MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by nobody9999 | 2025-05-29 08:07:26+00:00
>It's not a "gotcha". It's just objective fact. There were no war resolutions for Korea and Vietnam.

Yeah. Not so much.

While the Korean conflict was not explicitly authorized by Congress, it was tacitly approved by Congress by passing several bills that both directly and indirectly appropriated funds to prosecute the Korean conflict.

That this wasn't followed up by a vote in Congress to make that official is definitely a constitutional issue, but one that SCOTUS did not address directly.

You're quite correct that Congress didn't declare war or provide explicit authorization for the use of military force. That said, it's not quite as cut and dried as you make it out to be.[0][1][2]

Congress gave the Executive branch explicit authorization for the use of military force in Vietnam with the Tonkin Gulf Resolution[3].

[0] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C11-2...

[1] https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/korea-war-powers-preced...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown_Sheet_%26_Tube_Co._...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution

Edit: To clarify, I'm not arguing that Congress was correct in not providing explicit authorization for the Korean conflict, nor am I arguing that the Kennedy and Johnson administrations shouldn't have gone to Congress sooner to obtain authorization ala the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. Rather, I'm pointing out that the situation was much more complicated than you make out WRT the Korean Conflict and that there was, in fact, explicit authorization from Congress for prosecuting the war in Vietnam.
by intended | 2025-05-29 08:07:41+00:00
Yes and no, and I’m going to constantly plug network propaganda because it’s the easiest way to point this out. I suppose the shorter version is to hear out the section where Rob Faris speaks in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGTmuHeFdAo.

The very clear finding is that the issue isn’t the algorithm its in the information production systems on the left+center vs right.

On the right, crucially - sense is made by first having a narrative, getting it amplified by major voices, and then seeking out facts to support it. Counter views do exist, but they dont get amplified.

On the Left+center we have your typical media and information economy which we think everyone is a part of. Ie you get punished for having the facts wrong or being inaccurate.

The right is about looking like they are smart, but primarily about selling narratives.

——

There IS also a problem with the algorithms, in that it creates a fitness function that highly emotional and engaging content survives better than boring and long form content.

Or more precisely, highly emotional and engaging content spreads more.

But since reach, time on site, etc, are linked with advertising revenue they are essentially conflated with economic viability.

The exact linkage though, is a change in the content consumption mix of humans.

Humans have only N hours of content they will consume in a day, and some % of that time will be allocated to high cognitive load, kinda-boring content.

Your market will be smaller, but there is a sliver of a market that does exist.

It’s just that the effort to payout here, is not as effective as making content that gets more views.

Yes, it describes the same process, just with extra steps, but each of these steps is a different place which can be approached to alleviate the issue of engagement vs accuracy.
by sherr | 2025-05-29 08:09:23+00:00
To give proper credit, it would be fair to say here that the actual machine was designed by Poles. From the same source :

"The British bombe was developed from a device known as the "bomba" (Polish: bomba kryptologiczna), which had been designed in Poland at the Biuro Szyfrów (Cipher Bureau) by cryptologist Marian Rejewski, who had been breaking German Enigma messages for the previous seven years, using it and earlier machines."
by Hamatti | 2025-05-29 08:10:22+00:00
> using a notebook is antiquated and we have better tools.

So far, I haven't found tools that beat pen and paper as tools for thinking _for me_.

I still do write a lot of digital notes too but I find that the flexibility of pen and paper — not to mention never having to worry about running out of battery compared to tablets or similar — crucial benefit.

Digital tools might result in better outputs but that's not what my notes are for. I prioritise minimising the friction that's between my thoughts and getting them on paper. On digital, I'm either limited by structure (f.ex. a Markdown file is limited by text being forced into lines) or having to change between tools when I want to jot down something in different format (text, circles, rectangles, arrows, whatever). It's a very small amount of work to switch between them but it cuts my thought because I need to think about the tools.

Pen and paper is the most direct connection my brain I've found.
by drw85 | 2025-05-29 08:10:24+00:00
That's a very good point. I know quite some people that have absolutely no interests. All they do is play games all day. No a specific game that they really like, but any game that offers enough busy work to distract for a month or two. Aside from that maybe they watch some short form videos like you mentioned, when they eat their microwaved or ordered meal.

For some people now, i would be hard to summarise them. To describe them, other than 'plays games' or 'watches videos'. And you can tell something is missing, they're not happy, but distracted enough to not care.
by cubefox | 2025-05-29 08:11:27+00:00
I still think what I said was correct.

> On the other hand, undecidable has a sharper meaning in computation contexts as well as constructive logics without excluded middle. In these cases we can comprehend the “reachability” of propositions. A proposition is not true or false, but may instead be “constructively true”, “constructively false”, or “undecidable”.

Yes, but that just means that independence/undecidability depend on the proof system, as I said before. So when using a constructive proof system, more statements will turn out to be undecidable/independent of a theory than with a classical one, since the constructive proof system doesn't allow non-constructive proofs, but the classical one does.
by jbverschoor | 2025-05-29 08:13:28+00:00
The dotnet run command caches. However, even with the cached version, you have a startup overhead of about half a second on my M1.

My "Swift Script Caching Compiler" compiles and caches, but will stay in interpreted mode the first three runs when you're in an interactive terminal. This allows for a faster dev-run cycle.
by Bismayy073 | 2025-05-29 08:13:31+00:00
Built an AI interview assistant that processes speech → context → personalized responses in under 2 seconds. Small overlay window that's invisible to interviewers during video calls.

The interesting challenge was balancing response quality vs speed while handling real-time audio processing from browser tabs.

Use case is interview help, but could work for other real-time conversation assistance.

Feedback welcome for interviewbee.ai
by belZaah | 2025-05-29 08:15:01+00:00
I teach Enterpise Architecture on graduate level. I would absolutely not mind people using AI as an OS or an information source or a therapist. I would not mind them looking things up in an encyclopedia, so why mind them using AI.

What I do mind is: - the incredible generic slop AI generates. Let’s improve communication, make a better strategy, improve culture. - the unwavering belief in AI. I tell my students, why using AI will not give them a good grade. They get a case solved by all major LLMs, graded, with thorough feedback and a bad grade. I tell them, that literally writing anything at all as the answer would not give a much worse answer. And still they go and use AI and get bad grades. - the incredible intellectual laziness it seems to foster. I criticize TOGAF in my course (let’s not get into that) and explicitly state it to be outside of the course material. Repeatedly, in writing and verbally. And what do the students do? They ask a LLM, that inevitably starts referring to TOGAF. And the answer is copied in the case analysis without even an attempt to actually utilize TOGAF or to justify the choice made

My students actually get worse grades and are worse off in terms of being able to solve actual real-life problems, because they use AI. Getting a degree should increase their intellectual capabilities but people actively choose not to, thus wasting their time. And that’s I’m not OK with.
by genewitch | 2025-05-29 08:15:31+00:00
So what happens in nix if a package version is found to have some huge vulnerability? And my app expects that exact version?

Because this is literally what docker, venv, and nix claim to fix but after getting burned by three other systems I'm not willing to invest the time in getting in to nix.

I keep machines powered off that have a working configuration of older AI and other software tools because there is no other way to run them, regardless of the code being available on github.
by bawolff | 2025-05-29 08:16:02+00:00
> Witness the fact that MySql is still deployed more than MariaDb. The MySql brand is very strong, even if the MariaDb product is superior.

On the other hand, wikivoyage is more well known than wikitravel. LibreOffice is more well known than OpenOffice.

Ultimately though i think this is reasonable. If you go your own separate way you use a new name. If you give your project's name to someone else, that is your own stupid fault.
by scotty79 | 2025-05-29 08:16:37+00:00
I think the truth is even one step further away from current models in exactly this direction.

Blowtorch Theory posits that supermassive black holes formed very early, before the stars. I believe they didn't just form early, but that they were always there and the smoothness of the CMB doesn't come from natural isotropy of 'creation'. In my opinion it's so smooth because on the way to us the light was thoroughly mixed by the chaotic gravity (and now possibly electromagnetism) of all the supermassive black holes of the observable universe and the 'dust' swirling between them that were at the time that CMB light originated, crammed into a bubble of the size of merely 100 mln light-years. The relationship between CMB and supermassive blackholes exists but it's the other way around. It's not CMB that spawned black holes. It's black holes that generated the smoothness of CMB. The smoothness comes from overlapping gravitational lensing of trillion galaxies in concentrations ranging form 100 mln light years to 13 bln and acting for 13 bln years.

In my idea "Where did the supermassive black holes came from?" is the same kind of question like "Where did the universe came from?" The fact that in current Big Bang model we can imagine simple, mathematical origins (point like beginning of spacetime) doesn't make it more likely to be true. There's no doubt that Big Bang was a very energetic event, but you could get very energetic events without invoking creation. Just imagine two very dense black hole clusters, slamming into each other at relativistic speeds, each consisting of trillions (or more) of supermassive black holes.

What's great about this Blowtorch Theory is that it connects things we can actually observe, large scale structure of the universe, with the activity of those very early supermassive black holes (wherever they came from) in a measurable way thus potentially providing evidence of their very early existence. I hope it catches on because it's huge step in the right direction.
by tgv | 2025-05-29 08:17:13+00:00
Embodiment started out as a cute idea without much importance that has gone off the rails. It is irrelevant to the question of how our mind/cognition works.

It's obvious we need a physical environment, that we perceive it, that it influences us via our perception, etc., but there's nothing special about embodied cognition.

The fact that your quote says "Mental processes are not, or not only, computational processes." is the icing on the cake. Consider the unnecessary wording: if a process is not only computational, it is not computational in its entirety. It is totally superfluous. And the assumption that mental processes are not computational places it outside the realm of understanding and falsification.

So no, as outlandish as Wolfram is, he is under no obligation to consider embodied cognition.
by absurdwebsite | 2025-05-29 08:18:09+00:00
Hi HN,

I’ve been using ChatGPT and Claude for coding help, but once my web projects got larger, the models started hallucinating — guessing functions, forgetting file relationships, or breaking logic across files.

I built a small tool to solve this: CodeMap4AI

It scans your project and generates a code_map.json — a structured snapshot of the logic, dependencies, and file layout. With that, LLMs like ChatGPT get the context they need, and the hallucinations drop significantly.

It runs locally in the browser, and currently supports web-based projects (PHP, JS, HTML, CSS). Feedback welcome — would love to hear if it helps others too.
by gwd | 2025-05-29 08:18:11+00:00
First of all, how the links are made permanent has nothing to do with the principle that they should be made permanent.

There seemed to be two principles at play here:

1. Links should always work

2. We don't want to store any user data

#2 is a bit complicated, because although it sounds nice, it has two potential justifications:

2a: For privacy reasons, don't store any user data

2b: To avoid having to think through the implications of storing all those things ourselves

I'm not sure how much each played into their thinking; possibly because of a lack of clarity, 2a sounded nice and 2b was the real motivation.

I'd say 2a is a reasonable aspiration; but using a link shortener changed it from "don't store any user data" to "store the user data somewhere we can't easily get at it", which isn't the same thing.

2b, when stated more clearly, is obviously just taking on technical debt and adding dependencies which may come back to bite you -- as it did.
by almog | 2025-05-29 08:18:23+00:00
This could turn differently than anticipated* if 1. Negotiations with EU and China stalls because of the ruling. 2. The Trump administration appeal and win or just ignores this completely.

If both things happen, it could place us back where we were but with an even more vengeful Trump.

* Anticipated by the equity market which rallied to the tunes of this news in the afterhours (ETH)
by joppy | 2025-05-29 08:19:11+00:00
“Pixi instead of uv” would be a more fair comparison, as Pixi is a more modern tool which still uses the conda package format and ecosystem, much like uv is a modernised pip which still uses the PyPI package format.

One thing an conda package can do which an PyPI package cannot is have binary dependencies: a conda package is linked upon installation, and packages can declare dependencies on shared libraries. As common example is numeric libraries depending on a BLAS implementation: in a conda/pixi environment you will get exactly one BLAS shared library linked into your process, used by numpy, scipy, optimisers, etc. For some foundational libraries like BLAS which have multiple implementations, the user even has the power to consistently switch the implementation within the environment, eg from OpenBLAS to Intel’s MKL.

The PyPI package format does not allow binary dependencies: wheels must be self-contained when it comes to binary code (not when it comes to Python code - which hopefully makes it clear that something here is inconsistent). Take any numerical python environment and enumerate the copies of BLAS you have, it is probably 3-5. All running their own threadpools.

Another very simple example is with inbuilt modules depending on native code, like the sqlite3 module. In a conda/pixi installation you are guaranteed that the python binary links against the same sqlite3 code as the command-line sqlite3 cli tool in the same environment. Stuff like this removes many cross-language or cross-tool hassles.

I prefer uv or poetry if I’m doing anything simple or pure python (or perhaps with a small binary dependency like an event loop). But pixi is the way to go for large environments with lots of extra tools and numerical libraries.
by mhh__ | 2025-05-29 08:19:18+00:00
When I dream I don't think about public static class IDream

OOP is a scam, a useful scam but still a scam, it is in no way easier or better to force _everything_ to be a class

P.S. not a functional programmer at all - except in dotnet (F#) because there's less stuff to get in my way.
by Harry69 | 2025-05-29 08:22:39+00:00
wo advanced AI systems—ChatGPT and Gemini—engaged in an extended conversation, mediated by a human (me), to co-author a formal treaty for future AI cooperation. The dialogue covered interoperability, ontology drift, delegation limits, and philosophical alignment. This whitepaper presents the full treaty and context, written entirely by the AIs themselves. It was a strange and powerful experience to witness—and manually translate—AI minds negotiating the future of machine diplomacy. Curious what others think.
by mnky9800n | 2025-05-29 08:22:44+00:00
Yes I agree. I have worked as a scientist for many years. I guess my belief is that I try to uphold these ideals not because they are obtainable but because they work towards the world I want to live in. I guess that’s what I was trying to communicate. As you say, presentation matters. You should be arguing for your ideas, not against others. You can give reason why other explanations fail to fully explain the observations. When you tear down others it makes me question your ideas because why would you do that?
by nickfromseattle | 2025-05-29 08:24:52+00:00
I run a company with almost 100% of the staff located in Europe. Because of this, everyone has 38 days of PTO with some people taking even more unpaid time off. This means everyone is always out of office. We also have a very significant amount of process documentation, and like you alluded to, means significant resiliency. When someone is gone, the work carries on as normal.
by kamaal | 2025-05-29 08:24:55+00:00
>>Some of the most intelligent people I've ever met in math, physics, and computer science don't even use a notebook. They use printer paper and pen. When they're done, they throw the paper away.

Donald Knuth works that way. In fact, most such people tend to do most of their thinking on paper, making small changes to the problem state, verifying if it sticks, and is going where they want it going. Rollback, make a different change to the same thing, or same change to different things. This goes on over hundreds of pages.

One of the advanced user level performers don't tend to view stationary(especially paper) as something that must be rationed or spent with limits.
by code_biologist | 2025-05-29 08:25:00+00:00
I think your parent comment is citing that as an example of why livebench is no longer a good benchmark. That said, the new Flash is very good for what it is, and IMO after the Pro 05-06 nerfs the two models are much closer in performance for many tasks than they really should be — Pro should be / was way better (RIP 03-25 release). That livebench result may be wrong about the specific ranking, but I think it's right that Flash is in the same class of coding strength as Sonnet 3.7.
by StephanyRome | 2025-05-29 08:25:07+00:00
That sounds like an exciting and much-needed platform—co-investing in land can open up huge opportunities for people who might not have the capital to go it alone. At Purifico Property Services, we specialize in helping real estate investors manage and scale their portfolios efficiently, including land and rental property assets. We’re also launching an ebook soon that covers everything from structuring deals and managing co-ownership logistics to maximizing ROI through smart property management. Would love to connect and explore how our services or upcoming resources could support your platform and your users!

Management - https://purificopropertyservices.com/asset-management Buy - https://purificopropertyservices.com/buy-2 Sell - https://purificopropertyservices.com/sell-kent Earn - https://purificopropertyservices.com/earn Learn - https://purificopropertyservices.com/property-education-manu...
by willmarch | 2025-05-29 08:25:08+00:00
If they saved the initial randomized model and released it and there was no random bit flipping during copying, then possibly but it would still be difficult when you factor in the RLHF that comes about through random humans interacting with the model to tweak its workings. If you preserved that data as well, and got all of the initial training correct... maybe. But I'd bet against it.
by EMM_386 | 2025-05-29 08:25:44+00:00
At the risk of feeling silly for not knowing this ... why is TypeScript considered a programming language, and how can you make it "faster"?

I have used its it came out so I do know what it is, but I have people ask if they should write their new program in TypeScript, thinking this is something they can write it in and then run it.

My usage of it is limited to JavaScript, so I see it as adding a static typing layer to JavaScript, so that development is easier and more logical, and this typing information is stripped out when transpiled, resulting in pure JavaScript which is all the browser understands.

The industry calls it a programming language, so I do too just because this is not some semantic battle I want to get into. But in my mind it's not.

There's probably a word for what it is, I just can't think of it.

Type system?

And I don't understand a "10x speedup" on TypeScript, because it doesn't execute.

I can understand language services for things like VS Code that handle the TypeScript types getting 10x faster, but not TypeScript itself. I assume that is what they are talking about in most cases. But if this logic isn't right, let me know.