MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by hunglee2 | 2025-05-25 10:13:10+00:00
it's pretty clear that voting for leaders is a bad idea - Trump 2.0 should be laying this aspect of democracy fully to rest.

What we need is a form of governance which is firstly competent, secondly aligned to the interests of the country, and thirdly connected to the will of the people via some mechanism. This is not a swappable hierarchy, but a clear system of what is most important first.

For a long time we have believed that voting for representatives (3) was the best method of securing (2) and (1) but now that is no longer the case, we need iterate on our systems of goverance, like we iterate on any system which has accrued too much debt (in the case of democracy, ideological debt)

Lottery is not a bad idea, but why have leaders in the first place? The practical problems of finding out what the people want have largely been solved with by mobile internet. How about a rotating cast of citizens, randomly selected by lottery, who must vote on policy choices presented by an AI? What about using a quadratic voting method so that citizens are incentivised to vote mainly on subjects in which they have a direct stake? Perhaps we should politically organise only locally and vote there, have representatives who have true local affiliation to vote on national issues?

The world is accelerating on tech innovation; we need to innovate in social and political spheres at commmensurate pace
by Disposal8433 | 2025-05-25 10:13:12+00:00
Glass had a backlash when privacy still existed. Now we have the Rabbit or the AI Pin, and everyone tells their deepest secrets (even commercial ones like source code) to ChatGPT without thinking about what could go wrong.

Even on HN we can see users saying that AI is better than a psychiatrist.

If it is cheaper than a Meta VR thing, it could be as popular as the latest iPhone.
by immibis | 2025-05-25 10:14:06+00:00
This is vacuous as a followup to the original claim - which was that they're provably good at allocating resources to create value (the last part being implied).

"The system is good because it selects the ones who can create value" "No actually they don't create value" "Well, at least we know they're either creating value or destroying it" you see how that doesn't support the original claim at all
by FrancoisT | 2025-05-25 10:14:42+00:00
Your point is really interesting, I've seen similar articles and I still can't figure out why and how spreadsheets could be replaced by Jupyter Notebooks. While they are awesome for data analysis and building code by section, to the best of my knowledge the sequential execution lacks the flexibility of the dynamic interdependence of spreadsheets, so having the possibility to call dynamically Python code seems awesome to me in the context with several interconnected variable as it allows quick, simple and dynamic modeling. Am I missing something?
by imiric | 2025-05-25 10:16:27+00:00
You're right, it's not much different at all. People have been walking around with headphones for decades, and the same prejudice existed early on when Bluetooth headsets were all the rage. XR glasses simply expand this to another sense.

Can it arguably be more dangerous? Sure. But we'll come up with more technology and regulation to minimize the dangers. And the prejudice will eventually go away as well.

As much as I think that everyone walking around with these things is unsettling in a dystopian way, transhumanism is inevitable, and this is just another step in that direction.
by buran77 | 2025-05-25 10:16:35+00:00
This kind of false equivalence only brings the quality of conversation down and also waters down the gravity of what's really happening. I just never expected anyone would go so low as to equate people being turned away at the border or worse, be detained, questioned, and a pile of other abuses, with a pigeon detained for carrying what was suspected to be a spy message.

No, it's not the same everywhere. No, it's not because some countries are too dumb to be criminally abusive. And no, this is not just an inevitable outcome from "being too capable at detecting real threats".

If you go so far out of your way to water down and defend the indefensible you make it close to impossible to find any charitable interpretation, instead of moral complicity or trolling.
by notahacker | 2025-05-25 10:16:37+00:00
I think that's genuinely interesting anecdata (even if Trumpists have changed their mind before), but ultimately the executive decides whether they're going to follow the constitution, not the people that originally voted for them and Congress has been utterly spineless when it comes to other things that play badly with the base like trashing the economy.

And on the original topic, whether Trump ultimately decides to enjoy being kingmaker for the next presumptive nominee (someone's got to be pitching him an Apprentice style TV show...) in order to enjoy a happy retirement is moot when the presumptive nominee for Republican candidacy is going to be someone with similar policy and behaviour extremes. In fact, in some respects the prospects for things like collaborative scientific research if someone who espouses Trumpism but isn't Trump are probably even worse due to them being less incompetent and less straightforward to flatter/bribe into declaring that actually $organization or $country isn't terrible wokes or dangerous criminals after all and they in fact have a very strong relationship. Vance seems to believe some of his schtick. Sure, the successor probably won't be favourites to win a free and fair election in which they're saddled with Trump's mistakes and lack his charisma or cult, but if you're doing medium term planning you can't count on that faction being out of power forever
by stonepresto | 2025-05-25 10:16:47+00:00
I know there were at least a few kernel devs who "validated" this bug, but did anyone actually build a PoC and test it? It's such a critical piece of the process yet a proof of concept is completely omitted? If you don't have a PoC, you don't know what sort of hiccups would come along the way and therefore can't determine exploitability or impact. At least the author avoided calling it an RCE without validation.

But what if there's a missing piece of the puzzle that the author and devs missed or assumed o3 covered, but in fact was out of o3's context, that would invalidate this vulnerability?

I'm not saying there is, nor am I going to take the time to do the author's work for them, rather I am saying this report is not fully validated which feels like a dangerous precedent to set with what will likely be an influential blog post in the LLM VR space moving forward.

IMO the idea of PoC || GTFO should be applied more strictly than ever before to any vulnerability report generated by a model.

The underlying perspective that o3 is much better than previous or other current models still remains, and the methodology is still interesting. I understand the desire and need to get people to focus on something by wording it a specific way, it's the clickbait problem. But dammit, do better. Build a PoC and validate your claims, don't be lazy. If you're going to write a blog post that might influence how vulnerability researchers conduct their research, you should promote validation and not theoretical assumption. The alternative is the proliferation of ignorance through false-but-seemingly-true reporting, versus deepening the community's understanding of a system through vetted and provable reports.
by tomhow | 2025-05-25 10:17:05+00:00
Please don't register accounts to break the guidelines with.

Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Show HN: Chakra – An open source WASM runtime in Rust
by anistark | 2025-05-25 10:18:36+00:00
Hey folks

I'm building *[Chakra](https://github.com/anistark/chakra)* — a lightweight WebAssembly runtime and dev tool that runs `.wasm` files in your browser with live logging, reload, and module introspection.

```sh chakra myfile.wasm ```

What it does:

* Launches a local Chakra server * Runs the `.wasm` file in-browser * Streams logs to console and browser * Includes `verify` and `inspect` modes for detailed module analysis of your wasm binary.

Built for:

* Rust (via `wasm32-unknown-unknown`) * TinyGo * C/C++ (via Emscripten) * Python (via py2wasm) * AssemblyScript

It's in very early phase and highly experimental. Building Chakra as an open source project the open and would love feedback, bug reports, and contributions. You can read more about the motivation and background here: [https://blog.anirudha.dev/chakra](https://blog.anirudha.dev/chakra)

GitHub: [https://github.com/anistark/chakra](https://github.com/anistark/chakra)

Let me know what works, what’s missing, and what you’d want in your ideal WASM workflow! Give us a shout-out or star the repo on github if you like the idea.
by emeril | 2025-05-25 10:20:20+00:00
don't get your hopes up - I fully plan on moving to Canada and sending my children to college there even if we elect a "better" president in the future

the fact that roughly half of of the electorate is fine with how things are as well as virtually all of the republicans in the senate and the house are too "scared" to do anything (complete BS as this is the very definition of their job) is really an embarrassment of civilization and humanity - apes are more evolved than we are
by immibis | 2025-05-25 10:20:30+00:00
> Since I refuse to manually annotate them, I've had to relentlessly improve my analyzers until they get every last corner case right.

I've fallen into this trap enough times to recognize it as a trap now. Good for you that it works for you, but in general, automation of loosely-defined problems just doesn't get 100% of cases right and once it works, you need to streamline the manual process instead.
by jp0001 | 2025-05-25 10:20:44+00:00
We followed a very similar approach at work, created a test harness and tested all the models available in AWS bedrock and the OpenAI. We created our own code challenges not available on the Internet for training with vulnerable and non-vulnerable inline snippets and more contextual multi-file bugs. We also used 100 tests per challenge - I wanted to do 1000 test per challenge but realized that these models are not even close to 2 Sigma in accuracy! Overall we found very similar results. But, we were also able to increase accuracy using additional methods - which comes as additional costs. The issue I see overall is that we found is when dealing with large codebases you'll need to put blinders on the LLMs to shorten context windows so that hallucinated results are less likely to happen. The worst thing would be to follow red herrings - perhaps in 5 years we'll have models used for more engineering specific tasks that can be rated with Six Sigma accuracy if posed with the same questions and problems sets.
by mnky9800n | 2025-05-25 10:21:05+00:00
Because of solar wind. After the sun formed from the material of the proto solar system it started producing solar winds. This pushes light elements to the edge of the solar system but heavy elements stay. So rocky planets form. Then the light elements collect as well and reenter the interior solar system as comets which redeposit light elements on the surface of rocky planets. In the mean time the light elements that collected together in great quantities formed the gas planets.

This is all a very traditional view afaik and doesn’t explain where mantle light elements come from. For example there is a great deal of water that is in the mantle that drives geochemical changes in the mantle rocks. Was that there originally? Or was it put their after plate tectonics started and subduction sucked water into the mantle? I don’t know but I would assume there are plenty of geodynamics people who would have opinions more deeper than mine on the topic.
by rsynnott | 2025-05-25 10:21:12+00:00
Yeah, this makes very little sense. Around me, it's pretty much just self-checkouts now, outside of peak times. There's generally one manual till open to sell cigarettes, and that's it.

Tellingly, the newest supermarket in the area (Tesco, not any sort of weird startup) only has space for one manual checkout, plus about 15 self-checkouts.
by jaza | 2025-05-25 10:21:53+00:00
Valid points in the article and in many of the comments here. BUT: taken to the extreme, "yes, reinvent the wheel!" quickly becomes NIH ("not invented here") syndrome, which I've seen one too many times in enterprise stacks, as I'm sure plenty of you folks have too. We don't need no stinkin' wheels from the OUTSIDE!

I think every codebase needs a healthy and pragmatic balance of "this particular wheel we can and should build ourselves, and it'll work better (for us at least!) than any other wheels out there" vs "there is a standard wheel for this, 10 million other horse-and-carriages out there use the same wheel, it's not worth us using a non-standard wheel for this thing".
by 3036e4 | 2025-05-25 10:22:41+00:00
About 1, directory of files, many formats these days are just a bunch of files in a ZIP. One thing most applications lack unfortunately is a way to instead just read and write the part files from/to a directory. For one thing it makes it much better for version control, but also just easier to access in general when experimenting. I don't understand why this is not more common, since as a developer it is much more fun to debug things when each thing is its own file rather than an entry in an archive. Most times it is also trivial to support both, since any API for accessing directory entries will be close to 1:1 to an API for accessing ZIP entries anyway.

When editing a file locally I would prefer to just have it split up in a directory 99% of the time, only exporting to a ZIP to publish it.

Of course it is trivial to write wrapper scripts to keep zipping and unzipping files, and I have done that, but it does feel a bit hacky and should be an unnecessary extra step.
by immibis | 2025-05-25 10:25:19+00:00
Any fool can write an encryption algorithm that he himself can't break. The NSA would greatly prefer that you did, too. Security is an arms race - you have to counter the latest generation of attackers.

It's okay to write a compiler or a database if you only know the basic principles, but it's not okay to write an encryption algorithm, or even an implementation of one, using only basic principles, because someone who knows more than you will break it.

For instance, were you aware that every time you write array[index], it leaks data to other threads in other processes on the same CPU, including JavaScript code running inside web browsers?
by thih9 | 2025-05-25 10:25:27+00:00
> If you have to rewrite an awkward passage, you'll never do it in a way that makes it less true. You couldn't bear it, any more than gravity could bear things floating upward. So any change in the ideas has to be a change for the better.

I don't get that point. I'd say that there are many ways a thought could get diluted, misinterpreted, turned into wrong conclusions, or made less clear on subsequent iterations.

Just like the metaphor of shaking a bin with different objects doesn't work if the objects are tomatoes, glass or cats.

PG's essays could be a case of this; other examples are often seen in politics, when complex topics are trivialized by demagogues. A lighter example could be "Uncleftish Beholding"[1], an attempt to write about the atomic theory in a way that (very arguably) reads better.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncleftish_Beholding
by _dain_ | 2025-05-25 10:26:01+00:00
>Instead, due to culture war side taking, they hobble themselves to be ever dependent on the petro-extraction and refinement industries.

it's a little more complicated than that. check out the map of which states use gas stoves vs electric.

https://www.statista.com/chart/29082/most-common-type-of-sto...
by Jamesits | 2025-05-25 10:26:29+00:00
"Native Windows look and feel".

Before actually launching it, I hoped it's listview had context menu, and double clicking certain fields would lead to (in-line-ish) dropdown menus or textboxes.

Maybe people don't know how to design programs for the Win32 UI/UX anymore, or maybe I'm too old for this.
by TheOtherHobbes | 2025-05-25 10:26:44+00:00
Trump is in terrible physical health, and his cognitive decline will only accelerate. The odds of him making it to 2028 aren't good.

The Republicans have until the mid-terms to either fix the next election or install a no-compromise terror state.

Terrorising the population with ICE, suspending due process, and removing habeas corpus all suggest the plan is the latter. As is the absence of realistic reporting and criticism from a (mostly) captured MSM.

Sooner or later confrontations with ICE will turn violent, and then it gets very dark indeed.
by Hilift | 2025-05-25 10:28:15+00:00
> DGX Cloud Lepton, is designed to link artificial intelligence developers with Nvidia’s network of cloud providers, which provide access to its graphics processing units, or GPUs. Some of Nvidia’s cloud provider partners include CoreWeave, Lambda and Crusoe.

> "Nvidia DGX Cloud Lepton connects our network of global GPU cloud providers with AI developers," said Jensen Huang, chief executive of Nvidia in a statement. The news was announced at the Computex conference in Taiwan.

Sounds like a preferred developer resource. The target audience isn't the usual cro-mag that wants to run LLM's for food.
by barnabee | 2025-05-25 10:29:50+00:00
> why should an artist be required to make their creations free for anyone to use after a certain period of time?

If it’s digital it’s free by default, even protected IP that isn’t digital is often cheap to copy or substantially replicate

So a better question is, why should people be prevented from making copies of things they like at their own expense forever?

The rights we give creators over their creations are not fundamental rights, they’re legal rights given because society decides the positives (incentivising creation, enabling creation to be an industry) outweigh the negatives (artificially restricting the flow of information, reducing and gatekeeping access to valuable art and knowledge, etc.).

There’s no particular reason to believe that the optimal solution here is either a complete lack of “IP” protection or giving creators absolute control and exclusivity in perpetuity.

It’s almost certainly neither, but IMO it’s quite clearly much less protection than creators currently enjoy.
Which name feels more like a project management tool?
by Eden-W | 2025-05-25 10:30:35+00:00
Hi HN,

We're rebranding an open-source project management tool and stuck between three possible names. I'd love to get your opinion on which one sounds most like a trustworthy, serious PM app — just based on name alone.

The options are:

- ZenTao - Sanplex - Bugfree

Some context: ZenTao is the current name (https://www.zentao.pm/), Sanplex is a new invented name, and Bugfree is our original name from a decade ago — which we recently reacquired.

What’s your gut feeling? Which one would you be more likely to click on, or trust as a PM tool? No marketing here, just honestly curious how these land with people who work in tech/product.

Thanks!
by rzzzt | 2025-05-25 10:32:26+00:00
I got the same version back in the day (the company was still JASC and not Corel). Installers with the same try-before-you-buy wrapper in later editions did stop working as expected at the end of the trial period.

Someone mentioning it here on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17653051
by TheOtherHobbes | 2025-05-25 10:33:06+00:00
Trump doesn't need a memory. He's being told what to do by Miller, Vought, and the other Heritage/2025 crazies.

They were very, very angry about the Greeland/EU mineral deal, which is why Trump immediately slapped a huge tariff on EU imports.

But Trump only cares about Trump. As long as he's getting attention, being on TV, scamming people, and cheating at golf, he's perfectly happy. He has no long term goals beyond that.
by strogonoff | 2025-05-25 10:33:57+00:00
Yes, the zipped version is number four. It’s not great for the reason you noted. Some people come up with smudge/clean filters that handle the (de)compression, letting Git store the more structured version of the data even though your working directory contains the compressed files your software can read and write—but I don’t know how portable these things are. I agree with you in general, and it is also why my number one example is that you might not need a single-file format at all. macOS app bundles is a great example of this approach in the wild.

One question I was hoping to ask anyone who thought about these matters: what accepted approaches do exist out there when it comes to documenting/speccing out file formats? Ideally, including the cases where the “file” is in fact a directory with a specific layout.
by strogonoff | 2025-05-25 10:34:03+00:00
Different trade-offs is why it might make sense to embrace the Unix way for file formats: do one thing well, and document it so that others can do a different thing well with the same data and no loss.

For example, if it is an archival/recording oriented use case, then you make it cheap/easy to add data and possibly add some resiliency for when recording process crashes. If you want efficient random access, streaming, storage efficiency, the same dataset can be stored in a different layout without loss of quality—and conversion between them doesn’t have to be extremely optimal, it just should be possible to implement from spec.

Like, say, you record raw video. You want “all of the quality” and you know all in all it’s going to take terabytes, so bringing excess capacity is basically a given when shooting. Therefore, if some camera maker, in its infinite wisdom, creates a proprietary undocumented format to sliiightly improve on file size but “accidentally” makes it unusable in most software without first converting it using their own proprietary tool, you may justifiedly not appreciate it. (Canon Cinema Raw Light HQ—I kid you not, that’s what it’s called—I’m looking at you.)

On this note, what are the best/accepted approaches out there when it comes to documenting/speccing out file formats? Ideally something generalized enough that it can also handle cases where the “file” is in fact a particularly structured directory (a la macOS app bundle).
Show HN: Movie-AI – Get Film Recommendations Based on AI and Emotion
by MovieAI | 2025-05-25 10:34:04+00:00
Hi HN,

I’ve built Movie-AI — a platform that uses AI to recommend movies based on your personal preferences, mood, or curiosity. In addition to that, I’m publishing in-depth articles about underrated films, AI tools in cinema, and curated guides for movie lovers who are also into technology.

Right now it features:

A minimal, fast frontend without distractions

100% AI-powered recommendations (no traditional ratings)

Articles about underrated sci-fi films, emotional AI tools, and hidden gems

No ads, no tracking

It’s a personal side project, and I’d love to hear your feedback on what could be improved or added.

Thanks for checking it out: https://movie-ai.top/