MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by ssl-3 | 2025-04-16 04:04:29+00:00
The machine appears to have hallucinated the incomparable comparison, instead of a human.

(And I'm not picking on the machine at all here. I use it all the time. At first, I used to treat it like an idiot intern that shouldn't have been hired at all: Creative and full of spirit, but untrustworthy and all ideas need to be filtered. But lately, it's more like an decent apprentice who has a hangover and isn't thinking straight today. The machine has been getting better as time presses on, but it still goes rather aloof from time to time.)
by bitwize | 2025-04-16 04:06:32+00:00
My mom and sister both use "six to one, half a dozen to another". I use the actual form of the idiom, "six of one, half a dozen of the other" and my mom used to correct me. I guess I know why she said it wrong: imagine two people. And one says "It's six", and another says "no, it's half a dozen". They're both the same, they mean the same, but it's six to one (person), half a dozen to another (person).

That said, if I were going to start a Borg-themed band, Six of One would be a kick-ass name.
by epistasis | 2025-04-16 04:06:38+00:00
DOGE is doing this, it's not a "scapegoat", and Trump is not going to negotiate anything here, that's ridiculous.

What leverage do you have for the DOGE boys? What power? Resigning? Because on the Defense side of the government the best leverage that some teams have found is mass resignation, meaning that nothing happens.

There is no negotiating with bullies, it merely breeds more concessions.
by transpute | 2025-04-16 04:06:39+00:00
Both CVE (MITRE contract) and NVD are funded by NIST, https://www.securitymagazine.com/articles/100795-understandi...

> Since February 2024, the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) National Vulnerability Database (NVD) has encountered delays in processing vulnerabilities.. caused by factors such as software proliferation, budget cuts and changes in support.. NIST, an agency within the United States Commerce Department, saw its budget cut by nearly 12% this year.
by visarga | 2025-04-16 04:06:58+00:00
I understand what you are saying, but there are different kinds of learning. If your model learns how many fingers are on a hand, it does not violate copyright in that regard. Every copyrighted work relies on facts, abstractions and styles they don't own. Models don't have the necessary capacity to remember exact expression from each source, only generalities are being learned and later recombined. Blocking AI from training on grounds of copyright is a maximalist take on what copyright protects.

Let's say we change copyright to cover abstractions, then any human creator would be in deep trouble. Incidental similarities would make the creative act too risky.
by roenxi | 2025-04-16 04:08:46+00:00
I'm honestly lost on what you might be alluding to with the "campaign finance violations"; but that is a classic up there with the remarkable rate that whistle-blowers turn out to be guilty of sexual assault nothing-burgers. I expect candidates will routinely violate campaign finance laws and don't see why that is more than a minor problem until someone outlines what the actual issue is in a specific case.

If they're taking millions of dollars from Chinese NGOs that would be a problem. If they filled out a form wrongly and there is no motive involved that isn't interesting. Might be worth a few political points on a slow news day.

Those laws are a poster child for the high risk of selective enforcement leading to political corruption.
by jrowen | 2025-04-16 04:09:34+00:00
This jives with my general reaction to the post, which was that the added complexity and difficulty of reasoning about the ranges actually made me feel less confident in the result of their example calculation. I liked the $50 result, you can tack on a plus or minus range but generally feel like you're about breakeven. On the other hand, "95% sure the real balance will fall into the -$60 to +$220 range" feels like it's creating a false sense of having more concrete information when you've really just added compounding uncertainties at every step (if we don't know that each one is definitely 95%, or the true min/max, we're just adding more guesses to be potentially wrong about). That's why I don't like the Drake equation, every step is just compounding wild-ass guesses, is it really producing a useful number?
by benbridle | 2025-04-16 04:12:15+00:00
Thank you! My main inspiration was the Uxn assembly language [0], which is itself heavily inspired by Forth. I loved how easy it was to build something that looks like a high-level language by just stacking up macros, and I wanted to have that with embedded development too.

Rust isn't involved past implementing the Torque executable; you write your program with the Torque language and then run the assembler on it to convert it to machine code. You can see the whole process of running code on the TRS-80 from start to finish here [1].

For laying out structs, I'd build a macro that expands to the memory representation of the struct. If I wanted a struct representing, say, a 2D point with signed 16-bit little-endian integers for the x and y coords, I would build it from scratch like this (this is a valid program, you can assemble it with Torque):

%BYTE:n #nnnn_nnnn ; %LOW:n BYTE:[n 0xff <and>] ; %HIGH:n BYTE:[n 8 <shr>] ; %16LE:n LOW:n HIGH:n ; %POINT:x:y 16LE:x 16LE:y ; @point-1 POINT:50:-7 @point-2 POINT:20:-45 @point-3 POINT:0:0

If I want the address of a field, I can add an offset to the struct address, using macros to name the offset values:

%POINT.X 0 ; %POINT.Y 2 ; SET:[point-3 POINT.X +]:15 SET:[point-3 POINT.Y +]:32

Creating a DSL for an existing language wasn't something I'd ever considered. By being a standalone executable it's really easy to use and share, people don't have to install a whole language toolchain in order to use it.

Regarding constraints solving and jumping, Torque already throws an error if you try to pack too large a value into too small a field. This works really well for things like relative jumps, because jumping too far will create a value that can't fit in the instruction. I'm planning on adding an error-throwing token to the language that could be used alongside expressions and conditions to further constrain the values accepted by a macro, but I'm really happy with the simplicity of the language so far.

The actual internal representation isn't what I'd call an 'IR' per se, nothing like with a C compiler. It's all very pedestrian; the syntax tree is baked down across multiple passes, with macros acting as a glorified copy-paste system.

Thanks for the interest and the links, every one of those linked projects is new to me.

[0] https://wiki.xxiivv.com/site/uxn.html

[1] https://benbridle.com/articles/torque-programming-the-trs-80...
by bastawhiz | 2025-04-16 04:12:23+00:00
The loader proposal linked by the top level comment does not create strings, it imports them as the string literally type of their contents. That would absolutely 100% work with this project since the content of the imported file is available to the type system.

The reply with the typescript definition for ?raw is unrelated to this project and would neither solve the issue presently nor address it in the future. But if you implemented it in your bundler, it absolutely solves this problem exactly as described, because the imported file can have whatever boilerplate you want around it (like `as const`). This is something that exists and is usable today.
by SV_BubbleTime | 2025-04-16 04:13:03+00:00
No. Not even close.

Far closer to Obama and his circle. Around Carpocalypse 2008, a bunch of three letter agencies started pushes for internet connected vehicles knowing the tech wasn’t there; but would be.

I watched it happen. There was some shady shit, and the reality was 2008 wasn’t just about GM and Chrysler but and entire JustInTime mistake that could have stopped almost all car production around the world. Different topic, but the effect was government would be involved in cars a lot more than previously.

Fast forward, and here we are. Your car ABSOLUTELY is spying on you, and the upside is you also get shipped unfinished vehicles.

Be a culture war sally about Musk all you like, I know, the bad men say the mean things. But this isn’t on him. Tesla had to and in some ways is still learning that cars aren’t computers on wheels, but this specific “feature” came from Big Government first.
by mmooss | 2025-04-16 04:13:07+00:00
> DOGE is doing this, it's not a "scapegoat", and Trump is not going to negotiate anything here, that's ridiculous.

DOGE follows Trump's direction and acts on his behalf, as you must know. They make a big deal out of DOGE so Trump's name is less attached to these actions. Then they can take much of the blame with them when they go away, with Trump and the GOP blaming them for 'excesses'.

> Trump is not going to negotiate anything here, that's ridiculous.

> What leverage do you have for the DOGE boys?

You don't understand how negotiations work. Everyone has interests, strengths and weaknesses, and power. You need to make it in Trump's interest to keep the CVE program.

Everyone saying they are helpless, and that anything else is ridiculous, are panicking. Very unfortunately - dangerously - many people legitimize the panic. It's so normalized that it's "ridiculous" not to panic.

Every day you continue this behavior, you fall further and further behind and lead others in that direction. Will you wake up in time?
by imgabe | 2025-04-16 04:13:20+00:00
Reading more carefully, you're just making nonsensical statements that have no connection to reality. Yes, many of these absolutely are objective.

> The more papers you write the more likely you'll be published more. This is connected to time and desire.

Yes, someone who writes more and spends more time doing research and has more desire to do research is objectively better at research than someone who produces less. There is a possibility that one person writes lots of low quality papers and another person writes a few high quality papers, but in asserting this you are admitting that there is some objective measure of the quality of a paper (which there is). Since the reviewers would be reading the papers, they could also objectively assess the quality of the papers too.

> 2. Judging yhe quality of a journal is subjective therefore can't be used as an objective measurement for something else

No, the quality of the journal is not subjective. If journal A publishes anything they are sent without review and journal B rigorously reviews everything by sending it to other experts in the field, then journal B is objectively higher quality than journal A.

> If you write a paper that more people have access to, is about a more popular subject, is the only paper for a subject, or is published in more popular journals it would increase your citations outside of the paper quality.

If you write the only published paper on a subject, then you are objectively the world's leading expert on that subject. If the university wants someone who knows that subject, the only person in the world who has published on it is objectively the best choice.

Part of a professor's job might be to communicate about their research and bring it to a wider audience, and convince e.g. grant committees that it is important and deserves funding. Someone savvy enough to get published in popular journal is objectively more qualified to do this than someone who hasn't been able to accomplish that.

> Awards are a subjective judgement

The awards can be subjective, but whether you have won an award or not is an objective fact. If the job involves doing the kinds of thing that impress the people who give the award, then someone who has achieved that is objectively better than someone who has not.
by abalone | 2025-04-16 04:13:46+00:00
It might surprise people in the U.S. to know that the Abundance agenda is not at all how many other international cities solve affordable housing. Did you know that one in four Parisians live in public housing? Or that in Singapore it’s 80%?

Or did you know the National Bureau of Economic Research just published a study concluding “Supply Constraints Do Not Explain House Price and Quantity Growth Across U.S. Cities”?[1] Directly contradicting the YIMBY narrative that all we need to do is unleash market rate supply.

Simple economics tells us that when you have a boom town with strong demand from white collar professionals migrating in, driving up incomes, they will outbid lower income folks for market rate units ten out of ten times. Per the law of supply and demand, all of that demand needs to be satisfied before market prices even have a chance of declining to affordable levels - and that’s only if the real estate industry decides it is profitable to keep building. Older units get renovated into luxury units as well.

That creates a real scalability problem for cities because you get a labor shortage. That drives up the cost of everything: education, restaurants, and you guessed it, construction itself.

That’s why social housing is such an international standard. Without affordable working class housing, the local economy becomes dysfunctional. And it echoes the debate we had about socialized medicine some years ago, the solution favored by pretty much all other developed countries, but always said to be too expensive or impractical to be done here, the richest country on the planet.

But we’re beginning to see some cracks in the narrative. And it clarifies why these right wing movements find the Abundance agenda so appealing.

[1] https://www.frbsf.org/wp-content/uploads/wp2025-06.pdf
by zX41ZdbW | 2025-04-16 04:13:51+00:00
https://github.com/ClickHouse/ClickHouse

We are trying to use CMake in a very limited fashion.

For example, any build time environment checks are forbidden (no "try_compile" scripts), and all configuration for all platforms is fixed.

We don't use it for installation and packaging; it is only used for builds. The builds have to be self-contained.

We also forbid using CMake files from third-party libraries. For every library, a new, clean CMake file is written, which contains the list of source files and nothing else.

From this standpoint, there should be no big difference between CMake, Bazel, Buck, GYP, GN, etc.
by throitallaway | 2025-04-16 04:15:26+00:00
Yep, DOGE is a song and dance distraction. If they were serious about lowering the deficit they wouldn't have laid off ~12K IRS workers (whom show a 7x ROI per head.) They also wouldn't be asking to increase the military budget to $1 trillion per year. Trump has spent 1/3 of his days in office so far golfing; $30 million+ so far paid to Trump properties for the privilege of that. This is the biggest capture in US history and it's all out in the open.
by KennyBlanken | 2025-04-16 04:15:35+00:00
I wish more people realized that virtually any subreddit for a company or product is run by the company - either directly or via a firm that specializes in 'sentiment analysis and management' or whatever the marketdroids call it these days. Even if they don't remove posts via moderation, they'll just hammer it with downvotes from sockpuppet accounts.

HN goes a step further. It has a function that allows moderators to kill or boost a post by subtracting or adding a large amount to the post's score. HN is primarily a place for Y Combinator to hype their latest venture, and a "safe" place for other startups and tech companies.
by theonething | 2025-04-16 04:15:54+00:00
so your saying that yes you do "trust other developers to write good code without mistakes without getting it reviewed by others."

And then you say "by the time the rest of the team reviews it. Most code review is uneventful."

So you trust your team to develop without the need for code review but yet, your team does code review.

So what is the purpose of these code reviews? Is it the case that you actually don't think they are necessary, but perhaps management insists on them? You actually answer this question yourself:

> Most code review is uneventful.

Keyword here is "most" as opposed to "all" So based your team's applied practices and your own words, code review is for the purpose of catching mistakes and other needed corrections.

But it seems to me if you trust your team not to make mistakes, code review is superfluous.

As an aside, it seems your team culture doesn't make room for juniors because if your team had juniors I think it would be even more foolish to trust them not to make mistakes. Maybe a junior free culture works for your company, but that's not the case for every company.

My main point is code review is not superfluous no matter the skill level; junior, senior, or AI simply because everyone and every AI makes mistakes. So I don't trust those three classes of code emitters to not ever make mistakes or bad choices (i.e. be perfect) and therefore I think code review is useful.

Have some honesty and humility and you'll amazed at what's possible.
by SV_BubbleTime | 2025-04-16 04:16:30+00:00
There was a hack to a Cherokee featured in Wire years and years back. It was attributed to “two hackers”… yea my ass, I met both guys they knew surface level at best, these guys didn’t discover a flaw in Sprint’s network on their own.

It was three letter agencies embarrassing the mfgs into “taking security more seriously” but conveniently also giving gov access, backdoors, and data on vehicles.

Play the game or they’ll make sure the next article is about you.

People would look at the vehicle industry a lot differently if they knew what was going on behind the scenes.
by runarberg | 2025-04-16 04:16:42+00:00
The myth that Israel does not do apartheid in Israel proper has to be answered.

First of all, one cannot excuse apartheid by drawing arbitrary borders and declare some of them as apartheid-free zones, while doing apartheid in others. That is not how apartheid works. But even if it did, Israel proper still has dozens of discriminatory laws[1] with a few more in the works. And even with out those, there are in practice dozens of exclusionary policies which displaces and denies Palestinians (as well as Bedouin) access to land and homes, including but nut limited to those displaced by the Nakba. Your parent actually spends a lot of words (way to many words in fact) only to say they agree with this policy of denying Palestinians the right to the land which was stolen from them. There is no way to describe this denial of access to their own land but with Apartheid.

1: https://www.adalah.org/en/law/index
by hoppp | 2025-04-16 04:17:32+00:00
Clever lad but horrible opsec. Sounds to me like Indexed Finance had bad business logic and they had it coming.

There was no break in or exploiting, it was a trade using flash loans, fair enough if you ask me. A platform trading hundreds of millions should invest in proper security audits

What's the lesson? Maybe tornado cash the gas tokens before doing stuff like this and definitely never post it on social media or acknowledge that you did anything. Be smart and have good opsec
by brewdad | 2025-04-16 04:17:47+00:00
I wish I could be as optimistic as you with regards to human nature. While we may come out the other side with a world that solves the real problems AI will create. I fear millions of people will have their lives destroyed along the way. Half of America thinks “criminals” don’t deserve Due Process. The guilt stems directly from the accusation. In short, people suck.
by rixed | 2025-04-16 04:17:51+00:00
And there is worst: in the cases when the reviewer has actually some knowledge of the problem at hand, she might say "oh you did all this to add that feature? But it's actually already there. You just had to include that file and call function xyz". Or "oh but two months ago that very same topic was discussed and it was decided that it would make more sense to wait for module xyz to be refactored in order to make it easier ", etc.
by duskwuff | 2025-04-16 04:18:15+00:00
> I think they were concerned about overlap with a famous series of sifi novels that I won't spoil by naming, but that is currently being produced by Bradley Cooper at Warner Brothers.

That may be a coincidence. That movie deal wasn't announced until 2009 - I'd be surprised if they'd had it cooking for 10+ years before saying anything about it.
by ethanwillis | 2025-04-16 04:18:54+00:00
"One of the important ways we make use of donations is in awarding scholarships to highly skilled students. Each $5 you donate contributes to approximately one hour of work by a talented graduate student" from the dlang website.

I think it's good that scholarships are awarded, some money goes to graduate students doing work (even if I think the amount per hour is low), etc.

But I can't square your implications that this type of education is equivalent to self-taught when your own foundation seems to put an emphasis on it. Or is it just marketing for an audience that might believe that they're not equivalent?

Why is there this focus on people from formal education backgrounds or supporting people through scholarships to get a formal education when describing what a donation would go to?

I want to re-iterate. It's not that I believe you can just go sit in a class without focusing and acquire an education. I also don't believe that someone can't learn outside of a formal setting or even that they can't get superior results!

But, it seems to me that there's definitely some sort of difference between equally motivated people in a formal setting and in a self taught setting. And it seems to me that even the dlang foundation acknowledges that implicitly. Obviously there are lots of free resources provided by the foundation as well, so I can't argue there's a strong preference. But, if they were equivalent the foundation could just support one of them. And if a choice was to be made wouldn't the freely available resources be a more efficient allocation of donations?
by gregw2 | 2025-04-16 04:19:28+00:00
I love Hanlon's razor. Super-helpful in certain contexts: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

But, having known about it for a dozen years now, I also find it inadequate alone as a razor without the following caveats/corollaries:

Hubbard's corollary to Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice or stupidity that which can be explained by moderately rational individuals following incentives in a complex system". ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor#Exceptions )

Or (HN) Nerdponx's punchier simplification: "When money is at stake, never attribute to incompetence what could be attributed to greed." ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41066724 )
by senthilnayagam | 2025-04-16 04:19:38+00:00
Older people have fading memories, earlier when they had people they would keep recollecting and reselling the stories . Now that option does not exist.

My mom did not use a smartphone as she thought it would be complicated, but my daughter convinced my mom to use it to communicate with her .

She discovered back one friend and eventually most of her schoolmates.

Last 4 years, she now has daily digital routines. Attended a reunion .

She has started writing again after decades. Comments on every social post in details, of her friends and family.

Takes photos and shares them

This is the best possible outcome which I could have imagined
by kqr | 2025-04-16 04:19:43+00:00
I have made a similar tool but for the command line[1] with similar but slightly more ambitious motivation[2].

I really like that more people are thinking in these terms. Reasoning about sources of variation is a capability not all people are trained in or develop, but it is increasingly important.[3]

[1]: https://git.sr.ht/~kqr/precel

[2]: https://entropicthoughts.com/precel-like-excel-for-uncertain...

[3]: https://entropicthoughts.com/statistical-literacy