MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by vanviegen | 2025-05-09 19:21:31+00:00
Thanks!

Yes, there's some similarity to Solid.js, but also two big differences:

1. A Solid.js signal contains a single atomic value that can be subscribed to, while an Aberdeen proxy can wrap around a complex object (containing arrays containing objects, etc), and subscribe to only the primitive values that were read.

2. If I understand correctly, Solid.js can only redraw entire components (which may not be great at it, like Aberdeen, doesn't use a VDOM), while Aberdeen creates observer scopes every time you nest DOM elements (or manually, if that is not enough for some specific case).

So Aberdeen is more finegrained on both counts. And there's no need for createMemo and createEffect.

Re "Elegant and simple": the Aberdeen internals are far from simple, but I think its semantics are very simple to understand. Especially when compared to monsters like React. But I'd settle for easy. :-)

> "And in many ways, it's more natural to express DOM structures as JSX-ish components."

Yeah, until you want to add some loops and conditionals in there. That's what regular programming languages are really good at. But it's a trade-off for sure.

> "this is just plain gaslighting" ... " and you end up having to solve all the same issues as with all those libraries"

I don't think that's the case. In my (admittedly colored) experience, Aberdeen allows you to do the same things while having to learn far fewer concepts.

But reading back my text, the claim could have better just said that, as replacing a ton of complex concepts with a ton of different but equally complex concepts is not better. I've updated the site.

> You are pretending that this library does away with a lot of things that are the bread and bones of other UI libraries but then your UI library still needs all those things.

My claim is that we don't, in fact, need all those things. As Aberdeen takes a rather different approach, we do of course need some other things (as you pointed out earlier), but I believe this approach allows us to have less of them.

Re "Diamond problem": I haven't heard the term before, but Aberdeen solves this by a) batching updates (using a setTimeout 0 by default) and b) rerunning all dirtied scopes in the order that they were initially created.

> but trying to frame it in a way that it is superior to using something like JSX seems like gaslighting to me.

I'd be happy to add more downsides to the why-NOT-to-use-this list, but my rose colored glasses seem to prevent me from articulating something that makes sense there. :-)

Re "TypeScript" safety: It says `"strict": true` in the config file. Any other settings you'd want on? Also, the lib has 100% test coverage, if you're into that sort of thing! :-)
by throwaway346434 | 2025-05-09 19:21:32+00:00
> There was also a project called TypedRuby, largely a passion project of an engineer working at GitHub. After a few weeks of evaluation, it seemed that there were enough bugs in the project that fixing them would involve a near complete rewrite of the project anyways.

There's 6 open bugs and 4 closed ones. This seems like either it's throwing shade or they didn't bother lodging bug reports upstream.
by rohanarora | 2025-05-09 19:22:03+00:00
Ever noticed how ChatGPT gets brand info wrong — like reviews, pricing, or even what’s currently in stock?

We tested this across a bunch of e-commerce brands. For Gymshark, ChatGPT was consistently wrong about what’s in their “Best Sellers” or “New Arrivals.” For Glossier, it completely missed the Mother’s Day promo that’s live on their homepage right now.

Reviews are another weak spot. When someone asks “What are some reviews for Brand X?”, ChatGPT rarely shows real quotes or trusted sources. It pulls from all over — often outdated or off-brand. But because that info is scattered across the web, we realized you can guide ChatGPT to emphasize the content you actually want surfaced: the 5-star reviews, the UGC with quotes, the pages that convert.

We built something that does exactly that — it keeps ChatGPT aligned with the content that matters to your brand, in real time. So whether someone asks for reviews, current deals, or “best-selling colognes on Scentbird,” the right answers show up.

You also don't have to change your website root directory at all (r any other server side changes). We do ask you to put some tags (like analytics tags) in your client side code so we can monitor traffic & impact. If you're interested visit the website. Would love to also hear some ideas/things you've come across in this space.
by fsflover | 2025-05-09 19:22:34+00:00
> Apple has a miniscule ad business

They're expanding it: https://www.axios.com/2024/11/19/apple-news-ads-direct-sales...

> many companies that have your data consider it a liability they would much rather be without - it's just sometimes hard to provide a service without data passing through

Apple collects much more data than needed for the service. They also make it practically impossible to use the phones without giving a ton of personal information:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39927657
by pbohun | 2025-05-09 19:23:11+00:00
I've started experimenting with Odin for some personal projects and it's been great. The built-in vendored libraries make creating certain programs trivial. For example, just `import rl "vendor:raylib"` and you can use `rl.InitWindow(800,600,"Test")`. No need to install Raylib, add to path or use special linker directives, just `odin build .`!

Also I think Odin struck the right balance of features while trying to keep to the spirit of C.
by bombela | 2025-05-09 19:23:52+00:00
Brain was not fully loaded yet, thank you.

I don't think the struct in struct is relevant in your example by the way. i32 requires 4-bytes alignment. An array of a struct{3×i32} will be aligned to 12 bytes. Which maintains the 4 bytes alignment of the fields.

If this structure is embedded into another one, it will be padded accordingly to the alignment requirement of the outer field.

{ { 3×i32 } i32 } will be 16 bytes.

{ { 3×i32 } i64 } will be 12, padding 4, 8. Totalling 24.

I am assuming x86_64.
by quesera | 2025-05-09 19:23:56+00:00
> The creative industry isn’t wildly profitable

There are a lot of profits in the industry, but as I think you're alluding to, not a great proportion of those profits go to the creators.

I want a model where I can compensate artists and creators (up to and including producers) equally to (or better than) the distribution and marketing arms. This can be cobbled together in some cases, but not simply.
by streptomycin | 2025-05-09 19:24:18+00:00
Yeah anecdotes don't tell you much. You may have noticed I was also replying to an anecdote.

What tells you more is that the diversity statement exists and they say it's used as part of scoring. Therefore, unless the amount of score it counts for is infinitesimally small, some people win/lose based on the content of their diversity statement.

Was that me? Who knows. But unless the whole thing was just busy work for no reason, it was probably a bunch of people.

How many? Who knows. I'm sure you'd agree that it would be interesting if somebody published that data! Maybe the new NSF will be more transparent than the old one.
by slg | 2025-05-09 19:25:04+00:00
Fair enough, but I think that makes this a lesson in the importance of context.

When someone uses quotes in their own informal original writing, they will often be received as scare quotes[1]. Knowing nothing about that author, I would assume he is using the word with some detachment. He knows the analysis wasn't trying to guess the pope, but he is having fun with the fact that the analysis pointed in the right direction.

When someone uses quotes to summarize something someone else wrote or said, especially when it is in a more formal context like a headline, it generally comes across as a direct quote. The headline therefore implies that the goal of this exercise was to predict the pope, which the article directly refutes.

The quote in the context of the headline wasn't "guessed" it was "How we 'guessed' the Pope using network science".

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes
by maxbendick | 2025-05-09 19:25:25+00:00
The logo is fairly evocative of the SS insignia.

To explain in the clearest terms: unlike the SS insignia, the lightning bolt in the logo has tapering at the bottom. The second element in the logo, the slash, does not have tapering at the bottom. The general shape of the logo is the same as the SS insignia: two diagonal elements side-by-side (which would be all good on its own). The mind tends to see repetition, so it has a tendency to "mix up" the two elements of the logo. The mind also has a tendency to remember similar things. Putting it all together, the logo has a chance to evoke the SS insignia.

I may just be reading too much Theweleit and W. Reich nowadays, but I think you'll get catch some flak for this logo if it becomes recognizable outside the tech milieu.
by ttfkam | 2025-05-09 19:25:35+00:00
> And mis-estimating the environmental risks is exactly what went wrong with Fukushima.

It took a massive earthquake and tsunami to cause this, and the number of deaths/injuries due to the power plant is a rounding error compared to the earthquake and tsunami. Fukushima actually did most things right with the notable exception of not putting the backup generators on the roof. Had they put the generators on the roof, neither of us would have ever known the name "Fukushima".

When evaluating the Fukushima exclusion zone, compare it to the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989. In that case, we still haven't cleaned up all the oil, and up to 450 miles from the initial spill. By comparison you want to transition to ammonia as a fuel source, which you correctly note is easier to store long term than molecular hydrogen and far more energy dense. Sounds like a good deal since molecular nitrogen is incredibly abundant as well.

Now I want you to imagine there's an ammonia spill in the magnitude of Exxon Valdez. Long term, the ammonia would almost certainly dissipate faster than crude oil, but the immediate acute toxicity would be far worse. You're killing basically all sea life in the area, the fumes would take out most birds and even quite a few people. If the spill were on land, it could severely compromise the ability to grow crops in the region for a long time. And that's not in the face of a massive earthquake and tsunami, but inattentiveness on the part of a single ship's crew.

The point being that large scale energy production and storage will NEVER be fuzzy and completely safe. The most common metric is deaths per unit of electricity. If a power source is small, even one death can be unforgivable. For massive amounts of power, statistics matter.

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

Note that the nuclear stats include both Chernobyl and Fukushima. This is notable since Chernobyl was a worst case scenario with a flawed design that has never existed in Western commercial reactors precisely because it was so unacceptably dangerous: no containment vessel, graphite moderation, graphite fuel rod tips, lack of education for its staff, a culture of secrecy, etc.

In the meantime, nuclear has provided obscenely large amounts of electricity since its inception. I'm all for expanding solar and wind, but folks really need to understand the real enemy is fossil fuels: coal, oil, natural gas, etc. The single largest threat to our survival as a species isn't a multi-kilometer exclusion zone but a CO2-laden atmosphere that makes the entire equatorial zone uninhabitable, and that's precisely what we're looking at within a century.

The faster we can move off carbon-based fuels by any means necessary, the better. That includes nuclear. Excluding nuclear from the conversation out of hand is lunacy.
by burnerthrow008 | 2025-05-09 19:26:15+00:00
I think it's even simpler than that: To run an assembly line, you need all stations staffed at the same time. You can't run the line if you're missing staff for just one station, but you still have to pay all the people who did show up.

So the easy solution is just to pay a lot and threaten to fire (and possibly blacklist) anyone who no-shows. Since the pay is much higher than they can get elsewhere, the people are much more likely to show up.

The high pay probably also helped find people who would tolerate the extremely intrusive practices of Ford's "morality police" (my term), who would inspect worker's homes to ensure they were living "the right way".
by slg | 2025-05-09 19:26:23+00:00
And yet the US trails those European countries in most measures of quality of healthcare including access. It is clear the US pays more for healthcare and receives worse service. That doesn't mean anyone is calling Europe utopian, but the American approach to healthcare is worse by almost every objective measure.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2...
by glenstein | 2025-05-09 19:27:24+00:00
I agree that there's an interesting question how far we can lean into this space of applying the knowledge and technology capability we have, because for however far ahead of the outer limits of our capabilities get in the outer limits of our understanding from that matter, there's a frontier of applicability that also has to advance in the wake of those. It's interesting to consider if there's any principle that articulates the relationship between that frontier and the frontier of discovery.

In some senses, I've thought we'd hit a wall in part just because of the highly visible challenges to democracy, the wall on processing power of computers, how enshittification has caught up services and taken them down from the inside, not being able to pull off things like high-speed rail, the halting progress of self-driving vehicles, or just realizing that the buildings that exist in cities are going to stay there for a long time and not be subject to any overnight cyberpunk makeover.

But I think if our era was not known for the threats to democracy, pandemics, and war, we might have otherwise have had enough breathing space to remember this historical era as one of true, truly major advances in the frontiers of science. There's plenty on that front that would have been "enough" to mark this historical era as a distinct one. CRISPR and AI, by themselves, are enough to be the signature achievements of an era. And so far as it relates back to your point, I suppose on balance I would say I feel that the advances we have made don't yet testify to an imminent slowdown in our ability to translate from a frontier of our knowledge into applicability. So I suppose I understand your idea but feel a little bit more optimistic.
by HDMI_Cable | 2025-05-09 19:27:38+00:00
I completely agree—though it would be very difficult to measure the information contained within methylation/acetylation. If, naively, we assume that epigenetic modifications act only to increase or decrease the rate of transcription (or promoter binding, nucleosome coverage, and/or things we barely even understand as of now), and also assume that only cytosine bases are modified, then we still increase our estimate for the amount of information by at least an order of magnitude—and this neglects other modifications like methylation on nucleosomes, of which there are hundreds.
by tedunangst | 2025-05-09 19:29:40+00:00
I mean, the most interesting part of the article for me:

> A bit surprisingly the AVX2 parser on 9950X hit ~20GB/s! That is, it was better than the AVX-512 based parser by ~10%, which is pretty significant for Sep.

They fixed it, that's the whole point, but I think there's evidence that AVX-512 doesn't actually benefit consumers that much. I would be willing to settle for a laptop that can only parse 20GB/s and not 21GB/s of CSV. I think vector assembly nerds care about support much more than users.
by krastanov | 2025-05-09 19:30:20+00:00
Extreme specifics: her comments on work out of MIT on Color Center Qubits was basically "finally an example of actual progress in quantum computing because of reason A, B, C". That statement was in the class of "not even wrong" -- it was just complete non sequitur. People actually in the fields she comments on frequently laugh at her uninformed nonsense. In this particular case, the people that did the study she praised were also among the ones laughing at her.
by mistersquid | 2025-05-09 19:30:40+00:00
> If I was killed in something as pointless as a road range incident and then an AI trained on me was wheeled into court to "forgive" my aggressor I'd be incensed from beyond the astral plane.

For sure, but the perpetrator received the maximum sentence possibly due to the emotional freight delivered by the AI message.

Who knows whether the convicted feels absolved by the AI forgiveness? However he feels, he received the harshest penalty he could have received (10 years).
by yawaramin | 2025-05-09 19:30:40+00:00
Notification incrementing is not purely client-side state though. It's triggered by an event coming from a server. Eg let's say you're on a product page and you click 'Add to Cart'. You want the cart icon's counter badge on the top right corner of the page to increment. With eg htmx when you click 'Add to Cart' we send a request to the server, it updates the cart state in the backend, then sends an HTML fragment response that updates the necessary parts of the page, including the cart item counter badge.
by snickerbockers | 2025-05-09 19:31:40+00:00
I personally don't think it makes any sense to claim America's in a decline on a short-term basis; my point is that a decline is inherently something that would only be visible over a longer scale of time.

The reason I said "four months" is because America's media establishment has been pushing this narrative that the tariffs and the argument with zelensky have somehow ended american hegemony overnight; I personally believe it's impossible for these events to cause a noticeable decline on such a short basis because there's far more to america than merely not taxing imports and giving limitless amounts of free stuff to ukraine with no strings attached, but I have developed a pavlovian response to the phrase "America's in decline" because it really is all about Donald Trump with these people.

I would personally put the origin of "America's Decline" at 9/11 because that was the beginning of America's self-doubt about what their place in the world is and what it should be. Everything since then has been the five stages of grief on a nationwide scale. Currently we're somewhere between Depression (stage 4) and Acceptance (stage 5) which is why we gave up on Afghanistan, and also why so many people are opposed to funding Ukraine; there's a legitimate fear that arming the Ukrainians will in some way come back to bite us in the ass 20 years later just like arming the mujahideen did.
by DonHopkins | 2025-05-09 19:32:50+00:00
I always wanted the /dev/zero character device driver, which you can map into memory to clear it, or use as an infinite source of nulls, to use the minor node number as the value that got mapped into memory or produced, so you could make an infinite source of beeps with:

mknod /dev/seven c 1 7

I wonder what would happen if you made a /dev/seven device in your http servers public_html directory? Would it dutifully serve it up?

Better yet, support for utf-8 unicode, so you can make an infinite source of poo emojis.

The "Everything Is A File" philosophy should be taken to its logical conclusion.
by dahinds | 2025-05-09 19:33:01+00:00
The terminations so far focus on anything with any mention of a DEI related objective and that may seem "fine", but these don't constitute a lot of the NSF's budget (the terminated grants total < $1 billion and if you click through them you'll see that for many, that's 5 years of funding). The planned cuts are much deeper[1], DEI is just not where the "big bucks" are.

[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Fiscal...
by seadan83 | 2025-05-09 19:33:03+00:00
The way I'm responding I'd more characterize as: "wait, if what you are saying is true, then this other thing should be true too, but it does not seem to be. That would indicate what you are saying is not true."

In another thread, you characterized my response as stating: " ¬(A ↦ B) ⟹ ¬(B ↦ A)" (and this is a great example of language not being math, but math being language!). That was not at all my claim.

My claim is "I believe you are saying 'A = B'. It appears that 'B != A', therefore 'A != B'." My only claims are

(1) I believe you are writing to convey that you mean Math IS Language in the sense they are equal, identical, interchangeable, and fully equivalent, and bi-directionally so

(2) that: B != A

The only results can either be:

- "yeah, because B != A, the statement A = B is not true"

- Your claim (1) is false, I'm not actually saying "A = B"

- Your claim (2) is false, "B = A" is in fact true. I would find that to be an interesting assertion and would have loved to explore more why you think that.
by tombert | 2025-05-09 19:33:18+00:00
I think religion is stupid. I think it’s harmful. If I said “people should just stop being religious” and acted like that in itself was in any way insightful, you would consider that a dumb argument.

To be clear, this isn’t to say community outreach is bad or a waste of time. I think getting the larger populous onboard with the narrative that you think is going to make the world best is a good thing, please don’t let me stop you.

I have mostly seen these arguments pop up with giving teenagers access to birth control, with conservatives saying stuff like “people should just stop having sex out of wedlock” or something to that effect, and act that argument along is an insightful or useful comment.
by paradite | 2025-05-09 19:33:40+00:00
I don't think it's a black and white distinction between agentic and non-agentic tools. Not to mention tools are constantly evolving and changing.

For example, Cursor a year ago was not agentic at all. GitHub Copilot only recently added agentic features.

I also think the end game for an agentic tool would not an IDE, because IDE was designed for human workflows, not agents.

I wrote about this topic a while ago and made a classification that's probably a bit outdated, but still relevant: https://prompt.16x.engineer/blog/ai-coding-l1-l5
by insane_dreamer | 2025-05-09 19:33:43+00:00
I was talking about scientific research and specifically academic institutions. China only has a half-dozen of top academic institutions with high credibility: Peking U, Tsinghua U, Fudan U, Zhejiang U, and _maybe_ one or two others (Renmin U in some fields). There a number of mid-level unis, and the rest are low credibility (for lots of reasons). By comparison, the US has 100+ (you could even argue 200+) well respected universities doing high quality research.
by yawaramin | 2025-05-09 19:33:56+00:00
No, you still need to deal directly with JS even with a transpiler like Dart or whatever other language you want to use. When things go wrong, and they will, you'll need to deal with the JS errors. When you're trying to debug or even call out to JS APIs, you better be intimately familiar with how your transpiler interops with JS, otherwise you're kinda screwed.
by worik | 2025-05-09 19:34:33+00:00
The USA is 20% of Chinese exports

China has been moving the manufacturing to their allies for years, as their labour force climbs the value chain.

Here in Aotearoa I am looking forward to continued booming trade with China and it's allies, hoping our government (we have a particularly bad one too currently) do not try to suck up to Mr Trump.

But the insanity in USA is bad for everyone. Hopefully we will get used to it soon and adjust to living without USA trade, and dollars

That will be good for everyone but the USA