MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by saccofrancesco | 2025-05-20 11:11:18+00:00
Hi! Thanks so much for your comment and for suggesting some really thoughtful ideas for the project — I really appreciate it.

At the beginning, I also considered the idea of gathering individual player data and assembling team profiles based on active rosters for each game. That way, team strength could be evaluated more accurately based on who actually played, rather than relying on aggregate team stats.

I completely understand your point about using a method like TrueSkill to model team performance more dynamically — based on the presence or absence of specific players and the impact each one has on the team's overall performance. It’s a compelling approach and definitely something that would make predictions much more responsive to roster changes.

The main challenge, though, is the data itself. Even getting reliable game-level data for all teams from the 2000–01 season through to 2024–25 was already quite complex. So when it comes to going a level deeper — pulling individual player data, lineups, or starting rosters for every single game — it becomes difficult to know where to start. These data sources are often scattered, inconsistent, or hidden behind APIs that may have usage limits or costs. There’s also the issue of computational load and the sheer scale of the data, especially when you're working solo, as I currently am.

That’s actually part of why I’m sharing the project publicly — to see if others might be interested, just like you, and maybe even want to contribute. Sometimes just having another perspective helps catch something I may have overlooked.

Thanks again for your suggestions — I’ll definitely explore them further during the NBA off-season and hopefully come back with a more refined version of the project for the next season.
by roenxi | 2025-05-20 11:11:35+00:00
You don't need a house to have kids. Poor people manage to have kids with no assets whatsoever and many animals manage to have kids without anything even resembling a house.

It seems much more likely that humans don't have a particular impulse to have children because their instincts were designed for a world without birth control. Having children has become uneconomic, so people stopped. There isn't a natural instinct to raise alarms about that (which is what evolution would tend to do) because historically that just wouldn't have mattered. Both because people were poor and because sex used to imply children in a way it doesn't now.

The house thing is really a red herring. Sure we'd all like to own a house and being wealthy is better than being poor. But in a literal sense - not necessary and for almost all of our evolutionary history people have been reproducing without any wealth at all. The stats actually seem reasonably clear that it is exactly wealth that is blocking the children, despite the excuses that people come up with.

A real boon from chance that is unlikely to last, we're probably lucky to be living in this era before evolution starts kicking in and pushing us back towards overpopulation. Which will happen in a few generations.
by T-A | 2025-05-20 11:12:47+00:00
First sentence from the article: The Finnish government has announced the conversion of its rail network from Russian gauge (1,524 mm) to European standard (1,435 mm).

1524 - 1435 = 89

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_ft_and_1520_mm_gauge_railway...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard-gauge_railway
by PurpleRamen | 2025-05-20 11:14:14+00:00
> Where are the AI-driven breakthroughs?

Define breakthrough. When is the improvement big enough to count as one?

Define AI. Are you talking about modern LLM, or is old school ML also in that question?

I mean Googles AI-company had with AlphaFold and other project quite the impact.

> Or are we just using AI to remix existing general knowledge

Is remixing bad? Isn't many science today "just" remixing with slight improvements? I mean, there is a reason why we have theoretical and practical scientists. Doing boring Lab-work and accidentally discovering something exciting is not the only way science is happening. Analysing data and remixing information, building new theories, is also important.

And don't forget, we don't have AGI yet. Whatever AI is doing today, is limited by what humans are using it for. Another question is, whether LLM is not normalized enough already that we do not see it as very special any more, if it's used somewhere. So we might not even see it if AI has significant impact on any breakthrough.
by emilycole0 | 2025-05-20 11:14:33+00:00
Just wanted to share my experience—Reviva0 on Telegram helped me recover $180,000 that I lost to a fake crypto trading platform. I honestly thought it was gone for good, but their team came through for me. Super professional and legit. If you’ve been scammed, don’t lose hope—reach out to them. Grateful doesn’t even begin to cover it.
by diggan | 2025-05-20 11:15:04+00:00
From reading around on Hacker News and Reddit, it seems like half of commentators say what you say, and the other half says "I work at Microsoft/know someone who works at Microsoft, and our/their manager just said we have to use AI", someone mentioned being put on PIP for not "leveraging AI" as well.

I guess maybe different teams have different requirements/workflows?
by _1tem | 2025-05-20 11:15:26+00:00
Interesting, I’ve spent a lot of time over the past couple months researching the options for headless browsers in the cloud for AI agent workloads. What about user-data-dir persistence and infinite long running sessions? What about human-in-the-loop workflows with shareable embeddable browser control where a human manually takes over? If you have both these features then it’s a game changer. As for stealth alone, GoLogin and Browserless already handle this pretty well. The hard part is authentication initiation with human in the loop and session persistence.
by helloplanets | 2025-05-20 11:15:50+00:00
I'd be interested in reading some more from the people you're referring to when talking about experts who understand the field. At least to the extent I've followed the discussion, even the top experts are all over the place when it comes to the future of AI.

As a counterpoint: Geoffrey Hinton. You could say he's gone off the deep end on a tangent, but I definitely don't his incentive is to make money off of hype. Then there's Yann LeCun saying AI "could actually save humanity from extinction". [0]

If these guys just out of touch talking heads, who are the new guard people should read up on?

[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/dec/27/godfather...
by WillAdams | 2025-05-20 11:15:58+00:00
This was done back in Victorian times by an Englishman using nothing more than a visiting card and a letter of credit from his bank.

I have been led to believe that it is:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/133405977-an-overland-jo...

which arguably should be contrasted with:

https://goodreads.com/book/show/5144131-a-woman-s-journey-ro...

The history of circumnavigations (esp. solo), and the books about it are an interesting set:

- sailing (solo): https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/881902.Sailing_Alone_aro...

- bicycle (solo): https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/301255.Around_the_World_... (all the more remarkable since it was a penny farthing rather than the essentially contemporary "safety bicycle" invented shortly after his departure

Those are in the public domain, and I recommend them highly as a view of what the world was once like, and how people are still much the same.

Been meaning to read newer accounts, but still need to track down copies and decide which are worth reading:

- amphibious landing vehicle (husband and wife): https://goodreads.com/book/show/17208213-half-safe

- walking (solo): https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/436398.Letters_From_Stev...

- human power (solo): https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5215427

- air (military unit): https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23167711-first-flight-ar...

- submarine (submerged, military vessel): https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1018686.Around_the_World...

and of course, one would presumably include the obvious records of Magellan and arguably the _H.M.S. Beagle_ and Darwin.

(obviously, this is something of an interest of mine, having been delighted by: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/54479.Around_the_World_i... when I was younger)
by Keyframe | 2025-05-20 11:16:16+00:00
Not saying it's a lot less work, it's still a ton of work, but you could always build your tooling around a DCC application by either extending it with scripts or modifying or attaching parts to it like Blender, Maya, etc. Maybe even flat out game engine editors like Godot, Unity, Unreal to build stuff and export out to be used by your own engine.
by koakuma-chan | 2025-05-20 11:17:10+00:00
> I've only tried Claude in Cursor's free trial, but it became very confused during a React 19 upgrade even after showing it a guide.

I have never used Cursor, but I see more and more people who used LLMs specifically via Cursor complain. It makes me think there's an issue specifically with Cursor, e.g., they try to save on tokens and end up not including enough context in the prompt.

> I've only tried Claude in Cursor's free trial, but it became very confused during a React 19 upgrade even after showing it a guide.

I am working on a Next.js 15 / React 19 app, and at least 95% of code is written by Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview, and I barely ever need to "fight" it really. But it's not a Cursor workflow of course. I keep a directory with LLM-readable documentation[0], use a repository serialization tool to serialize my repository into a prompt (this includes both the source code and the LLM-readable documentation), and send it to Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview. It ends up being over 100K tokens per query but works really well for me.

[0]: https://llmstxt.org/
by andrewingram | 2025-05-20 11:17:49+00:00
Is there any interop between v3 and v4 schemas themselves? We have an enormous graph of hundreds (if not thousands) of Zod schemas, many inheriting or extending others. It's difficult to envisage us being able to do an incremental upgrade unless both versions can interact neatly.

But I am looking forward to seeing if this fixes our issue where in the worst case a 500 line schema file turns into 800,000 lines of generated types.
by vidarh | 2025-05-20 11:18:04+00:00
My own editor is array of lines in Ruby, and in now about 8 years of using it daily, and having the actual editor interact with the buffer storage via IPC to a server holding all the buffers, it's just not been a problem.

It does become a problem if you insist on trying to open files of hundred of MB of text, but my thinking is that I simply don't care to treat that as a text editing problem for my main editor, because files that size are usually something I only ever care to view or is better off manipulating with code.

If you want to be able to open and manipulate huge files, you're right, and then an editor using these kind of simple methods isn't for you. That's fine.

As it stands now, my editor holds every file I've ever opened and not explicitly closed in the last 8 years in memory constantly (currently, 5420 buffers; the buffer storage is persisted to disk every minute or so, so if I reboot and open the same file, any unsaved changes are still there unless I explicitly reload), and it's not even breaking the top 50 or so of memory use on my machine usually (those are all browser tabs...)

I'm not suggesting people shouldn't use "fancier" data structures when warranted. It's great some editors can handle huge files. Just that very naive approaches will work fine for a whole lot of use cases.

E.g. the 5420 open buffers in my editor currently are there because even the naive approach of never garbage collecting open buffers just hasn't become an issue yet - my available RAM has increased far faster than the size of the buffer storage so adding a mechanism for culling them just hasn't become a priority.
by brettatoms | 2025-05-20 11:18:31+00:00
Zodiac (https://github.com/brettatoms/zodiac) is a web framework/library that tries to fill a similar niche as Flask. It includes fewer batteries but supports extensions for extra functionality, see Zodiac Assets (https://github.com/brettatoms/zodiac-assets) and Zodiac SQL (https://github.com/brettatoms/zodiac-sql).

Zodiac itself does very little. Its mostly a preconfigured Ring app and a Reitit based router.

Full disclosure, I'm the author.
by immibis | 2025-05-20 11:19:19+00:00
> The key idea is that the verifier doesn’t go looking for a parity check that fails — it just verifies the one that’s provided. So r isn’t there because the verifier couldn’t find a violation, but because it doesn’t try to; it just checks whether the one it's told about actually fails.

Then you failed. When using the certificate and verifier definition of NP, if the correct answer to the problem instance is false, there must be no certificate that makes the verifier return true.

A nondeterministic Turing machine is one that can clone itself and take two different paths without taking extra time. The copies can also make copies so it can clone as many times as it needs to. Copies that return false delete themselves, and if ANY copy returns true the overall answer is true (and we can delete all the copies). Any problem that can be solved by one of these is in NP. That's the definition of NP.

Equivalently, if we already know which one is going to return true, each time the machine wants to clone itself, we can tell the machine which copy is going to return true, and then it either continues being itself or pretends to be the clone, whichever one we told it, without actually cloning. Then we can run this on a normal Turing machine that doesn't clone itself. Of course, if we tell it wrong, it will return false even though it could have returned true if we told it right. This leads to the certificate definition of NP. The data we tell the machine about "the right way to pretend to clone" is the certificate.

Both are equivalent ways to define which problems are NP. The cloning version is the actual definition, but the certificate version is often more convenient, because, ya know, actual computers don't clone themselves.

If the answer to the problem is false, in the cloning version, all copies of the machine return false. That means in the certificate version, which only runs one copy, it will return false no matter which copy we choose, i.e. no matter which certificate we give it. Even if we give the wrong certificate, it's not possible to get a certificate machine for an NP problem to return true when the correct answer is false.

Your verifier machine is claimed to be a certificate machine that solves your problem, but you also say it sometimes returns true when the correct answer is false, if you give the wrong certificate. So there's something wrong with the setup here. I think the verifier machine is just wrong as it doesn't do what it needs to do to prove what you think it's proving.
by dmurray | 2025-05-20 11:19:57+00:00
Nobody can do this on their own. You don't get to do this by having a great aptitude for high school maths and then being exposed to one or two more concepts that just intuitively click - which is enough to be competitive at the level you describe, though not enough to make the US Olympiad team.

You get the level of understanding necessary to create this blog post by already having worked through several textbooks and papers on number theory, elliptic curves, etc. So you don't do it on your own, you do it with help from Poincaré and Euler and Diophantes and whoever else.

Based on your description, you absolutely have the aptitude to do this if you pursued maths further academically. And also by having great teaching and explaining skills - that part might be harder to learn.
by asdffdasy | 2025-05-20 11:20:18+00:00
I'm annoyed by moxie vs fdroid as the next guy, but this is way above his desire to make a buck from his honest work.

this is about an overseas elite who profited from US war aid for decades holding the US presidency by the balls, and everyone think this is just incopetence.

think for a second, if any other administration was using a telephone or a communication software made by a never heard before company overseas, would you think it was just incompetence? why these traitors clowns get a pass?
by falcor84 | 2025-05-20 11:20:41+00:00
I understand where Socrates/Plato is coming from, but this doesn't match my experience. I had no "lack of teaching", having sat through about 18 years of it in total, but I definitely have a better average recollection of things that I read of my own interest than things I was "taught". Maybe things would have been different if I had a world class philosopher as a personal tutor, but alas that was not to be.

If were to rephrase it, I would put the distinction not between teaching and reading, but between passive consumption and active learning.

EDIT: Thinking more about having a world class philosopher as a personal tutor, I suddenly remembered a quote from Russell that took me a while to track down, but here it is:

> In 343 B.C. he [Aristotle] became tutor to Alexander, then thirteen years old, and continued in that position until, at the age of sixteen ... Everything one would wish to know of the relations of Aristotle and Alexander is unascertainable, the more so as legends were soon invented on the subject. There are letters between them which are generally regarded as forgeries. People who admire both men suppose that the tutor influenced the pupil. Hegel thinks that Alexander's career shows the practical usefulness of philosophy. As to this, A. W. Benn says: "It would be unfortunate if philosophy had no better testimonial to show for herself than the character of Alexander. . . . Arrogant, drunken, cruel, vindictive, and grossly superstitious, he united the vices of a Highland chieftain to the frenzy of an Oriental despot."

> ... As to Aristotle's influence on him, we are left free to conjecture whatever seems to us most plausible. For my part, I should suppose it nil.

- "A History of Western Philosophy" by Bertrand Russell, Chapter XIX p. 160
by dwheeler | 2025-05-20 11:20:50+00:00
One of those alternative specifications is in the W3C Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth Edition). As I note, "The W3C specification is much more similar to typical regex syntax making it much easier for today's software developers to understand), avoids the key problems of 14977:1996, and is already clearly described." It's freely available from w3c. You don't need to use XML to use it.
by roenxi | 2025-05-20 11:20:58+00:00
Also, the strong predictions about AI are using a vague term because the tech often doesn't exist yet. There isn't a chatbot right now that I feel confident can out-perform me at systems design but I'm pretty certain something that can is coming. Odds are also good that in 2-4 years there will be new hotness to replace LLMs that are much more functional (maybe MLLMs, maybe called something else). We can start to predict and respond to their potential even though they don't exist yet; it just takes a little extrapolating. But it doesn't have a name yet.

Which is to agree - obviously if people are talking about "AI" they don't want to talk about something that exists right this second. If they did it'd be better to use a precise word.
by mg | 2025-05-20 11:21:02+00:00
Most of the sunlight that hits a roof is already turned into heat. Whether you use that for calculations or not does not make a difference.

Not sure about the exact numbers, but I guess that at the moment normal roofs and solar panels absorb very roughly about the same percentage of sunlight.

So if in the future solar panels become more efficient, then yes, the amount of sunlight turned into heat could double.

Maybe that can be offset by covering other parts of earth with reflective materials or finding a way to send the heat back into the universe more effectively.
by kibwen | 2025-05-20 11:21:16+00:00
As you suggest, Russia's invasion of Ukraine was bolstered by Russian sympathizers in the east. Every country bordering Russia is incentivized to break free of any sort of alignment with Russia in order to reduce the threat of local insurgency which will aid Russia in its invasion. For example, the Baltic countries removing Russian from their list of official languages, in addition to decoupling from the Russian power grid. There are a lot of steps to be taken, and a lot of them will take decades. Fortunately, Russia's capacity to wage war measured against their number of potential targets means that it would take them decades to reconquer it all, assuming Europe steps up to fund the defense. Train gauge alignment is just one of many steps towards this end, and the sooner the better.
by devoutsalsa | 2025-05-20 11:21:33+00:00
I just finished a recruiting contract & helped my startup client fill 15 position in 18 week.

Here's what I learned about using LLMs to screen resumes:

- the resumes the LLM likes the most will be the "fake" applicants who themselves used an LLM to match the job description, meaning the strongest matches are the fakest applicants

- when a resume isn't a clear match to your hiring criteria & your instinct is to reject, you might use an LLM to look for reasons someone is worth talking to

Keep in mind that most job descriptions and resumes are mostly hot garbage, and they should really be a very lightweight filter for whether a further conversation makes sense for both sides. Trying to do deep research on hot garbage is mostly a waste of time. Garbage in, garbage out.
by OnACoffeeBreak | 2025-05-20 11:22:44+00:00
The author says that they tend to load all of the assets on init. This sidesteps the issue of the C#'s garbage collector (GC). I am not a C# developer, but seem to recall reading that GC can cause unexpected slow downs. Web search shows articles on tips and tricks for optimizing GC in C#, so it seems like a real issue.

Does anyone have any first hand experience they would like to share? Is it easy to avoid the GC slowing down your game unexpectedly? Is it only a problem for a certain class of games?
by diggan | 2025-05-20 11:23:44+00:00
> They don't change because there is some other thing that is supposedly better. It has to be 10x better before people will migrate off one thing to another.

That's the point, and it makes sense from their perspective, I'd probably do the same as well.

Creating a new library instead of changing the existing one lets people chose between those two approaches. Want the latest and greatest but with API breakage? Use this library. Wanna continue using the current API? Use this library.

Instead, we kind of force the first approach on people, which I personally aren't too much of a fan of.
by whyowhy3484939 | 2025-05-20 11:23:45+00:00
I get the idea, but I'm not quite sold on it. Being intelligent on vast scales is something an individual cannot do, but I'm not sure the "species" is more intelligent than any individual agent. I'm actually a bit more sure of the opposite. It's like LLM agents where just adding more doesn't improve the quality it just introduces more room for bullshit.

To allocate capital on vast scales and make decisions on industry etc, sure, that's a level of intelligence quite beyond any one of us but this feels like cheating the definition of intelligence. It's not the quantity of it that matters, it's the quality. It's like flying I guess. A large bird and a small bird are both flying and the big bird is not doing "more" of it. A group of birds is doing something an individual is incapable of (forming a swarm), sure, but it's not an improvement on flying. It's just something else. That something else can be useful, but I don't particularly like applying that same move to "intelligence".

If the species was so goddamn intelligent it could solve unreasonable IQ tests and it cannot. If we want to solve something really, really hard we use Edward Witten not "the species". That's because there is no "species", there is only a bunch of individuals and if they all score bad, the aggregate will score bad as well. We just coast because a bunch of us are extraordinarily clever.