MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by elcaro | 2025-04-26 00:27:03+00:00
Answering for myself, I started looking into APL, but at the time, learning the keymaps for the symbols seemed difficult, so I started learning array lang techniques with J, and ended up liking it.

Some of the knowledge you acquire from one array lang can translate to the others, but the semantics are not 1:1 (ie. J is not just ASCII APL).

As it currently stands, I dabble in almost all the array langs, but of the ones I use, I think best in J. It's got a lot of convenience in it's large set of primitives, and there's no "indirection" between the character you want, and the one you type. Still, it's not without it's shortcomings.

I think I would probably still recommend BQN to most people looking to get into array programming, as it removes some warts in APL/J.

You lose some convenience functions (base conversion, fixed-point, etc) but you get a language which is more uniform and intuitive. And FWIW, I had the keymaps learned within the first day I started to play with it.

It's still a learning curve regardless of which lang you learn, but it will change how you think.
by gnabgib | 2025-04-26 00:27:09+00:00
Previously

(23 points) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43799024

(28 points) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43798155

(9 points) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43797699

(23 Points) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43794844
by synapsomorphy | 2025-04-26 00:27:56+00:00
Atopile is another thing in the circuits-as-code space: https://github.com/atopile/atopile

As a half EE/half SWE I think there are significant benefits to circuits as code but I'm not impressed with this one. Atopile has a narrower focus (autorouters are really really hard) and doesn't use as many buzzwords. Like why on earth does a "web first approach" matter at all for hardware development?

But also, GUI tools are getting better, Kicad 9 had a lot of changes that made templating / reusing blocks easier. And it works fine if not great with version control.

I don't see circuit-as-code taking off with humans anytime soon, it's much better but not enough better to convince EEs many of which don't code much or at all. But I can see it becoming much more common as LLMs get better at complex circuits.
by LightHugger | 2025-04-26 00:28:03+00:00
There are counterexamples where this has failed/continues to fail, the gamergate article is famously non-neutral, only accepting primary sources from journalists directly involved in the controversy. This is rather than true secondary sources with less extreme and biased views, like is supposed to be the rules there. You can switch from the english one to other languages and get completely different content with very balanced point of views because the other languages weren't controlled by the influence campaign.

So, is it better than reddit? I agree, probably. That bar doesn't seem very high though.

Part of the issue with gamergate discussion is that there's a lot of vapid perspectives along the lines of "it's just video game journalism who cares" which allows an infinite amount of bad behavior, dishonesty and manipulation in the name of an abstract greater good. I believe it was used as a prototype for future wikipedia manipulation for "more important" topics.
by Neywiny | 2025-04-26 00:30:14+00:00
Wish I could comment on the routing like others but the render is stuck at 96.2% for me. Nothing else on the page shows it on my phone so I assume that's the problem. (And of course nothing in the log of error tabs).

I think just looking at the first code example you can already see the problem. A lot of duplication and hand written or auto generated code. I thought the point was to define it in the code. Put an array of pin functions. For loop the footprint. That kinda thing. This looks like a mess to get started with and even worse is at higher point count parts it looks like it'll balloon in maintainability. Altium has very solid footprint generators with a nice menu. This looks like it's missing an overarching API for creating these long lists of parameters. Doesn't feel like the juice is worth the squeeze on this one. If it's a simple schematic, just do it by hand. If it's complicated, this feels harder to wrangle.

Another example of weird code is the previousLedName. Like like really that variable isn't used and the first term of the && should be that indeed check. But even more so, it should be an if statement not rely on remembering short circuiting (lazy evaluation) tricks. Because that's what you mean. You mean if it's not the first one, connect to the previous one. So, the code should say that. I find it hard to believe such a high level language would prevent it.

I think the pin label lists don't make sense. They're maps where the value is an array where the first element is the key? Why is this not just a list of pin numbers to names or a map of they're not contiguous whole numbers?

And then the icing on the cake: you still have to define where in XY everything is.

So really, in thinking about this, this looks more like a file format than a tool. And maybe that's fine. But I'll stick to the native formats of the tools.
by dragonwriter | 2025-04-26 00:30:26+00:00
> In my understanding the Obama administration expelled 2.5 million illegal immigrants under the same emergency powers now being invoked by the Trump administration

The last time the Alien Enemies Act was invoked was about two decades before Barack Obama was born.

> If it's practically impossible to reverse open border policies that let in a flood of illegal immigrants for almost 4 years

The US hasn't had anything like open borders policies for more than a century (more precisely, since the original national origin quota system was adopted in 1921.)

It's probably easier to discuss policy in this area if the premises are something resembling facts rather than partisan propaganda fictions.
by kristjansson | 2025-04-26 00:32:27+00:00
No one is required to ignore their duties, because immigration enforcement is not the duty of anyone bound by a City of Los Angeles ordinance. No one is required to interfere with federal law enforcement pursuing actual criminals under a judicial warrant. No one is prevented from making whatever claims they might want to federal authorities in their personal capacity; they just can't investigate immigration status under the pretext of city business, or use city resources for unintended purposes.

which is all good! I want people to confidently report crimes committed against them. I want restaurants to be health-inspected without staff worrying about questions of status. I want people to get pulled over and cited for traffic violations without having to ask existential questions about their presence in the country or consider rash actions as a result.

City and State governments have precisely zero authority over who lives within their borders. The past several decades of federal vacillation have got us to this point. The federal government can spend its own time and money to sort it out. Until then LAPD, LASD, CHP, etc. are expensive enough; let them focus on enforcing the local and state laws they're responsible for as equitably as they can for _all_ the people living there.

also:

> document them on their own terms?

We do? e.g. AB 60 driver's licenses
by vessenes | 2025-04-26 00:33:57+00:00
Thanks Jeff -- can you point me to something written up about rANS? All I find on line is turbulence modeling solutions; I presume this is not what you're referring to.

As we know, quantizations are a critical tool for local LLM runners; RAM is typically the gating factor. Are you aware of other better lossless compression of BF16 weights out there?

The reason I ask is this Dfloat11 seems relatively easy to plug in to existing quantization workflows, but you seem dismissive of the paper -- I presume it's my gap in understanding, and I'd like to understand.
by mcdeltat | 2025-04-26 00:35:27+00:00
Perhaps you are right, and I had rose tinted glasses. I seem to remember C++17 being completed (all major features) around 2018 on at least one or two major compilers. Meanwhile C++20 still doesn't have modules properly implemented, which is such a huge feature IMO that I count it as a major deficit. But maybe C++17 was the exception rather than the rule.

I think what annoys me most is when a standard is implemented except for an important feature. E.g. ranges was unusable for ages on Clang. And modules is still not quite there. I want to use the latest standard to get these cool features so I can write code like it's 2025, not 1980. If the biggest features are unimplemented then why upgrade? My concern is the trend continues, and we get cool things like reflection, but it takes 10 years to be implemented properly.
by zjorzzzey | 2025-04-26 00:35:39+00:00
Interesting, reminds me of a project my colleague has just been working on: using KiCad + python to auto-place LEDs at specific coordinates on a PCB. Instead of positioning them as a regular matrix, the LED locations are derived from the shape of a racing circuit: https://ledsrace.at/zandvoort (routing and non-LED part of the layout was still done manually)

I don't think 100% auto-placement/routing will be able to take over manual layout, but there is definitely lots of potential for further automation!
by acdha | 2025-04-26 00:36:29+00:00
Do you have any specific examples? You mentioned the Gamergate article but your assertion that it doesn’t reference non-primary sources needs some citations that all of the academic and media sources were directly involved. Since it was a harassment campaign involving journalists, there’s a big question about what a policy would need to look like to prevent someone from attacking a journalist and then saying Wikipedia can’t use their work because they’re involuntarily involved.
by alganet | 2025-04-26 00:36:44+00:00
They (those worried about commie political bias) could do their own public digital university and social media websites. Instead of being free, they could charge a fee that would both serve to repel the freetards and fund the project.

Oh shit! That happened already, didn't it? How is it going at attracting talented individuals?

We should remember that anti-wikipedia propaganda exists for decades now. Despite of that, it is a place cherished by many (including non commies). Its demise would be a public disaster.

Hoarders will maintain copies of it. And if there is bias, there will be tons of biased bootlegs around.

Further investigation would be more wise than rapid decisions by instinct.
by firesteelrain | 2025-04-26 00:37:30+00:00
I don’t agree. George Santos just got convicted and will be serving 7 years for fraud. He is/was Republican.

Not saying any one of them is perfect, just trying to be reasonable that he probably used Signal and maybe still does but it’s not this blazing fire that it’s made out to be.

Plus, the President is the ultimate classification authority. He can make the rules.
by cjbenedikt | 2025-04-26 00:38:22+00:00
There are a number of different technologies to capture CO2 on vessels while they sail. That is not the challenge. The challenge is: where to put the CO2. Ocean going vessels consume on average 200 tons of bunker fuel or diesel or LNG per day. One ton of fuel,( LNG, diesel or bunker) emits 3 tons of CO2 = 600 tons per day. Average journey time is 10 days. Where can you store 6000 tons of CO2 on a vessel?
by actsasbuffoon | 2025-04-26 00:38:31+00:00
Exactly this. 70% of CEOs say that they hope to be able to lay people off and replace them with an LLM soon. It doesn’t matter that LLMs are incapable of reasoning at even the same level as an elementary school child. They’ll do it because it’s cheap and trendy.

Many companies are already pushing LLMs into roles where they make decisions. It’s only going to get worse. The surface area for attacks against LLM agents is absolutely colossal, and I’m not confident that the problems can be fixed.
by simonw | 2025-04-26 00:38:39+00:00
Yikes that letter is alarming.

> In view of public criticisms, including those expressed by Wikipedia Co-Founder Dr. Lawrence M. Sanger, regarding the opacity of editorial processes and the anonymity of contributors, what justification does the Foundation offer for shielding editors from public scrutiny?

Larry Sanger has been criticizing Wikipedia for more than 20 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger#Criticism_of_Wiki...

The author of that letter is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Martin_(Missouri_politician... - "the first U.S. attorney for D.C. in at least 50 years to be appointed without experience as a judge or a federal prosecutor".
by bitwize | 2025-04-26 00:38:45+00:00
Typing was only a universally applicable skill for maybe the past three or four decades. PCs were originally a hard sell among the C suite. You mean before I get anything out of this machine, I have to type things into it? That's what my secretary is for!

So if anything, we're going back to the past, when typing need only be learned by specialists who worked in certain fields: clerical work, data entry, and maybe programming.
by ceejayoz | 2025-04-26 00:39:03+00:00
That “narrow” band is the vast majority of American driving. People drastically overestimate their needs in this regard.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2023/07/07/...

> According to data from the U.S. Department of Transportation, 95.1 percent of trips taken in personal vehicles are less than 31 miles; almost 60 percent of all trips are less than 6 miles. In total, the average U.S. driver only covers about 37 miles per day.

> In a study published in 2016, researchers at MIT found that a car with a 73-mile range (like an early version of the Nissan Leaf), charged only at night, could satisfy 87 percent of all driving days in the United States.
by Jensson | 2025-04-26 00:39:38+00:00
That isn't bad faith, I believe you want to do good, I am just explaining the consequences of your actions. Trump currently has higher support than at almost any time before, that is thanks to people like you who over react and fight even the reasonable things the Trump administration does with fervor.

If I didn't believe in you then I wouldn't explain these things, I do it since I think things can change for the better.
by frognumber | 2025-04-26 00:41:18+00:00
I usually read coverage from different sides. If you don't realize where she screwed up, look at Fox News. If you don't realize where the FBI screwed up, look at NY Times.

Fox News perspective is that she broke court procedures in order to obstruct federal agents.

Prior cases seem to support that:

https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/massachusetts-judge-court-...

Case concluded with some kind of judicial reprimand (not criminal, but administrative). This one is further over the line.

Neutral description to LLM also supports that the judge acted improperly (but LLM didn't think this would lead to a conviction). LLMs aren't great at legal analysis, but are actually pretty good at pattern-matching cases.

One thing helpful to have is a lawful plan. The courthouse might have handled ICE without breaking protocols by having protocols. Protocols should be prima facie neutral, but it's reasonable to expect people in courts, schools, and other places we actually want them to show up to feel safe there. That shouldn't involve sneaking people through back doors or hiding them in jury areas.
by ipaddr | 2025-04-26 00:43:56+00:00
In fairness no artists are advertising a personal coloring book. The time, effort and cost would put this out of reach for 99.99 of people.

No artists are losing income because of this and no industry is being upended. This is a new product that's available because of a technology advanced.

Why the focus the artist? Everytime you order in food online you take away a tip from a host, server, bartender and take away a job from a person who answers a phone. Why focus on artists when so many have been affected by technology.
by tomatohs | 2025-04-26 00:44:23+00:00
This is exactly our workflow, though we defined our own YAML spec [1] for reasons mentioned in previous comments.

We have multiple fallbacks to prevent flakes; The "cheap" command, a description of the intended step, and the original prompt.

If any step fails, we fall back to the next source.

1. https://docs.testdriver.ai/reference/test-steps
by acscott314 | 2025-04-26 00:44:32+00:00
Glad this is getting some attention

For central limit theorem to hold, the random variables must be (independently and identically dustributed) i.i.d. How do we know our samples are i.i.d.? We can only show if they are not

Add to that https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Most_Published_Research_...

We've got to do better or science will stagnate
by poincaredisk | 2025-04-26 00:44:54+00:00
I'm not in the academy, but I do R&D, I published several times, and that's not how I work at all.

I have a broad and open-ended focus, I work as usual on the things I find interesting, then sometimes I see a thing that looks interesting and decide to investigate, then sometimes my initial tests give good results, but more often then they don't, but they give me an idea to do something completely different, and some iterations later I have a result.

I imagine that depends on a field of research. IT is cheap, but I imagine a physicist who wants to do an experiment must secure a funding first, because otherwise it's impossible to do anything. And it requires one to commit to a single topic of research.
by actsasbuffoon | 2025-04-26 00:44:55+00:00
As far as responsibility goes, sure. But when companies push LLMs into decision-making roles, you could end up being hurt by this even if you’re not the responsible party.

If you thought bureaucracy was dumb before, wait until the humans are replaced with LLMs that can be tricked into telling you how to make meth by asking them to role play as Dr House.
by vFunct | 2025-04-26 00:46:11+00:00
I have a question on non-profits in general. What exactly is the advantage of being incorporated as a non-profit, when all you have to do to not be taxed as a for-profit corporation is spend all your money each year and not show any profit? It seems you'd have more privacy as a for-profit corporation, since you don't have to disclose donors.
by godelski | 2025-04-26 00:46:25+00:00
> However, in that world, a company that chooses not to contribute

I swore I addressed this point, but I can't find it. You're right. I should have addressed this.

But this is still not an optimal strategy. It can give you a short term edge, but you're completely right that it destroys the natural coalition equilibrium. The result is that this destroys the coalition. You get the benefit for a small time period but it doesn't take long for the coalition to be abandoned and once that is done, you no longer gain from this strategy. In this situation the total utility in the system decreases! Not just globally, but each player's utility drops! That's a major problem! It is sacrificing long term rewards for short term ones. Importantly, those long term rewards are quite significant while the short term ones are not.

> How do we adjust the incentives so that bad actors are not motivated to cheat the system?

My answer? The government. I'm not a fan of big government, but they definitely have a role to play in the economy. A third party actor that serves as a moderator. Regulation to ensure that (near) globally beneficial (yet unstable) equilibria are maintained. Such regulation is beneficial to all parties involved, even the one that wants to undermine the coalition. I mean we can't just have shit being fucked up every time there's a dumb or malicious actor. A lot of things are unstable equilibria and it does take work to maintain them. A third party (especially one that benefits from global utility as opposed to individual utility) is necessary for stability. The other answer is, of course "The People". But this is a much more chaotic group, more easily influenced by nearsighted actors who can often convince them to also be shortsighted, especially when dealing with more abstract concepts..

> this is similar to playing Iterated Prisoners' Dilemma

It's worth noting here that Tit-for-tat strategies are optimal in this game AND maximal utility to any party is achieved when all parties cooperate continuously. But it is worth noting that humans are a bit irrational and have memory. Also worth noting that human actors are not rational. Hence the need for a third party moderator, which logically benefits both parties by saying "Stop being dumb and shooting yourself in the foot. This is an iterative game."

For some reason people think zero-sum games are common. Lump of Labor (Fixed-Pie) Fallacy is really common[0]. I do see high rates of zero-sum thinking around here on HN and in CS communities, and I'm not sure why it is so common. While I don't have the same expectations for the general public, we create things out of essentially limitless resources. We frequently create value that does not require additional compute or meaningful consumption of current resources (which is also increasing as time marches on). Our whole job is built on the fact that the pie continually grows in size and we are strongly rewarded for making the pie larger in the first place!

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy
by jamiejones1 | 2025-04-26 00:46:51+00:00
If a company discloses vulnerabilities, they can't also then write that their product can actually help mitigate those vulnerabilities? So, you want them to offer problems without solutions?

I get that ideally the company would offer a slew of solutions across many companies, but this is still good, no?

I mean it looks like finding vulnerabilities is central to this company's goal, which is why they employ many researchers. I'd imagine they also incorporate the mitigations for the vulns into their product. So it's sort of weird to be "against" this. Like, do you just not want companies who deal in selling cybersecurity solutions simultaneously involved in finding vulnerabilities?
by SanjayMehta | 2025-04-26 00:47:03+00:00
Wikipedia’s article on Sanger calls him cofounder and credits him with its name:

“ Lawrence Mark Sanger (/ˈsæŋər/ ⓘ;[1] born July 16, 1968) is an American Internet project developer and philosopher who co-founded Wikipedia along with Jimmy Wales. Sanger coined Wikipedia's name, and provided initial drafts for many of its early guidelines, including the "Neutral point of view" and "Ignore all rules" policies.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger
by anigbrowl | 2025-04-26 00:48:10+00:00
The problem is that different people have genuinely different ideas on what kind of modulations are sensible. My go-to example on this is E-mu gear - a company that started out making big modulars in the 70s and went on to dominate the sampler/rompler space for about a decade before going bust during the dot com boom and being absorbed by Creative.

the nice thing about E-my synths was that they nearly all had big modulation matrices included, although users were often defeated by the 2-line LCD on their romplers. But one strange omission from the modulation destinations was filter resonance; all their later modules included a huge (arguably excessive) selection of filter types, but for reasons of computational efficiency you could not adjust the resonance while a note was playing. This wasn't too bad from the front panel because most people want to ride the cutoff rather than the Q, but the inability to modulate it inadvertently highlighted some limitations of the filter design.

I can see both sides, as I am a 'let me modulate everything' person when choosing gear but at the same time I quite admire 'opinionated' synth designs where flexibility is traded off against maximizing sweet spots. Sometimes it's better to have an instrument with limited sonic range but which responds very consistently within that, so 'you can't get a bad sound out of it'.