MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by impostervt | 2025-05-29 15:49:37+00:00
I take a similar approach to investing on Masterworks (they sell shares of paintings). Most investors seem to buy the upfront offering, which is always $20/share, regardless of the painting. They don't seem to realize that MW holds onto the paintings for years, so it can be hard to cash out. Many will sell at a loss just to get their cash our before the painting is sold, so I can buy their shares very cheap.
by rchaud | 2025-05-29 15:49:53+00:00
I don't think I did. The homepage is the only thing that's unique about the design. Had you arrived on any page besides that, you would think this is a bog-standard developer's blogsite, one skinny column amid a sea of white space.

It's possible to have an ugly site that's still easily navigable and visually interesting, even if the author is the only user.
by coldpie | 2025-05-29 15:50:04+00:00
I think it is a little of both :) Emotional support animals are a real thing, but they are expensive and require a lot of maintenance and there are limits on where they may be taken. Stuffed animals can make people feel better for similar reasons, it's a companion to "talk to" or a nice familiar sight, and they have a lot lower bar to ownership than real animals do. So a stuffed animal can be reasonably considered to be in the same category as a real emotional support animal, but they are obviously a lot less serious than a real animal. So it's fun and funny to choose an animal with a bit of silliness and humor to it, like a chicken.

It is a joke, yeah, but it can also be a mood booster. So it's both.
by eviks | 2025-05-29 15:50:21+00:00
Censorship is also about filtering out the messengers. But I wasn't talking about that, even my example was about banning, not censorship. And it wasn't about you minimizing it either, just that the argument which you've repeated here doesn't hold - if you ignore why Google changes negatively impacted the number of hits you can make no counter re. censorship.

By the way, if they made changes to filter out travel advice messages (from small travel sites) because they think such messages are undesirable since they hurt their ability to earn money from AI models, than the same negative impact would meet your definition of censorship, no?
by nthingtohide | 2025-05-29 15:51:45+00:00
here's a counterpoint.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_of_Finance

> One of the main themes of the book is the role played by the central bankers' insistence to adhere to the gold standard "even in the face of total catastrophe."[1] As Joe Nocera, a book reviewer at the New York Times, stated, "the central bankers were prisoners of the economic orthodoxy of their time: the powerful belief that sound monetary policy had to revolve around the gold standard...Again and again, this straitjacket caused the central bankers — especially Norman, gold’s most fervent advocate — to make moves, like raising interest rates, that would allow their countries to hold on to their dwindling gold supplies, even though the larger economy desperately needed help in the form of lower interest rates."
by ivape | 2025-05-29 15:52:06+00:00
I don’t think anything is weird anymore. The ultimate reality of free will is that you will always have the option to do right and wrong. If you don’t have faith, this privilege will be difficult. The human left to their own devices will always have a shifting sense of morality (turning a ship by 1 degree at a time).

Faith was a gift to help.

In terms of Christ, let me put it this way. Imagine your high school, and one day the President of the US visits. You may not directly see him, but the whole school would know about it, even if he was just there for 5 minutes. It’s a matter of faith, and it’s the little bit you need to help with the gift of free will.

The very first story (well second story) in the main monotheistic books was the Eden Story. That story is all about how vulnerable we are with the choice of free will. Empirically, we have seen the failure of it over and over throughout human history (systemically you can easily see it). So, yes, I fully believe in the fallen nature of man, not because we are evil, but because what a gift and responsibility free will actually is.
by bitbang | 2025-05-29 15:52:14+00:00
That’s not what that means at all, your inserting modern values into the parable. In the culture of that time, the rich were viewed with high regard. The understanding was that if you were rich, then clearly you were in a favorable relationship to God because he was blessing you with wealth. With that understanding, the sentence that directly follows the parable makes a lot more sense: “When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, ‘Who then can be saved?’” A modern telling of the parable would replace the rich man with a monk who’s taken a vow of poverty to run an orphanage in a God-forsaken third world country. The parable was intended to portray an absurdly impossible standard to entry; the whole point being that human merit, status, or morality, regardless of however the cultural context may define that, does not afford one any distinctive advantage before God.
by hatradiowigwam | 2025-05-29 15:54:34+00:00
> Statistics and wagering aside, IMO, he'd fair poorly (like the previous visit).

If I remember correctly...his first visit was prophesied to end exactly as it did. His next visit is prophesied to be a little different - to paraphrase...he is coming with an army to make war on the beast and all [humans] who follow him. Instead of a spotless robe like earlier depictions - this robe is drenched in blood, and he has a sword coming out of his mouth. Here's the passage immediately following description of this second coming(Revelations 19).

“Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”

I don't think this visit is supposed to be like the previous one. I strongly encourage you all read this book(the bible) and take it to heart. You aren't my friend, or someone that I know - but it would give me no pleasure at all to know you were spending eternity in hell. We don't get down seeing people suffer, or "you'll all be sorry when you see I'm right!!!" style feelings. If those true believers seem like a bunch of elitist jerks who are always putting you down instead of helping you up, those are /NOT/ true believers. Those are true assholes.
by ddp26 | 2025-05-29 15:54:46+00:00
I've been involved in prediction markets for a while, and this story highlights why I'm now more optimistic about using AI than crowdsourcing humans.

So much, possibly the vast majority, of intellectual energy that goes into prediction markets is not about forecasting. Like the example Eric gives of “This Market Will Resolve No At The End Of 2025”, it's about arbitrage, it's about edge cases, it's about interest rates, it's about resolution disputes, it's about sniping the dumb money faster than others.

Prediction markets are a brilliant way to incentivize accuracy and good research. But you don't see much of that on Polymarket.
by leoh | 2025-05-29 15:54:49+00:00
They're just trying to offer an easy way to try things out and unsafe code from Firefox would be insanely harmful for their brand. Of course, if you take a moment to merely download the bash script and inspect it. It's truly not dissimilar from downloading a repository from GitHub and building it. In general, certainly, yes, you don't want to run arbitrary programs.
by nasretdinov | 2025-05-29 15:54:55+00:00
I personally see ClickHouse still improving in terms of overall usability and becoming much more polished, introducing features like full-text indexing, JSON data type, etc, all open-source and completely free. The commercial offering deviates from the "bare-bones", "build-it-yourself" storage, but, again, in my opinion it makes perfect sense to commercialise this part of it, to allow the product overall to continue to evolve and be successful. Otherwise ClickHouse as an open-source database probably wouldn't be able to evolve so quickly since the needs of Yandex don't always align with the needs of other users of the database
by aidenn0 | 2025-05-29 15:55:06+00:00
> Approaches to avoid constructors/destructors such as ZII play very poorly with ref values as well. What you end up with is some period of time where a value is quasi valid - since non-null types need to be assigned and it's in a broken state before it's initially assigned.

I don't see that as a problem; don't separate declaration from assignment and it will never be unassigned. Then a ZII non-null pointer is always a compile-time error.
by mrguyorama | 2025-05-29 15:55:17+00:00
Even worse, they spend every cent on stupid prepper bullshit like freeze dried rations!

Rations will not help you or your family if civilization breaks down. Without a literal army, you are no more powerful than the ones who did nothing to prepare. All rations do is ensure that you starve to death a month later than expected.

Even better, those of you that collected guns and ammo as a hobby are about as prepared as the people who jokingly collect bottle caps in reference to Fallout. You have ensured you die first.

If you are not currently capable of planting, tending, and harvesting an entire acre of potatoes every year, you will not survive post civilization. If you do not have a stable of oxen and a simple machine shop to repair the old fashioned steel plow you own, you will not survive. If you do not already have fully formed pest control, without chemical inputs or external solutions, you will not survive.

It took humanity thousands of years to develop agriculture. Farming isn't a game. You will not pick it up after the end of civilization. You will not get it right on the first try. You will not reinvent it while hungry. Even if you get lucky and nothing goes wrong for a few growing seasons, you WILL have a failed crop eventually, and you will starve. Even successful farming is an eventual death sentence without civilization.

People who prep for "after the end" are not serious people. If you had a serious concern about the potential fall of civilization, you would not buy food and bullets, you would be throwing every resource you have at improving democratic representation and access, to prevent civilization from falling.

It might not be possible to restart if we kill it.

Prepping is like trying to develop a backup strategy after the datacenter has already burned down. Even if you are successful, have you really, honestly, considered what success looks like?
by calmbonsai | 2025-05-29 15:55:45+00:00
I didn't believe that Discount Usability Engineering was useful until we tried it. I was absolutely blown away by the results and have continued the practice for every design and re-design. Thank you Mr. Nielsen.

The old UseIt.com https://web.archive.org/web/19990125092506/http://useit.com/ will forever live rent-free in my brain.
by vondur | 2025-05-29 15:55:50+00:00
"And do Englishmen so soon forget the ground where liberty was fought for? Tell your neighbours and your children that this is holy ground, much holier than that on which your churches stand. All England should come in pilgrimage to this hill once a year." John Adams wrote that while touring the site of the final battle of the English Civil War. I'd agree that the English Civil War is not covered in much detail in US Schools.
by lotsofpulp | 2025-05-29 15:55:58+00:00
I don’t want to regulate anyone’s life.

But if to want society’s resources, seems fair for society to want something from you.

People don’t seem to have a problem with dangerous drivers paying more for auto liability insurance. In the US, we subsidize healthcare costs from alcohol use and overeating, but we explicitly charge people more for healthcare costs due to tobacco use.

It’s all just various political tribes flexing on who can get away with what.
by N1H1L | 2025-05-29 15:56:10+00:00
I have a problem with Python's `Optional` type. For example for this following code:

from typing import Optional, Union def square( a: Union[int, float], b: Optional[int] = 2 ) -> float: c = a**b return c

Many type checkers throw an error because `Optional[int]` actually means `int | None` and you cannot square an `int` or a `float` with a `None`. Is there any plans for *ty* around this?
by baranoncel | 2025-05-29 15:56:36+00:00
Thanks for the great question! Here's how I actually did it step by step.

I started with OpenAI's O3 Deep Search to create the initial prompts and cursor.rules file. This was crucial because O3 helped me think through the entire project architecture and create detailed prompts that would guide Claude throughout the development process.

First, I used O3 Deep Search to brainstorm the complete product concept. I asked it to help me define the user journey, technical requirements, and all the integrations I'd need. From this, O3 generated comprehensive prompts for each development phase and helped me create a cursor.rules file that would keep Claude focused on the right patterns and coding standards.

The cursor.rules file was key because it told Claude exactly how to structure code, what libraries to use, naming conventions, and architectural decisions. This prevented the context breaking issues that would normally happen in long conversations.

Once I had the prompts and rules set up, I moved everything to Cursor with Claude 4. The workflow became really smooth because Claude already knew the full context from the rules file. I could just say "build the user authentication system" and it would follow all the established patterns. The file structure and dependencies were maintained because the cursor.rules file specified exactly how to organize everything. Claude knew to put components in the right folders, use the existing UI patterns, and maintain consistent imports across the codebase.

When I hit rate limits or had to start new conversations, I just referenced back to the original prompts from O3 and the cursor.rules file. This kept everything coherent even when switching contexts.

The external libraries and integrations worked because O3 had helped me plan out almost all the API connections upfront. I just give it Fal AI models. Claude knew exactly which APIs to use for each feature because it was all defined in the initial architecture.

The process was basically: O3 Deep Search for planning and prompt creation, then Cursor with Claude 4 for all the actual coding. The O3 planning phase was what made the difference - without that upfront architecture work, the long development process would have fallen apart.

So my advice is start with O3 to create your master plan and cursor.rules, then move to Cursor for execution. The planning phase is what makes the magic happen.
by jjulius | 2025-05-29 15:56:43+00:00
Respectfully, to the author's point, none of that matters and neither does anything in your previous post. The author likes it, and has fun creating it and enjoys molding and re-shaping it to their own changing desires over the years. That's what they find important to them, not anything that you've mentioned. As the author writes...

>Somebody with good taste could’ve made my website, but then it wouldn’t be mine.

>To bake bread, many feel compelled to grow wheat, mine salt, culture yeast, etc. Not me. My puerile palate yearns for buckets of Olive Garden breadsticks.

>That’s okay. Your “mine” is not my "mine."

... and...

>Soon it will become something else entirely. Because it’s my website and I’m perpetually becoming somebody else.

>You’ll change too. Your passions and values will pollinate; your ugly thing – whatever it is – will come alive again and again.

They've created something that is authentically "them", in a way that is authentically "them". And they love that. Not having images, or icons, or categories, or being easily navigable, or having a blog post section that looks "bog-standard" to you or anybody else are all completely irrelevant.

Hell yes, more power to them, I say.
by inanutshellus | 2025-05-29 15:56:50+00:00
His original design was clean, minimalist and... unremarkable.

Now it's an intentionally-jumbled chaos. Ugly or not, it's remarkable. After all... we are busy remarking on it.

The new design has impracticalities / downsides, specifically it's hard to visually locate a specific link if you leave and came back, but... that's not something that matters to him.

He wants /unsettling/, /dischordant/, /interesting/, and more importantly /MINE/.
by immibis | 2025-05-29 15:57:18+00:00
That's a mortgage rate. Interest rates are usually described generally by using the Treasury rate, which is currently hovering around 4%, which is on the low side of the long-term historical average, which is more like 8% and has been up to 15%. A few years ago, it was 2%. The jump up to 4% is a reversal of a decades-long downward trend, which occurs because more money is in circulation each year, relative to the amount of money the government spends.

Antitrust enforcement is when it's enforced. Court cases are merely attempted enforcement so far.
by milesvp | 2025-05-29 15:58:22+00:00
Yeah, I don’t know, I suspect you’re right. I know that 25 years ago there were big flat speakers thay drove sound with little holes. Those things could only handle high ends despite being very large themselves. But I know that with DSP you can treat an array of microphones as a single microphone, and the diameter of the array sort of dictates the size of the microphone. Speakers and mics tend to sort of be opposites, in that you can drive or be driven by either. For years I’ve wanted to build a wall of cheap speakers and experiment with this. I suspect I’d find out what we already know, which is to get deep frequencies you have to move a lot of air, and an array of small piezos can never move a lot of air…

That said, it might matter a lot what the substrait was. If it was light and flexible, you could maybe get all the piezos to move it in a way to get a very deep frequency. You could probably get deeper frequncies than the power output of the piezos by taking advantage of the resonance frequency of the material. But you’d be stuck with that one frequency, and there’d be a tradeoff in response time
by SyrupThinker | 2025-05-29 15:58:26+00:00
What a boring website...

It fails to differentiate between JavaScript engines, a core language implementation, and runtimes, an engine plus the useful parts needed for writing software (os, event loop etc.).

It lists engines like boa, duktape or Hermes as if they are the same thing as Node, Deno or Bun, but at the same time doesn't even mention SpiderMonkey, V8 or JavaScriptCore, as if realizing they are not actually in the same class.

I guess the snark wouldn't work as well if a chunk of the list gets eliminated by thinking about it.
by boroboro4 | 2025-05-29 15:58:51+00:00
> The problem I've had with MRNA vaccines is that we decided a lengthy multi-year trial protocol was necessary to ensure vaccines are safe and effective.

I, actually, agree on this. It was hard balancing act of protecting the population (quite successfully I will note) vs lack of perfect certainty about safety. I've read there've been clinical trials of other mRNA vaccines in mid 2010s so there've been some research data available.

Now, on other hand, we have a lot of data to dig into and seemingly to prove safety of the vaccines.

> Moreover, at one point they wanted to force [2] them on the population.

Yeah, I think this wasn't a good idea. Especially after it was clear we're not getting full protection and covid turning to be endemic.

> If the vaccine really is safe and effective, why was the waiver necessary?

Balancing act mentioned above protecting suppliers, won't be surprised if it was part of negotiations between government and vaccine manufacturers.

I think we can see mRNA vaccine are mostly safe (and we'll get even better certainty about it as time passes) which is given how cool the technology is opens up a lot of opportunities.
by plainOldText | 2025-05-29 15:58:53+00:00
Indeed. There’s a port for macOS though.

And yet out all these newer C-like languages, it looks like Hare probably takes the crown for simplicity. Among other things, Hare uses QBE[1] as a backend compiler, which is about 10% the complexity of LLVM.

[1] https://c9x.me/compile/
by csense | 2025-05-29 15:59:40+00:00
> why shouldn't the visitor keep that proof to themselves and use it instead

Because they can't, if the website operator designs their JavaScript correctly. In detail:

If Alice goes to Bob's website, Bob tells Alice to find a hash with 20 leading zeros for a Bitcoin block that says "Send the newly printed bitcoins and transaction fees to Bob." (It will take Alice ~2^20 guesses to find such a block, so Bob picked the number 20 such that those ~2^20 guesses happen in a couple seconds for normal humans with normal web browsers on normal devices.)

Supposing the actual Bitcoin blockchain needs a hash with 50 leading zeros, one in every 2^30 Alice's will mine a valid block (worth ~$300k at current Bitcoin prices).

If Alice finds a block with 50 leading zeros and then tries to change the block to say "Send the newly printed bitcoins and transaction fees to Alice," her new block will have a different hash (that is very unlikely to have 2^50 leading zeros), and neither the website nor the blockchain will accept it.

Sure, Alice could change the block at the beginning before starting the search. But if she finds a block with 20 leading zeros that says "Send the newly printed bitcoins and transaction fees to Alice," Bob won't accept it for access to his website. The only way Alice gets anything for a block that sends the coins to herself is from the Bitcoin blockchain if she finds a 2^50 block -- at that point, Alice is just mining Bitcoins for herself and not interacting with Bob's website at all.

(If a 1 in a billion chance to win $300k is too risky for Bob's liking, he can get a lower payout with a higher probability by using a different proof-of-work blockchain and/or a mining pool.)
by candiddevmike | 2025-05-29 15:59:48+00:00
Without merging these two organizations, it's really hard to see how this ends well. Cross-org collaboration within a conglomerate is real "knives out" territory, no one wants to cede power and they all want the integration to be "equal" in some sense. Terraform and Ansible's billing models are wildly different as well, not sure how you marry them together (are CloudPaks still a thing?). At least Ansible Tower is somewhat useful compared to TFE as a workflow tool, maybe that will be the integration point.
by JohnMakin | 2025-05-29 15:59:57+00:00
I can shed some light on this, maybe -

In the year before the 2020 election, a market opened on predictit called "Will Hillary run for president? Yes/No"

First this was a reasonable market, but quickly it became obvious she wasn't running (because she repeatedly said she wasn't, there was no campaign created at all, absolutely zero indicators she was running because she wasn't). Predictit allowed a comment section where people worked themselves into a frenzy every time some hillary "news" dropped that somehow secretly indicated she was running a phantom campaign. She missed primary registration deadlines - that only made the "Yes" market move up. There were still people hammering Yes up until a few weeks before the actual election and they closed the market.

Anyway it was the same thing. Low % "Yes" and 95+% "No." However, I found an edge holding on to a "baseline" Yes I'd established (1-2%, I can't remember) and just sell the waves of "news" that would spike it to 5+%. Then buy again at the baseline. There were a lot of shenanigans in the comments and people attempting to move the market with various tactics - it was a wild ride and one of my favorite markets I'd ever studied/participated in.

There are probably some true believers in the "Yes" jesus purchasers here but I imagine a lot of what I'm describing here too.