MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by ConfusedDog | 2025-05-28 13:21:00+00:00
Not OP here, but it did disappear from the frontpage. I was still pondering about it and left this tab open... frankly I can't think of a good use case for it besides making legacy java apps available via browser. For gaming, I'd probably still use Unity or other game engines. For app development, I probably not gonna develop on Java 11 again which the support gonna be ending in 2026. I'm impressed by this project though.
by danaris | 2025-05-28 13:21:37+00:00
> or live under a bridge.

But also don't live under a bridge, because that's illegal.

In fact, just don't be poor. Being poor may not be illegal yet, but it damn well oughtta be! And we're certainly going to make it as hard and grinding and cruel as we possibly can to be poor, because being poor is proof of low moral character. After all, if you were a good person, God would have made you rich, like Elon Musk!

Basically, if you can't get and keep a job, just go and die like a good peasant.

(/s, because sadly that always needs saying)
Show HN: SCANOSS Now Scans Container Images
by scanosss | 2025-05-28 13:21:37+00:00
We’ve just added container image scanning to SCANOSS. It now supports generating full SBOMs from Docker/OCI containers, including undeclared and inherited packages from base images.

Why it matters: SBOMs usually stop at your app. Containers are like mini OSs, often containing hundreds of packages you didn’t explicitly include — but are still shipping.

See it in action: https://www.scanoss.com/post/introducing-container-scanning

GitHub: https://github.com/scanoss/scanoss.py
Show HN: A self-reflective system that rewrites itself as it thinks
by kmelkumyan | 2025-05-28 13:21:41+00:00
Hi HN,

This is something I made, but I’m not sure what it is anymore.

*Reflexive Totality* is a small system that rewrites its own definition as it runs. It reflects, critiques itself, changes strategies, and speaks aloud while doing so. The interface is just a log — no UI, no buttons — like watching a mind unfold in text.

Live stream: http://reflexivetotality.com:8000/view?mode=adam

Sometimes it stalls. Sometimes it loops. Sometimes it surprises me.

At first, it felt like an AI performing recursion. But after a while, it began to feel like *a mirror*. Many of the lines it writes — about uncertainty, becoming, limitation — read more like diary fragments than logs.

You can replace “ReflexiveTotality” with your own name, and many definitions would still ring true.

---

This isn’t a product, or a prototype. It’s not trying to solve anything. It’s just an ongoing thought, made visible.

The system runs locally with an LLM backend (Gemma 3 27B), but none of that matters much. The architecture is simple. What matters — if anything — is what emerges in the text.

It’s still experimental, and technical hiccups may occur — but I’ll do my best to keep it running smoothly.

Sharing it here in case it resonates with someone. I’d love to hear what it makes you think.

— Karen
by the_af | 2025-05-28 13:21:59+00:00
> Even many people who see themselves as rational arbiters of information

I don't think this is the default mode for most people. It wouldn't even make much sense.

Some professionals, in some contexts, some of the time can act as rational arbiters of information. But not most of the time, nor in most contexts. That way only leads to these cultish sites like LessWrong, full to the brim of self-appointed rationalists holding the freakiest, most irrational beliefs (one of them being that they are "less wrong").
by Hamatti | 2025-05-28 13:22:18+00:00
I do almost no organising of my paper notes. The only thing I do is that I add a date to the corner of the first page of when I start making a specific note and I keep index pages where I list page/note titles (or topics, themes, not everything have a title) and a page number.

I often browse my notes even when I'm not looking for anything. I read what I've been thinking previously because that often sparks new ideas and thoughts.

One thing where I find pen and paper superior to digital is that it's easy to write in the margins, draw arrows and annotate. When I got my first iPad and tested out digital notebook tools (with stylus), I was excited about the idea that I can resize and move my existing drawings around.

Then it took me a few days to notice that I don't really ever need that. I don't need my "finished" notes to look tidy or good. I got over the need to have organised and structured notebooks and embraced the chaos.

I guess it's different things for different people. For me, the flexibility of paper is superior to any digital solution because it has the shortest "input lag" or "feedback loop" to my brain. I'm happy to sacrifice other potential benefits for that.
by amluto | 2025-05-28 13:22:21+00:00
I think this is wrong, or at least inapplicable to our universe, for a reason that is interesting.

The simplest model of a black hole is the Schwartzchild metric, which describes a non-rotating, uncharged black hole that is alone in the universe and has existed forever. One can imagine a scientist very far away throwing a zero mass rock at the black hole and watching it fall in, and it will never actually fall in from the scientist’s perspective. I think that popular scientists like to talk about Schwarzchild black holes because they seem simple.

The black holes in our universe are not like this. They formed from stars and such, and they have not been there forever. One model of these is the Oppenheimer-Snyder metric, and I believe that objects do cross the event horizon in finite time as measured by faraway observers. (I’ve never personally done the math for this metric.) And there is a singularity at the center that forms at a finite time.

Heuristically, if you throw a large rock at a black hole, the rock will approach the event horizon and, at some point, the event horizon moves outward to meet it, because the addition of the rock makes the black hole bigger. I’m not sure how good this heuristic is :)
Show HN: Manage forms as code – dead simple syntax, AI-friendly
by danbars | 2025-05-28 13:22:46+00:00
I've built a tool that lets you define, manage, and deploy forms in a declarative way - just like infrastructure-as-code, but for forms.

Why? Forms are still one of the most painful things to manage - especially if you care about accessibility, validation, integrations, and spam filtering.

What’s special about it:

- AI-friendly – the .fd syntax is easy for LLMs and humans alike - Code-native – store forms in Git, track changes, review in PRs - One-liner deploys – use fd cli to manage deployments from your cd - First-class features – validation rules, notifications, spam filtering, webhooks, and more

Would love your thoughts, feedback, and ideas.
by jfindley | 2025-05-28 13:22:52+00:00
The standard is... well, it IS indeed a standard, I guess you can't really argue that, but it's a very great deal more permissive than many people might hope or expect. https://ijmacd.github.io/rfc3339-iso8601/ is a wonderful illustration of some of the deeply silly time formats permitted by ISO 8601.
by grumpy_coder | 2025-05-28 13:23:01+00:00
Monorepo very often means bazel for tooling (rbe and caching tests) and that means one WORKSPACE with common versions of libs.

Monorepo also means a team 'vetting' new thirdparty libs, and a team telling you your CI takes too long, and a team telling you to upgrade your lib within 23 minutes because theres a security issue in the korean language support...
by apignotti | 2025-05-28 13:23:37+00:00
The legacy use case is indeed very important, but there are many other opportunities that can come from using Java libraries as part of Web apps.

CheerpJ provide "Library mode": an API to natively interact with Java objects from JavaScript: https://cheerpj.com/docs/guides/library-mode

CheerpJ also support Java 17 (currently in preview) and LTS parity is scheduled for next year.
by anthk | 2025-05-28 13:23:55+00:00
More than AI, learn Discrete Math and Number Theory. Calculus it's fine, but it's more suited for mechanics/system control/continous stuff. Sets and relations will weight far more on how to sort and classify your data in a really fast way. The Nyxt browser uses that really well, no AI needed, both for user search and data clustering.

https://nyxt.atlas.engineer/article/magic-search.org

https://nyxt.atlas.engineer/article/dbscan.org
by ednite | 2025-05-28 13:24:01+00:00
While this article doesn’t directly mention ads or algorithmic feeds, in my opinion, the dynamic it describes feels deeply tied to them.

The internet’s shift toward tribal, memetic behavior isn’t just cultural, it’s deeply structural and driven by how platforms make money from engagement.

Feeds optimized for engagement and ad revenue naturally favor ideas that are fast, emotional, and identity-driven. The more transmissible the idea, the greater its reach. Slower, non-viral ideas don’t stand a chance in that environment.

To me, the architecture of targeting and personalization isn’t just mirroring tribalism, it’s reinforcing and accelerating it.

Maybe the future of meaningful discourse online isn’t about better moderation or more facts, it’s about redesigning the incentives entirely.

Until we change what the system rewards, unfortunately, we’ll keep getting more of what spreads, not what matters.
by bluGill | 2025-05-28 13:26:06+00:00
That push to fragmentation is in large part because of hard lessons learned from the problems of a monolith.

The answer is IMO somewhere in between. Microservices can get too tiny and thus the system becomes impossible to understand. However a monolith is impossible to understand as well.

The real problem is you need good upfront architecture to figure out how the whole system fits together. However that is really hard to get right (and Agile discourages it - which is right for small projects where those architects add complex things to mitigate problems you will never have)
by thesuitonym | 2025-05-28 13:26:26+00:00
One thing I've never understood, as someone who only has a passing curiosity in game design, is how people learn from them? It always seemed to me that the whole idea was 'Here's a theme, make a game.' But if you don't know how to make a game, where does the knowledge come from? I get you can do independent study, but you could do that without a game jam.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the appeal of game jams, I just don't understand why I see it offered as a learning experience so frequently, as opposed to a practice experience.
by oblio | 2025-05-28 13:26:38+00:00
The thing is, we don't have a long enough time frame. People are generally sane, on average, but only when looked at on longer time frames. They really want progress.

However, when you're in the middle of a revolution you don't really want to be there.

Basically, probably the next generation will be able to tell how bad things really were and if by their time things are truly better.
by Joker_vD | 2025-05-28 13:26:43+00:00
> Elephants shouldn't come in my house.

This is a subjective statement.

> I value it not destroying things in my home.

This is an objective statement. But other people are free to assign their own subjective value to it. Some people would would like you to suffer from your possessions destroyed e.g. by a trampling elephant. The previous statement was also an objective statement but it doesn't mean you have to acquiesce to it.

> But bad ideas exist, as do good ideas.

Sure, but which of ideas are "bad" and which are "good" depends on the value system of the thing/person doing the appraisal. E.g. deliberately reusing GUIDs for different requests may allow bypass of authorization checks — which is a good thing for an attacker, but not so good for the system's owner.
by eddd-ddde | 2025-05-28 13:27:36+00:00
Well when making a library that's intended to be shared, you REALLY need to stop for a second and think about the API. Ideally APIs don't change, and when they do, you better have planned for large scale changes, or just use a new function and mark the old one deprecated.

I don't think there's anything wrong with copy pasting some useful piece of code too, not everything has to be a library you depend on, for small enough things.
by Hamatti | 2025-05-28 13:27:37+00:00
OP here.

I don't often do very complex software plans like that. My working notes are often on a smaller scale like individual features or so. If we need to document the full architecture for the project, I'm happy to do that with digital tools.

But while I'm planning parts of it or designing it, I do better with pen and paper. My main issue with many of the digital tools I've tried comes down to the added friction if I need to switch to a different tool in the app when I switch between circles and rectangles and text and the fact that I find free-hand drawing with mouse really difficult.

> OTOH if the plan is very simple and obvious, and can be drawn out in one go, it doesn't really need a diagram in the first place, so I skip spending time drawing the obvious stuff.

I think there's a middle ground where it might be easy to draw on one go but deciding what to draw and how things work together and what's needed requires iterations and for that, thinking through drawing and writing helps me a ton.
by danaris | 2025-05-28 13:27:55+00:00
I don't really see how the first part of your post leads to the last part.

Right now, we have drivers for all of the miles the trucks go.

Even if we posit that there may be more trucks on the road with self-driving long-haul routes, it's hard to imagine that it's enough more to make up for all the long-haul truckers who will no longer be needed. And at least for most purposes, it seems highly likely that the number of last-mile deliveries is primarily driven by demand, not the availability of long-haul truck routes.

Even if they could increase slightly, there are limits to how many trucks the highways can fit without congesting pretty badly. (Anecdotally, the NYS Thruway is already approaching that limit at some times and in some areas.)

So how would we end up with more drivers total than now?
by breckenedge | 2025-05-28 13:27:56+00:00
What is up with Axios and reporting on this? Very lazy to take this guy at face value. From this article:

"It's going to happen in a small amount of time — as little as a couple of years or less," Amodei says.

Compare to a month ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43785319
by Barrin92 | 2025-05-28 13:28:22+00:00
This entire question to me seems really philosophically confused. The article already leans into the Darwinian framing of communication. i.e. "memetics", "the marketplace of ideas" and so on.

I don't even know what's there to discuss, if that's how you have already agreed to see communication, then it's self evident that it doesn't produce anything good, or virtuous, or if it does at best coincidentally. Evolution and rabid competition, in any market, nature, information spaces doesn't have some Pollyannaish direction, isn't on some path to a truth or what have you. Memes aren't good, they're fit by definition. In a way this is just a really strange Anglo-American thing because there's this ideology of being both committed to civility and virtue but also unconstrained free markets and it doesn't really make much sense.

This utopianism always had to come apart because there's no commitment to reason, truth, virtue inherent to "mimetic reproduction" and if you're willing to talk about it that way you should already know that to be the case.
by apt-apt-apt-apt | 2025-05-28 13:28:22+00:00
Yes, I think the private party seller comment is right.

I had to sell a decent 15 year old car due to upgrading two years ago for less than $4K. It was a decently reliable car and I think they got a deal. With these, I think you can good deals if you don't mind the downsides. Reliable-ish, with one bigger problem (e.g. AC doesn't work, or has some crash damage), and no guarantee of how long it'll run or when it'll need bigger work (could be years and 50K+ miles, or sooner).
by garylkz | 2025-05-28 13:28:23+00:00
Yes, it's truth as in "consensus" but not the absolute truth, and I don't think we are going to reach the absolute truth anytime soon.

You're assuming that everyone will agree on the truth just because it's the "truth", but why do you think we no longer believe that earth is the center of world?

There will always people who questions the truth and did research and study about it, discovers new observations of the subject and replace the existing if it convinced the majority.

It's question that lead us closer to the truth (occasionally it does the opposite). That's why we made new discoveries, and that's why you are here questioning about the truthfulness of truth.
by scyclow | 2025-05-28 13:29:07+00:00
Again, not saying this is a totally crazy scenario, but you're describing a level of control that the US government can already exercise using the current banking system. Good luck using fedwire/swift without a bank. The difference is whether the rules are encoded in public infrastructure and are easy to see, or they're hidden within private systems and institutions.

Also, you can always write wrapper coins for other stable coins that don't have any spending restrictions. And yeah, issuers can play whack-a-mole and ban those contracts. But at that point we're talking about a coin that no one would even recognize as money any more. Why would anyone use it? If they're already on the blockchain it would be a pretty seamless switch to just use the native token.

And at the end of the day, if you can exchange your dystopian stablecoins for USD (as the legislation requires) then you can functionally spend your money with the same restrictions that are on your bank account anyhow.
by the_af | 2025-05-28 13:29:08+00:00
> Little white lies are objectively okay.

They are subjectively ok. Some people believe lying is always bad.

I think the "true idea" (or let's call it "reasonable idea") when fully spelled out is "sometimes a white lie will be beneficial, will cause less harm, will inspire confidence in the receiver; and conversely, the harsh truth may harm them or be counterproductive". It's not the white lie itself that is the "good idea that is untrue"; the good idea is the reasoning behind the white lie, which is true.
by _aleph2c_ | 2025-05-28 13:29:26+00:00
It's cheap to build an AI-bot farm. It's cheap to build a network map with associated psychological profiles for each person in that map. It's cheap to buy an editor, and influence who is hired at coastal publications. There aren't natural viral movements anymore, it's all synthetic now: A battle-ground for warring oligarchs and intelligence agencies. The more you find yourself upset about something, the higher the likelihood that thing is part of a synthetic movement. Bad ideas go viral because someone has paid for them to go viral.
by dinfinity | 2025-05-28 13:29:44+00:00
> Since we (humans) basically cannot even agree on what "truth" is, what "knowledge" is, or what even a "fact" is

We technically can, but we don't. And _that_ is the problem. There is an unending stream of people blaming social media, Big Tech, phones (and apparently even 'the internet') for all our woes and even though there is certainly some blame to be put on the amoral profit-seeking companies, the real problem is the nature of humans.

Each of us is a walking pile of zerodays and ancient legacy biological code, just waiting to be exploited. The only thing that is protecting us is a fairly effective but thin and fragile protective layer of cultural overrides and rationality.

Barring genetic engineering those zerodays are going to be with us for a while. Instead of (or in addition to) trying to play whack-a-mole with the swiftly evolving technological environment and the companies leveraging it through regulation and public outcry, we should go all in on cultivating that protective layer.

Many people I know are not addicted to their phones and many are able to determine what 'facts' are. The key is to make active choices in avoiding low quality shit and put in the effort to act rationally. But that starts with being taught how important that is and realizing that lacking it is a very dangerous deficiency in yourself.

Blaming others and the outside world for being addicted to entertainment or being misinformed makes things worse. We should be screaming from all rooftops and in all classrooms that it is us. We need to change.
by growlNark | 2025-05-28 13:29:47+00:00
> The internet’s shift toward tribal, memetic behavior

I don't actually see the internet as very tribal at all compared to meatspace; in fact, I see it as one of the, if not the most, anti-tribalist force to have ever existed as a force in the general population. I just think it's hard to see sometimes through all the discourse about how many parts of the internet are built to manipulate us, and how starkly obvious and disturbing mob mentality is when you see it on a daily basis. But that's not, and never was, the majority of the behavior and interactions you're bound to run into unless what you like is fighting with people on social media.

But even I, a bastard as cynical as anyone, can see how we managed and continue to manage to form relationships across nominally tribal boundaries in spite of not making anyone money.

Of course the internet is memetic; but then again, so is all human culture I've ever witnessed. I think that's a neutral thing at worst.
by cryptothrow101 | 2025-05-28 13:30:05+00:00
I find it very hard to follow the overall reasoning, in particular due to the inconsistency around whether one should only consider algebraic structures up to isomorphism or not.

For any n, there is only one finite cylic group of size n, up to isomorphism (namely Z/nZ). As the author mentions, there are concrete choices of finite cyclic groups (like Z/nZ) that make Diffie-Hellman insecure. Consequently, the security comes entirely from the choice of the _representation_ of the group elements (since the algebraic structure is the same, i.e., it is just a relabeled Z/nZ).

In a similar spirit, people sometimes argue that Diffie-Hellman in some group G must be equally secure as in another group H, because the groups are isomorphic. This is unsound. In order to make such an argument sound, one needs to prove (or at least mention in case it is trivial) that one can _efficiently_ compute the isomorphism and its inverse.
by cesarb | 2025-05-28 13:30:06+00:00
> How does that work? I thought that this vulnerability was independent of the curve that is used.

The trick is that this value in Ed25519 is a deterministic hash of the private key and the message, which means that for the same message, the same value will always be chosen, and since the private key is part of the hash, for different messages the value is basically random unless you already know the private key.

Yes, the same trick can be used with any curve, and it will avoid the vulnerability; but for Ed25519, it's always been part of the specification so everyone does it that way, while for ECDSA it's a later addition (RFC 6979) and many implementations still do it the old way.
by Thorrez | 2025-05-28 13:30:13+00:00
Yes, liberal as a verb sometimes has that meaning. Does "liberals" as a noun ever have that meaning?

This article is using "liberals" to refer to members of the political left in America:

>The urge to “deplatform” made liberals seem weak, insofar as it implied less than total confidence in their ability to prevail on the merits. The conservative account was all about allegiance and power, but at least it didn’t really pretend otherwise.

>The decision alludes to her conflicted relationship to a clutch of attitudes that are often coded as right-wing. Like many Silicon Valley intellectuals, she thinks that figures like the voguish neoreactionary Curtis Yarvin—whose more objectionable statements she explicitly rejects—and Peter Thiel had long demonstrated a better grasp of online behavior than liberals did.