MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by PaulKeeble | 2025-04-19 01:09:44+00:00
Fundamentally battery buses are going to be cheaper to run. Regardless of initial outlay costs electricity that goes directly in with no conversion is achieving near 100% efficiency. Whereas with hydrogen that same electricity is being used to do electrolysis to get the hydrogen to begin with, compressing into fuel containers, travelling the fuel around the country and then pumping the fuel back in and then all the conversion losses from hydrogen to electricity to drive the vehicle. That chain is at best about 30% efficiency so its going to cost 3x as much at least.

While it gets you better fuel density for added vehicle complexity its pricey to run even when the infrastructure exists, which it currently doesn't. Hydrogen is notoriously difficult to store because its the smallest element in the periodic table it just wafts through whatever container we try to put it in too causing a constant loss of fuel.

There might be circumstances where its the right thing to do and the extra cost is worth it, public transport is unlikely to be that scenario. Its got value mostly for remote locations where the nearest electricity is quite far away, although the issue then becomes can you get the hydrogen there. If it never reaches proper economies of scale and infrastructure deployment it might always be a dead end and there really aren't that many people using vehicles so remote to have no access to electricity but are carrying fuel cells to get the range they need.
by hoc | 2025-04-19 01:10:04+00:00
That also is similar in a sense to a typical human bahavior of "rounding" a "logical" argument, and then building the next ones on top of that, rounding at each or at least many steps in succession and bacically ending up at arbitrary (or intended) conclusions.

This is hard to correct with a global training, as you would need to correct each step, even the most basic ones, instead. As it's hard to convince someone that their result is not correct, when you actually would have to show the errors in the steps that led there.

For LLMs it feels even more tricky when thinking about complex paths being encoded somehow dynamically in simple steps than if there was some clearer/deeper path that could be activated and corrected. Correcting one complex "truth" seems much more straightforward (sic) than effectively targeting those basic assumptions enough so that they won't build up to something strange again.

I wonder what effective ways exist to correct these reasoning models. Like activating the full context and then retraining the faulty steps, or even "overcorrecting" the most basic ones?
by Kirby64 | 2025-04-19 01:10:42+00:00
> you would need a whole new infrastructure for hydrogen powered buses, while keeping a lot of the downsides of fossil fueled air breathing vehicles (eq. air filters filters regardless of if you burn the hydrogen or use it in fuel cells).

Unless you burn the hydrogen, you aren't producing any emissions... unless you count water as an emission. Fuel cells don't produce any emissions.

Burning hydrogen though, does produce some emissions, however it's pretty minimal. I believe it's only NOx, and even then at far lower rates compared to gas vehicles. No CO2, CO, or any other stuff from gas or not-fully-burnt gas.

That said, I agree hydrogen has seemingly no place in something like buses. Frankly, the only places that I see hydrogen has any future is either going to be for planes and boats, or potentially for intermediate storage akin to batteries (i.e., create hydrogen with excess solar/wind power).
by ay | 2025-04-19 01:10:48+00:00
From the pragmatic standpoint: manually hard coding a safe minimum is the only approach which consistently works.

PMTUD somehow missed that packet networks ditching the OOB mechanisms of circuit switched networks was a good thing. By adding an OOB mechanism of attempted MTU discovery. Unauthenticated.

Yes, matching the 5-tuple from the original payload somewhat helps against the obvious security problem with this. (It was a fun 3-4 years while it was being added to systems across the ‘net while everyone was blocking the ICMP outright to avoid the exploitation. The burps of that one might still find in some security guidelines)

But the number of the network admins who understand what do they have to configure in their ACLs and why, is scarily small compared to the overall pool size.

Here’s another hurdle: for about two decades, to generate ICMP you have to punt the packet from hardware forwarding to the slow path. Which gets rate-limited. Which gives one a fantastic way to create extremely entertaining and hard to debug problems: a single misbehaving or malicious flow can disable the ICMP generation for everyone else.

Make hardware that can do it in fast path ? Even if you don’t punt - you still have to rate-limit to prevent the unauthenticated amplification attack (28 bytes of added headers is not comparable with some of the DNS or NTP scenarios, but not great anyway)

So - practically speaking, it can’t be relied on, other than a source for great stories.

PLPMTUD is a little better, in a sense that it attempts to limit itself to inband probes, but then there is the delicate dance of loss customarily being used to signal the congestion.

So this mechanism isn’t too reliable either, in very painful ways for the poor soul on call dealing with the outcomes. Ask me how I know.. ;-)

Now, let’s add to this the extremely pragmatic and evil hack that is the TCP MSS clamping, coming back from the first PPPoE days; which makes just enough of the eyeball traffic work to make this a “small problem with unimportant traffic that no one cares for anyway”.

So yes, safe minimums are a practical solution.

Until one start to build the tunnels, that is. A wireguard tunnel inside IPSec tunnel. Because policy. Inside VXLAN tunnel inside another IPSec tunnel, because SD-WAN. Which traverses NAT64, because transition and address scarcity.

At which point the previously safe minimums might not be safe anymore and we are back to square 1. I suspect when folks will start running QUIC over wireguard/ipsec/vxlan + IPv6 en masse we will learn that (surprise!) 1200 was not a safe value after all.

So, with this in mind, I posit it’s nice to attempt to at least fantasize about the universe where MTU determination would be done entirely inline, even if hypothetical - if we had the benefit of today’s hindsight and could time travel - could we have made it better ?

P.s. unidirectional protocols could be taken care of by fountain codes not unlike the I-, P- and B- frames in video world, with similar trade offs, moreover, I feel the unequal probability of loss depending on a place in the packet might allow for some interesting tricks.
by 12_throw_away | 2025-04-19 01:10:54+00:00
I write and test a lot of both rust and python, so I can say quite confidently:

1. Of course a type system is not as "flexible" as arbitrary test code.

2. Compiler-enforced type safety is many orders of magnitude easier to maintain than the equivalent unit tests

3. Defining rigorously enforced invariants with a type system is far, far more powerful than hoping you remembered to test all the important cases.
by martinald | 2025-04-19 01:11:14+00:00
I don't mean completely in person, but I do expect a lot of companies will want to meet the person in real life at least once. Which adds huge logistics problems.

Btw I'm not saying 'cheating', that's one thing. I am meaning industrial scale fraud with remote candidates. Eg having one person interview then another (much worse) person gets the job. There are gangs that are going to almost unbelievable lengths to do this.
by class3shock | 2025-04-19 01:11:15+00:00
From the article, "A second obvious theme is the prevalence of hydrogen buses in industrial regions and cities that bought into the hydrogen for energy narrative that’s falling apart now. Cologne, Aberdeen, Bolzano, Groningen/Drenthe, and Wuppertal are all trying to be hydrogen valleys, centers of the hydrogen economy’s industry. That’s going badly because it was always a bad idea, devoid of thermodynamic and economic reality."

I think the last sentence speaks alot to hydrogens place in the sustainable energy field. It sounds like a good idea but the applications always seem to struggle with reality.
by bcoates | 2025-04-19 01:13:39+00:00
Re:introvert/extravert I suspect it's the reverse.

Extraverts, broadly, aren't afraid of picking up the phone and calling you to chat about the email they sent you three minutes ago while driving and also on mute in a zoom; introverts can use remote work to be unreachable in a way they can't if you can just walk over and impose yourself on them.
by rtollert | 2025-04-19 01:15:46+00:00
> Art Deco City From Time and Jerry

You mean Tom and Jerry?

> Ryan Allen is a professor of international education at University of America in Southern California

What in the… what? That’s not a university. That’s not even a university system. The only sort of person I would expect to call… I don’t know, USC?… that has never observed the name of an American state university used in context in the English language.

Enormous red flags in like the first three sentences.
by Larrikin | 2025-04-19 01:16:39+00:00
What if demanding leveling for everyone is a distraction so that it never gets leveled for anyone? Similar to now is not the time, thoughts and prayers, etc.

It also never seems to be a problem that businesses don't need everything leveled for all businesses. The PPP loans were all taken up by people with lawyers that could quickly jump on all the money, and didn't actually help many of the businesses that needed it.
by lgrapenthin | 2025-04-19 01:17:35+00:00
Your example is a better search engine. The AI hype however is the promise that it will be smarter (not just more knowledgeable) than humans and replace all jobs.

And it isn't on the way there. Just today, a leading state of the art model, that supposedly passed all the most difficult math entry exams and whatever they "benchmark", reasoned with the assumption of "60 days in January". It would simply assume that and draw conclusions, as if that were normal. It also wasn't able to corrrectly fill out all possible scores in a two player game with four moves and three rules, that I made up. It would get them wrong over and over.
by bananalychee | 2025-04-19 01:18:17+00:00
It's those with your attitude, in a state of constant smug denial, who look like tools right now. We'll see how it goes in a few years, but I doubt that will change. The constant goalpost-shifting as LLMs keep getting better and better is becoming embarrassing, and even if they stopped getting better from now on, which is certainly not the case, their impact on communications is on the same order of magnitude as that of the WWW. The curmudgeons I work with are too stubborn to realize that LLMs have moved past GPT-3, and most of the haters on HN sound the same.
by arp242 | 2025-04-19 01:19:56+00:00
Do you really think the maintainers don't understand that "doesn't work with Python 3.13" isn't going to affect tons of people?

There's some bozo asking "any news? I cant downgrade because another lib requirement" just two days after the maintainer wrote several paragraphs explaining how difficult it is to make it work with Python 3.13. This adds no value for anyone and is just noise. Anyone interested in actual useful information (workarounds, pointers on how to help) has to wade though a firehose of useless nonsense to get at anything remotely useful. Any seriously discussions of maintainers wanting to discuss things is constantly interrupted by the seagulls from Finding Nemo: "fix? fix? fix? fix? fix?""

Never mind the demanding nature of some people in that thread.

Just upvote. That's why this entire feature was added.
by cepstrum9 | 2025-04-19 01:21:49+00:00
I’ve spent the last 2.5 months building a github app that runs LLM-powered code reviews — and I just launched it.

The tool is built specifically for solo developers. You install it on your repo, trigger a scan by creating a pull request, and it leaves structured review comments using OpenAI under the hood.

Funnily enough, I used the dev version of this app to review its own pull requests while building it. It helped me spot bugs, simplify structure, and keep quality high — all without needing another human in the loop.

I believe agentic tools will play a huge role in the future dev experience — and code review is just the first node. Long-term, I want this to evolve into a multi-layer agentic assistant that supports everything from brainstorming and design to CI/CD.

Feature roadmap: - Model integrations beyond OpenAI: Claude, Gemini, DeepSeek, LLaMA - Bring Your Own Model (BYOM) - Smarter review agents: repo memory, config-awareness, custom rules

Right now I’m focused on getting feedback from devs and evolving based on what actually helps.

Try it here: [https://codii.dev]

I’d love feedback on:

- Are the reviews useful or noisy?

- What would make this fit into your workflow?

- Anything obviously missing, confusing, or broken?

Happy to answer any questions! (feel free to dm me on X https://x.com/cepstrum9)
by dingnuts | 2025-04-19 01:22:03+00:00
that's a different kind of distrust, though, that was an AI that was capable of malice. In that case, "trust" had to do with loyalty.

The GP means "trust" in the sense of consistency. I trust that my steering wheel doesn't fly off, because it is well-made. I trust that you won't drive into traffic while I'm in the passenger seat, because I don't think you will be malicious towards us.

These are not the same.
by api | 2025-04-19 01:22:39+00:00
Where I live in the US my kids still take “cheese buses” to school that haven’t changed a bit. They’re diesel and you can hear them blocks away. When they pull up with their air brakes going off and their diesel shifting to idle it sounds like one of those spice miner things from Dune going to work.

If they ever go electric I’m not sure how we’ll know it’s time to take the kids out. Won’t be able to hear them coming.
by SV_BubbleTime | 2025-04-19 01:25:06+00:00
This is such an odd hill to die on.

The dude at one point at least a wife abusing gang member, and indisputably an here illegally when he was given deportation orders he ignored.

I get that orange man is bad and must be opposed at all costs and conditions… but seriously, this is so strange that people are willing to go to bat for this guy.

I’m not joking at all, TDS might be real.
by kragen | 2025-04-19 01:25:22+00:00
I agree that Unix was fundamentally different in many ways, but CP/M wasn't a copy of Unix either; if anything, RT-11 was slightly more Unix-like than CP/M was. Because CP/M was evidently worse than RT-11 in many apparently unnecessary ways, I suspect that it was drawing from some other source.

I didn't suspect any nefarious intent, but if I didn't tell you it had happened, you would never have known. My apologies if it sounded like I was blaming you for it.
by hedora | 2025-04-19 01:25:45+00:00
A bit later, he claims the lifetime cost of a vehicle is $345/kwh. It’s unclear if that’s capacity (an SUV with a $100kwh battery costs $34.5K new, which is the low end of retail pricing, and actually great news), or energy costs (that SUV will cost $34.5M over its lifetime, assuming 1000 charge cycles), which is clearly off by a factor of >100.

Either way, he concludes the time to payoff of switching to the planes is 2/3rds their expected lifetimes. I didn’t get far enough to find out what that’s versus, but most airlines would happily roll over to a new technology that “only” reduced their fleet costs by 33%.

For comparison, the 737 MAX reduced fuel costs by 14% and is still selling despite all the safety issues.

Edit: My 33% math is a bit off. It assumes the fuel costs dominate. Still, payoff before end of life is still saving money.
by mberning | 2025-04-19 01:29:08+00:00
I worked for a very large industrial some years ago. Our leaders were so ate up with the VR hype that they greenlit a VR training experience for field technicians wherein the technician would wear a VR headset and then use a virtual iPad to diagnose some of our heavy equipment. Someone asked why they couldn’t just use an iPad IRL to learn. There was no rational justification.

Shortly after that web 3.0 took off and I started to hear that we were going to use blockchain to track the maintenance of our heavy equipment.

Now they won’t shut up about AI.
by pvg | 2025-04-19 01:29:21+00:00
It's a structural necessity for a 30-ish things a day site vs an infinite-scroll-feed site. The world can definitely move a lot faster than a nerd messageboard that's closer in design and spirit to a crusty pokemon (or, dunno, planespotting) phpbb forum than to the news notification stream on your phone. But that's a desired feature for such places.
by myfonj | 2025-04-19 01:29:38+00:00
Yeah, sadly, top-level dataURIs are increasingly neglected and banished from browsers, mainly because they were misused for scams in the past; for example no modern browser allows navigating to top-level dataURI by clicking a link. Only bookmarks, manual entry, and external invocation (share) work (sometimes).

Anyway, I have put some remarks and docs for that thing into https://gist.github.com/myfonj/c8ce74bf549e19600026ce9022388... , if you are interested.

By the way, this "Backrooms" can also work from non-base64 URI and as such is significantly smaller (https://github.com/Kuberwastaken/backdooms/pull/3#issuecomme...)
by zamadatix | 2025-04-19 01:30:02+00:00
Most carrier/enterprise/hardware IPv4 routers, particular those on the internet, will not actually perform IPv4 fragmentation on behalf of the client traffic even though it's allowed by the IPv4 standard. Typically fragmentation is reserved for boxes which already have another reason to care about it (such as needing to NAT or inspect the packets) or the client endpoints themselves. I.e. the internet will (sparing security middleboxes) allow arbitrary IPv4 fragments through but it won't typically turn a 8000 byte packet into 6 fragments to fit through a 1500 byte MTU limitation on behalf of the clients. E.g. if you send a 1500 byte IPv4 ping without DF set to a cellular modem or someone with a DSL modem using PPPoE it'll almost always get dropped by the carrier rather than fragmented.

Of course nothing is stopping you from labbing it up at home. Firewalls and software routers can usually be made to do refragmentation.
by ninetyninenine | 2025-04-19 01:30:04+00:00
>It was never this level of AI.

You're completely out of it. We couldn't even get AI to hold a freaking conversation. It was so bad we came up with this thing called the turing test and that was the benchmark.

Now people like you are all, like "well it's obvious the turing test was garbage".

No. It's not obvious. It's the hype got to your head. If we found a way to travel at light speed for 3 dollars the hype would be insane and in about a year we get people like you writing blog posts about how light speed travel is the dumbest thing ever. Oh man too much hype.

You think LLMs are stupid? Sometimes we all just need to look in the mirror and realize that humans have their own brand of stupidity.
by YeGoblynQueenne | 2025-04-19 01:30:38+00:00
Which of those things claimed it would be "like the renaissance" or that we'd cure all diseases?

In the clip I link above Hassabis says he hopes that in 10-15 years' time we'll be looking back on the way we do medicine today like the way they did it in the middle ages. In 10-15 years time. Modern medicine - you know, antibiotics, vaccines, transplants, radiotherapy, anti-retrovirals, the whole shebang, like medieval times.

Are you saying - what are you saying? Who has said things like that ever before in the tech industry? Azure? Facebook? Ethereum? Who?
by lgrapenthin | 2025-04-19 01:31:11+00:00
Sorry, these claims are just not true. AI generations in these categories are impressive on release, but blatantly generic, recognizable, predictable and boring after I have seen about 100 or so. Also, if you want to put them to use to replace "real work" outside of the ordinary/pretrained, you hit limitations quickly.

The scaling laws of the Internet were clear from the start.
by alganet | 2025-04-19 01:31:23+00:00
The use of semantic web and linked data (a type of distributed database and ontology map) for protein folding (therefore, medical research too) was predicted by many and even used by some.

Databases were of key interest. Namely, the problem of relating different schemas.

So, yes. _It was claimed_ that database tech could help. And it probably did so already. To what extent I really don't know. Those consortiums included many big players.

It never hyped, of course. It did not stood the test of time either (as far as I know).

Claims, as you can see, don't always fully develop into reality.

LLMs now need to stand a similar test of time. Will they become niche and forgotten like semweb? We will know. Have patience.
by pixelready | 2025-04-19 01:31:28+00:00
Plus the intro of the game is the player moving to the farm to escape a soul-crushing corporate job, only to find that same sort of culture taking root in their pastoral sanctuary.

I love pretty much every system of progression it has, but I do respect that the game doesn’t really force you to engage with the parts that you don’t enjoy.

But anyone who sides with Joja is a monster.
by benoau | 2025-04-19 01:32:45+00:00
> Personally, I am still doing the traditional job hunt a little bit, but I’m now investing more time and effort into my blog and YouTube channel about software development and operating systems.

Personally, I am also very much doing that too. All the reasons companies don't need us are also reasons we don't need them. Produce your own <whatever> and reach the billions of consumers that use the internet. I only need 0.008% of Steam users to buy my game and I will earn more than I did last year, in the first half of this year. I have time for two shots at this a year. According to industry news blogs, about 15% of the indie games in my selected genre make more than I did last year.
by d3Xt3r | 2025-04-19 01:33:20+00:00
> My dad was becoming more pro-privacy so I got him Linux Mint, and something broke that put him in GRUB and it frustrated him so he asked me to change it back.

This is exactly why I don't recommend Mint or any Ubuntu-based, or even any normal (ie, mutable) Linux distros, for newbies. I learnt this the hard way thanks to my mum, who experienced the same breakage twice - once on Xubuntu, and again on Zorin. Since then, I switched her to an immutable distro (Aurora) over an year ago, and it's been flawless so far. Updates are automatic and never interrupt her, and she's been thru two major OS upgrades with no issues (for image-based atomic distros, a major OS upgrade is treated like just another update and makes little difference to the end user). And unlike regular distros, image-based atomic distros don't have to worry about any potential dependency issues or package conflicts occurring - the update will either apply or won't, there's no partial/failed state.

Therefore for non-technical newbies, I would highly recommend an immutable distro such as Aurora[1] or Bazzite (for gamers)[2], because you never again have to worry about updates. And in the rare event that an update breaks something, rollback is as simple as choosing the previous image from the boot menu, and that's it - no technical steps or knowledge required. This sort of stability and ease-of-restore is far beyond what Windows or macOS offers, which makes Linux a no-brainier.

[1] https://getaurora.dev/en

[2] https://bazzite.gg/