Ask HN: Why hasn't x86 caught up with Apple M series?
418 points by stephenheron 1d ago 598 comments
iOS 26 Launches Sept 15 – Even GPT-5 Doesn't Know It Exists
2 points by rileygersh 5h ago 5 comments
Ask HN: Best codebases to study to learn software design?
100 points by pixelworm 3d ago 89 comments
Stop squashing your commits. You're squashing your AI too
4 points by jannesblobel 1d ago 9 comments
I Wasn't Worried About the Fed. Now I Am
70 petethomas 50 8/27/2025, 1:07:37 PM bloomberg.com ↗
“Of these four interventions (deleting, killing, burying, and downweighting), the only one that moderators do frequently is downweighting. We downweight posts in response to things that go against the site guidelines, such as when a submission is unsubstantive, baity or sensational. Typically such posts remain on the front page, just at a lower rank.”
My personal encounter with the situation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45036597 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44939626
There isn’t some secret cabal of MAGA types censoring you.
Thanks for deciding that without asking.
Stories about the Therac-25 - badly using a computer to control a radiation machine - are fine and often end on the front page. It killed 6 people.
Stories about DOGE - badly using computers, big data, AI to save "trillions" of USD - are apparently not fine. DOGE is killing tens of thousands of people, put Musk is close to Trump, so talking about it is "political" and therefore there is no interest in showing on the front page that DOGE's claims are wrong by several orders of magnitude.
Stories about Theranos - badly using computers to automate lab diagnostics - used to be fine. We talked at length about how Elizabeth Holmes was hailed as a genius, then how fishy it seemed, then the whistleblowers came and blew the lid off the deception that was going on. Holmes was condemned and sent to detention.
Will we be forbidden to talk about Theranos once she gets her pardon from Trump[0]? Because it would be "political"?
Are we forbidden to talk about Trevor Milton - co-founder and CEO of bankrupt electric truckmaker Nikola Motors, pardoned in March - was a fraudster[1], when he will inevitably launch a new startup? Will any mention of it be flagged because "we don't want no political flame wars"?
[0]https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2025/06/27/310688... [1]https://www.axios.com/2025/03/31/trump-pardons-bitmex-crypto...
Talk about it all you want. Don’t be surprised when people start rolling their eyes at you like we roll our eyes at the weird uncle who always ruins family gatherings by bringing up politics at the dinner table.
I think a lot of people don’t come here for politics and would like to filter some of the noise out.
0. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43837358
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43823018
2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43499550
Seriously that's the allegation? When I heard false information on a mortgage I assumed inflated income or assets or concealing the source of a downpayment. Is this even material? Can't a person have 2 homes and live in both?
One home is always the "primary residence" for legal purposes. You can have and live in as many homes as you want, but only one counts as your primary residence.
That said, the allegation is just that, an allegation. Further, it's coming from people who are highly motivated to exaggerate or lie.
3 strikes: Black. Woman. Appointed by Biden.
It is still a pretty massive pot meet kettle argument though. Trump's a convicted fraudster. Let's remove everyone who has committed fraud from office. Can we add Ken Paxton to the list with Trump as well? Oh wait, not my guys...
I was talking with a neighbor raging about how corrupt Lisa Cook is and how these people just think they should get away with anything and how these people need to be put in prison for a long time. After pointing out Ken Paxton (someone they hope runs for Congress) claimed three houses as primary residences, well, that's different see...
How are markets supposed to react to that?
If markets are going to go up, and then down, do you buy or sell?
If Trump is going to take over the Fed, the smart move is to buy. If there's going to be a huge party before the world ends, you go to the party.
The Fed will drop interest rates, this will make borrowing easy, people in the economy can get easy money. Inflation will rise, which makes borrowing even easier, because any debt is just inflated away. People will want to hold assets that can't be devalued by inflation, which means people will not want to hold government bonds unless the US pays a high interest rate on those bonds, and when the US government pays a high interest rate on its bonds.
So, we would expect the stock market to increase temporarily, and people will want to buy that increase. The long-term bond market would tank because people would know nobody will want to hold US bonds. Overall it would be a very schizophrenic market.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Transparency_A...
No comments yet
C'mon, that's such a cheap take. The Fed has done nothing but destroy the value of the dollar since its founding in 1913.
I suppose we could paraphrase that by changing "salary" to "retirement" or "national economic health".
Yup. Boomers be the death of all. So much of what's been done over the past 5 years-ish has been because a stock market crash would devastate the largest voting bloc at the worst possible moment; there would be no "just wait for the recovery." Ironically, many of those measures have made any potential crash much, much worse. Not just in terms of a general collapse, but with disproportionate impacts because of the nature of the interventions.
Don't look into what's actually in those retirement funds.
This has been asserted but not proven to be true.
“…she shouldn't be in charge of anything.“
Even if sensible, this is clearly not a heuristic that is being applied universally.
Given the players involved, that honestly seems to be quite controversial.
She should be the POTUS if she's really a felon.
When Al Franken resigns because of allegations of sexual misconduct, it proves Democrats are evil. When Donald Trump is convicted of dozens of felonies, it proves Republicans are victims of politically motivated witch hunts. It shouldn't be a controversial opinion that being a felon should disqualify you from public service, but because of that very opinion, labeling someone as a felon as been weaponized to the point where the label can be dismissed by supporters
It is not proven. Trump is merely alleging - it is a manufactured allegation.
> If she committed a felony, she shouldn't be in charge of anything
Apply the same logic to the 34 count felon in the office of the President. Until you apply the harshest standard to the President, none of your other complaints hold any value.
Big if, especially since she hasn't been formally charged with anything. In any case, even if she has, Trump and Pulte's authority to fire her is questionable. It would be like a mayor attempting to fire a private security guard that's contracted with the city, pending an investigation.
A couple of points: if it were a LEO, they would generally be put on leave, not fired. But, again, officer of a private entity (which the Fed) is; the mayor/president's ability to influence that entity's activity ends at the contracts/relevant statutes's stipulations - and if there's a dispute, it gets hashed out in civil court. Of course, if a felony has been committed, one could just wait for the conviction, which would likely lead to termination by one of several exigencies.
But, again, big if.
Good thing we're replacing BLS staff with sycophants!