MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by anon7000 | 2025-04-16 16:26:53+00:00
This article was a really interesting take on this too: https://semianalysis.com/2025/03/11/america-is-missing-the-n...

The tldr of that post is: - To be really good at making robots, you need to iterate fast

- To iterate fast, you need all component manufacturers nearby (or you’ll be wasting weeks shipping parts from somewhere else)

- To be really competitive at manufacturing, you need to be good at robotics.

- If you’re missing all of these pieces, it will be hard to catch up with (say) China, which has been exponentially growing in every possible aspect of manufacturing for decades. Not only do we not have strong manufacturing, but we don’t have strong robotics companies, don’t have many of our own robotics components companies, and don’t even have much in terms of raw materials. Whereas China has been investing heavily in every single one of these areas.

Bringing manufacturing back means investing in all aspects of the supply chains which lead to technical innovation in manufacturing, which is really hard to do when the supply chain is set up to pull from our current competitor.
by barabbababoon | 2025-04-16 16:26:55+00:00
- Yes. it is a service and at least the runner will stay like that for the time being.

- We are not quite live yet, but the pricing model is based on compute capacity and it is divided in tiers (e.g. small=50GB for concurrent scans=$1500/month, large can get up to a TB). infinite queries, infinte jobs, infinite users. The idea is to have a very clear pricing with no sudden increases due to volume.

- You do not have to swap your storage - our runner comes to your S3 bucket and your data never ever have to be anywhere else that is not your S3.

- You do not have to swap your orchestrator either. Most of our clients are actually using it with their existing orchestrator. You call the platform's APIs, including run from your Airflow/Prefect/Temporal tasks https://www.prefect.io/blog/prefect-on-the-lakehouse-write-a...

Does it help?
by ceejayoz | 2025-04-16 16:27:21+00:00
> Why do you keep returning to this when it is not in question?

Because you keep falsely claiming the guy is a criminal. He has not been convicted of any crime; his membership in MS-13 is an allegation only. (And a shaky one.) Until convicted of a crime, our system presumes him to be innocent.

The only demonstrably, provably, without-a-doubt illegal act here was the deportation.

We deport and refuse entry to non-criminals (including for plenty of non-criminal acts, or even just vibes) all the time. It doesn't prove guilt.
by zenlikethat | 2025-04-16 16:27:21+00:00
Some similarities, but Bauplan offers:

1. Great Python support. Piping something from a structured data catalog into Python is trivial, and so is persisting results. With materialization, you never need to recompute something in Python twice if you don’t want to — you can store it in your data catalog forever.

Also, you can request anything Python package you want, and even have different Python versions and packages in different workflow steps.

2. Catalog integration. Safely make changes and run experiments in branches.

3. Efficient caching and data re-use. We do a ton of tricks behind to scenes to avoid recomputing or rescanning things that have already been done, and pass data between steps with Arrow zero copy tables. This means your DAGs run a lot faster because the amount of time spent shuffling bytes around is minimal.
by ungreased0675 | 2025-04-16 16:27:44+00:00
Betting has probably had a much bigger impact on sports than we know. It’s playing with fire though. Fans will leave if they start to think they aren’t watching a real competition.

I haven’t watched a full NBA game since the 2007 betting scandal. Might be illogical, but finding out those nail-biter playoff games were rigged killed my interest in the league.
by BugsJustFindMe | 2025-04-16 16:28:01+00:00
> How do you listen to audio books when you're engaged in other activities?

The same way you can probably carry a conversation while walking. As long as the other activity doesn't engage the language processing part of the brain there's no conflict. I can't listen while reading, not even small package labels in a grocery store, but I can easily listen while washing dishes or exercising or eating a meal because different sections of the brain are responsible for them and can be active simultaneously.
by mbgerring | 2025-04-16 16:28:04+00:00
People are part-time baristas and Uber Eats delivery drivers because there aren’t other jobs available, and people can pick up skills faster than you think.

I know a lot of people in the Bay Area with serious fabrication skills (mainly applied to art), who would love to have a stable job using those skills in a factory setting, but who are constantly looking for gig work instead.

There were two different fabrication jobs I nearly took the last time I was looking for work. I have what amounts to a second job as a creative producer and art fabricator, but it doesn’t pay the bills, so I need a day job. All else being equal, if factory work was enough to pay the bills, I’d choose that over a full time job with a heavy mental load.

It’s easy to dismiss factory work as menial, but like, seriously watch Starbucks baristas working during a morning rush, when there are tons of mobile app orders and also tons of people in line. It’s an assembly line. Different technical skills, but similar structure and pace. And at least in a factory you can sit down.

tl;dr I think we’re vastly underestimating the capabilities of our existing workforce, and unfairly dismissing factory work as a viable replacement for certain kinds of jobs.
by lurk2 | 2025-04-16 16:28:11+00:00
> Because it doesn't harm anyone.

Threats don’t harm anyone physically. Similarly, conspiracy to murder isn’t an actual murder until the murder is carried out. Calling for a genocide isn’t an actual genocide, but it’s hard to see what purpose it serves other than being the first step to enacting a genocide. There are plenty of other examples of speech acts rising to the level of criminality that no ordinary person would consider to be Orwellian.

> If censorship laws are all that's preventing genocide, it's not like people are going to go, "Well, we'd love to genocide that other group, but these pesky censorship laws, I guess we'll have to find something else to do..."

By this logic we shouldn’t have any laws, because people will always find a way to circumvent them.

> You accuse 4chan of allowing "absolutely reprehensible political views"

You are quoting a different user. My chief contention is that the sort of material you can find on /pol/ often rises to the level of incitement and that there isn’t anything wrong with prosecuting people for it. The same logic used to justify the criminalization of threats can be used to justify the criminalization of hate speech. The meta then shifts to inventing new or redefining existing categories of violence, sure, but this is just a slippery slope fallacy which assumes that there will be an endless tolerance for bad faith interpretations of an existing law. Outlawing murder has not led to the definition of murder becoming so expansive as to prohibit the general public from discussing the death penalty, for example.
by throwanem | 2025-04-16 16:28:37+00:00
The argument hinges on what you mean by "avid," which you have opted not to define. There's nothing concrete here for me to address.

This is the kind of thing I mean when I say we're both bullshitting and you don't realize it. I haven't defined the word in my own usage either, nor indeed intended anything more by it than to denote those passionately enough interested not only to participate in the culture but to observe it as they did so, and who went different places to inhabit different sides of themselves the way people have always done, especially while young with identity still malleable, for as long as there've been people.

That vagueness is fine for my argument, which after all is just that I've seen what I've seen and it's interesting to talk about that. Yours is "no you didn't and we have to fight about it," and I admit that is getting me a little curious as to why all this would mean so much to you over a stranger about whose opinion of you you've no obvious cause to care. You're making a federal case of a colloquial statement. Why?
by danvoell | 2025-04-16 16:29:16+00:00
"incentivize, subsidize" - yes. There should be less incentives and tax breaks for "holding an asset" and more incentives for making things that improve human lives. Most of the laws are set by the incumbents who stand to lose what they have built and who have the money to pay the lawyers to set the tax code. Real estate should not get incentives unless its getting someone in a home. Private equity, same. Venture capital, after a certain point, same. If you are worth a bazillian dollars, same. A lawyer with balls needs to take on the tax code. I'm kind of hoping the whole Harvard escapade awakens a few legal idealists out there.
by WillAdams | 2025-04-16 16:30:07+00:00
The normal standard for line length is 2--3 alphabets worth of text.

I find that shorter ones break up and slow down my reading, while too-long lines make reading wearisome to the point where I actually bought the Kindle version of:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/37858510-the-inklings-an...

to read rather than the print edition.
by oconnor663 | 2025-04-16 16:30:13+00:00
If we know each other's DH public key in advance, then you're totally right, DH is secure over an untrusted network. But if we don't know each other's public keys, we have to get them over that same network, and DH can't protect us if the network lies about our public keys. Solving this requires some notion of "identity", i.e. some way to verify that when I say "my public key is abc123" it's actually me who's saying that. That's why it's hard to have privacy without identity.
by Kirby64 | 2025-04-16 16:30:21+00:00
It's already stated in the source quote. Extending the TCJA.

What he says is almost irrelevant to what he actually does most of the time. He 'says' he wants to lower taxes on the lower income folks, but the tax bill he actually passed was essentially a handout to wealthy and businesses. He 'says' he wants to bring back manufacturing, but the reality is his tariff actions do nothing of the sort.
Show HN: Fountain of RSS – 30k active feeds and code for sourcing more
by tfederman | 2025-04-16 16:30:23+00:00
Recently I was searching for a very large collection of RSS feeds and didn't have luck finding an existing one.

I decided to see if they could be sourced reliably at any volume from the meta tags of a stream of links, which are easy to find. Long story short, that did work very well. I used the Bluesky firehose as the stream of links.

The repo has a script that narrows the firehose down to just a "fountain" of RSS feeds and their metadata. There's also a .tsv with about 30,000 entries I got from running the script on and off over a few days.

https://github.com/tfederman/fountain-of-rss/

p.s. What's good in the RSS tool/reader scene in 2025?
by mlnj | 2025-04-16 16:30:45+00:00
Although I have not used it as DO, I have been using it for durable workflows for a few years. The cached results of the workflow activities could give the feeling but the latency to read and write would be a dealbreaker for many. There is a lot of overhead in writing the interface between application code and Temporal workflow (for example, you can have conflicting object IDs that can be configured).

Self hosting Temporal with a Postgres datastore is usually how I deploy it and it works great, but at that point I'd just write it to a Valkey store if I just wanted a easy DO interface.
by jrowen | 2025-04-16 16:31:10+00:00
Read a bit on Fermi estimation, I'm not quite sure exactly what the "method" is in contrast to a less accurate method, it's basically just getting people to think in terms of dimensional analysis? This passage from the Wikipedia is interesting:

By contrast, precise calculations can be extremely complex but with the expectation that the answer they produce is correct. The far larger number of factors and operations involved can obscure a very significant error, either in mathematical process or in the assumptions the equation is based on, but the result may still be assumed to be right because it has been derived from a precise formula that is expected to yield good results.

So the strength of it is in keeping it simple and not trying to get too fancy, with the understanding that it's just a ballpark/sanity check. I still feel like the Drake equation in particular has too many terms for which we don't have enough sample data to produce a reasonable guess. But I think this is generally understood and it's seen as more of a thought experiment.
Show HN: I'm building an app for finding hyper-tailored meals
by ztarpulse | 2025-04-16 16:31:18+00:00
I’m 17 and working on Whisk AI - a recipe app that suggests meals based on ingredients you already have. It lets you snap a pic or type what youve got, and offers recipe suggestions tailored to your preferences.

I’d love feedback on whether this feels like it solves an actual problem. Still refining the MVP, but the site is live with a waitlist. Roast it, tear it apart, or tell me where I’m off - I’m here to learn. Thank you
by chrismorgan | 2025-04-16 16:31:40+00:00
I wonder how much curly quote usage influences things. I type things like curly quotes with my Compose key, and so do most of my top similars; and four or five words with straight quotes show up among the bottom ten in our analyses. (Also etc, because I like to write &c.)

I’m not going to try comparing it with normalising apostrophes, but I’d be interested how much of a difference it made. It could easily be just that the sorts of people who choose to write in curly quotes are more likely to choose words carefully and thus end up more similar.
by TimTheTinker | 2025-04-16 16:31:47+00:00
> your response is a useful example of how misogynistic attitudes stifle discussion on women's issues.

:100:

Also hiding behind "scientific" findings that there is a purported spectrum between men and women. Science has known that XY and XX configurations of chromosome 47 are the normal genotypes of male and female, respectively, and that any other configuration of these chromosomes (or a failure of the Y chromosome to activate) are disorders and not normative. Trisomy 47 (XXX, XXY, or XYY) is a genetic disorder just like trisomy 18 (Edward's syndrome) or trisomy 21 (Down's syndrome). The fact that some people's lived experience is a life with a genetic disorder does not make it normative or not a disorder.

Women (~50.5% of the population) need their own spaces, and it is devastating to them and society at large to sacrifice their well-being for the sake of small, vocal portion of the population who happen to consistently beat them in sports. The vast majority of genetic men claiming access to women's spaces have no genetic disorder, so invoking genetic disorders (as some do) to support them is a red herring, and there's no cut-and-dry science to apply (except to invoke their genotype which contradicts their claim).

The stance I'm taking on this almost definitionally adheres to "objective truth over subjective emotion" - something GP says they also hold to in a different thread.
by barabbababoon | 2025-04-16 16:31:48+00:00
Plenty of stuff in common with dbt's philosophy. One big thing though, dbt does not run your compute or manage your lake. It orchestrate your code and pushes it down to a runtime (e.g. 90% of the time Snowflake).

This IS a runtime.

You import bauplan, write your functions and run them in straight into the cloud - you don't need anything more. When you want to make a pipeline you chain the functions together, and the system manages the dependencies, the containerization, the runtime, and gives you a git-like abstractions over runs, tables and pipelines.
by bananalychee | 2025-04-16 16:31:55+00:00
This poll is being propped up as evidence that people don't actually want to work in a factory, yet more people voiced interest in doing so than are currently, by an order of magnitude. If you believe there's a disconnect between perception and reality, that's fair, but it would have to be off by an order of magnitude on the positive side to support the premise, and an anecdote about a Chinese factory is very weak evidence of that. I would posit that many people would be happier and more fulfilled working in a factory than being stuck doing gig work or packing foreign products for Amazon or even bullshit desk work, but I'm not elitist enough to pretend to know what blue-collar workers in stagnant towns actually feel, let alone argue that they actually want the opposite of what they say. Personally, I wish I had the chance to work in a factory at 16 years old instead of a call center.
by runako | 2025-04-16 16:31:58+00:00
> If paying domestic workers more raises the price of domestic goods, and if people are willing to pay that price for whatever reason, you will start to see growth in manufacturing.

We ran this experiment for decades. It turns out that Americans are not willing to pay the higher prices, which led to our manufacturing consolidating around higher-value items.

This notion that we should move Americans from high-productivity jobs to lower-productivity jobs, and that such move will somehow enhance our prosperity is nutty. Lower-productivity jobs mean less income for workers, means less income in the system, means lower prosperity for all Americans. Moving tens of millions Americans to higher-productivity jobs while maintaining relatively low unemployment has to be seen as one of the economic success stories of the modern age.

Separately, Americans do not feel like this happened. That's a different discussion, about allocation of wealth. Our poorest states have higher GDPs per capita than many "rich" western EU countries. Mississippi has a higher GDP per capita than the UK. The difference is that the US has designed a system where every citizen lives a precarious existence, potentially a few months from destitution while other rich countries have not done that. We are allowed to make different choices in the US if we don't like this outcome.
by overu589 | 2025-04-16 16:32:00+00:00
I challenge what you call sane, sir.

Convention, normalcy, and polite society are all very fine, yet civilization rests upon certain demands.

You are not far off, I do not criticize your intent, merely that as a denier of the “exogenous”, I wonder if you will be so hardline with your own when their treachery or corruption is made bare.

If you will say with me, “an incorruptible righteous rule of law” will save us, we are bondsman(and women) to a common critical cause.

“Them, they, and those other” however are not the threat to our lawfully protected free world. Integrity, and principle, and a continuity of “devotion” (human sacrifice) pays for civilization or it doesn’t.

Civilization will always have its rabble and unrest. Mitigating savage powers with a “civilizing accord” is the whole foundation of any.
by wredcoll | 2025-04-16 16:32:16+00:00
So I did some introspection and I want to go up a few levels to make a broader point to end this conversation.

First off, universities, including harvard and stanford or anyone else, are absolutely not perfect or above criticism. I'm sure they make tons of bad decisions and mistakes at all levels of their system and those deserve to be pointed out and complained about.

A subtle point is that I think it's useful to look at what someone was trying to accomplish, even if they did it badly or in a way that hurt people. Motive usually matters.

The more important point is that I want people to look at what happens when their agreement gives people more power. Donald trump is an easy example, a man who is literally famous for lying, could theoretically point out an actual mistake or even crime being committed by a university and be right. It's possible! But what actually happens when you agree with his position and start supporting it? He uses it to gain more power for him self, commit more corrupt actions and in general hurt society.

So yes, harvard or the faa or whoever did bad things and should be criticized. The solution is probably not anything involving trump or his cronies though.
by dylan604 | 2025-04-16 16:32:18+00:00
I used to work for a VHS dub house while working graveyard shift. There was a weekend radio program that would play underground tunes not normally broadcast. It was a multi-hour broadcast longer than cassettes. Instead, I would hook up a tuner to a VHS audio-in, and record the entire broadcast on VHS HiFi tracks. I'd then listen to that tape through out the week. Lather, rinse, repeat.

We all put up with stuff when we have to. We no longer have to. Bringing back formats for nostalgia is fun, but for anything other than cassettes. Hell, my first car had an 8-track in it. My dad had a supply of blank 8-track tapes and an 8-track recorder in the home HiFi setup. I would record modern releases from CD to 8-track and rock it in the car. So yeah, been there done that
by deater | 2025-04-16 16:32:50+00:00
haha as someone who has spent a lot of time recently doing Apple II graphics coding, both for games, sizecoding, and the demoscene, let me tell you that the weird layout in fact is not easier to deal with.

You have to waste a lot of space on lookup tables, or else complex calculations. And don't get me started on the "screen holes" you aren't allowed to write to in the lo-res address space making it exciting if you're trying to use modern decompression routines to unpack graphics in-place
by ModernMech | 2025-04-16 16:32:56+00:00
Yeah for me, I use AI with Rust and a suite of 1000 tests in my codebase. I also use CoPilot VS code plugin mostly, which as far as I can tell heavily weights toward local code around it and often it just writing code based on my other code. I've found AI to be a good macro debugger too, as macro debugging tools are severely lacking in most ecosystems.

But when I see people using these AI tools to write JavaScript of Python code wholesale from scratch, that's a huge question mark for me. Because how?? How are you sure that this thing works? How are you sure when you update it won't break? Indeed the answer seems to be "We don't know why it works, we can't tell you under which conditions it will break, we can't give you any performance guarantees because we didn't test or design for those, we can't give you any security guarantees because we don't know what security is and why that's important."

People forgot we're out here trying to do software engineering, not software generation. Eternal September is upon us.
by dcow | 2025-04-16 16:33:06+00:00
For this to be true everyone must be logically on the same page. They must share the same axioms. Everyone must be operating off the same data and must not make mistakes or have bias evaluating it. Otherwise inevitably sometimes people will arrive at conflicting truths.

In reality it’s messy and not possible with 100% certainty to discern falsehoods and truthoods. Our scientific method does a pretty good job. But it’s not perfect.

You can’t retcon reality and say “well retrospectively we know what happened and one side was just wrong”. That’s called history. It’s not useful or practical working definition of truth when trying to evaluate your possible actions (individually, communally, socially, etc) and make a decision in the moment.

I don’t think it’s accurate to say that we want to redefine truth. I think more accurately truth has inconvenient limitations and it’s arguably really nice most of the time to ignore them.