MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by jpgvm | 2025-05-19 09:12:55+00:00
Definitely not. Stream is an ordered log, a queue is a heap.

A stream has cumulative acknowledgement, i.e I have read up to X offset on partition Y, if I restart unexpectedly please redeliver all messages since X. This means that if any message on Y is failing you can't update the committed offset X without a) dropping it into the ether or b) writing it to retry topic. b) sounds like a solution but it's really just kicking the can down the road because you face the same choice there until it ends up in a dead-letter topic that you send stuff that can't be automatically dealt with. In the literature this is called head of line blocking.

Queues are completely different. Usually instead of having a bunch of partitions with exclusive consumers you want a work-stealing approach that has consumers rip whatever work items they can get and stay as well fed as possible and be able to deal with failing items by Nack'ing them and sending them back to the queue. In order to facilitate this though the queue needs to implement the ability to selectively Ack(nowledge) messages and keep track of which messages haven't been successfully consumed.

This is easy with a traditional queuing system because they usually don't offer any ordering guarantees (or if they do they are per key or something and pretty loose) and they store the set of messages "yet to be delivered" rather than "all messages in order" like a streaming system does. This makes it trivial to acknowledge a message has been processed (delete it) or nack it (remove the processing lock, start a redelivery timer for it). Naturally though this means the ability to re-consume already acknowledged messages pretty much doesn't exist in most queue systems as they are long-gone once they have been successfully processed.

Mixing the two is the magic of Pulsar. It has the underlying stream storage approach, with it coming ordering properties and a whole bunch of stuff that is good for scaling and reliability but layers on a queue based consumption API by storing subscription state durably on the cluster i.e it tracks which individual messages have been Ack'd rather than offsets like Kafka consumer groups or similar APIs.

Building this yourself on Kafka/Redpanda is possible but it's extremely difficult to do correctly and you need to be very careful about how you store the subscription state (usually on a set of compacted topics on the cluster). I say this because I took this path in the past and I don't recommend it for anyone that isn't sufficiently brave. :)
by ChrisMarshallNY | 2025-05-19 09:13:23+00:00
She was involved in crypto, but I don’t think her attackers were after crypto. Seemed a bit too advanced for them.

Being an “Influencer,” these days, means that you get the “famous” part of “rich and famous,” without the “rich” part (quite often).

Being famous (and noticed/admired by others) is important to insecure young folks. Not so much, older people.

Many of the world’s richest people, are completely under the radar. You’d never know it.

In many countries, rich folks (and their families) have to travel around in armored cars, surrounded by goons. Even middle-class people need to surround their homes with broken-glass-topped walls (I used to live in some of those places).

Kidnapping and attacking rich folks is a cottage industry, in many places. The US has been spared (until now).
by sunshine-o | 2025-05-19 09:15:11+00:00
Which part?

While in many way software freedom won the server and workstation battle, we lost all the new battlefront which opened in the last two decades:

- Phones (the thing in the hand of almost every human now. And sorry LineageOS and GrapheneOS are quickly being marginalized now by things like Google Play Integrity)

- Javascript (yes it is a big problem [0])

- the Cloud

- IoT

The FSF was actually pretty good at identifying those issue early on but was overwhelmed and probably marginalized because they were right.

Notice that none of those new "Open Source" advocates really care about those ubiquitous issues.

We won some battles but lost the war. The fact France endorses some UN Open Source principles really doesn't matter.

You might think caring about software freedom is almost fringe but look at:

- The US freaking out about all those Chinese devices and cyber attacks,

- The EU now freaking out about US big tech and the cloud.

I believe the best way to safeguard sovereignty and safety is for everyone be able to control as much as possible what is running on our "computers" and as close to you as possible. The FSF [1] has been consistent regarding those issue and doing something about it. But also some other folks like OpenBSD [2].

Very unclear to me what the goals of the UN and the OSI type foundations really is.

- [0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html

- [1] https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/campaigns-summaries

- [2] https://www.openbsd.org/goals.html
by exe34 | 2025-05-19 09:16:29+00:00
it's exactly where I was going with it. Just because you used tools or have some mechanical process that you used along the way doesn't distract from the fact that you might be able to come up with a good pun. So if you have a computer model that can predict whether people will like a given pun (or a given response for any other domain), then the work produced will have the same effect on the audience. You could try to ascribe the prime mover title to the human that says "write me a pun, a good one!", but ultimately the machine is producing art.

The machine could also just produce lots of examples and test them on a large number of humans - in which case none of them individually is the artist, but the art is still being produced.
by vogu66 | 2025-05-19 09:17:33+00:00
I looked up the numbers in the original paper a little (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25476)

I don't know much about materials science, but I had a few classes about it.

Seems like their wood gets ~550 MPa in ultimate strength in tension. Seems like their material is brittle (so it behaves like a spring until it breaks), therefore you probably want a safety margin, because at 550 MPa it breaks. Note the unit is a Force/Area, you can compare materials with the same cross-section. In compression they say it's about 160 MPa in axial load, it can be more or less in the other directions (due to wood having fiber it's not the same in all directions, and there they compress it perpendicular to the fiber so they get one direction stronger than the axial load and one weaker, but I guess for a beam you mostly care about axial strength). Torsion and flexion are directly dependent on compression, shear and tension, didn't find shear. Although I'm not entirely sure how it works for materials that aren't the same in all three directions like steel.

For steel, depends on the steel but a quick search (https://www.steelconstruction.info/Steel_material_properties and https://eurocodeapplied.com/design/en1993/steel-design-prope...) says ~200 to 400 MPa in tension for yield, at which point it starts changing shape instead of behaving like a spring, then 350 to 550 MPa for strength, at which point it breaks. I believe in multiple applications they do go apply forces where the metal bends a bit and adapts to its application, but I'm not sure. Regardless, that would mean the wood in tension is equivalent to very strong (presumably very expensive) steel.

In compression, steel is from 170 to 370 MPa apparently(https://blog.redguard.com/compressive-strength-of-steel, didn't find much else easily because numbers were strange on other sources), so I guess steel would win on that one.

But this is comparing the raw strength. In reinforced concrete, you add the metal for tension resistance, concrete is there to sustain compression, so it wouldn't matter much. For beams, the shape of beams is optimised to resist in the direction it needs (e.g. the H cross-section resists to bending in one direction). But you probably can't do that with their wood (they say for now they are limited in shapes), so you'd need more material, and probably it would be stronger overall since you have more material. Question then is how much material (in weight, compared to steel) do you need (they say 10 times less but it probably doesn't take into account the shape), and how much does it cost?

I'm guessing they could also make composite beams at some points too, with not only wood in them.

Then for mechanical applications, there might be also other things that enter the game. In their paper they needed to coat the wood so it wouldn't swell with humidity. For any application with friction, not great. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if it's more sensitive to friction than metals.

Note that the numbers are from 2018, they may have improved the process.
by nickd2001 | 2025-05-19 09:17:53+00:00
What happened to that then? ;) We bought a Miele dishwasher to replace a Neff which broke down after 10 yrs (probably 16 yrs worth of "official" usage) due to a silly design fault that caused it to leak. Thought a fairly basic model Miele worth a shot, as because it a stupid built-in, there's extra costs getting it installed, so longer it lasts the better. So far, it seems to clean to fairly similar standard to the Neff. Key thing is how long it'll last. Not made in Germany anymore , says made in Czech. Might be fine. But think they've cut some costs. We also own, assumingly, a "Tesco Value" microwave which cost £22 in 2006. Fairly ugly. Has just 2 controls - power level and time. Absolutely hammered, used every day for 19 years, still works fine. I kind of worry whether after this time it will emit more microwaves out into the open so I stand back even more when using it ;)
by somenameforme | 2025-05-19 09:18:34+00:00
Here's the full table. [1] 2.3 is an extremely low rate for any job where you use your body in any way whatsoever. For instance it's the same rate as e.g. working in retail at a furniture store, and substantially less than the 3.6 rate for those working in retail at hobby/toy/game stores.

And yeah obviously software has plenty of room to transition into management and other late career roles. The same is true of the trades where common later stage transitions involve starting your own shop (with a career of connections/clients made it's not the big undertaking it might sound) or moving onto teaching. But it's the same problem in both cases, a small minority of people will achieve such transitions.

[1] - https://www.bls.gov/iif/nonfatal-injuries-and-illnesses-tabl...
by lm28469 | 2025-05-19 09:18:55+00:00
With a properly designed house your roof overhangs should already take care of that: https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5e5e91c81d669b...

https://www.house-energy.com/images/Overhang.gif

I feel like we design houses like we design cars and many other modern things, form over function and fix the problems by adding a ton of overcomplicated technologies.

If you have huge openings and no overhangs I'd go for something like that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPNMp6pMJjk
by jillesvangurp | 2025-05-19 09:19:19+00:00
Cross Laminated Timber (CLT), which I assume this is closely related to, is being used in construction more often now. It's much lighter and stronger than steel, easier to work with, holds up well in a fire because it doesn't go soft and loses structural integrity like steel does. And while wood of course can be burned, the char layer that forms on the outside protects the inside so it actually has some safety properties that buy people time when there is a fire. Also, wood is an excellent insulator.

Laminated timber is also very construction-friendly. It can be worked with simple tools, and CNC machines allow for prefab components to be shipped to the site and assembled quickly with minimal fuss.

There are some plans for high rise construction with this material. E.g. there is a plan for a skyscraper in Tokyo (350 meters, 70 floors).

The adhesives used in laminated timber aren’t perfect. They’re very durable, which is great for structural integrity. But it also means the material breaks down more slowly in a landfill (if you decide not to recycle the material for some reason). However, newer adhesives used for this these days are less toxic and not that harmful in a landfill. And importantly, most of the material is actually just wood, not glue.
by cassepipe | 2025-05-19 09:21:14+00:00
Total layman but I assumed that lignin was the molecule that was actually making the wood hard ? How does removing it improves hardness ? Why is there an optimal amount ?

As for the reason it wasn't my wild guess would be that they were already mining for coal so it may have been more economical to just dig the ground with quasi-slaves rather than having more competition on the wood resource and waiting for it to boil whereas you can just produce steel bar by the kilometer in a factory.
by enopod_ | 2025-05-19 09:22:21+00:00
This seems to be the original research paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25476 [edit: whoops, it's the same paper]

"First, natural wood blocks were immersed in a boiling aqueous solution of mixed 2.5 M NaOH and 0.4 M Na2SO3 for 7 h, followed by immersion in boiling deionized water several times to remove the chemicals. Next, the wood blocks were pressed at 100 °C under a pressure of about 5 MPa for about 1 day to obtain the densified wood"

Pretty simple and straightforward.
by clan | 2025-05-19 09:23:26+00:00
Exactly this. Fashion often conflicts with sense. That is a universal truth. Even though the fashion might be rooted in some form of sense.

Mahogany and teak was in fashion around here for a while and oak went out the door.

Oak was considered cheap so we painted it. The fashion then change to lye treated. Then we went with soap treated oak.

And then one day Ikea came into fashion.

Price is an important function of choice. But we should not discard the fashion trends.

Rich people might have good sense. Or they may have a sense for fashion. But they are still just people like the rest of us.

So the "unless someone tells you" really rings true to me. Rather than equating rich with good and hence equating good sense with common sense - I think it is a really interesting question.

What opportunities and choices are not obvious to us have-nots?

I never believed that that getting rich would make me happy and solve all my problems. But I am quite sure that I would get a nicer set of worries and problems than I have now.

Would I like to experience that for just a day? No, thank you. Ignorance can be a bliss.

It is one of those Schroedingers cat like questions.
by oezi | 2025-05-19 09:28:03+00:00
> Price is 3-4 times higher but it lasts 5-10 times longer

The problem is that if an Ikea furniture lasts 15 years then that's enough. People no longer need 50-100 years furniture, because nobody wants to inherit old stuff anymore.

Life's circumstances change faster and buying quality often isn't worth it. Maybe a Miele dishwasher last twice as long at double the price. But it will become old after 10 years even so.
by aguacaterojo | 2025-05-19 09:28:35+00:00
I understand what you are saying and don't fully disagree. You can allocate time & energy into immediate real world solutions while reaping the personal growth. There is certainly a balance.

The counter-point is that in the case of a web browser you are studying deeply one of the most impactful technologies to exist, and you will learn 80% of the most important lessons with a minimal working build, maybe 0.1% of the real thing. You may learn and execute much faster too because there is a clear blueprint, and you are likely riding a wave of passion that will carry your mind to places you won't have expected.

The perspective gained puts you in a much better place to identify & execute successfully more impactful work. The work may be the seed of something more important, but unseen or unknown yet.
by pjc50 | 2025-05-19 09:29:53+00:00
> I'd like to point out a B&W tv is probably way cheaper and robust that and the 4K OLED one

Where would you even find such a thing other than as a curated, carefully expensively maintained antique? Sure you can buy them second hand on Ebay, but the shipping costs of CRT TVs are pretty big. Everyone has a "flatscreen" TV because that's the default cheapest solution.

Shipping and handling costs are a big factor in the death of large, heavy traditional items.
by jillesvangurp | 2025-05-19 09:30:51+00:00
CLT is not inherently more expensive and the cost difference is typically less dramatic. Steel just has a few centuries of a head start on learning curves, economies of scale, etc. Scaling up usage of CLT would bring down cost just like it has with steel.

The biggest issue actually is that there's a lot of resistance in the construction industry that is simply locked into using steel and concrete and more or less blind to the advantages of wood. Switching materials would mean new tools, new skills, etc. are needed. I have a friend who is active in Germany pushing the use of this material and he talks a lot with companies in this space.

Companies seem to default to doing what they've been doing for a long time without considering alternatives. Many construction projects are actually still one-off projects that don't leverage economies of scale or learnings from previous construction projects. Construction could be a lot cheaper and much less labor intensive than it is today.

CLT could actually make on-site assembly a lot simpler and faster than it is today. Ship pre-fab components created in large scale facilities optimized to manufacture those cost effectively. Assemble on site using simple tools and processes.
by shalomcohenai | 2025-05-19 09:31:15+00:00
Hi everyone,

I recently launched my new site – a simple AI-powered web app that helps users turn their app ideas into detailed specs or market research reports.

The motivation for building this came from my own experience. I tried to build an app using AI tools, but quickly ran into a problem: whenever I asked ChatGPT (or similar tools) to generate code, it jumped straight into implementation without fully understanding the bigger picture. This led to messy results, especially when adding new features later – like user authentication or database layers – which felt like patchwork on top of an unstable foundation.

So, I thought: what if instead of writing code right away, we ask the right questions first?

That’s the core idea behind Specifys. The site asks a few guided questions to understand the user’s app concept and then generates a clean, structured spec document that can be used with any AI tool or development team to build something much closer to what the user actually imagined.

⸻

The platform includes 3 modes: 1. Beginner Mode (No coding required): Answer guided questions and get a detailed spec you can copy into any AI like ChatGPT or Claude. 2. Developer Mode: Get a tech-focused response with file structure, variable names, architecture suggestions, and more – to speed up boilerplate work. 3. Market Research: Submit your idea and get a full market research report: existing competitors, niche analysis, and suggested improvements.

⸻

I built this project completely on my own, primarily to solve my own pain points. The entire app was built using AI tools. There’s no database or backend – all prompts are sent directly to the AI, and no user data is stored. (The numbers shown on the homepage are currently randomized – I hope to fix that soon.)

⸻

I’d really appreciate your feedback – on the idea itself, the user experience, and the output quality. Are the reports detailed enough? Does this solve a real need? Any input from this community would mean a lot to me.

Please note: I’m not a professional developer, and this is a basic MVP. Be kind – and please don’t misuse it (e.g., don’t extract the API key or abuse requests).

Thanks for reading – and again, I’d love your thoughts!

https://specifys-ai.com
by josephg | 2025-05-19 09:32:41+00:00
> There is no reason to forget. [...] You are just making a very silly "Appeal to nature" argument.

I don't see it that way. I see it as a healthy, useful expression of continuous death.

In software, we don't start every program by first importing every line of code ever written. Why not? The computer has room for all that code. Why don't we import it all into our workspace? The reason, in my mind, is that each line of code in a computer program has a cognitive cost to it. A sort of, conceptual gravity, which makes reaching for further away ideas much more difficult.

When brainstorming, often a blank page is the best canvas for a new idea. We start companies with new stationary. New workbooks. We even have sayings for this - "Blue sky thinking" or "Greenfield projects". Ie, projects which don't inherit older, more established structures or code.

There's a balance of course. We also don't start everything from scratch either. In code we pull in libraries as we need them, and lean on our programming languages and operating systems. But you have to strike the right balance between new and old. Too much old and you're stifled by it. Too much new and you're trying to boil the ocean.

I think humans are like that too. I think our ability to crystalize new thoughts depends on our capacity to let go of old ones. I don't think the best minds spend their lives hoarding all the best knowledge. For my money, the old people I like the most are people who can be in the here and now. Knowledgable, sure. But also present. Open to surprise. Philosophically you want to combine whats happening right now with the best ideas from the past. And let the rest go.

At least, that's how I think of it for myself. If I'm a different person in 20 years from who I am now, I wish whoever I become the best of luck. I hope for them to be unburdened by all the cognitive misadventure I'm probably going through right now.
by fennecfoxy | 2025-05-19 09:33:24+00:00
Oh look, Carmack says something obvious again and people listen to it like gospel.

Don't get me wrong, I like the guy. But what has he done since getting booted from id/Doom team? Espousing VR but with no real breakthroughs in the space with his name on them?

I'm thankful for Doom 2016. Without booting him it would have never been possible. Although looking at the recent vikings-wannabe expansion with a ridiculous, dumb "story" seems they've lost the plot again-executives get their grubby fingers into franchises. People just wanna rip&tear, don't need a story for that - if anything focus on combat/environment/number of enemy improvements & leave it at that.
by ffwd | 2025-05-19 09:33:39+00:00
But the problem is we don't know how it works. It's not about assuming consciousness is outside of physical reality or something like this, it's simply the fact that we don't have an understanding of it.

For example if we could see and trace all intentional thoughts/acts before they occurred (in matter), intentionality would cease to be a property, it would be an illusion.

All things that we know of in the universe function as physical matter, and we know the brain is a physical thing with 80 billion neurons and trillions of connections. What's the simplest explanation?

1) This is an incredibly complicated physical thing that we don't understand yet (and quite naturally so, with it having an incredible number of "moving parts")

or 2) there are qualitative elements in the universe that we don't have the scientific tools to measure or analyze, even in principle

I go with #1 because that's what every fiber is telling me (although I admit I don't know, of course). And with #1 also comes reductionism. It is a physical system we just don't have the mental models to understand it.

I also want to say there could be another aspect that affects consciousness - namely the appearance of a "present now" that we experience in consciousness. This present moment is not really explained in physics but it could have something to do with how consciousness works. How I don't know but it all relates to how we model physics itself mentally.