MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by CyrsBel | 2025-05-29 21:41:39+00:00
They would've known about God 3,000 years ago. No, Chinese and Native Americans and etc did not ignore him. Abraham was of a pagan land when he first encountered God.

In any case, it was definitely communicated across the world. If you're picking a specific point in time when first contact was established according to a specific tradition, that might raise a question of why first contract there and in that way. But we in 2025 have the hindsight of seeing what happened globally after that and spread it did.

I don't think it is a coincidence that specific groups of people received revelation the way they did, when considering things like the quality of their oral and scribed history. Would you pick a region of people who don't know how to write and barely know how to talk, or a region of people who are highly skilled in both?
by nec4b | 2025-05-29 21:42:40+00:00
If you had lived in then you should know the standard of living was poor. More then a million people left to work in Germany as Gastarbeiters to send money home. Gas was limited. Common goods had to be brought through the border with Austria or Italy. Inflation was crazy, everybody bought German Marks the same day they got their paychecks, otherwise the money was worthless by the next day. What happened to you if you were caught as a political opposition in Yugoslavia is a story on its own.
Show HN: I Launched B2B Ad Network for Tech Startups
by johnrushx | 2025-05-29 21:44:12+00:00
I've tried running ads on all possible platforms and social media. The process was super complicated and the ROI mostly negative.

I built my own ad network, I recruited publishers, mostly web directories in b2b tech and ai niches. Then Ive been running my own ads on this network for a while, at some point I felt like the ROI and CPC is good, so a month ago I launched it publicly.

You can join as a publisher or you can join as an advertiser.

I'm taking a big fight against google/meta and the rest of the big guys, so pls be nice, any help is appreciated.
by meowface | 2025-05-29 21:44:58+00:00
I have no affiliation with either company but from using both a bunch as a customer: Replicate has a competitor at https://fal.ai/models and FAL's generation speed is consistently faster across every model I've tried. They have some sub-100 ms image gen models, too.

Replicate has a much bigger model selection. But for every model that's on both, FAL is pretty much "Replicate but faster". I believe pricing is pretty similar.
by aspenmayer | 2025-05-29 21:45:15+00:00
> The problem here is that the HN URL encoding interpreted the period as the end-of-sentence rather than as part of the URL.

That’s the first problem.

> It would be simply bizarre for any browser or web server to choke on a perfectly legal dot to end a URL.

I agree? I never said anything like this. My original comment was:

> Wikipedia urls ending in punctuation are unreliably broken or not depending on caching and the platform, so if you put a # on the end to escape it, it fixes it, without having to worry about percent encoding.

I mentioned the platform specifically, which in this context could be either the server context or client context. You mentioned server/client context, as in what HN serves the user or vice versa. I mentioned that and client context inclusively. If you’re correcting me, assume I need you to show my error.

> Enter the question mark anyway, and the article comes up! Why? There's a redirect without it!

That’s the second problem - the site in question as typed - there is no redirect from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joffe_v._Google,_Inc to the version of the article that has a period, which is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joffe_v._Google,_Inc%2E if you use percent encoding.

I’m not sure what the point of your comment is.
by synergy20 | 2025-05-29 21:45:16+00:00
I wish C3 has simple RAII/object/class built-in(no inheritance needed, no Polymorphism is fine, just some Encapsulation better than c's struct with function pointers), then it becomes a more powerful c, and a much simpler c++, really a sweet spot in the middle of both and works for 90% of the c/c++ use cases.
by aapoalas | 2025-05-29 21:45:35+00:00
Hey, thank you for the viewpoint. I'm myself a career JS/S programmer as well, and I do appreciate that the lived reality is quite varied.

The partial resolving and haphazardness of JSON data usage shouldn't matter too much. I don't mean to make JSON parsed objects to be some special class, per se, or for the memory layout to depend on access patterns on said data. Only, I force data that was created together to be close together in memory (this is what real production engines already do, but only if possible) and for that data to stay together (again, production engines do this but only as is reasonably possible; I force the issue). So I explicitly choose temporal coherence. Beyond that, I use interface inheritance / removal of structural inheritance to reduce memory usage. eg. Plain Arrays (used in the common way) I can push to 9 bytes or even 8 bytes if I accept that Arrays with a length larger than 2^24 are always pessimised. ECS / Struct-of-Arrays data storage then further allows me to choose to move some data onto separate cache lines.

But; it's definitely true that some programs will just ruin all reasonable access patterns and do everything willy-nilly and mixed up. I expect Nova to perform worse on those kinds of cases: as I am adding indirection to uncommon cases and splitting up data onto multiple cache lines to improve common access patterns, I do pessimise the uncommon cases further and further down the drain. I guess I just want to see what happens if I kick those uncommon cases to the curb and say "you want to be slow? feel free." :) I expect I will pay for that arrogance, and I look forward to that day <3
by CyrsBel | 2025-05-29 21:45:42+00:00
Not everyone cares or listens. But the original point of the question you were responding to was that it seems strange that God would communicate with people in an intelligible or familiar or baser way. So being all powerful is irrelevant, because if we do it then why couldn't or wouldn't God do it? There's nothing wrong with communicating in the way that the targets in question will comprehend. That's the point of communication.
by epistasis | 2025-05-29 21:45:42+00:00
I live close to this and the event is proving the horseshoe political theory very very correct.

You get the lefty RFK Jr. anti-science types becoming very anti-batteries, collaborating with the extreme-right-wing coalition of mountain hermits, rednecks, and extremely wealthy Monterey peninsula types.

We are a community that is easily spooked, but the batteries have really brought out the crazies.
by ComputerGuru | 2025-05-29 21:46:13+00:00
Impressed that you took the time to run a quick test. Spatial compression is a hard problem though, the most expensive sound bars are easily beat by a cheap 2.1 setup. Phones are (mostly) still mono output even though a speaker out the top and bottom (perpendicular to the viewing angle) would be a win for watching videos in landscape, probably because the improvement wouldn’t be noticeably appreciated (enough to be economically feasible, anyway).

Interesting research all the same, of course!
by toomuchtodo | 2025-05-29 21:46:24+00:00
Keep your wallet close, that time is rapidly approaching. Global demand for energy storage at this price and scale is voracious, and supply is spinning up to meet it.

https://about.bnef.com/blog/china-already-makes-as-many-batt...

https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-battery-industry-has-en...

https://www.energy-storage.news/global-bess-deployments-soar...

https://rhomotion.com/news/global-bess-deployments-surpass-e...
by slg | 2025-05-29 21:47:59+00:00
I honestly have no idea whether you are right or whether that county supervisor has merit to what they said. That is why we need journalists to actually be people who want to seek truth and inform their audience of that truth rather than just being a public stenographer. A good journalist should have skepticism towards what they are told by public figures and needs to consider whether what they are told is accurate before repeating it without any qualification.

But then again, there doesn't even appear to be a byline on this article, so who knows who actually wrote it. If no one is willing to stand behind these words, maybe it wasn't even a human who wrote them. Maybe that quote from some unnamed person is a complete hallucination of some AI. I guess it's up to the reader to do their own research, which makes you wonder what role the journalist is even serving in this instance.
by epistasis | 2025-05-29 21:48:29+00:00
You still have to move it to the generation turbines, store it, and maintain the turbines. Even if the price of extracting natural gas is zero or negative, it may not be economical to use it for electricity generation in the future.

Solar, wind, and storage are a major disruption of our energy technology. They do not follow the same cost curves, and fuel-based generation is already a very mature technology. We are either at early ages or teenager years for solar and storage, we don't know where they will end up when mature, but it's going to be so much cheaper than it is now.
by qyron | 2025-05-29 21:49:27+00:00
So I see that Magit provides not just the git GUI client but also API functions which can be used in other plugins and user config. However I'd like to dig a bit deeper into the real value of this for a user of "stays with Emacs only Magit"-type. So forgive me for being too picky.

Putting all Org-mode related features aside, since obviously Org-mode is much more Emacs-exclusive feature than Git support, here's what I see from your comments.

> If I want in my tab (there's tab-bar-mode in Emacs) some git-based info, I can easily do it.

I understand tab-bar is similar to tab bar in modern GUI editors - just a list of open files. Modern editors already mark dirty/staged files in the tab bar. Can you give an example of another information that one might want to add to each file?

> Like for example in Dired, where you'd be listing directories, you can mark some files and dirs, and stage those files

I assume Dired is some kind of file browser. While I appreciate the ability to integrate Magit with any file browser plugin, staging/unstaging files from the file tree sidebar is basic functionality of any editor with Git support. It's hard for me to imagine any life-changing improvement in this area.

> or show the git log pertaining only marked items.

Yes, that's neat. But IMO it's a very advanced feature that's used pretty rarely. Most of the time one wants to see either git log for current file or select some file in file tree in sidebar and see its log.

> Or I can hook into magit-post-commit-hook to trigger custom actions

You provided some examples for integration of Magit with note-taking. Advanced note-taking in emacs is a whole different world and I assume that person wanting to leave Emacs (but staying for Magit ;) will be ok with using some more mainstream note-taking software (like Obsidian etc.). So when using a code editor/IDE for its' original purpose - editing source code in some programming language, what would be a popular example of Magit hook that is not achievable with the existing Git hooks mechanism?

To clarify again my doubts, I think that someone who has mastered Elisp, maintains his own Emacs config and heavily customizes Emacs to his liking, would never consider moving to VScode or Jetbrains. However, all those Doom users evaluating to move to "mainstream" editors, who do only minor adjustments (like options, keybindings), do they get something substantial from Magit that they can't achieve in those editors?
by nec4b | 2025-05-29 21:49:31+00:00
That is such a big lie. There was no worker self-management in practice. All the companies had leadership structure like most companies have today. Those leading them, were loyal members of the communist party and were politically appointed. They were the betters, the avant-garde and had access to things a normal worker couldn't dream of, like special stores which had western goods. No worker had any say how a company will work and had no share of the profits besides a paycheck.
by jemfinch | 2025-05-29 21:49:56+00:00
> Many times I've asked that I'm told "he was 100% human and also 100% God."

Does this surprise you? The council of Nicea where this was defined as the orthodox claim happened in A.D. 325.

> I'm sure different sects believe differently on that, but plenty do accept that. When I ask "how is it possible to be 100% human and 100% God?" you'll sometimes get answers like, "well it's like water in different for

The _vast majority_ hold that, because the vast majority affirm Nicea. The only major denominations not holding to the orthodoxy here are (in descending order of size) Latter Day Saints (Mormons), Oneness Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians, and Christadelphians. They represent approximately 1.6-2.4% of the Christian population.

> you'll sometimes get answers like, "well it's like water in different forms, ice, liquid, and vapor" but that doesn't answer the question

The real (orthodox) answer depends on a metaphysics of substance that most Christians, even those who hold the orthodox view, are ill-prepared to elaborate on.
by taeric | 2025-05-29 21:50:17+00:00
I'm trying to square this with my memory of gaming. Hasn't it long been dominated by far fewer names than the number of people actually making the games? Electronic Arts was, specifically, known for highlighting the names of the main individuals behind the games.

I'm also not clear what to make of the idea on the section title: "Deprofessionalization is built on the back of devaluing labor". Just, what? Is the labor involved in creating games in the crafting of the game, or in the marketing of them? To be clear, marketing is a valuable way to build a market. Literally in the name. But it is not the same as building of the game.

I think there is almost certainly something to this. But really feels like this story is stretching.
by taylodl | 2025-05-29 21:51:53+00:00
> The fallacy in these numbers is that manufacturing output does not measure the origins of the supply chain.

Manufacturing GDP is based on value added, the difference between the value of output and the cost of intermediate inputs (including imported parts). So, if Ford imports parts but adds value through design, engineering, assembly, testing, and quality control in the U.S., that value is counted in U.S. manufacturing GDP. Imported parts are subtracted to avoid double-counting.

U.S. manufacturing GDP is at or near all-time highs. We are nowhere close to “manufacturing nearly zero.”

That said, you raise an important point about over-dependence, which is a real issue. The pandemic exposed how fragile our supply chains are, like the inability to produce basic medical supplies. The U.S. had not treated the manufacture of masks or even components for weapons systems as strategic capabilities worth preserving.

But that’s a far cry from the claim that "we don’t make anything anymore." We do-and we make a lot. The challenge is ensuring we can make enough of the right things when it matters and keep the markets as free as possible.
by podgietaru | 2025-05-29 21:52:26+00:00
I did the traditional blog post about this, and used it to create an RSS Aggregator website using AWS Bedrock.

https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/machine-learning/use-language-e...

The website is unfortunately down now, due to the fact I no longer work at Amazon, but the code is still readily available if you want to run it yourself.

https://github.com/aws-samples/rss-aggregator-using-cohere-e...
by aceazzameen | 2025-05-29 21:52:27+00:00
I agree wholeheartedly. Over a decade ago I was excited about all the new technological advancements in consumer devices. Every year, every month, something awesome was happening. Now I don't care anymore. New consumer tech features barely make a difference while useful features get removed to cut costs. Yet pricing has skyrocketed and subscriptions and ads are in everything.
by Stratoscope | 2025-05-29 21:52:49+00:00
> "bang" came from the "bang path" of UUCP email addresses

"Bang" was in common use by computer users around 1970 when I was working at Tymshare. On the SDS/XDS Sigma 7, there was a command you could use from a Teletype to send a message to the system operator on their Teletype in the computer room. I may have this detail wrong, but I seem to recall that it included your username as a prefix, maybe like this:

GEARY: CAN YOU LOAD TAPE XYZ FOR ME?

What I do remember clearly is that there were also messages originated by the OS itself, and those began with "!!", which we pronounced "bang bang". Because who would ever want to say "exclamation point exclamation point"?

The reason this is vivid in my mind is that I eventually found the low-level system call to let me send "system" messages myself. So I used it to prank the operator once in a while with this message:

!! UNDETECTABLE ERROR

I was proud of calling it an "undetectable" error. If it was undetectable, how did the OS detect it?
by badc0ffee | 2025-05-29 21:53:55+00:00
Look, I get that not treating snacks like staple foods is a good idea overall, and we're probably not going to see eye to eye on this, but it's not clear to me that the profile of "innate nutrients" is actually different in Doritos. They might have that taint of being a mass-produced snack, but they start with corn just like your homemade tortillas. Unless I'm missing something, the industrial frying, packaging, and seasoning is not stripping nutrients, intentionally or unintentionally.

It's a relatively simple product, as packaged snacks go.
by whynotmaybe | 2025-05-29 21:54:45+00:00
I'm using GPT4All with DeepSeek-R1-Distill-QWen-7B (which is not R1-0528) on a Ryzen 5 3600 with 32Gb ram.

With an average of 3.6 tokens/sec, answers usually take 150-200 seconds.
by aapoalas | 2025-05-29 21:54:50+00:00
Nova's GC doesn't use access patterns for this, but this is basically what we do, or in some cases aim to do.

Arrays, Objects, ArrayBuffers, Numbers, Strings, BigInts, ... all have their data allocated onto different heap vectors. These heap vectors will eventually be SoA vectors to split objects' attributes along ECS-friendly lines; eg. Array length might be split from the elements storage pointer, Object shape pointer split from the Object property storage pointer etc. Importantly, what we already do is that an Array does not hold all Object's attributes but instead holds an optional pointer to a "backing Object". If an Array is used like an Object (eg. `array.foo = "something"`) then a backing object is created and the Array's backing Object pointer is initialised to point to that data. Because we use a SoA structure, that backing Object pointer can be stored in a sparse column, meaning that Arrays that don't have a backing Object initialised also do not initialise the memory to hold the pointer.

I'm also interested in maybe splitting Object properties so that they're stored in ECS-friendly lines (at least if eg. they're Objects parsed from an Array in JSON.parse).

Our GC is then a compacting GC on these heap vectors where it simply "drops" data from the vector and moves items down to perform compaction. This also means it gets to perform the compaction in a trivially parallel manner <3
by rstuart4133 | 2025-05-29 21:54:52+00:00
> This is a really nice explanation of decidability.

I'm not an enthused about it as you. It doesn't mention that every undecidabilty involves an infinity. What makes a problem undecidable is not that you can't write an algorithm for it, it's that you can't guarantee the spits out an answer in a finite number of steps.

Take the halting problem. He defines it as "does [the Turning] machine M halt on input i?". The answer is famously no. But you can write an algorithm for it, and if you restrict the Turning machine it's analyzing to having a finite tape it will always spit out the correct answer. The problem is the algorithm creates a power set of the Turning machine states. If you run it on a machine with infinite states it potentially needs to construct power set of an infinity. That's not just an infinity, its a new, distinguishable from, and in some sense higher order infinity than the one you started with.

I can't call an explanation nice when it omits the central idea that explains what is going on under the hood. His description of the universality Turning machines on the other hand was nice.
by parliament32 | 2025-05-29 21:54:58+00:00
I'd like to agree with you and remain optimistic, but so much tech has promised the moon and stagnated into oblivion that I just don't have any optimism left to give. I don't know if you're old enough, but remember when speech-to-text was the next big thing? DragonSpeak was released in 1997, everyone was losing their minds about dictating letters/documents in MS Word, and we were promised that THIS would be the key interface for computing evermore. And.. 27 years later, talking to the latest Siri, it makes just as many mistakes as it did back then. In messenger applications people are sending literal voice notes -- audio clips -- back and forth because dictation is so unreliable. And audio clips are possibly the worst interface for communication ever (no searching, etc).

Remember how blockchain was going to change the world? Web3? IoT? Etc etc.

I've been through enough of these cycles to understand that, while the AI gimmick is cool and all, we're probably at the local maximum. The reliability won't improve much from here (hallucinations etc), while the costs to run it will stay high. The final tombstone will be when the AI companies stop running at a loss and actually charge for the massive costs associated with running these models.
by chucksmash | 2025-05-29 21:55:47+00:00
Tbf, there's a phase of learning to code where everything is pretty much an incantation you learn because someone told you "just trust me." You encounter "here's how to make the computer print text in Python" before you would ever discuss strings or defining and invoking functions, for instance. To get your start you kind of have to just accept some stuff uncritically.

It's hard to remember what it was like to be in that phase. Once simple things like using variables are second nature, it's difficult to put yourself back into the shoes of someone who doesn't understand the use of a variable yet.
Ask HN: How Bing is indexing YouTube videos?
by the_arun | 2025-05-29 21:55:54+00:00
If you go to Bing videos on Edge browser & search for any YouTube content, you can play them without any ads. Eg: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube+free+movies&FORM=HDRSC4

Also I don't see links to youtube domain itself for videos. It is being served from Bing.

1. Can anyone index youtube videos & openly share?

2. Video quality is not as good as YouTube but there are no ads. This may be good for consumers who want to avoid ads.

3. Isn't this a copyright issue?
by outside1234 | 2025-05-29 21:57:17+00:00
I know you are trolling based on listening to fossil fuel funded Fox News et al, but one of the key advantages of batteries is that they can switch on/off (aka are "dispatchable" in power jargon) on the millisecond level basis, and as such, make the grid much more stable than old-school energy sources like natural gas which has dispatch times in the hours.
by sho_hn | 2025-05-29 21:57:47+00:00
This is right on the money. I use LLMs when I am reasonably confident the problem I am asking it is well-represented in the training data set and well within its capabilities (this has increased over time).

This means I use it as a typing accelerator when I already know what I want most of the time, not for advice.

As an exploratory tool sometimes, when I am sure others have solved a problem frequently, to have it regurgitate the average solution back at me and take a look. In those situations I never accept the diff as-is and do the integration manually though, to make sure my brain still learns along and I still add the solution to my own mental toolbox.