they also fly at very low altitudes (which helps them avoid enemy radar) which makes terrain contour mapping easier.

Not to mention, if you're designing a cruise missile, you're not that bother about how your navigation system might interfere with other aircraft, or ground systems in the area. I doubt having thousands of planes flying around shooting radar straight down at the ground would work particularly well.
If the US wasn't fighting these "proxy" wars, Euroland would have a lot bigger problems. Refugees are a simple problem to fix. Don't take any.
I'm awful at faces, but I'm worried about leaving myself open to a possible liability
Show HN: Plain Text Live Cricket Score
Hi HN,
I built CricLite (https://criclite.com), a minimalist live cricket scores website.
A few months back, I saw plaintextsports.com and loved its simple design, but it didn't cover cricket. With cricket having around 2.5 billion fans worldwide, I thought this was a perfect side project.
The site is deliberately simple: pure ASCII text, no JavaScript, loads instantly (around 10KB), and works everywhere - browsers, terminals, you name it.

You can even grab scores directly from the terminal:

curl -s https://criclite.com/plain.txt

The entire goal was to create the fastest, most no-nonsense way to check cricket scores.

Source code is on GitHub: https://github.com/rishikeshsreehari/criclite
>> Having the ability to do more, on a bigger scale.

Even waste , inefficiencies ? That is setting yourself up for a big collapse too. One needs to look at it from a more resilient, sustainable perspective, like a biological system.
> If you wear glasses or had braces or use an insulin pump, then, congratulations, you're a transhumanist. The rest is just a matter of degrees.

Glasses restore a function that was supposed to be there in the first place. They are called "corrective lenses" for a reason; to correct is to presuppose a defect which must be corrected to restore what is normative. Insulin pumps also restore a function that was supposed to be there in the first place. That it is implanted into the body is totally irrelevant. As with glasses, the relationship between the person and the pump is instrumental. My heart or brain, however, are not my instruments. They are part of me.

However, the essence of transhumanism, and the ultimate source of issues, is that it turns the human being into an engineering project that seeks to transcend the human. Metaphysically, this is, as polite academic philosophers might say, problematic. To transcend presupposes an existing limit inherent to the thing by virtue of its nature. You wouldn't say that adding a new video card to your computer or building an additional floor on a building transcends the original computer or the original building. This was always possible, as these things are effectively aggregates. The mechanistic metaphysics here precludes the possibility of transcendence, because all you can ever really do is rearrange the furniture. You also wouldn't say that adulthood is the transcendence of childhood, or that adaptation is some kind of transcendence of the species. You're still operating within the scope of possibilities of the species. The nature of a thing is what circumscribes its limits. Technology is not able to transcend human nature, because technology is already within the scope of human power. You can no more cause your own transcendence than you can pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.

Transcendence is not merely the actualization of the potentials already present within a thing. It entails the intrinsic "expansion" of the powers of a thing beyond what is possible by virtue of the nature of a thing. However, any modification of a human being can only be either instrumental, the introduction of defect, or restorative. In the best case, we're talking medicine and health. In the worst case, dehumanization, objectification, and commodification of human beings.
Future Data Cringe