MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by drjasonharrison | 2025-04-27 20:54:21+00:00
I think the other thing to keep discussing is that doing research, or otherwise using an LLM, to manipulate people's emotions without disclosure, is unethical.

By the way, people die in house fires from toxic smoke inhalation and a lack of oxygen. Engineers created smoke detectors and other devices to lower the risk of fire due to electrical shorts, gas leaks, etc., and to create fire suppression systems.

People still die because they didn't replace batteries, didn't follow electrical cord/device warnings, or left candles or other heat sources unattended. We discuss these events as warnings and reminders that accidents kill when warnings are not followed, when inattentiveness allows failure to propagate, and as a reminder that rarely occurring events still kill innocent people.

Maybe this will motivate people to meet in person, until that is also corrupted with cyber brain augmentation and in-person propaganda actors, rather than relying on only online anecdotes.
by _bin_ | 2025-04-27 20:54:42+00:00
Not communist but this is basically at odds with how we should run. It's a great shibboleth for where people's values lie. I don't think I've ever driven a car without a seatbelt. It's stupid and has no benefit. But I am deeply opposed to any government that says someone must.

This isn't something on which we can compromise or establish bipartisanship, generally, so the conflict will only continue to escalate. There's just no frame in which I can frame a society which mandates seatbelts as good or just. People like you like to use it to deride my values, purposely picking a trivial example to trivialize what I believe. But that's neither constructive nor respectful nor a rebuttal of my views. Those who wish the state to impose safetyism on them should self-segregate into maybe a few states and spare the rest of us having to group together to counteract their votes.

Ideally, the virtue of a federalist system should be that it offers choice in under what regime one elects to live. Strip every vestige of this from the federal government and ensure safetyists can promulgate their desires only at very local levels, so they can go live as they choose, where they choose, without polluting the rest of America.
by sepositus | 2025-04-27 20:54:54+00:00
Sure, another common one would be a warped view of sex. A lot of these young men get into relationships and often want to do some "things" that the other party is usually not comfortable with. The problem is they become less capable of "getting off" with the less risqué acts and it's usually then that they realize how porn has altered their perspective on reality.
by darth_avocado | 2025-04-27 20:55:33+00:00
As a staff engineer, it upsets me if my Review to Code ratio goes above 1. Days when I am not able to focus and code, because I was reviewing other people’s work all day, I usually am pretty drained but also unsatisfied. If the only job available to engineers becomes “review 50 PRs a day, everyday” I’ll probably quit software engineering altogether.
by dangardan | 2025-04-27 20:55:40+00:00
That's a good point, but to extend my situation, it's a client database I've been asked to transform. The map is indeed difficult to grok all in one, but using different views that come out of the box in yEd, along with some basic rules such as "make all nodes with the word 'cust' yellow", it's been surprisingly effective at exploring the schema.
by troupo | 2025-04-27 20:55:50+00:00
> Because consistency is achieved only at UI design time (see design system). Unless you're prototyping your design at development time, I don't really see the improvements compared with Pure CSS.

So, every class now repeats the same properties and values (because CSS has no mixins or composition), there are dozens of classes that try to replicate scoping and nesting through BEM or similar, styles are completely divorced from actual components where they are used...
by greatpostman | 2025-04-27 20:56:05+00:00
Living in NYC, I have been around a TON of venture backed startups with the classic non technical CEO, technical CTO. Some HUGE percentage of startups see the CTO fired once the tech stack and revenue are stabilized.

The incentive from the CEOs perspective to remove a contender as well as claw back the equity is huge. Early stage the CTO is the most critical, but after real traction they can be replaced far easier than most want to admit.

My advice for technical founders is to always place themselves first, from a legal and organizational perspective. For a technical founder with social skills, a non technical founder brings very little value relative to their vesting in the early stage.
by flopsamjetsam | 2025-04-27 20:56:15+00:00
I see this in other social situations too (though social may be stretching it a little bit) e.g. in the gym, on the bike paths, and inside my apartment complex. I'm in my early 50s and people in their 20s and 30s aren't interested in saying hello in a polite way (and as neighbours especially), whereas older people (my age or older) are always interested in at least being friendly.

You can argue that, in gyms and on the bike path, people are more focused on their goal, but I still find in those situations that oldies are happy to chat for a bit, but younger people just want to block you out.

TBH I hate saying "young people" in this way. I feel like I'm running them down for what is their choice, and that feels bad. But it is something I have noticed in general i.e. not just 1 or 2 individuals.

I recently went back to studying, and it's almost the opposite there. Lots of people need "tutorial/lab friends," and so the barriers to conversation are really low. You literally stand next to someone and bam, instant friend (at least during the lab).
by inglor_cz | 2025-04-27 20:56:39+00:00
I wonder how much would such national digital archives resist rewriting of history.

It is much harder to doctor hard copies of newspapers or books. You can burn them, but altering them is a complicated challenge, and someone may own another copy of the originals.

With digital records, the temptation is stronger because the editing is easier, and other "unofficial" copies that diverge from the officially archived version may be declared to be fake/misinformation etc.
by gwern | 2025-04-27 20:57:19+00:00
There's lots of legitimate research related to creativity which could be discussed: the existence of the 'incubation effect' and sleep effects, the inefficacy of the popular forms of 'brainstorming' compared to the more painful forms that work*, the 'near adjacent', the 'equal-odds rule', the benefits of cognitive/ideological diversity (and lack of benefits of certain other kinds of diversity), the correlation with intelligence and personality traits like Openness...

As opposed to OP. Which adduces so little evidence for the claim about reading obituaries that a rando like me could actually write a more persuasive argument for the benefits of reading obituaries (because I at least wrote one thing tenuously inspired by reading an obituary the other month: https://gwern.net/traffic-lights ).

Even the most shameless periodical usually tries for at least 3 anecdotes, no matter how dubious and strained, before declaring it the hot new trend or It Is Known fact.

* One of Sawyer's research topics, as it happens.
by eqvinox | 2025-04-27 20:59:15+00:00
Copyright laws (in sane countries) have (varying amounts of) exceptions for reverse engineering pieces that are required for compatibility/interoperability.

Whether this applies to the Nintendo SDK… no clue, ask your lawyer ;). (i.e.: was there an alternative option to using RE'd pieces of the Nintendo SDK?)

It makes sense from a perspective/perception of: with the Nintendo SDK, [if] there wasn't really a choice or an alternative. With the RTEMS code there was.
by inglor_cz | 2025-04-27 20:59:36+00:00
Trump won by an extremely narrow margin in the popular vote, but by a high margin in the electoral college, which was the real prize fought over by the two candidates. He took all seven swing states.

IDK if this counts as landslide in the American sense. I mostly heard that expression used for results of European elections.

Edit: instant downvote, didn't even take a minute from the original posting! Wow.

Sheesh, people, don't be so sensitive about political topics. The fact that Trump got 312 electoral votes to Harris' 226 is just that, a fact. It does not reflect any subjective attitudes or preferences of anyone taking part in this discussion, wisdom or idiocy of current White House policies etc.
by mdaniel | 2025-04-27 20:59:57+00:00
> I wish Windows had anything that good

I can't readily tell how much of the dumbness is from the filesystem and how much from the kernel but the end result is that until it gets away from 1980s version of file locking there's no prayer. Imagine having to explain to your boss that your .docx wasn't backed up because you left Word open over the weekend. A just catastrophically idiotic design
by Yizahi | 2025-04-27 20:59:58+00:00
Why is the word disability or illness is somehow shameful? Making people stop calling some illnesses an illness just forces doublespeak and shifting of the same meaning to a different word. "We don't call autistic people ill, we call them alternatively healthy"(c) or some other similar bullshit. I'm not normo-typical for example and have some conditions. If someone will call me ill, I would simply nod and agree because that's what truth is about me. What's the big deal? Being different from majority is a disability, and instead of shamefully hiding it behind doublespeak and twisting words, it would be better to acknowledge it and help all of us to be accommodated by the said majority.
by quantified | 2025-04-27 21:00:08+00:00
Very pro-labor/anti-capitalist take. Not that it's wrong!

> In reality, it should flipped! The technical person is the one who breathes life into an idea and should get the lion’s share.... The riches are in the execution. The work done.

Labor is what makes capital useful. Otherwise it's just a pile of money sitting there.
by MyOutfitIsVague | 2025-04-27 21:00:15+00:00
> Note that e.g. copyright does not apply to decompiled source code

This is absolutely not true. I've been seeing this claim for years, and it's complete nonsense. Otherwise I'd be able to decompile the entirety of Microsoft Windows and then just redistribute it as my own source code.

> the original authors did not write the decompiled source

The original authors also did not write the compiled binary. The copyright still applies to it.
by soco | 2025-04-27 21:00:16+00:00
My consulting org has 3 (three) right now running in parallel and had another few over the last decade. Yet people still send emails around asking for support. And as a consultant every one is mandatory and every one is a bad joke in its own way. I don't think the market is anything else than a huge scam. Is this tool here better? If yes, hats off.
by fairity | 2025-04-27 21:00:42+00:00
As is the case with most complex problems like this, the correct answer is: it depends.

In this case, it depends on what the crux of your business is. Sometimes the crux is building world-class technology. Sometimes the crux is customer acquisition.

If the crux of your business is customer acquisition, then an exceptional business co-founder will actually be the most important ingredient to long-term success.

This is one of the biggest weaknesses I've noticed in YC's mantra. In most industries, just building something people want doesn't lead to success - you have to excel at customer acquisition also. And, in these industries, as you business matures, you realize that customer acquisition, at scale, is actually the hardest problem to solve.
by sepositus | 2025-04-27 21:00:53+00:00
> But humans often write things which are false.

Not to mention, humans say things that make sense for humans to say and not a machine. For example, one recent case I saw was where the LLM hallucinated having a Macbook available that it was using to answer a question. In the context of a human, it was a totally viable response, but was total nonsense coming from an LLM.
by modeless | 2025-04-27 21:01:08+00:00
Wow, I had no idea that Taiwan controlled an island less than three miles from mainland China, essentially surrounded by China in a bay. (The main island is 80+ miles away.) I'm really surprised China has allowed that for 80 years. Unsurprisingly, the beach looks like this: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Shuang+Kou+Zhan+Dou+Cun/@2...

Also interesting that there's a Japanese island only 60 miles from Taiwan on the other side. I guess claims to small Pacific islands have been weird for a long time.
by smarx007 | 2025-04-27 21:01:29+00:00
> "To make sure everyone understands that, I prefer label property graphs over RDF."

I have two major issues with virtually all graph DBMSs that are not RDF/SPARQL-based:

1) They do not allow structure-preserving querying. That is, I query a graph and want the results to be a smaller graph. This is trivial in SQL, you just 'SELECT * FROM x WHERE ...' and the result set you get is tabular just like the table x. In SPARQL, there are a CONSTRUCT/DESCRIBE queries that do just that - give you the results as a graph.

2) They don't use any (internationally recognized) standard to represent graph data. RDF is the only such format known to me (ignore all the semantic web stuff associated with it and just consider the format).

230k edges is peanuts for a graph db. It's like when the number of rows times columns in your SQL DB is 230k. NASA could (should?) have just used Oxigraph, RDF4J, or Jena. Stardog and Ontotext are the paid options. However, it is quite nice to see more interest in graph-based DBMSs in general!

> “Which employees have cross-disciplinary expertise in AI/ML?”

Regarding the study itself, I did not understand who is the target user of this. I would rather be more interested in the Lessons Learned 2.0 study (I understand it was attempted once before [1]). I don't think the study at hand would be able to correctly answer questions about expertise.

On the technical side, as far as I understand, the cosine similarity was computed per triplet? In that case, I could see how pgvector could be used for this. Relevance expansion is the only thing in the article that made me think that it would be cool if it works well. But I could see how in a combo of a regular RDF DBMS + pgvector, one could first do a cosine similarity query via pgvector and then compute an (S)CBD [2] of the subject (the from node) of the triplet.

[1]: https://youtu.be/QEBVoultYJg?t=1653

[2]: https://patterns.dataincubator.org/book/bounded-description....
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-04-27 21:02:12+00:00
Unless someone is putting cash on the table, or one partner is full time and the other is not, there is zero reason not to split founder interests equitably. (Even in the cash state, the better play is vesting, not an unequal split out of the gate.)

If you want an unequitable split, hire an employee. If you can’t (or won’t), you’re not the hot shit you think you are.
by hikewkwek | 2025-04-27 21:02:40+00:00
Turning off youtube watch history stops the shorts tab from working. And you can use a userscript to swap the "shorts" word to "watch" in the url to convert all shorts to normal videos.

For example:

// ==UserScript== // @name Redirect YouTube Shorts to Regular Videos (Mobile-Friendly) // @namespace https://example.com/ // @version 1.4 // @description Redirects YouTube Shorts URLs to regular video URLs on mobile // @author YourName // @match *://*.youtube.com/* // @run-at document-end // @grant none // ==/UserScript== //Written by GPT-4o Mini (function () { 'use strict'; // Function to redirect Shorts to regular video URLs function redirect() { if (location.pathname.startsWith("/shorts")) { const videoId = location.pathname.split("/")[2]; const newUrl = "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=" + videoId; window.location.replace(newUrl); } } // Observe changes to the DOM and check for navigation const observer = new MutationObserver(() => { redirect(); }); // Start observing the body for changes observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true }); // Initial check in case a Shorts URL is loaded directly redirect(); })();
by frogperson | 2025-04-27 21:02:52+00:00
I am aware of the protests and I fully support those people. What i am saying is you can not express your 1st amendment rights on just about any respectable platform on the internet. You can't even mention your 2nd amendment rights without getting suspended or censored.

The left is expected to play nice, be civil, and take the high road all the while we are being silenced, suppressed, dismissed, and gaslit by a 1000 paper cuts. Which lately feel more like full on machete wounds.
by cassianoleal | 2025-04-27 21:03:22+00:00
> most jobs doesn't award you any of those

No, but if we build a society where inequality ceases to be an issue, jobs will stop rewarding greed and start rewarding whatever other currencies attract the best talent.

Similarly, entrepreneurship will be based on those currencies.

Money is a human construct. Inequality is a human construct. Neither are a requirement for the existence of humanity or for humans to thrive.
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-04-27 21:03:54+00:00
> They know nothing about building technology so are never in the right

I’ve easily seen more start-ups fail because the technical co-founder got pedantic about something with zero commercial relevance than I have where the non-technical founder rolled over their tech team. Mostly because the latter fail early while the former can sort of look like it’s not a trash fire for a little bit longer.

As you say, the unequal split is a red flag. Not the direction it leans.
Show HN: I486SX_soft_FPU – Software FPU Emulator for NetBSD 10 on 486SX
by mezantrop | 2025-04-27 21:04:13+00:00
First Release is Here!

I'm excited to announce the first release of i486SX_soft_FPU — a software FPU emulator for the classic Intel 486SX CPU, running on NetBSD 10!

This project brings floating-point support back to life for 486SX machines, even though modern NetBSD versions no longer natively support processors without a hardware FPU. If you're into retrocomputing, operating system hacking, or just love old-school hardware, check it out!

Project page: https://github.com/mezantrop/i486SX_soft_FPU Contributions, feedback, and testing are all very welcome!

Let's keep these vintage machines alive!

#retrocomputing #NetBSD #486SX #opensource
by int_19h | 2025-04-27 21:04:29+00:00
You're correct that the main thing enabled by JS is partial updates, but the fact that it relies on JS is IMO itself in large part due to path dependent evolution (i.e. JS was there and could be used for that, so that's what we standardized on).

Imagine instead if HTML evolved more in the direction of enabling this exact scenario out of the box. So that e.g. you could declaratively mark a button or a link as triggering a request that updates only part of the page. DOM diffs implemented directly by the browser etc.
by _bin_ | 2025-04-27 21:04:35+00:00
Very typical. I've run into cases where an "idea guy" basically says "you do all the product and tech half, I'll do marketing and strategy." Which is dumb, because sometimes I'm legitimately better at the strategy half too. Generally these people want ridiculous equity splits of that nature.

It's worth anyone technical's time to build skills in strategy, marketing, finance, etc. The technical co-founder always gets screwed and suffers from a general lack of respect. In my opinion, it's usually unwise to take positions where you're strictly the technical co-founder, or where you're marketed as the same.
by Frost1x | 2025-04-27 21:04:46+00:00
I would argue that it’s not just about solving a customer problem, it’s solving it at a cost enough customers are willing to pay for.

There’s lots of solutions in the market for problems I have, but most are above the cost I’m willing to pay for. As long as you have a large enough market willing to pay you can sustain it but often the solutions are just too costly in general to be sustainable.

And that critical part of bringing a useful solution at a cost the market will bear to sustain is the hard engineering part. I find problems people have daily that I can think of solutions to, but they’re often going to be too costly to be of any value to create a solution for and I often find them too unique for scaling to help any. I work in research environments, so YMMV.

In the past I worked with an ideas person, but their ideas were often quickly discounted by some basic engineering thoughts about how reasonable solutions could be built. If you have an engineering background and ideas, you can often iterate through viable ideas much faster, quickly discounting unviable ideas vs the other way around (having to do a lot of practical homework to explore practicality of an idea is more time costly).

There is absolutely domain value in understanding unique problems and seeing opportunity, no doubt, but viable solutions need to exist. If you think you’re the first person who saw and identified an opportunity, it’s a great time to look and ask around because chances are you’re often not the first to market. Often solutions or businesses don’t exist for the very point I raise: people couldn’t find cost effective solutions to make it worth pursuing.
by arp242 | 2025-04-27 21:05:04+00:00
> they didn't handle people pointing that out very well

I think that's a fair thing to say. But in all honesty, the people pointing that out were not exactly polite about it, to put it mildly.

I never really looked at V myself and have no opinion, but I do know unpleasant behaviour when I see it and quite a few of the people "pointing out" some of the shortcomings of V were engaging in it.
by brutal_chaos_ | 2025-04-27 21:06:08+00:00
I can see where you may get that idea, but I believe the point was supposed to be: just because it is done, it doesn't mean you can do it too. And that also doesn't mean it's ok for corporations to do it, they just have an easier time than the common person because our society runs and money and they have (much!) more of it.
by delusional | 2025-04-27 21:06:13+00:00
That's such a copout quote. The people working on ads aren't the best minds, if they were they wouldn't be working on ads. We somehow bought into the lie that "maximize profit" has anything to do with intelligence. And that a bank account is a equivalent to an intelligence score.

No, the problem we find ourselves in is that we let ad companies buy the entire economy and infect it with anticompetitive behavior. The people working on Android aren't working on ads. Their work is being exploited by an ad company and twisted to serve ads.

I personally find my doctor infinitely more intelligent than any Google tech bro. I find the group of people making Little Kitty Big City infinitely more intelligent than some Facebook wanker.
by _bin_ | 2025-04-27 21:06:20+00:00
I do actually know a few people who are like me and really enjoy both doing the biz plan/strategy half, and the marketing work, and product/tech. It's not as common but I enjoy working with them a whole lot more. We almost always create better results when the tech people are also biz people who understand how what we build needs to fit into the market. It's also super helpful to have some personnel fungibility when you have a small team where you're shelling out 5-20% equity for new members.

In my ideal world basically everyone is like this and the walls between "idea guy" and "tech guy" are knocked down. I've heard a lot of folks get cynical about sharp technical types who get hired by big 3 mgmt consultancies, but ime they're often great places to find those who are both technically sharp and can make a killer deck.