skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Long-term trade deficits are intrinsically bad.

> The intrinsically bad part is the trade imbalance,

The basis of your comment appears to be recieved wisdom from an uncredited source, what many regard as an opinion of dubious standing.

eg:

Back on the goods side, when the US economy is robust and people have disposable income, imports naturally increase. Ultimately, while trade deficits indicate economic dynamics, they are not inherently negative nor do they signify economic weakness.

Rather, they often reflect a nation’s economic structure and consumer preference for diverse global products. After all, Australia has run trade deficits for decades, including with the US, and is one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

from: https://theconversation.com/no-thats-not-what-a-trade-defici...

and numerous other professional opinions from economics and trade.
For the record, I’m not saying this is the perfect model and we should move to it immediately. My only claim is that it isn’t crazy.

I think the fundamental difference between advertising to discoverers vs advertising to consumers is that currently “discoverers” (platforms, content creators, billboard owners, etc.) make money directly from advertisers. Success as a “discoverer” is at least somewhat correlated to income (with more money, platforms can be more successful; content creators can create more compelling content; landowners can buy more billboards). If that money is coming from advertisers, you are biasing the market to prefer discoverers that can secure the most advertiser funding, which in turn preferences advertisers that can spend the most on advertising. This isn’t fundamentally bad, since a compelling product can make a lot of money that can then be spend on advertising, but it also creates anti-consumer incentives (like marketing something that is just good enough not to return as the next best thing). On the other hand, if discoverers are paid directly by consumers, that biases the market to prefer discoverers who identify products that bring the most value to consumers for their money.
Yes, free schwag is a form of payment. I say no inducements, no discounting, fair market rules only.
Did you not read "Some examples of sites sharing some thematic elements spanning over 25 years:" followed by links to different galleries? Is clicking a link all that hard? It lets the reader browse examples at their own pace. I thought this was HN, not TikTok.
I used to be good at this. And then I bought a Mac. I don’t miss this.
Hmmm, the nugget about focusing on younger folks you've trained sounds interesting, I hadn't previously thought of that. However, there have been very few juniors around in my last few jobs. Maybe because they were contracts.
What qualifies as a passing answer? My response would be to roll my eyes and bail out of the conversation.
Rallies aren't advertisements, now.

Well, I suppose that's one loophole.

It isn't as if companies can't hold rallies.

It isn't as if flash mobs don't exist.

And "spreading your message"... what do you think going viral is, exactly?

What is "viral marketing" to you?
I don't know why a listener wouldn't think it's for real?

A new job can involve relocation, or if it's in the same city, prevent the spouse from a desired relocation.

Not to mention people do tend to evaluate major life decisions with trusted friends etc. Discuss whether to job-hop now or wait to see if something better shows up in six months.

I'm intrigued by your perspective that someone would assume this was non-literal or a bullshitter?

I mean yes, it might be buying time, but as a recruiter why would you even care? The person wants extra time, they've given a valid reason for it, so you give it to them within reason unless it's an emergency and the position needs someone in the chair on Monday and there's another candidate who can take it. I don't think they would bother to think about it any more deeply than that.
Not sure what you mean by summary paper, its a pretty dense topic that assumes a fair amount of prior knowledge of the fundamentals. But maybe the Meta blog post may suffice for that?

Otherwise yes there are lots of papers on this and related topics, a few dozen in fact. But here are some notable ones, a couple of them are linked in their blog post.

RoFormer: Enhanced Transformer with Rotary Position Embedding - https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.09864

Scaling Laws of RoPE-based Extrapolation - https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.05209

The Impact of Positional Encoding on Length Generalization in Transformers - https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.19466

Scalable-Softmax Is Superior for Attention - https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.19399
Legislatures have tried to pass laws regulating commercial speech in various ways and the track record is generally that they get their asses handed to them by the court, because this is basically the most protected right in our system.

It's fine if everyone here wants to fantasize about some alternative system, but "we make advertising illegal" is not something that can happen in our system of governance.
I'd be happy to hear your definition of direct, which somehow includes a bunch of indirect things happening.
It seems unlikely all 5 would only have their heads exposed. It seems it would be more likely they might develop various other cancers.
Would you have preferred ‘let them eat cake’?

‘Just do something else’ is not a valid response to ‘I would like to do this, but am unreasonably prevented from doing it.’
Techniques Hacker News Uses to Create Great Shell Scripts
> when there are billions of people in the world it is expected that some where several get cancer at the same time.

That would be the answer if we asked whether such a coincidence ever happens in the world. In this specific case, the question is, 'what are the most likely causes?'
There are free discord groups for this too
"Anyone who actually contributed to social security, please report to the 10th floor at 2 pm today. Before doing so, please email a bullet point summary of what your contributions have been in the past ~6 months, along with up to 10 screenshots of the most salient pay stub deductions."
Of course they’re “allowed”. Congress shall make no law…

The New York Times Company can say anything they want about anything, and especially political candidates.
Imagine meeting co-workers on your first day: "This is parpfish, a rock star who is making twice what all of you make. He is one of those 10x engineers you all hear about. Just stay out of his way while he re-architects all our systems!" I think I should have taken the lower offer?
Which odds go up, if you would clarify?
"Unbiased" would be a complete and detailed recitation of all of the facts surrounding an incident, arguably down to particles. Anything less introduces some kind of bias. For instance, describing an event as an interaction of people, omitting particles/field details, introduces human bias. That's a natural and useful bias we don't typically care about but does come into play in science.

Political bias creeps in when even the human description of events omits facts that are inconvenient or that people consider irrelevant due to their political commitments.
Yes, the imminent is a high bar.
Lightweight threads and channels are better than async/await syntax
# The pros of lightweight threads and channels

Lightweight threads don't have the cost of OS threads. You can launch a lot of them cheaply fast. Lightweight threads and OS threads can communicate with each other via channels. Lightweight threads can be freed from OS threads during IO/GPU-bound operations.

If you communicate between (lightweight) threads via channels, you get synchronous coding experience. There is no function color(async color + sync color).

Good examples of this synchronous concurrenct programming model are goroutine, clojure core.async, JVM virtual thread, janet fiber, and so on. Clojure core.async go block state machine doesn't require changes to runtime environment.

# The cons of lightweight threads and channels

Synchronous concurrency has a few trade-offs. I read that the changes required for built-in lightweight threads may make it difficult for other languages to interact with the affected language via FFI(foreign function interface). I suspect this can be overcome with future research?

Errors cannot be propagated outside threads, so you have to take care of exceptions in threads or pass error values to other threads. Go is famous for not having exceptions. Go only has panics like out-of-memory errors.

# The pros of async/await syntax

Unless you want to poll regularly as you would in C language for concurrent programming, async/await syntax doesn't require runtime environment changes that make it difficult for other languages to interact with the affected language via FFI.

However, core.async go blocks are macro-based state machines which don't require changes to runtime environment although macro-based state machines require a bit of care.

# The cons of async/await syntax

Async and await are contagious. Whatever touches async code becomes async.

# My comparison

Handling exceptions in isolated threads and passing error values to other threads is better than contagious async/await syntax. Error handling becomes a bit tedious with (lightweight) threads and channels, but handling exceptions as early as possible in each isolated thread reduces the possibility that unhandled exceptions crash the program.

If runtime environment changes required for built-in lightweight threads are not wanted, then we can research lightweight threads based on state machines, such as core.async go blocks.
best move is to switch to based-pyright
But it also assumes China would never really catch up to American chip companies. China is already investing heavily in chip R&D and things like RISC-V, I think it’s very plausible that lag window shrinks over this horizon. Perhaps even flipping given their much larger willingness to use industrial policy for goals they want achieved.
I love the game! I hate hate hate the timer though. Other than the timer I'd happily add this to my daily word game routine.
(Belatedly revisiting after the edit window to note, when I say 'refactoring to eliminate...' above, I should be clear I mean experimentally eliminating ORM calls for the poorly performing query and not across an entire codebase, or any other such ocean-boiling nonsense. In a sane world this would all be reasonably implicit, but we live here, so.)
I have had this situation multiple times in my life. It was probably a lot more common for tech in the last 10 years especially in the US.

Edit: I'm seeing a lot of comments on this thread that has not aligned with my experience. I have, in tech, as a software engineer used multiple offers to increase a lower offer by like 15% for a company I preferred and I have also held an offer on the hook so to speak to use it leverage someone else to good effect.
They said there weren't any environmental factors. However, we don't know that much about brain cancers and the only real environmental factor would be radiation and some meds (like the mini pill). Checking the water supply is fine, I guess, but it takes years for the cancers to form (usually). Who knows if whatever they would look for would still be there. I think there's little chance of finding a new environmental factor. I think it's likely some unknown factors exist. I just don't think it's likely they'll find one this time.
hey musk, if you can’t take the heat, gtfo.
You could always get a hay-powered one.
We’re talking about LLM bias (economic is far less relevant) on a largely American forum in context of USAID, I’m not conflating really more than you’re steering things to some odd different ground.
this is why lawyers charge $500+/hr :)
> specifically denies any noticable associations with fluoride at the levels recommended in countries that add fluoride to water. (Emphasis added)

Which is not a claim that was being discussed in this subthread, since the original claim being refuted specify any such qualification.
The odds "that some where several get cancer at the same time". (And by odds I mean probability, strictly speaking)
Better cats in a place where you get food than mice and rats, which are the alternative.
Yeah, first-wins is definitely surprising. Off the top of my head, it feels like one would have to go out of one’s way to write a parser that does that (by storing an extra bit of state for each configuration item, and then checking it before setting the configuration item and toggling the state, rather than just applying the configuration item each time it is encountered).

Is there a good reason for this design? I can’t think of one, again off the top of my head, but of course I could be missing something.
I cannot see any major use case apart from code generation and autocompletion. Maybe summarizing text and learning new things but that can be achieved by any search engine.

A good search engine could probably take over llm.
This is all great advice especially at the 101 level. At the 201 level, you can start to skip a lot of these formalities by straightening out the information asymmetry and really having a crisp position on the value exchange.

- Your #1 goal should actually be knowing the top of the range of what this role is worth in the market. Once you figure that out, the whole "don't say the first number" rule is BS. Set expectations at the high water mark and then your job isn't to negotiate on salary; it's to negotiate if you're worth it

- Now that you know the maximum price this role (or product, or service -- it's all the same!) can be set to, you need to convince the other side that you deliver the requisite amount of value to justify the price. Like the article said, talk about your impact. Your BATNA. Your opportunity cost. All of these things are real and support why you are worth it

Once you transition from negotiating on price alone to negotiating ROI, everything changes. Try your best to solve the asymmetry, set the price and move on, find your leverage, and then make a compelling case. That's how you win
ok, but the article said all the tumors were benign
Sure, if nobody has ever heard of you then making them aware of you is a necessary step in making them more likely to buy your stuff.

But that doesn’t mean it’s a major benefit of advertising. There are plenty of other ways to discover products, and most advertising is done by established brands to people who already know about them. How much advertising do Apple, Coca-Cola, Toyota, etc. do? How many people are unaware that their products exist?
> Nope. Netscape 4 did very well.

I didn't say it didn't do well, I said it was a buggy bloated piece of crap. And it was. It was also the de facto way that many small businesses did both web browsing and email but the writing was on the wall. The price of browsers had fallen to zero.

It's weird arguing about history with someone who wasn't there. I was there. All this software you vague impressions of, I actually used. All of it. All versions of Netscape. All versions of IE (except 1). I still use Thunderbird for email.

The timeline you have in your head is sort of all over the place. By the time Firefox 1.0 was release IE was already on version 8 and had been around for a decade.

Firefox was a superior browser but realistically, at that time, browser security wasn't a huge problem. This was still the time of Flash plugins -- which all browsers supported -- but you still weren't p0wned the minute you browsed anywhere.
Why not just increase the size of this server? They've got this one server that has managed for years, does it really need to be more complicated than "a bigger server"?

> This averages to about 925 requests per second and an average bandwidth of 1.2 gb per second.

Although the bigger question is why they stopped using S3 at all - they never had to think about this problem again and it sounds like this has cost them heavily in dev-time over the years. AWS pricing can suck but lots of vendors have S3-compatible storage backends with better pricing.
i was in previous iterations of products ms doing eee/enshittification, so very caucious to monitor them and pull earlier than they.

i do not see in text of announcment any reason to use copilot specifically anymore.

so left copilot 2 weeks ago.
tried local qwen-coder. started small but ended max fits 12 gb nvidia laptop gpu. it made my laptop sound like jet, so not this year or even next year, until bubble burst. no local for now. need pull earlier than other they from clouds so at some points.
but local was fine quality autocompletion even on 12gb.

currently ended up on vs code+continue+mistral. feels fine. i like line by line autocomplete and pressing tab several times for each line. better quality and more control.

also i use only clouds which also provide models to run locally. so i can pull when time will come.

do not have time to try other models and extensions. so many.
If I don’t ask for a menu don’t give me a menu.
The Chevaline! It's probably possible to build The Primer, and the John Zaibatsu doesn't seem very outlandish too.

But guys, that book wasn't a manual.
I mean, wouldn’t this be measured by actual threat model and just “vibes” or whatever?
These things are neat. I like how they see us, disappear, and then reappear right above or under us. They'll also jump and spin around facing you if you try to pet them from behind. They're funny. I have two, recent examples of their disappearing act.

One was on the far end of a picnic table looking at me. It slowly moved backwards to disappear under the table. I felt I just knew what it was planning. I keep my eyes open as I worked on my laptop. Eventually, the spider's head creeps out from under the table between my waist and laptop. So, I tried to pet it and it starts jumping across the table. I can't remember if it jumped off the table.

My mom saw one in or around her car. It disappeared. She had a feeling she'd see it again but hopefully not while in heavy traffic. Later on, after getting in, a black form slowly descends in front of her face. It was just looking at her. I can't remember how she reacted to that.

We've had multiple places with lots of brown recluses. Some said they were too big. Must be wolf spiders. They look like recluses do in all the online pictures and nothing like wolf spiders usually do. I've imagined buying a bunch of jumping spiders to throw in the attic or underneath a house like that. I wonder if they'd (a) kill brown recluses at all and (b) clear a house out. While I doubt it's practical, using my favorite spiders as a weapon against my least favorite was an amusing thought.
Also, different languages have different formatting varieties. 256 combinations doesn't seem like nearly enough.

Note that is 256 combinations. If you want both bold and italics, either it's one of the 256 combinations, separate from the bold-only combination and from the italics-only combination, or you need another 8 bits for each option.

I think HN made a very aesthetically pleasing decision to exclude bold and underline. Imagine the appearance of comment pages if those were options.
The OpenVertebrate database is an incredible resource, but I wonder how accessible it truly is for everyday use—like without needing a biology degree to navigate.
It’s fascinating how 3D scans are revolutionizing our understanding of species, but I’d love to see more on practical applications for non-researchers.

This could be a game-changer for educators and hobbyists alike. Here's to more accessible, cross-disciplinary tools!
Serving Vector Tiles, Fast
> you are self-imposing a restriction that will give other nations an economic advantage and jeopardizing long-term sovereignty.

I don't see how you reached this conclusion, unless you think advertising/propaganda yields bet positive outcomes more than net negative, which seems contentious.

Here's one way it could be false: the wisdom of the crowds only really works when groups of people independently reach their own conclusions, because people who don't understand an issue are randomly distributed around the correct answer and so they all cancel each other out, leaving only the people who do understand an issue to cluster around the correct decision.

Propaganda/advertising works directly against this, thus undercutting the usefulness of the wisdom of crowds.
Open a scope when you check resource acquisition passed, rather than the opposite (jump to the end of the function if it failed).

It can get quite hilly, which doesn't look great. It does have the advantage that each resource is explicitly only valid in a visible scope, and there's a marker at the end to denote the valid region of the resource is ending.

EDIT: you mentioned early return, this style forbids early return (at least, any early return after the first resource acquisition)
title could use a clean up
Sonic sound laser, speech jammer [video]
Wondering what would happen if a company recognizes their core product is no longer a business differentiator. What if it decides to spin out the common pieces to vendors and spins up a skunkworks team to build a similar, competing product?

Team A analyzes SaaS solutions and tries to replace existing systems with turnkey services.

Team B makes a cleanroom implementation mirroring the original product. This could confuse sales, though.

Team C is the skeleton crew that fixes bugs and still delivers new features, but at a reduced pace.

Would this be too costly? Too much duplicated work?

Maybe even having to choose only one team is an executive decision and determines the rest of the roadmap for the whole company.

Each team would need a vertical slice of each department, from marketing to QA. But there would be cross-pollination, because each business sponsor fields requests from different aspects of the same thing.

Some observations from other domains. The military has special forces, airborne, and frontline soldiers. Another is F1 technologies being adapted in consumer vehicles (if one car company manages the whole stack).
https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/04/03/trump-tesla-musk-goin...
Nurses near pathology or surgical areas may be exposed to carcinogenic VOCs like formaldehyde, xylene, and toluene.
‘The left’ held the presidency up until quite recently, among other things.
Diverse systems are more resilient. It's probably a good thing for IT in a general sense, even if it's not the most efficient
Consuming pirated literature en masse produces a bias away from authoritarianism; consider me flabbergasted.
Yes... I could see that approach being desirable on a CPU, it would make all context switches cheaper. Are we re-inventing register windows?

Of course, we are on a GPU here. Skimming through the RDNA 4 ISA document [1], looks like they expect waves using the dynamic VGPRs features to keep track of how many VGPRs they have requested in a Scalar register (SGPR). Each wave always has 106 SGPRs allocated (32-bit each), so the overhead of a single SGPR isn't an issue. You wouldn't even need the jump table, as AMD allows you to index into the VGPR register file. A small loop would allow you to push all active VGPRs onto the stack.

Shame they don't also allow you to index into the SGPR registers too.

But GPUs aren't really designed with coroutines or context switching in mind. Modern GPUs can do it, but GPUs have deep historical assumptions that every single wave on every single core will be running the exact same code, and that 99.99% of waves will run to completion without needing a context switch. When preemptive context switches are needed (no more than once every few ms, and only with long-running compute shaders), they can probably get away with simply DMAing the whole register file to memory.

Though, part of the reason this feature was implemented is that the historic assumptions are no-longer true. DXR allows each material to register a unique hit shader, so Modern GPUs need to dynamic dispatch based on the result of ray hits.

[1] https://www.amd.com/content/dam/amd/en/documents/radeon-tech...