MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by throwaway13337 | 2025-04-16 22:23:56+00:00
o4-mini is available on vs code. I've been playing with it for the last couple of hours. It's quite fast for a thinking model.

It's also super concise with code. Where claude 3.7 and gemini 2.5 will write a ton, o4-mini will write a tiny portion of it accomplishing the same task.

On the flip side, in its conciseness, it's more lazy with implementation than the other leading models missing features.

For fixing very complex typescript types, I've previously found that o1 outperformed the others. o4-mini seems to understand things well here.

I still think gemini will continue to be my favorite model for code. It's more consistent and follows instructions better.

However, openAI's more advanced models have a better shot at providing a solution when gemini and claude are stuck.

Maybe there's a win here in having o4-mini or o3 do a first draft for conciseness, revise with gemini to fill in what's missed (but with a base that is not overdone), and then run fixes with o4-mini.

Things are still changing quite quickly.
by rsynnott | 2025-04-16 22:25:02+00:00
I think battery buses have comprehensively won this one, to be honest. The biggest hydrogen bus fleet seems to be 35 vehicles; there are many BEV bus fleets in the hundreds and some in the thousands.

As a certified old person, I'm having trouble getting used to them. It is unnatural for a double-decker bus to pull up near-silently, and then move off smoothly when you get on. They are _supposed_ to vibrate violently and sound like they might explode at any moment; it's traditional.

(One of the bus route closest to me has a mix of fancy BEV buses and ancient diesel things from 2007, so I get an interesting selection. The other is mostly plugin hybrids, which are extra-disconcerting, as they're either silent or very noisy depending on mode.)
by shtotidumaiesh | 2025-04-16 22:25:39+00:00
Hey - I am an early employee at a well-funded (backed by top investors, Khosla, Lightspeed and others) Series A startup - we are hiring for engineers.

Pls get in touch with me asap if you are looking for a SWE position. Same for your MIT friends.

Send me an email, it's on my profile
by breadwinner | 2025-04-16 22:25:52+00:00
CNN’s report that the IRS is making plans to revoke Harvard University’s tax-exempt status the day after President Donald Trump suggested it represents an unprecedented use of presidential power over the tax code. https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/16/politics/universities-tax-exe...

Other abuses of power:

Trump urges the FCC to punish ‘60 Minutes’ over reports on Greenland and Ukraine https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/14/media/trump-fcc-60-minutes-cb...

Trump orders DOJ investigation of two first-term administration aides who criticized him https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/09/donald-trump-retrib...

The IRS, FCC, DOJ are now weapons under Trump.
by tayiorrobinson | 2025-04-16 22:26:40+00:00
> A single .ico file can contain multiple icons with different dimensions.

and as far as I know, no browser will download partial ico files. So the bytes saved by not including a link tag is immediately reversed by the browser having to download your 16x, 32x, 64x, 128x and 256x ico when it only wants the 16x
by WhatIsDukkha | 2025-04-16 22:28:01+00:00
I think its much better to help people learn that an LLM is "not" a computer (even if it technically is).

Thinking its a computer makes you do dumb things with them that they simply have never done a good job with.

Build intuitions about what they do well and intuitions about what they don't do well and help others learn the same things.

Don't encourage people to have poor ideas about how they work, it makes things worse.

Would you ask an LLM a phone number? If it doesn't use a function call the answer is simply not worth having.
by delichon | 2025-04-16 22:28:13+00:00
6f 6e 27 74 64 61 79 20 61 6c 6b 74 61 79 20 61 62 6f 75 74 77 61 79 20 69 67 68 74 66 61 79 20 75 62 63 6c 61 79
by carlkcarlk | 2025-04-16 22:29:25+00:00
Here is the [final function in Python](https://towardsdatascience.com/how-to-optimize-your-python-p...): (Regular Python `int` is arbitrary precision, but immutable, so I use `gmpy2.xmpz` instead.)

def tetrate(a, tetrate_acc): assert is_valid_other(a), "not a valid other" assert is_valid_accumulator(tetrate_acc), "not a valid accumulator" assert a > 0, "we don't define 0↑↑b" exponentiate_acc = xmpz(1) for _ in count_down(tetrate_acc): multiply_acc = xmpz(1) for _ in count_down(exponentiate_acc): add_acc = xmpz(0) for _ in count_down(multiply_acc): for _ in range(a): add_acc += 1 multiply_acc = add_acc exponentiate_acc = multiply_acc return exponentiate_acc

And here is the final function in Rust: (I used `&mut` instead of returned values because I don't think Rust guarantees that returned owned values aren't copied.)

fn tetrate(a: u32, acc: &mut BigUint) { assert!(a > 0, "we don’t define 0↑↑b"); let mut exp = BigUint::from(1u32); for () in acc.count_down() { let mut mul = BigUint::from(1u32); for () in exp.count_down() { let mut add = BigUint::ZERO; for () in mul.count_down() { for _ in 0..a { add += 1u32; } } mul = add; } exp = mul; } *acc = exp; }
by staunton | 2025-04-16 22:30:02+00:00
There's are widespread styles of teaching "mathy" subjects that completely ignore mathematical rigor (which is fine).

Often a way to do this (which I personally dislike, but it's also objectively "fine" teaching and can be done very well) relies on "manipulation of symbols" rather than "manipulation of mathematical objects". This is a bit like like learning programming in a language that has macros but no functions. Usually, this includes teaching a set of rules ("allowed manipulations") that allows proving a contradiction, the remedy being that you just don't, perhaps by relying on your "intuition" and knowledge of the problem domain (as opposed to just the math), which only comes with experience and isn't taught systematically.

The style of teaching that I find just intolerable pretends to be doing formal math, keeps telling you that rigor is important, floods you with definitions and terms, and then just does the "macro style of math" anyway, while skipping rigorous theorem statements (let alone proofs) entirely. Unfortunately, I find this article comes pretty close to this style.
by pmontra | 2025-04-16 22:30:49+00:00
ERB is also the default templating language of Rails. I wish Django would use an embedded Python instead of the mutilated tool it uses in its own templates. Not only it's yet another language to learn, but it's also underpowered and it forces developers to define custom tags and filters where a call to a method of a plain Python object would be enough. Apparently they are afraid that people embed logic in the templates but I've seen db calls inside the Python code of the custom tags. There is no perfect defense.
by eddythompson80 | 2025-04-16 22:31:13+00:00
But you can replace MCP with any tech and you have the same valid sentence.

“Attackers are using (email attachments, SMSs, TeamViewer, crypto wallet, phishing websites, etc) to access your private data - they can […] you using tricks to make it seem legit”

The only difference is that AI/MCP is the current flavor of the month for this type of attacks. These attacks get much worse when the tech has the hype (like AI now or limewire 20 years ago or the internet 30 years ago) and the average user still doesn’t quite fully grasp what this tech is doing or how it’s working.
by tauoverpi | 2025-04-16 22:31:26+00:00
I initially ended up with a similar-ish chunk iterator [1][2] after a few iterations however even with that I found that the optimizer wouldn't remove the bookeeping required for maintainining the iterator state itself. This is where things shifted towards using inversion of control and inlining [3] to get better results [4][5].

From my testing (I should have kept the results) the optimizer isn't always smart enough and requires a bit of hand-holding to get there and as long as you cannot express `noalias` on slices (maybe a missing zig proposal? I don't know how to propose this one) independent of function parameters it might never auto-vectorize your code as it cannot be sure that another mutation isn't taking place (if you call a function) even if you have const slices. The switch from generating an `@call` tuple to passing a struct of slices ended up with losing auto-vectorization for AECS as an example as it isn't possible to specify `noalias`.

The stronger argument for only having the chunk API is that you gain the ability to treat each update of an archetype as a transaction which ends once you move on to process the next archetype. This makes it easier to see the units of work which could be split over multiple threads, archetype aware tooling (e.g an editor) has an easier time to hook into "begin/end transaction", and (similar to the editor) it's easier to dynamically handle different paths for different archetypes that match a given query. I'd argue this is more friendly as they can write the same scalar-style code with the difference being just a multi-item for loop over component slices rather than a while loop. The same applies to `forEach`.

The user can always make a single-item-iterator from the chunk API themselves if they need one but they have to justify such a change and it's effect on performance of their application as one-item-at-a-time is further removed from the problem at hand where many-at-a-time is the default for archetype style ECS (the single-item iterator API communicates the wrong mental model if that makes sense?).

[1]: https://gist.github.com/tauoverpi/89c506dda247a2848cda46dfc9...

[2]: https://gist.github.com/tauoverpi/6f4832a406e49ad112a88395fa...

[3]: https://codeberg.org/tauoverpi/game/src/commit/f9dc913a805dc...

[4]: https://codeberg.org/tauoverpi/game/src/commit/f9dc913a805dc...

[5]: https://codeberg.org/tauoverpi/game/src/commit/f9dc913a805dc...
by MBCook | 2025-04-16 22:31:42+00:00
Part of the problem is that the 7800 was a decent/good system when designed in ‘84 terms of tech, other than sound which I think was identical to the 2600.

But it was shelved for years because of the crash until the NES took off and suddenly it popped up again in ‘86 as “We’re Atari! Remember us! We’re alive! Buy us!” to try to cash in. Would that have been Tramiel?

However a couple of years in the 80s was an eternity in terms of tech. The games they had to sell were from the original launch plan, so they all felt a few years out of date in terms of mechanics too.

In ‘86 and ‘87 they had Joust, Asteroids, Food Fight, and Pole Position 2. All ‘81-‘83 Arcade games.

By then US kids had played Mario, Golf, Baseball, Duck Hunt, Excitebike, Ghosts and Goblins, Gradius, Castlevania, Kid Icarus, Metroid, and more.

The games on the 7800 were a full generation or two behind in terms of mechanics and complexity. There was no competing with what Nintendo and it’s 3rd parties had.

The joystick being famously bad wasn’t going to help anything. And 2600 compatibility probably wasn’t important by then when even a new 2600 was cheap.

So it didn’t do well at all.

Jeremy Parish’s covered this saga and the games on his YouTube channel in comparison to what else was available at the time of its actual launch.
by jedberg | 2025-04-16 22:31:55+00:00
Intertesting. I get 1Gbps symmetric from AT&T for $90/mo (was $70/mo two years ago when this article was written).

I'm in the Silicon Valley and have multiple ISP options (although AT&T is the only 1000/1000 option).

I guess our prices stay low because if they went too high it would motivate their competitors to move in.
by _aavaa_ | 2025-04-16 22:32:26+00:00
Yet another dystopian trend starting in 2020.

2024: 5,813

2023: 9,021

2022: 6,863

2021: 3,916

2020: 278

2019: 334

2018: 258

2017: 304

2016: 241

2015: 233
by autoexec | 2025-04-16 22:33:40+00:00
> Inclusion of one of the first ever photoshopped images in a list of famous fake images, even if just a tech demo, seems entirely reasonable.

I'd argue that the inclusion of one of the first ever photoshopped images which was specifically never intended to fool anyone, and in fact never did fool anyone, doesn't belong in a list of famous fake images that "fooled the world". It would have been far more reasonably presented outside of the list, maybe as a part of the article talking about the history of photo manipulation more generally, but presenting it as one of "28 fake images that fooled the world" doesn't really make much sense.
by EA-3167 | 2025-04-16 22:33:57+00:00
To be clear, that's not what this ruling says, that would be a consequence of other laws that can be changed if there's political will. The ruling is just a narrow definition for legal purposes of what the words "Man" and "Woman" mean. If a law is passed allowing for gender identity to be on a passport, then you could have someone who was afab put "Male" on the passport if they're trans.

And if such a law isn't passed, or a law explicitly banning that is passed, then *that law* is the issue, not the definition of sex dictated by biology. Remember, sex and gender are not the same.
by lurk2 | 2025-04-16 22:35:02+00:00
> The genocide in Rwanda stemmed from whispers and hushed conversations in rooms with closed doors.

This isn’t true. Radio played a huge role in coordinating mob activity during the Rwandan genocide. Several radio hosts were prosecuted for the role they played in inciting the genocide.

https://unictr.irmct.org/en/news/three-media-leaders-convict...

> If you succeed in censoring the likes of 4chan, then you can look forward to those whispers here in places where they'd find no agreeable ears.

The catharsis of venting about racial minorities doesn’t lessen the inclination to vent about racial minorities, it just creates an hedonic treadmill which rewards further radicalization.

> If you want to lend credence to genocidal ambitions, ban and censor them.

Can you point out any historical examples of this occurring?
by kengoa | 2025-04-16 22:35:43+00:00
Very interesting read, I wish more startups did postmortems like this. It seems like the authors managed to build a set of tools that provided real value that ultimately did not make commercial sense, but would've been interesting to see if this learning:

> Scout was our most-used product. Its users weren’t our target market, but some were. We had vague ambitions to use it as an inbound marketing tool, but we never capitalised on it. This was a missed opportunity.

was applicable in a conservative industry like real estate and government as lots of open-core companies operate on this model (e.g. free open-source software and marked-up hosted solutions).
by 9337throwaway | 2025-04-16 22:35:48+00:00
Give your subscribers the option to self install. Give them the tower to point their antenna toward and how to dial in the direction for max gain.

I suspect a many would jump at the opportunity as rural folks tend to be quite resourceful.

I've done this for churches for campus point to point. Don't have enough installers, but about 30% have volunteers that got it done or mostly done. Some we just did the Cat-5 terminations for them.
by relic | 2025-04-16 22:36:23+00:00
100% seems to be rounding up a bit. Is it all on your device? Because that's a pretty prominent path to failure. Do you host it yourself in a service? Even if your OS layer has resilience, and your disks are resilient to failure, you have redundant power to your hosting infrastructure and your network connection? If it's in the cloud, it's not like AWS or the like don't have their own issues. People saying their own setup of anything has 100% uptime with no paths to failure I think are under-estimating how many ways your self-managed service could become unavailable. This is the first time I can ever remember having spotify have an outage of this magnitude (and I use it all day, every day) and it only lasted 5 hours. Pretty good SLA.
by ninetyninenine | 2025-04-16 22:37:55+00:00
Yep. With one difference. The US is regressing and now we want to reignite manufacturing without relying on exploitation.

My argument is that this isn't possible. Well let me rephrase that. It is possible but you need to inflict some form of pain to get it going. Tariffs is one way to do this.

I don't think the four year presidency is enough to do this. You need to do this for at least 2 decades.
by Vox_Leone | 2025-04-16 22:37:58+00:00
I think it's time the biggest players in the software industry step up, maybe through a formal consortium. This model would make sense because they benefit the most. Big tech companies rely on CVEs to secure their own products;

They have the means. With their massive revenue and dedicated security teams, these companies could easily fund CVE operations. A consortium approach spreads responsibility fairly;

Shared responsibility, shared benefits. Security is everyone's problem.
by sherdil2022 | 2025-04-16 22:38:39+00:00
Just like 'videogame gate' - where it became obvious to others that he wasn't really an expert in the game he was supposed to be very highly ranked, does he 'outsource' all the other things he is supposed to be good at? It makes me wonder if he is trying to _still_ prove to someone (his dad?) that he has 'made it' - much like his buddy DJT
by Nevermark | 2025-04-16 22:39:53+00:00
My apologies if pressing my point came over too strong. I will take that as a lesson for me.

I have not made any claims that fusion is unachievable. Just pointed out that the history of the two technologies couldn’t be more different.

There is no reason to believe fusion isn’t making progress, or won’t be successful, despite the challenges.

> you didn't track the field until recently?

That was a question not an assumption.

If you are aware of the progression of actual neural network use (not just research) from the 80’s on, or for any shorter significant time scale, great. Then you know it’s first successes were on toy problems, but it’s been a steady drumbeat of larger, more difficult, more general problems getting solved with higher quality solutions every year since. Often quirky problems in random fields. Then significant acceleration with nVidia’s intro of general compute on graphics cards and researcher hosted leader boards tracking progress more visibly. Only recently solving problems of a magnitude that is relevant to the general public.

Either you were not aware of that, which is no crime. Or dismissing it, or perhaps simply not addressing it directly.

If you have a credible reason that continued compute and architecture exploration is going to stop what has been exponential progress, for 40 years, I want to hear it.

(Not being aggressive, I mean I really would be interested in that. Even if it’s novel and/or conjectural.

Chalk up any steam on my part to being highly motivated to consider alternative reasoning. Not an attempt to change your mind, but to understand.)
by dccoolgai | 2025-04-16 22:40:56+00:00
Bingo, and most engineers have zero clue or respect for this skillset. Even traditional PMs / business dev types don't know what they don't know about how to talk with government or government-adjacent businesses. I've worked for at least 3 companies who had high hopes for building on state/municipal/higher-ed revenue and talked it up in their internal meetings, but when you would ask the CEO/CFO where their government affairs team was, they would look at you like you were speaking Latin. They basically just planned to take their consumer sales motion and apply it to these areas, which fails hilariously almost every time.
by chambers | 2025-04-16 22:40:56+00:00
I use the "Shortcut" section in Accessibility Settings. I uncheck everything except for "Color Filtering". I then map the default hotkey to a more convenient key using BetterTouchTool. BetterTouchTool is additional software for customizing input devices; I've used it for a decade and I consider it essential.

Sadly, adding "Increase Contrast" to the shortcut causes the hotkey press to generate a voiced popup instead of quietly and directly toggling.
Ask HN: Why Don't More Product Teams Collaborate on Domain Models?
by adangit | 2025-04-16 22:40:56+00:00
I'm a product designer with a front-end background (Rails, Swift) trying to deepen my understanding of domain modeling.

I see domain models as a shared foundation between product, design and dev. But I don't see it happening on teams, ever. It helps me understand what's possible, anchors feature flows in what's possible, avoids over designing.

So why aren't more product teams collaborating on ERDs? Sometimes when I ask for a schema or ERD to get oriented, I get blank stares. Are there different ways developers think about data modeling beyond ERDs?

Is collaborating on the domain model a good entry point between design and engineering? What does that collaboration usually look like in your org?

Would love to hear how others approach this, especially from engineers who work closely with designers, or designers who’ve gotten better at it over time.
by bsimpson | 2025-04-16 22:40:57+00:00
I feel this way about remote work.

I've been working in tech since 2008. Nobody ever cared where anyone worked from. I've spent many summers digital nomadding.

Then, the pandemic happened and some reporters started writing articles about it, as if it was invented during the pandemic. HR departments got wind, and now many companies have formal policies about how many days you're supposed to badge in, or how long you're allowed to work remotely.

There's a journalistic trend churning out bullshit stories about "quiet quitting" et. al. and I hate it. Executives take them at face value and make reactionary policies based on some filler they read online.
by bri3d | 2025-04-16 22:42:25+00:00
> maybe you don't have starlink?

Maybe you haven't had a crappy boutique WISP? They're genuinely awful usually.

My house isn't served by any landline provider (frustratingly, it's also _almost_ in a city, so there's no hope for subsidy access like the linked article), so over the years I've had a mix of corporate WISP (Rise), boutique WISP, and LTE as well as Starlink. I also work with a fairly large geographically distributed deployment of Starlinks professionally. Overall I would rate Starlink as excellent in the past ~9months or so.

It's been a pretty rapid improvement - a year ago I'd say Starlink was fairly, to use your phrasing, "dogshit," but now I'd say it's better than all competing wireless solutions I've used for moderate throughput needs (<100mbit) when the whole package is considered.

Good, well engineered fixed point to point ISM wireless can certainly be much faster and a decent amount lower latency but is a pain to install correctly, and licensed microwave is obviously superior at the massive overhead of, well, licensed.

On the other hand, Starlink is so easy - set the service address, plug it in, and a few minutes later it's Just Working with a nice /56 worth of IPv6 addresses.

In my experience WISPs usually take weeks or more to install, have terrible neteng, struggle with IPv6 and even public IPv4, deliver frequent backhaul outages, and often end up with bad enough buffer bloat to somehow deliver inferior latency to Starlink. For semi-mobile solutions like construction trailers, command centers, or even sensor telemetry use cases where LTE isn't available and you don't need a whole LoRa setup, Starlink is a no brainer compared to a WISP. For residential service it's certainly a last resort, but a superior last resort to all but the very best WISPs.

One thing we have noticed is that the plan prioritization is VERY aggressive in oversubscribed regions, though. The Mobile and Lite plans get quite aggressively chopped off compared to the Residential/Enterprise/Priority plans.