MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by vram22 | 2025-05-28 23:12:48+00:00
So I submitted HN posts about both of them:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44112115

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44076220

Full speed ahead, and damn the naysayers, er, downvoters, er, torpedos! ;)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Farragut
by bsder | 2025-05-28 23:14:03+00:00
Only because "profit" is in the way. $20K a year with 20 students is $400K per year which is more than enough for two teachers and the infrastructure and then some.

While this is fine in elementary and early middle school (which is where the Gates foudnation documented), this probably breaks down as you enter high school where teachers need to be specialized and you need to have a pool of teachers to cover all subjects.
by fragmede | 2025-05-28 23:14:13+00:00
I was responding to

> trusting every individual to do what's best for them (and trusting that decision to often include what is best for their community)

which hasn't, in my view, panned out, because of the reasons I outlined in my comment. Between trusting individuals to be altruistic and centralized planning of everything, it seems there's a lot of room for some central authority to decide we need more eg housing and to provide incentives for that, without becoming eg Soviet Russia.
by wahern | 2025-05-28 23:15:34+00:00
The Linux kernel doesn't actually support path names longer than 4095 (4096 with NUL). See fs/namei.c:getname_flags, which is used early in every syscall that takes a file path. That function will attempt to copy the path into kernel space, but fails when the length exceeds 4095: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin... (strncpy_from_user is defined in lib/strncpy_from_user.c)

IIRC, some real-world systems set PATH_MAX to INT_MAX (Solaris?), but I don't know if any modern Unix systems support arbitrary length paths. Everybody demanded features that required the kernel to cache the path in the kernel, at which point the notion of just walking the userspace path buffer (no separate allocation, no need for a limit) went out the window.

EDIT: glibc sets NL_TEXTMAX to INT_MAX. I always get confused when discussing this issue. NL_TEXTMAX made good on the threat that these MAX macros might be (effectively) unlimited and so shouldn't be used to size buffers, but I don't think any system ever did so with PATH_MAX.
by tel | 2025-05-28 23:15:45+00:00
I really like TAPL but would recommend Harper’s Practical Foundations of Programming Languages (PFPL) first (though skip the first 2 chapters I think?).

https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rwh/pfpl.html

It’s far more directed than TAPL, so I think it’s easier to read from start to finish. TAPL feels better as a reference.
by analog31 | 2025-05-28 23:16:22+00:00
For me, those side-investigations are often physical experiments, which run on their own time scale. Plus they often run on another computer, to reduce the risk of crashing and losing data, or just physical proximity to the experiment.

How I tie those threads together is by the data that they generate. I use ASDF because it works for the kind of stuff I'm going, but choose your poison. Once the data are in the bag, the cells that analyze or report the results can stay in the same notebook, or be copied into your main notebook. My data aren't so huge that there's much of a penalty in re-loading them.

For me, reproducibility is more important than organization, because I'm not all that organized anyway. So, a single master notebook at the end of a study isn't my top goal.
by MaDeuce | 2025-05-28 23:16:22+00:00
These were my go-to guys for sciencey stocking stuffers at Christmas for my kids. Their catalog was always a joy to read, with excellent puns.

Like the guy who wrote the linked article, a GoFundMe for a for-profit enterprise rubs me the wrong way. However, I just donated because of all the great memories they've provided me and my kids. Seems like those of us that like these things may need to pitch in from time to time.

I wonder if something like this could have helped Lindsay's Publications, who went out of business a decade ago. I have so many fantastic books from them. They're really worth a HN post all on their own.

https://makezine.com/article/workshop/lindsays-technical-boo...
by 1vuio0pswjnm7 | 2025-05-28 23:16:43+00:00
These so-called "tech" companies would have people believe that "this is what people want" and they are just giving it to them. But if people want something that has little to no value in the online ad services business, and there are countless examples of such things, then the so-called "tech" companies may refuse to deliver it, or more likely, they may choose to rearrange what is delivered such that the content most useful to the online advertising services business is delivered first and displayed prominantly, with the rest hidden or difficult to find. Several days ago there was an HN comment arguing that the www needs curation. The www has "curation". This is performed by so-called "tech" companies operating as unnecessary intermediaries in the inteerests of collecting data and selling online ad services. Maybe this is not of the kind of "curation" that www users want. It is "curation" (or "filtering", "moderation", or what ever one choose to call it) nonetheless._

To use a silly analogy, consider billbooards. Billboard companies may be useful for their role in information distribution. The public pays nothing for this "service". But billboards are not free. Advertisers pay to use them. The information displayed on billboards is generally commercial in nature. The public pays for roads, not the billboard companies. The public does not drive on these roads to see billboards, the roads have other, more important utility. The billboard companies piggyback on a public resource: roadways.

The www and the internet in general has utility other than as a medium or vector for collecting data surreptitiously and disseminating advertising. Silicon Valley's so-called "tech" company intermediaries offer "services" that make the internet "easier to use" and are marketed as "free". But like billboards, the intermediaries' computer systems are not free. Advertisers pay for these ad services systems. The public pays for the internet to which they connect and use as a medium//vector. The intermediaries piggyback on a public resource: the internet.

Perhaps the public has forgotten the utility of the internet without advertising. Trillion dollar "billboard companies" have made the public forget about the public resource that they are paying for. Imagine if, pre-internet, every road was lined from start to finish with billboards and billboard companies tracked drivers everywhere they travelled.

The roads work fine without billboards. The internet works fine without advertising. But the online advertising services industry, the trillion dollar "billboard companies", i.e., Silicon Valley, disagrees.
by taeric | 2025-05-28 23:17:17+00:00
I meant more as how to mentally model it in a way that can get someone across the line. My assertion is that caring about undecidability is almost certainly a waste of time for most people. That said, the reason we work in small chunks is often so that we can more easily answer questions about programs.

Moving the graphical drawing and constraints over to a symbolic system also helps see how many symbols it can take to cover a simple system.

Of course, the real reason for me thinking on this is that I'm playing with FreeCAD for the first time in a long time. :D
by wat10000 | 2025-05-28 23:17:23+00:00
The known laws of physics are computable, so if you believe that human intelligence is purely physical (and the known laws of physics are sufficient to explain it) then that means that human intelligence is in principle no more powerful than a Turing machine, since the Turing machine can emulate human intelligence by simulating physics.

If there's a nonphysical aspect to human intelligence and it's not computable, then that means computers can never match human intelligence even in theory.
by Aeolun | 2025-05-28 23:18:13+00:00
Don’t try to speak for me please. I’m perfectly happy with my app looking mildly different and not weighing 1GB. I’m inclined to believe most people using Tauri do not have your issue.

I don’t quite understand why you have that issue in the first place. The fact they use the system webview is front, left and center on their website. It’s like you decided to use a fork because of the decorations on the back, and now complain that it’s pointy and the developers should just make it a spoon instead.
by k33l0r | 2025-05-28 23:19:16+00:00
The fundamental problem with deliveries is that you, as the recipient, are not the customer.

The merchant pays for thousands of deliveries, but you on the receiving end are at best getting a handful.

So the courier is incentivised to offer the best rates to the merchant while completely ignoring the requirements or preferences of the recipient.

Your only recourse is to complain to the shop, who might do something if the volume of complaints is high enough, but most likely they’ll just pass the buck to the courier…
by rubit_xxx16 | 2025-05-28 23:20:00+00:00
This is very nice. The full list however would be much too large, however, e.g.

- Louis Vuitton is included and Super Mario was not, even though it has been very popular.

- Wartime travel set pieces are included which are arguably tokens representing chess pieces and not formal chess pieces, and that is well and good, but even more cheap stone sets were sold to tourists in Mexico that had a distinctive look which are not mentioned here.

- No mention of other variations of chess and how those pieces evolved.

- Many online stores sell chess pieces in variations unmentioned.
by drob518 | 2025-05-28 23:20:04+00:00
Exactly. It's a tradeoff between storage space and flexibility. Forths built for larger environments will store the whole string and won't worry about it. If you're a 32-bit Forth with GBs of memory in the system, it's no big deal. But remember that Forths are often used in 16-bit systems with KBs of memory (max 64 KB), so they're trying to be quite careful with each byte allocated. The fact that Forth can operate in such environments is what makes them popular for embedded programming.
by jonahbenton | 2025-05-28 23:20:04+00:00
No, this misunderstands both humans and LLMs. Understanding what LLMs are doing properly removes any sense of magic from them and makes clear the differences between prompting them for outputs vs interacting with people. They are literally only probabilistic word calculators. Useful tool, lots of interesting use cases. But the intrinsic magic of human interaction is about the intention, the autonomy, the beingness of humans. LLMs are not beings. Recommend reading ChatGPT is Bullshit if you haven't already.
by mmooss | 2025-05-28 23:20:55+00:00
Where does it say how it handles user information - what it collects, how long it's retained, what it's used for?

I would expect Mullvad to say they collect none, but is that said anywhere? Is there any privacy policy?

Edit: All it says is that they protect us from Google and Brave:

> When a search isn't in the cache, our server (leta.mullvad.net) queries the search engines on your behalf. Only the search query is sent; no personal data is shared.

and

> Returned search results contain only direct links to the final destination. All tracking elements and third-party content are removed to protect your privacy.
by jazzyjackson | 2025-05-28 23:22:12+00:00
No sign of what source material it was trained on though right? So open weight rather than reproducible from source.

I remember there's a project "Open R1" that last I checked was working on gathering their own list of training material, looks active but not sure how far along they've gotten:

https://github.com/huggingface/open-r1
by tialaramex | 2025-05-28 23:22:32+00:00
I completely disagree. For example understanding the theory gives me a very powerful bullshit detector because entire categories of problem which might sound merely difficult are in fact Undecidable.

Knowing that the actual regular expressions can be recognised by a finite automaton but PCRE and similar "LOL, just whatever neat string matching" extensions cannot means you can clearly draw the line and not accidentally make a product which promises arbitrary computation for $1 per million queries.

I agree that understanding something of how the CPU works is also useful, but it's no substitute for a grounding in theory. The CPU is after all obliged to only do things which are theoretically possible, so it's not even a real difference of kind.
by wat10000 | 2025-05-28 23:23:07+00:00
I'm not sure about that. These are also easily solved with a general-purpose CPU, if you don't care about running time. And there's nothing that says that a halt detector would be fast. The impossibility result is more interesting than just "it would take a million times the age of the universe to complete if every atom in it were put to the sole purpose of computing it" as we often see with cryptography.
by asdff | 2025-05-28 23:24:34+00:00
I don't think using a certain language is more secure than just writing that same function call in some other language. Security in compute comes from priviledged access from some agents and blacklisting others. The language doesn't matter for that. It can be a python command, it can be a tcp packet, it can be a voltage differential, the actual "language" used is irrelevant.

All I am arguing is that languages and paradigms written in a way to make sense for our english speaking monkey brain is perhaps not the most efficient way to do things once we remove the constraint of having an english speaking monkey brain being the software architect.
by tmpz22 | 2025-05-28 23:24:54+00:00
> Everyone should be able to make their voice heard in Congress.

Based on your donations to the Trump administration. Pardons for < $1m! It's a deal! Or, weirdly, if you have a pretty young blonde daughter.

[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/27/us/politics/trump-pardon-...

[2]: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-officially-pardons-rea...
by franga2000 | 2025-05-28 23:25:00+00:00
I applaud the technical achievement, but I fear this is the kind of feature creep that kills projects. There were quite a few open source "groupware" projects that are now close to forgotten because what people really needed was a [email server] that integrated nicely with their existing [files,office,ticketing...], but the "groupware" options were too tightly bundled and hard to integrate.

Swap the brackets for any feature and you'll probably find a "suite" that did that thing the best, but ultimately failed because it wasn't the best at everything else too.

Nextcloud already has calendar, contacts and especially files covered quite well, but it can't be configured to use external providers for those. Anyone who wants a complete self-hosted solution (everything from federated file shares to web forms, collaborative editing, appointments, tasks...) will definitely want to stick with Nextcloud, so they'll have to turn off all these new features.

I just worry that with time, this will become another "all in one" suite that does one or even a few things reeeally well (email), but is too annoying to properly integrate with everything else.

Yes, Nextcloud is also in danger of becoming that, but they've done a very good job of moving things into optional extensions and giving you plenty of integration options for plugging in external software. It's very good at being the hub that other things plug into, but you can't have two hubs...
by mattwilsonn888 | 2025-05-28 23:25:08+00:00
You should appreciate that the trust assumptions in your example have been minimized to a point not before possible for digital transactions; in principle removing all possible third-party interference in remote transactions.

If you're going to argue about failures in practice, I'm not interested, because I agree (likely in a way more open-minded to moving forward than your mindset of giving up).
by akoboldfrying | 2025-05-28 23:25:36+00:00
> Websites don't really produce consistent content even from identical requests though.

Often true in practice unfortunately, but to the extent that it is true, any approach that tries to use hashes to prove things to a third party is sunk. (We could imagine a timestamping service that allows some kind of post-download "normalisation" step to strip out content that varies between queries and then hash the results of that, but that doesn't seem practical to offer as a free service.)

> all you need is a service which will attest that it saw a particular hashsum at a particular time

Isn't that what I'm proposing?
by ttctciyf | 2025-05-28 23:26:49+00:00
> Are these two meanings of "undecidable" related

I can't claim to answer this, but you might like to look at A Relatively Small Turing Machine Whose Behavior Is Independent of Set Theory[0] which (amongst other interesting things) does discuss the proposition "ZFC is consistent", which is independent from ZFC, in terms of a Turing Machine which enumerates all possible proofs in ZFC and halts when it finds a contradiction (e.g. a proof of 0=1).

But I don't think there's a simple equivalence here, all the same.

The logician's undecidable is always relative to a set of axioms, whereas the question of whether a property of strings can be decided by some TM doesn't place any constraints on the TM, which is to say the deciding TM is not required to, nor prohibited from, implementing any particular axiom set.

(It's tempting to try and show "provable in ZFC" to be a (CS)undecidable property by having a TM enumerate ZFC proofs and halt on finding a proof or disproof of the input string, and imagine the TM running forever when given a statement of the Continuum Hypothesis. But the TM could proceed by other means - for example [1] shows a proof of CH's independence in a theorem prover, so that a TM incorporating this construction could indeed reject CH statements as unprovable in ZFC. Which is not to say "ZFC-provable" *isn't* (CS)undecidable, just that showing this isn't as simple as constructing a ZFC-proof-enumerator and giving it the CH as input.)

0: https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04343

1: https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.02901
by eximius | 2025-05-28 23:27:05+00:00
There is so much anger in this thread because someone is making qualitative predictions instead of quantitative predictions (except there are some statistical predictions, albeit based around correlations to existing observational phenomenon, but that seems valid to me?).

In some ways, it is a symptom of the success of science so far that we consider that the baseline for credibility.

If the predictive observations from this theory hold true, then it's possible a mathematical framework can be developed for it.
by bawolff | 2025-05-28 23:27:48+00:00
The wikipedia article is pretty useless here.

The original paper is better, but still seems to be too vauge to be useful. Where it isn't vauge it seems to point pretty strongly to computability/complexity theory.

Intelligence means many different things to different people. If we just gesture vaugely at it we aren't going to get anywhere, everyone will just talk past each other.
by echelon | 2025-05-28 23:27:49+00:00
There are some intangible matters of practicality. The team is more familiar with React.

I tried to use Bevy (since we also use 3D) and that wasn't ready for prime time.

I thought about Iced and Imgui and several other Rust frameworks, but given our experience with Bevy we shied away from it.

We figured we'd be able to move faster and rely on a lot of existing tooling. That's been true for the most part.
by kevincox | 2025-05-28 23:28:04+00:00
Yes, but it is far more tested, fuzzed, studied and battle hardened than your app code will ever be. So in the grand scheme of things it isn't a high risk for stability or security.

Yes, it would be nice if the full stack is memory safe, but that isn't a good reason to not write your own code in a memory safe language.
by jazzyjackson | 2025-05-28 23:28:08+00:00
You can pay Amazon to do it for you at about a penny per 10 thousand tokens.

There's a couple of guides for setting it up "manually" on ec2 instances so you're not paying the Bedrock per-token-prices, here's [1] that states four g6e.48xlarge instances (192 vCPUs, 1536GB RAM, 8x L40S Tensor Core GPUs that come with 48 GB of memory per GPU)

Quick google tells me that g6e.48xlarge is something like 22k USD per month?

[0] https://aws.amazon.com/bedrock/deepseek/

[1] https://community.aws/content/2w2T9a1HOICvNCVKVRyVXUxuKff/de...
by didibus | 2025-05-28 23:28:32+00:00
Ya, I've always wondered like do blood cells in my body have any awareness that I'm not just a planet they live on? Would we know if the earth was just some part of a bigger living structure with its own consciousness? Does it even need to be conscious, or just show movement that is non random and influenced in some ways by goals or agenda? Many organisms act as per the goal to survive even if not conscious, and so probably can be considered a life-form? Corporations are an example of that like you said.
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-05-28 23:29:17+00:00
You’re acting like the SM is an unfalsifiable string theory that just revises all of its parameter every time the last batch is disproven. It’s not.

SM is not fully developed. And we know where it is wrong or painfully silent, e.g. neutrinos and gravity. But it’s a rigorous theory, possibly the most rigorous our species has ever developed, with central tenets that have held to ridiculous levels of precision. Of course there are conflicting hypotheses at its frontier. That’s sort of what defines the frontier. But at its core, the SM is robust. So robust that we mostly don’t talk about it, obsessing—as science should—with the parts where it doesn’t fit together as perfectly.
by asdff | 2025-05-28 23:29:20+00:00
A future AI (actual AI not llm) would compute a spectrum of putative functions (1) and identify functions that meet some threshold. You need no prior associations only randomization of parameters and enough sample space. Given enough compute all possible combinations of random binary could be modeled and those satisfying functional parameters will be selected. And they will probably look nothing like how we consider functions today.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootstrapping_(statistics)#/me...
by coderenegade | 2025-05-28 23:32:21+00:00
My bread and butter at one point was working on various pathfinding and numerical computing problems, and I'm primarily a print statement debugger. The time evolution of the system is usually the most important signal for debugging these types of problems, and is easy to dump.

That's not to say I don't also use debuggers when necessary, I just reserve those for very hairy problems that can't be solved any other way, e.g. stepping into dependencies. Let's not forget that debuggers have their limitations too, e.g. release build GC optimization (or indeed any release-only bug), and any init process where you have to attach the debugger after the startup, fundamentally cannot be debugged using debuggers.
Show HN: AI that roasts your website like a savage TikTok comment
by Roozka | 2025-05-28 23:34:18+00:00
AI-powered tool that scans your website and throws hilarious, savage TikTok-style roasts at it. It’s like having a brutally honest internet friend who points out what’s wrong with your site and gives you tips to fix it.

Just drop your URL, and get ready for some savage laughs plus useful feedback.
by bawolff | 2025-05-28 23:34:19+00:00
> Is ChatGPT on par with a human child? A smart dog? Crows? A college professor? PhD level?

That presumes a total ordering of intelligence. I think the balance of evidence is that no such total ordering exists.

There are things chatgpt can do that children (or adults) cannot. There are thing that children can do that chatgpt cannot.

At best maybe the Turing test can give us a partial ordering.

I don't think there is much value in viewing "intelligence" as a whole. Its a combination of a multitude of factors, that need to be dealt with independently.