MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by layer8 | 2025-05-09 12:19:50+00:00
That doesn’t follow. The restriction could have been defined in terms of allowing at most one parent class to be non-pure-abstract. And there are lesser restrictions hat would have been conceivable as well. Java is single-inheritance only in the sense of the particular interface–class distinction it makes. For example, since Java 8 you can inherit method implementations from multiple interfaces.
by antonvs | 2025-05-09 12:19:58+00:00
That "quote all available evidence" line is disingenuous. A substantial argument doesn't require that, but you didn't make any argument.

If you're unaware of all the criticism of Milgram's experiments, then you have some studying to do before we can have a meaningful discussion about this.

While you're catching up on the history of social psychology since 1961, you might want to ask yourself why it is that you're so eager to believe that "ordinary people are mostly evil". Do you have a religious background, perhaps? "Original sin" and all that?
by n4r9 | 2025-05-09 12:20:03+00:00
> Marain, the language of the culture, was explicitly designed to “guide” the thoughts of its human speakers

I think you're overstating this. Especially considering that Marain is spoken both by humans and minds. In Banks' own words:

> Marain is a synthetic language created towards the very beginning of the Culture with the specific intention of providing a means of expression which would be a culturally inclusive and as encompassingly comprehensive in its technical and representational possibilities as practically achievable - a language, in short, that would appeal to poets, pedants, engineers and programmers alike.

https://trevor-hopkins.com/banks/a-few-notes-on-marain.html
by underlines | 2025-05-09 12:21:12+00:00
We need an Eval Leaderboard for LLM assisted Agentic IDEs. The space is getting crowded:

New Editors:

- Firebase Studio

- Zed

- OpenHands (OSS Devin Clone)

VS Code Forks:

- Cursor

- Windsurf Editor

- Void

VS Code Extensions:

- Gemini Code Assist

- Continue.dev

- GitHub Copilot Agent Mode

- Cline

- RooCode

- Kilo Code (RooCode + Cline Fork)

- Windsurf Plugin

- Kodu.ai Claude Coder (not claude code!)

Terminal Agents:

- Aider

- Claude Code

- OpenAI codex

Issue Fixing Agents:

- SWE-agent
by pjmlp | 2025-05-09 12:21:16+00:00
On the contrary, the browser is the only place where it makes sense.

Outside of the browser are only VC backed companies, pretending bytecode based distribution isn't something existing since 1958, with wins and losses, many of those were polyglot, supporting languages like C in bytecode was already done in 1989 with Architecture Neutral Distribution Format, and many other examples.
by krapp | 2025-05-09 12:22:04+00:00
Optimizing space and trying to keep things neat is a futile effort. Pickers and counters are constantly pulling things out of the bins and putting them back in, and during high demand it's a chaotic mess. If there are going to be robots being this meticulous at every step of the process, then it's too slow.

There's a reason human beings are worked to the point of exhaustion in these warehouses - the goal is to move as much product as fast as possible. Quality and productivity are at cross purposes, and between the two only the latter makes money.
by jonstewart | 2025-05-09 12:22:33+00:00
It’s more nuanced, though. The choices made for the types of exquisite vs mass must be correct, and the mix of features of each system. With the WW2 aircraft carriers, a high number of the escort carriers were lost—they were slow and easily sunk. So it’s not clear they were a good allocation of resources. Light carriers—smaller and less well-armored than fleet carriers, but about as fast—did considerably better.

The GLSDB in Ukraine looked like it would turn the tide on paper—relatively cheap precision warheads with a huge stock of ammo which could outrange artillery and hit supply lines. But they’ve been a nonentity because of Russia’s electronic warfare capabilities. It’s similar with drones—Ukraine’s FPV drones stopped being effective due to EW, but then they switched to fiber optic cable and that’s made an enormous difference.

Aircraft carriers today are sitting ducks. The more we make, the more we’d lose.
by alhirzel | 2025-05-09 12:22:43+00:00
Especially the part where improved safety tooling (bolts) were used to increase efficiency rather than safety: regulatory dysfunction at its finest. Interestingly, in other regulated areas (such as toxic emissions into the environmental), there are clear echelons regarding what is required such as BPT vs BAT (best practicable vs achievable technology). For the coal mining case, if BAT had been the requirement (and the regulating body had enough teeth to enforce it), Chris's work might have been easier to fund.
by Spivak | 2025-05-09 12:22:47+00:00
The fact that there isn't a carve-out for confessions under seal of the confessional is weird since they get one for everything else.

If you try to deputize priests for literally God's sake you destroy the point of the sacrament. Which would be fine in the abstract if there wasn't a long-standing precedent for respecting it. Washington trying to break E2EE with God lol.
by UncleEntity | 2025-05-09 12:22:47+00:00
> If it really isn't getting something in the first few prompts, stop and rethink. Can you go back and set a smaller task? Like writing test cases that it's broken approach would fail?

This.

I was fighting with Claude for a good chunk of yesterday (usage limits seemed broken so it didn't really time me out) and most of that was getting it to fix one small issue with three test cases. It would fix one test and break the others, round and round we go. After it broke unrelated tests I had to back out all the changes and, by then, I understood the problem well enough so could direct it how to fix it with a little help from Deepseek.

As there are a bunch of other sections of code which suffer from the same problem I can now tell it to "look at the fixed code and do it like that" so, hopefully, it doesn't flail around in the dark as much.

Admittedly, this is fairly complicated code, being an AST to bytecode compiler with a bunch of optimizations thrown in, and part of the problem was a later optimization pass undoing the 'fixes' Claude was applying which took quite a while to figure out.

Now I just assume Claude is being intentionally daft and treat it as such with questions like "why would I possibly want a fix specifically designed to pass one test instead of a general fix for all the cases?" Oh, yeah, that's its new trick, rewriting the code to only pass the failing test and throwing everything else out because, why not?
by WillAdams | 2025-05-09 12:24:02+00:00
It's a nice beginning.

Some obvious features which I missed:

- nodes tool should want to snap begin/end nodes together when editing (and the snap distance could be larger when initially creating, esp. w/ the pencil tool)

- rather than a Nodes tool for editing, something like to Wick Editor's Flash/Futurewave Smarksetch pull/push deforming would be much more mobile friendly

- if corner rounding doesn't work on polygons it should be hidden/disabled
by harimau777 | 2025-05-09 12:24:22+00:00
Can you elaborate? It has LONG been the practice that confession is absolutely confidential without exception. The idea is that they believe that there should be absolutely no barriers to confession when the eternal fate of the confessor's soul is at stake.

There's also the matter of the slippery slope. E.g. what happens when a government decides that raising LGBTQ kids or attending Pride constitute child sex abuse?
by terhechte | 2025-05-09 12:24:40+00:00
There's aider (https://aider.chat) or Claude Code (https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code/overview) or Codex (https://github.com/openai/codex) or plandex (https://github.com/plandex-ai/plandex) or kwaak (https://github.com/bosun-ai/kwaak)

I'd venture to say there's more of these than there are UI Editors tbh.
by ralferoo | 2025-05-09 12:25:51+00:00
I guess stuff like this would have already been thrashed out at the time, but it strikes me that if a mistake by a third party could invalidate copyright, it'd have been trivial to end the copyright on anything by releasing an unauthorised version without a copyright notice.

I guess it's complicated because the first release with this title was absent the copyright notice, but the article also says that prints existed with the previous title and a copyright notice, so if they were distributed at all, it'd seem to be a slam dunk that it'd be covered by copyright on the original title and the retitled copy without copyright notices was infringing.
by johnisgood | 2025-05-09 12:29:08+00:00
Side-note:

const MIN_U32 = 0; const MAX_U32 = 2 ** 32 - 1; function u32(v) { if (v < MIN_U32 || v > MAX_U32) { throw Error(`Value out of range for u32: ${v}`); } return leb128(v); }

I love Ada, because you can do this:

subtype U32 is Interfaces.Unsigned_64 range 0 .. 2 ** 32 - 1;

or alternatively:

type U32 is mod 2 ** 32;

and then you can use attributes such as:

First : constant U32 := U32'First; -- = 0 Last : constant U32 := U32'Last; -- = 2 ** 32 - 1 Range_ : constant U32 := U32'Range; -- Range 0 .. 2**32 - 1
by firesteelrain | 2025-05-09 12:29:36+00:00
I am trying to understand the Catholic Church’s side here. At first blush, this sounds bad because the only real accountability is done via civil authorities because if it’s handled only within the Church then the only penalty are things like defrocking or banning from the church. But the Church isn’t a legal authority.

I also know that the Church is supposed to encourage the reporter to self report to civil authorities and seek help.

The church also lack the ability to prevent abusers from harming vulnerable people.

At the same time I understand their position on clergy-parishioner privilege.
by throwaway2037 | 2025-05-09 12:30:13+00:00
> For it to be a truly democratic process there absolutely needs to be a way to withdraw consent from a moderator who behaves differently than expected.

This is a strange requirement to me. Do parliamentary democracies have this feature? I don't think so. And they are "truly democratic" in my book.

FYI: I have been part of SO.com for about 15 years. I am regular on both sides of the Q&A. Never once have I felt compelled to vote in any election on SO.com. The site admin is totally uninteresting to me.
by bayindirh | 2025-05-09 12:30:22+00:00
Actually it's pretty expensive in the long run. They want raises, are finicky about their health, have pesky habits like going home, having life partners and something silly called work/life balance. Also, they sometimes organize and become collective bodies under something called a union.

In reality, I'm a strong supporter of everything above. Maybe we can really provide people better jobs by delegating repetitive and boring things to machines and allow everyone to do something they enjoy to earn their lives.

One can dream, I guess...
by ninetyninenine | 2025-05-09 12:30:38+00:00
I literally wrote it above and you didn’t read. It’s a user interface issue, Let me copy it here:

But think about it. If you have a deeply nested Object where you don't use inheritance. Then all the objects have multitudes of redundant properties, doesn't that result in complex code as well? And how does nesting objects make it less complex then inheriting objects? It's more of code navigation problem in the sense that when you use inheritance and you look at a child derived from generations of inheritance it's just hard to read and figure out what the final object is because there’s no easy way to visualize or follow the derived properties.

With object composition the view is the same. You have an object that holds generations of nested objects. The difference is you can control click and follow the definition of the nested object so it's more visible.

Thus it seems to me the issue with the complexity is that inheritance simply does not give you a widget you can control click into easily to follow the definition and see what the derived methods are.

This whole problem is characterized by a user interface issue because it's not evident to me how an object with nested objects 1000000 layers deep is more complex then the same object derived from 100000 ancestors.

Think about the emergent complexity here. An object derived from inheriting a chain of 1000 inherited objects is actually less complex then that same chain of objects created via composition. Because duplicate properties don’t get overridden you have more data stored here then inheritance. It’s actually more complex.

The problem is in the user interface.

Create an IDE that automatically fills out all the derived methods of an object and allows you to control click to the ancestor where the derived method comes from and the issue seems to me to be solved.
by krastanov | 2025-05-09 12:30:44+00:00
This is such a beautiful theoretical idea (a type of "natural" error correction which protects the qubits without having to deal with the exorbitant overhead of error correcting codes). It is very disheartening and discouraging and just plain exhausting that there has been so much "data manipulation" in this subfield (see all the other retracted papers from the last 5 years mentioned in the article). I can only imagine how hard this must be on the junior scientists on the team who have been swept into it without much control.
by aitchnyu | 2025-05-09 12:31:23+00:00
I'm used to social anxiety people (cant ask for extra ketchup) on the internet labelling themselves introverts, hope this article is not a trendsetter to label people who take bare minimum care in written communications.

Next article will list behaviors like:

- if a communication has multiple questions, introvert answers all of them instead of picking first/last

- they dont say "hi" and wait for a reply

- they say "yes, file is deleted" instead of a "yes" that could mean two or more things in context

- they say "I will look into it now/later/never" instead of radio silence
HN is purely tech? But tech is now political. How to discuss?
by FrustratedMonky | 2025-05-09 12:31:39+00:00
Hacker News is where purely tech-focused people discuss purely tech issues.

Discussing politics is generally discouraged.

But now, tech is political. Big Tech—FAANG and others—have become political blocs, in some cases more powerful than national governments. SpaceX is vital to Ukraine, for example.

So how do we talk about this?

We need to consider the influence and direction tech leaders are pushing toward (Private Cities?).

What about this piece? Moldbug Sold Out – Astral Codex Ten

https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/moldbug-sold-out
by xphos | 2025-05-09 12:32:45+00:00
Yeah I think the State misses the point here if people are confessing for Child Abuse currently because they won't be jailed that simply won't do that if they can be jailed. The whole point of confession of things like this is not to just say you have a get a out of free jail card but to push people to actually repent wholely.

Its certainly a religious morals argument but I think its also a strong argument that being able to admit something to priest can be a first step toward pushing people to turn themselves in. Granted I don't know the statistics on how often that this happens this way I think if there was no ability to talk about it people would just not talk about it and couldn't be convinced or pushed morally by another human being to tell the authorities.
by ueueejdnsk | 2025-05-09 12:33:14+00:00
You took an extreme position with Down Syndrome, and so it feels odd to take issue with an extreme position on country/geographic location

Would women excluded from higher education, or people who live in rural communities without access to much education at all likewise be unfair? How about tribes that live in forests, or other extremely isolated places?

I think taking extremes distracts from the majority of people the people were talking about but they do indicate something, surely. That environment can dominate

And so we’re back to arguing over degrees. My point is that many people disregard environment and epigenetics and in my opinion that’s an outdated and politically motivated view. See the other comment trying to bring in left/right categorisations.

How about we look at this from another angle. I think these are both broadly agreed scientifically: 1. DNA can have strong correlations with human attributes 2. Gene expression can differ based on the environment 3. The data encoded in DNA can’t encode the entire variability of a human’s biology by a significant margin

I think, taken together, it feels quite bizarre to conclude that DNA dominates the construction of a person.

It seems more plausible that DNA in combination with other biological processes affects the biological makeup of a person — epigenetic gene expression, diet, education, traumatic experiences, exercise, divergent access to resources and opportunities etc.

It feels ridiculous to not think that the environment can dominate, and so we’re simply talking about to what extent you can discount the environment.

Clearly you agree being in a war torn country is negative, and indeed being imprisoned. So really what we’re arguing over is a narrower definition — rich vs poor in a country like the US.

Even with that, the money you are born with isn’t encoded in your DNA and so how do we explain the correlation between rich family’s kids being more successful than poor families. Let’s restrict that to just in America.

If environment is dominated by DNA you’d have to believe the money you are born into is a function of your ancestral DNA, but that’s kinda of ludicrous because we know some family groups couldn’t amass wealth for the same period as others due to war and other violence excluding them from the same process, at least for the same period of time.

The argument that DNA dominates, to my mind, can only hold if you normalise the environment with a basic standard of living for all, as best you can. If DNA dominates then the same genetic winners will persist even if you cancel any environmental privilege.

It’s rare to see DNA maxis advocate for equality of opportunity, which lends further weight to the idea that even they don’t truly believe in their exceptional genetics

Long answer, but I find the Darwinian argument over used and under powered to explain anything relevant to modern society
by qoez | 2025-05-09 12:35:00+00:00
For physics it's in some cases way easier to implement on cpu. For ML using wasm means the model loads way faster (the user doesn't have to wait; and sometimes the performance is about the same). For some small models wasm can be faster. Mediapipe by google for instance gets better performance and better latency with their wasm model than the gpu one.
by HelloNurse | 2025-05-09 12:35:15+00:00
You should drop or consolidate some entries if you can, but then the important entries that remain can still be too many and require random culling because anything is better than choking.

Fair reservoir sampling can be made unfair in controlled ways (e.g. by increasing the probability of retaining an entry if its content is particularly interesting); it competes with less principled biased random (or less than random) selection algorithms as a technique of last resort.
by trollbridge | 2025-05-09 12:35:25+00:00
The Catholic Church has long held that a confession is somewhat similar to praying directly to God and that anything heard is to be kept confidential, other than priests discussing amongst themselves in the aggregate. Priests aren’t to take any action based on what they hear in the confessional. In theory, it should be anonymous, but that is largely symbolic these days.

A priest can certainly tell someone at the confessional how to seek absolution and that could include turning themselves in.

It should be kind of obvious that id the state wins here, abusers simply won’t confess in confessionals anymore. Not exactly a big win for the state.
by 0dayz | 2025-05-09 12:35:26+00:00
>Its a adhominem trap and you fell for it. None of the things I said was a strawman, your comments obviously implied if there even should be anonymous money which you doubled down here.

You created a strawman from a position I didn't imply or stated, since I was merely responding to your claim.

>And I think it is worth the same way privacy or autonomy is worth the "risk". Maybe you should ask people in less safe and stable countries if they trust there state with there money or people in unsafe environments auch as abuse victims, journalists, whistleblowers or activists.

What does "safe" and "stable" countries mean here? These aren't concrete words to be using if you're not going to back it up by examples.

This is because "safe" can mean either free from violent crime then for instance China would be a better contestant than USA, or "safe" as in not being worried about being persecuted by individuals/the state, then USA is considered much safer although that has slipped with the current admin.

Same thing goes with "stable".

And it's fine to advocate for privacy due safety but you cannot proclaim there's no consequences of this and implying then that it's "better" because of this is naïve at best.

>"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Using that quote outside of the context it was meant to address is a bit cheesy.

>I'm talking about crypto where the word currency means something not speculative assets like with btc. And those i can assure you are doing better than ever regardless what opinion you or anybody else has because they are, by design, censorship and tyranny resistant. the hacker spirit.

And also extremely prone to support criminals/government seeking to destabilize/promote abuse and victims of said economic abuse/scams have far less protection.
by seanhunter | 2025-05-09 12:36:30+00:00
My favourite dead reckoning anecdote[1] was there was this British naval captain who found himself in the Atlantic just a bit south-west of the Canary Islands in a lifeboat. He knew that the ocean currents would be against him and too strong to row against, so he set off for South America and made it there by rowing with the current and using dead reckoning to course correct.

[1] And this is from memory and a bunch of googling around hasn’t turned it up so pardon me if I get some details wrong.
by jansan | 2025-05-09 12:37:26+00:00
Inkscape has far more features, and Hyvector does not support some SVG features like filters and masks, yet.

But I think Hyvector is easier to use, and this is the main focus. I spent a lot of time on cleaning up the UI, and I still see room for improvement.

Performance is comparable. I am testing with some massive SVGs that have tens of thousands of path nodes, and Inkscape and Hyvector can handle them equally well.
by pdubroy | 2025-05-09 12:37:28+00:00
Ah, I see! Yeah that's significantly trickier.

re: "dynamically replace parts of the implementation as source code evolves" — there is a technique for this, I have a short write-up on it here: https://github.com/pdubroy/til/blob/main/wasm/2024-02-22-Run...

About the debugging and inspecting —

Inspecting Wasm memory is easy from JS, but to be able to do the debugging, you'd probably either need to rewrite the bytecode (e.g., inserting a call out to JS between every "real" instruction) or a self-hosted interpreter like wasm3 (https://github.com/wasm3/wasm3).

(Or maybe there are better solutions that I'm not thinking of.)
by underlines | 2025-05-09 12:38:20+00:00
Thanks. I added codex.

Though, since I specifically mentioned agentic, I wanted to exclude non-agentic tools like prompt builders and context managers that you linked. :)

Reason being: my idea of agents is to generalize well enough, so the need for workflow based apps isn't needed anymore.

During discovery and planning phase, the agents should traverse the code base with a retrieval strategy packaged as a tool (embedded search, code-graphs, ...) and then add that new knowledge to the plan before executing the code changes.