MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by AStonesThrow | 2025-05-29 00:53:30+00:00
Your website seems to be an aggregator of surface-level news blurbs from the mainstream media and some interviews with individual physicians. There are claims about "made-up" names and "correct scientific names". Putting health claims aside, there are no citations to any legislation that may have prevented a manufacturer from writing these names on a label. This website has a UK perspective, but I was trying to recall if any FDA or FTC regulations would prohibit the coining of new names for ingredients, particularly organisms. I think not.

In biological taxonomy, new names are coined all the time. Aliases for species are quite common. Common names for species are also common. We just learned that a "Buzzard" in the US is different than "Buzzards" in Europe/UK.

Pharmaceutical companies and scientists coin new "fake Latin-sounding" names all the time. So do astronomers! If there can be an asteroid named "25924 Douglasadams" then why can't Activia add a brand-name alias to something they use? Arguably, bacteria replicate so fast that Danone could have a new species if they cultivated it in a lab, rather than in animals.

Conversely, the food industry has taken names such as "milk" and "water", and expanded their definitions far beyond what common people recognize as those substances. Always receiving legal assent to sell fruit juice [nuts are fruits] with a mammalian name.

I've not had much experience with supplements, but more than a few I've purchased made proprietary blends of substances, and named that blend. Totally FDA-compliant.

I think your website got left up because it's fundamentally not a threat to any such practice in labelling.

I hereby address the candida albicans growing in my intestines, to announce that I dub thee candida hackernewsensis because sitting here has undoubtedly helped it grow.
by DonaldPShimoda | 2025-05-29 00:53:45+00:00
> One of the biggest boost to my SWE career was studying theory of computation and programming languages theory.

I totally agree with you.

> My major was electronic engineering, so I didn't touch those at the university.

Unfortunately, ever more computer science graduates lack the same belief, even if they go to "top" university programs.

Of course, I think part of the problem is the way the material is presented; "learn this to pass the exam" without fundamental motivation is pretty much always a bad set-up to get students interested. But, speaking anecdotally, a large part also seems to be a semi-recent surge of undergraduate students who genuinely believe that their academic career is nothing more than a hurdle to be muddled through in service of getting a piece of paper that lets them get a high-paying, low-labor-intensity job. They just don't engage with theory-focused material beyond what's strictly necessary to graduate, and then they dump the thoughts from their minds the second the semester is over.

This manifests in all sorts of ways, but a common one is undergrads telling one another how little their professors know about the "real world" because they use (not even that) outdated technology in their lectures. Or maybe the profs use some less popular language and the students think of it as a waste of time. There's comparatively little self-motivation among modern CS students, where historically I think there was rather a lot.

I suppose I'm not really going anywhere specific with this other than complaining, so maybe I can ask: What do you think it was that helped you realize that learning fundamental theory would be beneficial? (I don't have any indication that you were the same kind of student as these that I mention, since you were in a different major altogether, but I'm always looking for insights to help motivate students to study theory more, and insights can come from anywhere.)
by isaacimagine | 2025-05-29 00:53:47+00:00
There are 163 lines of C. Of them, with -O3, 104 lines are present in the assembly output. So the C compiler is able to eliminate an additional ~36.2% of the instructions. It doesn't do anything fancy, like autovectorization.

I profiled just now:

| instrs (aarch64) | time 100k (s) | conway samples (%) | | -O0 | 606 | 19.10s | 78.50% | | -O3 | 135 | 3.45 | 90.52% |

The 3.45s surprises me, because it's faster than the 4.09s I measured earlier. Maybe I had a P core vs an E core. For -O0, the compiler is emitting machine code like:

0000000100002d6c ldr x8, [sp, #0x4a0] 0000000100002d70 ldr x9, [sp, #0x488] 0000000100002d74 orn x8, x8, x9 0000000100002d78 str x8, [sp, #0x470]

Which is comically bad. If I try with e.g. -Og, I get the same disassembly as -O3. Even -01 gives me the same disassembly as -O3. The assembly (-0g, -01, -03) looks like a pretty direct translation of the C. Better, but also nothing crazy (e.g. no autovectorization):

0000000100003744 orr x3, x3, x10 0000000100003748 orn x1, x1, x9 000000010000374c and x1, x3, x1 0000000100003750 orr x3, x8, x17

Looking more closely, there's actually surprisingly little register spilling.

I think the real question you're asking is, as I wrote:

> If we assume instruction latency is 1 cycle, we should expect 2,590 fps. But we measure a number nearly 10× higher! What gives?

Part of this is due to counting the instructions in the dissassembly wrong. In the blogpost I used 349 instructions, going off Godbolt, but in reality it's 135. If I redo the calculations with this new numbers, I get 2.11 instructions per bit, 0.553 million instrs per step, dividing out 3.70 gcycles/s gives 6,690 fps. Which is better than 2,590 fps, but still 3.6x slower than 24,400. But I think 3.6x is a factor you can chalk up to instruction-level parallelism,.

Hope that answers your questions. Love your writing Gwern.
by johannes1234321 | 2025-05-29 00:54:23+00:00
Yes, at the same time we'd be excited about more mundane sources from history. The legends about the mighty are interesting, but what do we actually know about every day love from people a thousand years ago? Very little. Most things are speculation based on objects (tools etc.), on structure of buildings and so on. If we go back just few hundred years there is (using European perspective) a somewhat interesting source in court cases from legal conflicts between "average" people, but in older times more or less all written material is on the powerful, be it worldly or religious power, which often describes the rulers in an extra positive way (from their perspective) and their opponents extra weak.

Having more average sources certainly helps and we now aren't good judges on what will be relevant in future. We can only try to keep some of everything.
by skulk | 2025-05-29 00:54:53+00:00
No, he did not. The authority for the current tariffs were drawn from an 1976 act of congress (an amendment to the Trading With Enemies Act of 1917 and a new National Emergencies Act) and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.

It's all here in the decision if you care about the facts: https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/25-66.pdf
by Imnimo | 2025-05-29 00:55:37+00:00
In the linked Biden press release I see an announcement of tariff changes under section 301 and section 232. From today's article:

>Other tariffs imposed under different powers, like so-called Section 232 and Section 301 levies, are unaffected, and include the tariffs on steel, aluminum and automobiles.

It seems that Biden did not, at least in the instance you link to, do the thing that the courts have ruled against today.
by vlovich123 | 2025-05-29 00:56:24+00:00
Von Neumann's elephant applies here. ΛCDM only works because they tune hyperparameters. I don't really see string theory as any different - why do we think that space is composed of tiny coiled springs? That's just a random thing we invented mathematically & then made the math work. It does not mean we started from some fundamental understanding about a real property in the universe. The Ptolemaic system is mathematically correct if you let the math get complicated enough and tune enough parameters (in fact it's mathematically isomorphic to the heliocentric model due to relativity), but it doesn't mean it's the right philosophical framework to think about things.

In other words, even if the math for string theory does end up making testable predictions that others can't, it's not necessarily true that string theory isn't isomorphic to some simpler conception of reality.
by Vox_Leone | 2025-05-29 00:57:24+00:00
Well done — really enjoyed this. We could use this kind of optimization in our library[0], which builds differentiable logic networks out of gates like AND, XOR, etc.

It focuses on training circuit-like structures via gradient descent using soft logic semantics. The idea of compiling trained models down to efficient bit-parallel C is exactly the kind of post-training optimization we’ve been exploring — converting soft gates back into hard boolean logic (e.g. by thresholding or symbolic substitution), then emitting optimized code for inference (C, WASM, HDL, etc).

The Game of Life kernel is a great example of where logic-based nets really shine.

[0]https://github.com/VoxLeone/SpinStep/tree/main/benchmark
by mreid | 2025-05-29 00:57:29+00:00
This is a really nice explanation of decidability. One extra thing it might be worth mentioning is that there are many more functions `f : string -> boolean` then there are programs that implement those functions.

When I first encountered this topic I had trouble intuitively understanding how there could not exist an `IS_HALTING` function when it is also just a function that takes in a string (representing a program plus its inputs) and outputs True or False depending on whether it halts or not.

The argument in the article does a great job of showing that `IS_HALTING` cannot exist because it is in some sense "too powerful" but that means there is a mapping f : strings -> boolean that cannot be represented as a program, which seems weird if you've been programming for ages and every function you encounter is expressed as a program.

The result becomes less weird when you realize that that almost all functions from string -> boolean are not expressible as a program. Why? Well there are countable many programs since there are only countably many finite length strings and every program, by definition, is a finite length string. However, there are uncountably many functions from string -> boolean since these functions map one-to-one to sets of strings (just let the set be all inputs that map to True) and the cardinality of the set of sets of strings is uncountable.

This is essentially due to Cantor's diagonalization argument which shows you cannot put all elements in a set X into a 1-1 correspondence with all the subsets of X, even when X is countably infinite. This fact is at the heart of a lot of these computability results since it shows there is a gap between all functions (= any arbitrary subset of finite strings) and a program (= a finite string).
by acdha | 2025-05-29 00:58:29+00:00
Incorrect. Biden’s actions were based on Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which outlines a process for enacting tariffs where unfair trade practices have been identified.

This case was attempting to resolve the question of whether Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act was legal. They did note that he has other, more limited tariff powers delegated by Congress which are legal to use as long as he follows the law.
by lesuorac | 2025-05-29 00:59:16+00:00
I mean a plurality of Americans voted for Obama. Should he have been able to ignore the will of congress and appoint supreme court justices to the vacant spots?

Nobody is saying that the Republicans in congress cannot set tariffs. We're just saying the _president_ cannot singularly do it. If elected Republicans congress critters want to pass a law establishing the tariff rates and have the elected Republican president sign it; go ahead.

Because that's the law ratified by a majority of states which is much more than plurality of Americans.
by vl | 2025-05-29 00:59:28+00:00
He is the CEO of a corporation. Let's assume Pavel and Elon had a phone call and agreed on the deal. One of them or both are entitled to announce it. Pavel Durov announced multiple deals before on his tg channel. Now it is surprising turn of events, it seems they didn't work out details to the degree implied, but calling it lying is a far stretch.
by DonaldPShimoda | 2025-05-29 00:59:53+00:00
> Definitely not necessary for programming but it's not some completely theoretical mumbo jumbo.

While I'm a big fan of teaching theory, I regret to inform you that the Turing machine is kind of completely theoretical mumbo jumbo. The theoretical equivalent of the modern processor is the Von Neumann machine. Certainly there is a direct connection to be made to the Turing machine, as all computation can be framed as a program run on such a theoretical device, but there is not really much practical use in teaching students that modern computers are Turing machines. There's just too much difference, I think.

The utility of the Turing machine as a pedagogical device stems more from, like, being able to formalize a decidable problem in a particular way, following a rigorous algorithmic approach to computation, thinking about abstraction, etc. I think the lambda calculus is also useful to teach for similar (though also different) pedagogical reasons, but I would never tell students that the lambda calculus "in principle isn't that different" from how their favorite language works. Practically all programming languages can be framed as lambda calculi, but some of them are sufficiently far removed from the theory for that comparison to be mostly useless to the majority of students.
by 0_____0 | 2025-05-29 01:00:12+00:00
This is a benefit of having ultra dense industry specific zones like the Shenzhen SEZ. Physical vendors get the volume to warrant operating and reasonable pricing, buyers get components on short notice.

Suburbanization set up the US for failure here, and the governments haven't bothered intentionally creating any equivalent of Shenzhen. Santa Clara county used to be the spot, and I'd regularly pick up quickturn PCBs in person. Still can, but if you're in SF you're probably going to wait for next day shipping unless it's super super important, in which case it could come from any domestic CM.
by TheDong | 2025-05-29 01:00:37+00:00
The building name is required in many cases because two buildings next to each other will often have the same ban-chi-go (i.e. 4-5-10 could refer to two apartment buildings that were originally on the same lot, both with room 103).

It's exceedingly common, not just some edge-case you see every once in a while.
by rayiner | 2025-05-29 01:03:04+00:00
> Isn’t the point of our government structure to stop any one person from acting like a king.

That isn’t the “point” of our government structure. The constitution deliberately mixes an electorally accountable deliberative body (Congress), an electorally accountable unitary executive (the President), and a judiciary insulated from elections.

As explained in Federalist 70, the executive is unitary and “vigorous,” by design: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed70.asp. Federalist 70 even brings up the example of Roman Dictators to illustrate the need for a strong executive: “Every man the least conversant in Roman story, knows how often that republic was obliged to take refuge in the absolute power of a single man, under the formidable title of Dictator, as well against the intrigues of ambitious individuals who aspired to the tyranny, and the seditions of whole classes of the community whose conduct threatened the existence of all government, as against the invasions of external enemies who menaced the conquest and destruction of Rome.”

What the constitution seeks to avoid is consolidation of all the government’s powers under a single entity. The President is powerful and can act unilaterally, but must stick to exercising executive rather than legislative or judicial powers.

So the real question with tariffs is whether one sees them as more of a general policy or a tool of foreign relations. The former is a power within the deliberative consideration of Congress. The latter sphere of authority is assigned to a singular President.
by dheera | 2025-05-29 01:03:13+00:00
I can't imagine sharing a kitchen with anyone but my own partner. Cleanliness is the bare minimum, but design and aesthetics is a big part of it.

I'm very particular about how my kitchen (and living space in general) looks. I coordinate the colors of appliances with the cabinetry, the styles of all the cutlery, the locations and labelling of everything. Fonts, typography, margins all matter in those labels. I sometimes design and make my own containers for things. I like bottles of ingredients being in aesthetically-pleasing arrangements by color shade.

But I'm also an introvert, an artist at heart, and it helps me save money. When my kitchen is an evolving work of art, I'm drawn to spend more time in that space, and that inspires me to make more food for myself, at 1/5 the cost of food outside. If my kitchen looks like an aesthetic mess because the person I share it with does not give a shit about design, I would be more likely to go spend $30 on food outside, and that adds up pretty quickly.
by isaacimagine | 2025-05-29 01:03:18+00:00
Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed it!

Well, I'm not an expert. I think that this research direction is very cool. I think that, at the limit, for some (but not all!) applications, we'll be training over the raw instructions available to the hardware, or perhaps even the hardware itself. Maybe something as in this short story[0]:

> A descendant of AutoML-Zero, “HQU” starts with raw GPU primitives like matrix multiplication, and it directly outputs binary blobs. These blobs are then executed in a wide family of simulated games, each randomized, and the HQU outer loop evolved to increase reward.

I also think that different applications will require different architectures and tools, much like how you don't write systems software in Lua, nor script games mods with Zsh. It's fun to speculate, but who knows.

[0]: https://gwern.net/fiction/clippy
by stevenwoo | 2025-05-29 01:06:06+00:00
Three of the post senior citizen Democratic representatives died in office so far so the margin is actually getting bigger as time goes on, the GOP had room to make multiple mistakes on the budget bill where one GOP rep fell asleep and didn't vote and one rep was present but just missed the deadline to vote. The Democratic senators have not shown the spine to put a hold on any appointments or pull a Tuberman and not let appointments through, let alone a filibuster, and Fetterman has gone off his meds and it shows, he's turned into a GOP senator after his strokes. Chuck Schumer on the other hand appeared earlier to be more interested in going on a book tour to sell his book. The whole thing appears to be on the precipice.
by hn_throwaway_99 | 2025-05-29 01:06:27+00:00
> Let's assume Pavel and Elon had a phone call and agreed on the deal. One of them or both are entitled to announce it.

Lol, because it was Elon himself who called out Durov's original tweet with his "no deal has been signed" response. So obviously the agreement was not agreed upon yet.

Ironically this sounds just like Elon's infamous "funding secured" tweet. I'm tired of all these bullshitting bullshitters, and then the follow on of apologists.
by Calavar | 2025-05-29 01:06:46+00:00
As far as I'm aware, Trump's first term tariffs on China were Section 301 tariffs, and even though he floated the idea of IEEPA tariffs, he never actually invoked IEEPA in his first term [1]. Every article I can find about Biden extending and/or increasing Trump's China tariffs that mentions the legal authorization says it's under Section 301 of the 1974 act [2, 3, 4]. If you're aware of any evidence to the contrary, please share.

[1] https://www.millercanfield.com/resources-Can-President-Impos...

[2] https://www.bhfs.com/insights/alerts-articles/2024/biden-ups...

[3] https://www.ntu.org/publications/detail/bidens-new-tariffs-h...

[4] https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202502/1328911.shtml
by UncleOxidant | 2025-05-29 01:07:44+00:00
This was submitted by someone else earlier and then seemed to get immediately flagged, can someone explain why? I may not agree with everything in the article ("In the last three months America has lost more people than Sri Lanka lost in 30 years of civil war" - this seems unlikely), but the idea that collapse can sneak up on you and feel really normal is an interesting one to ponder.
by zugi | 2025-05-29 01:07:55+00:00
Misleading voters is what democracy is all about!

But more seriously, society has dealt with misinformation and disinformation for millenia and collectively decided that freedom of speech and the press were key factors in keeping democracy, and were a more vital concern than the threat of misinformation. To me, government deciding what is or isn't misinformation is a step away from democracy and towards tyranny. But I do understand that reasonable people can disagree about where to draw the fine lines of freedom of speech.
by schappim | 2025-05-29 01:08:44+00:00
+1 for using Tauri over Electron. I've been using it for my MCP marketplace and management app[1], and it's been excellent. Having previously used only Electron, I was surprised by how much smaller the binaries are. Performance also feels noticeably faster.

The only challenge was my lack of familiarity with Rust. Even if you're starting off with a "JS first app", Tauri often requires dropping into Rust for anything even slightly native, such as file system access (eg. managing config files for Claude, Witsy, or code editors), handling client lifecycle actions like opening, closing, and restarting, or installing local MCP servers.

1. https://ninja.ai
by billfor | 2025-05-29 01:09:49+00:00
The administration has previously contemplated imposing duties under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows for tariffs that counter unfair foreign trade practices. That is the provision Trump used to underpin his first term tariffs on China and is considered to be on firmer legal footing than IEEPA. So they'll likely just use that justification going forward.
by keepamovin | 2025-05-29 01:10:13+00:00
It's funny how people become irrational whenever Trump or this admin is involved. Could this 'immune response' be clouding their thoughts in a way that actually harms their own interests, paradoxically advantaging the 'other side' they seem to fear/dislike?

I have a theory that Trump-hatred (or TDS) is primarily an expression of Boomer values from a majority of the Boomer demographic. Trump seeks to advance the current and future US generations, and Boomers want to maintain their perception of their own socioeconomic dominance, at the cost of all others and all subsequent generations, in a world whose advances they are jealous of. This is then propagated into the coddled or suppressed adult children of Boomers, who then implicitly adopt and express the TDS of their parents, for the draw/inheritance or just the approval - even tho it goes against their own interests!
by snapplebobapple | 2025-05-29 01:10:44+00:00
Its not that practical. I cr#ated a nix file to roll a new jellyfinmediaplayer client in nix and it worked until s(me update broke it but the audio and a few other things needed finding obscure nonsense and specifying it to work passably. Its been replaced by fi e sentences remnding me what to click installing bazzite and it works rock solid for very mnimal additiobal setup time
by notorious_pgb | 2025-05-29 01:10:54+00:00
This is one of the core weaknesses of the analogy that I'm trying to figure out how to resolve: there's no shared memory, unlike actual threads.

I think the solution requires that the game code is what's executing threading syscalls, not the Lua around the game code.

It'd definitely be a super sick evolution to add true shared in-game memory.