MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-05-28 03:06:36+00:00
That's not really the issue though.

There are many cases where the RFC is not at all ambiguous about what you're supposed to do, and then some implementation doesn't do it. What should you do in response to this?

If you accept their garbage bytes, things might seem less broken in the short term, but then every implementation is stuck working around some fool's inability to follow directions forever, and the protocol now contains an artificial ambiguity because the bytes they put there now mean both what they're supposed to mean, and also what that implementation erroneously uses them to mean, and it might not always be detectable which case it is. Which breaks things later.

Whereas if you hard reject explicit violations of the standard then things break now and the people doing the breaking are subject to complaints and required to be the ones who stop doing that, rather than having their horkage silently and permanently lower the signal to noise ratio by another increment for everyone else.

One of the main problems here is that people want to be on the side of the debate that allows them to be lazy. If the standard requires you to send X and someone doesn't want to do the work to be able to send X then they say the other side should be liberal in what they accept. If the standard requires someone to receive X and they don't want to do the work to be able to process X then they say implementations should be strict in what they accept and tack on some security rationalization to justify not implementing something mandatory and thereby break the internet for people who aren't them.

But you're correct that there is no IETF court, which is why we need something in the way of an enforcement mechanism. And what that looks like is to willingly cause trouble for the people who violate standards, instead of the other side covering for their bad code.
by andiamo | 2025-05-28 03:06:54+00:00
Fascinating - I just listened to Rufus Fears' lecture on Bonhoeffer's Letters and Papers from Prison before opening HN.

Personally, I find Bonhoeffer's premises are easily accepted - 1) stupidity is not an intellectual defect and 2) stupidity as a more dangerous adversary than malice. It follows that liberation, not instruction, is necessary to overcome stupidity. "The word of the Bible that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom declares that the internal liberation of human beings to live the responsible life before God is the only genuine way to overcome stupidity."

What I don't align with is the consequence that "stupidity surpasses malice in its danger." Malice, and only intentional malice, is the evil that was present in his day and remains so. I think there's an inherent snobbishness of modern philosophy readers who have a surface relation to this axiom, thinking that it means that, "oh, everyone is just stupid and unmotivated towards learning, and that's why I'm better than them."
by belmont_sup | 2025-05-28 03:07:45+00:00
As a Redditor said:

> The standard VC business model is to invest in stuff that FAANG will buy from them one day. The standard approach is to invest in stuff that's enough of a threat to FAANG that they'll buy it to kill it, but this seems more like they're gambling on an acqui-hire in the future.
by ryao | 2025-05-28 03:07:45+00:00
> It can be used to secure your SSH service, or securely share your database server.

SSH is one of the most secure network daemons ever devised. This is not to say that there is never any need to harden SSH, but given that people usually secure services behind SSH, I find the words “secure your SSH service” strange.

That said, I am no stranger to bastion/jump hosts, but those usually involve accessing one ssh host through another ssh host.
Ask HN: Mid Life Crisis
by amathew | 2025-05-28 03:09:34+00:00
I'm a physically disabled guy with a degenerative form of cerebral palsy. Things are certainly getting worse.

In terms of employment, I've been a data scientist at several startups and a few medium sized companies that no one has head of. Four months ago, I got laid off and have been looking for new roles with no luck.

One of the things I've been contemplating is how life is short and my physical disability is just going to get worse. So I am having thoughts about how I should approach the rest of my life.

It's either find a new job in the next few months or start a company and just spend the rest of my working life focusing on that.

Given my life and circumstances, how would you approach life
by rufus_foreman | 2025-05-28 03:09:50+00:00
>> "want ambitious plans but needs to take care of aging parents"

That would be want ambitious plans, don't have ambitious plans.

>> "would like ambitious plans if it doesn't mean selling their soul"

That's don't want ambitious plans, don't have ambitious plans.

I mean you can do it as 2-D graph like political compass, but it's all pretty clear.

I'm in the lower left quadrant, don't want ambitious plans, don't have ambitious plans. Don't want any amount of nuance either. Don't want nuance, don't express nuance.
by AdieuToLogic | 2025-05-28 03:10:33+00:00
> That's what I meant by "I like the way it looks." It doesn't actually work that way with a bash -c invocation (all arguments after the command string go in argv, starting with 0), but it "fits in" with other commands that do work that way.

This is not how "--" works in the example you provided:

bash -c 'some command "$1" "$2"' -- "$var1" "$var2"

While the double-hyphens are assigned to `$0` in this example, they also serve to halt bash's interpretation of command line switches once encountered. For example:

bash -c '/bin/ps "$1"' -- "-l"

Behaves as one would expect. However:

bash -c '/bin/ps "$1"' "-l"

Will not.
by itsanaccount | 2025-05-28 03:10:48+00:00
After reading that, I feel blessed to be awash in this country of entrepreneurial spirit and very happy we shower these unique pioneers in generational wealth for being so much better than the average fellow.

I cant wait to tell my neighbors, a pair of lowly loggers about who really is the keystone of the economy.

I no longer have any idea whats satire.
by al_borland | 2025-05-28 03:12:59+00:00
While I’m sure AI will continue to improve, it still suffers from the same issue as the search engine, which is that you need to know enough to ask the right questions.

I have run into this countless times when using AI. I asked for ideas around a topic on how to solve a problem, and it seems to miss a really good solution. I bring it up, and it the says something like, “oh yeah, that is much better.” On the flip side, if I lead it with some ideas, it has trouble breaking free of that and it tells me I already have the best idea.

If the topics coming together are seemingly unrelated, it takes a good prompt to get the AI to link those ideas on the path toward a solution.

Just today I was asking Copilot about different ideas on how to structure a new project. I laid out some pseudo code with my initial idea, and it gave it back to me with a more complex syntax. I asked why, and if there were any advantages to the way it did it, and then it told me no, my way was better, cleaner, and the preferred way for the language. Though after pushing it some more it did suggested another alternate suggestion, which is tried to dismiss as worse, until I explained why it would actually be better. As far as I’ve seen, at least with Copilot (which is all I’m currently allowed to use at work), it’s no match for a person with some experience and knowledge when it comes to more abstract thinking.
by abraxas | 2025-05-28 03:14:02+00:00
I used to be a huge enthusiast of electric cars. Mostly because I was terrified of the consequences of peak oil. In time I got over this infatuation as I realized that electric cars are only marginally better than fossil cars in terms of resource sustainability and 100% as traffic jam inducing and socially isolating as the dinosaur juice counterparts.

The way forward is to ditch the idea of ubiquitous driving for every errand and to focus on building truly sustainable habitats on a scale that makes them places comfortable for people and not for cars. Because it's an either or situation. You can make a city comfortable for people or one comfortable for cars but you can't accomplish both in the same time.

For that reason I'm ultimately no longer interested whether electric propulsion in personal cars catches on or not. There are more important things to address in terms of true sustainability.
by jltsiren | 2025-05-28 03:15:03+00:00
Is it SpaceX philosophy or specifically Starship development philosophy? Because the development of the Falcon seemed to follow a pretty standard path. First they had three failures and two successes with the Falcon 1, and then they scaled up to Falcon 9, which worked on the first attempt.

The work towards booster landing and reuse was more iterative, but it was a special case. They had to be careful with the changes, because they were testing in production. The first priority was always delivering the payload. But once the booster had done its job, it was available for experiments.
by BobbyTables2 | 2025-05-28 03:15:09+00:00
Don’t know about frats, but I went to a lowly ranked “third tier” university and a “top 10” one.

While most of the classes were taught pretty well at both, the third tier ones were taught much better. Just couldn’t get an interview upon graduation despite near 4.0…

It is utterly bizarre that we use graduate research dollars to evaluate the quality of undergraduate education.
by theGeatZhopa | 2025-05-28 03:15:57+00:00
I don't care for the gang-wars or religion-safeguarding when it comes to crypto/web3 - each of the opponents has their own arguments the others just won't see.

I associate crypto/web3 with blockchain, apes and people loosing money and with Bitcoin et al. Yet, still needs emerge a use case.

..it was hyped by a few, but was not accepted by the masses . May be that's the reason?
by refulgentis | 2025-05-28 03:19:34+00:00
I can't tell what's going on, you made a quite elaborate analogy about using a penknife to cut through dry wall to spark wires together to signal the feds, and now you're saying it'll lock people out of systems...and this'll be my 3rd time combing 100 pages for any sign of what you're talking about...

Oh I'm supposed to google the pull quote, maybe?

There's exactly one medium article that has it? And I need a subscription to read it? And it is oddly spammy, like, tiktok laid out vertically? I'm very, very, confused.
by zbentley | 2025-05-28 03:19:45+00:00
Nothing you said is wrong, but:

> makes sense to people in silos

Investors, especially PE investors, are in a motherfucker of a silo.

The sign on their silo says "short term growth at all costs. ZIRP/dotcom boom days are never coming back. The last train is leaving the station, and even if it isn't the real deal like eCommerce/app stores/social media, you had better be on it, because there won't be another one."

That last train is AI.
by londons_explore | 2025-05-28 03:20:22+00:00
The UART standards didn't specify bit rates - which allowed the same standard to scale all the way from 300 bps in the 1960's all the way up to 10+ megabps in the 90's.

Why can't POE standards do the same?

Simply don't set voltage or current limits in the standard, and instead let endpoint devices advertise what they're capable of.
by mindslight | 2025-05-28 03:21:13+00:00
The good stuff is in June when Boston College and other dorms move out for the year. The crap in Allston in September is from yearly tenants in off campus housing, was likely already second hand at least once, and is riddled with bugs. I guess Allston has gentrified, but I assume that just means the bed bugs now have credit cards too.

The weirdest thing about the original article is the author. Like yeah, you can get some great stuff in the trash. People value money wildly differently, and some people throw out practically new stuff. It boggles the mind. But it also boggles the mind that the author is still so focused on the retail prices of marked up "luxury" stuff, like they're still just solidly wed to the consumerist mindset. The used/dirty/soggy whatever can be fantastic, but it's certainly not worth anywhere close to its original retail price, especially accounting for your time to find, haul, clean, etc and how much comparable non-"luxury" brands would cost.
by throwaway2037 | 2025-05-28 03:21:55+00:00
About the first pillar (national pension), Google tells me:

> You are insured for the state pension if you live in the Netherlands and for each year you are a resident you accrue 2% of the state pension. If you have been in the Netherlands for the full 50 years prior to your state pension age, you will receive the full 100%.

Many highly developed countries used to have a second pillar (company-sponsored pensions, either defined benefit or defined contribution), but those are slowly fading away after adopting more neo-liberal economic policies.

Personally, I am OK to privitise/personalise some of your retirement pension risk, but not all of it. Large parts should still be guaranteed by the state. The real problem with privitisation/personalisation of retirement pension risk, most people are much worse than professional investors. Also, a huge portion of your retirement savings are earned in the last 10 years when your invested capital is almost peak. If there is an economic crisis during that decade, you are screwed. Can you imagine being 5-10 years away from retiring in 2007... then 2008 Global Financial Crisis happened? You will definitely need to delay your retirement by 5-10 (more) years. Awful.
Show HN: 3DGS implementation in Nvidia Warp: clean, minimal, runs on CPU and GPU
by Rigue | 2025-05-28 03:23:20+00:00
CPU & GPU with Zero Hassle

Built with NVIDIA Warp, the same code runs seamlessly on both CPU and GPU — no need to deal with CUDA setup, driver issues, or device-specific kernels. Just flip one config line.

Learn Modern Graphics the Easy Way

Explore core concepts in differentiable rendering and parallel graphics programming — no need for expensive GPUs or thousands of lines of boilerplate.

Minimalist & Educational

This isn’t another massive codebase. It’s a clean, hackable implementation built for clarity — perfect for study, prototyping, or teaching yourself how Gaussian Splatting works.
by Jensson | 2025-05-28 03:28:10+00:00
> They aren't generic enough for every use case. > AI is fundamentally different in that regard.

Currently most projects are outside of the capabilities of AI. Platforms can get better and add more features, why is that different than AI getting better and can do more?

Back then it wasn't known if it was possible to make these platforms generic enough that you could replace programmers. You couldn't.

Today we aren't sure if it is possible to make transformer based AI generic enough to replace programmers. Time will tell if we can.

So to me it looks exactly the same.
by programjames | 2025-05-28 03:29:31+00:00
If you've ever played Risk online, this becomes obvious, very quickly. The worst players to have around are not your enemies, but the stupid ones. They'll randomly block your troops from attacking mutual enemies, accidentally bait you into attacking other players ("attack red together?" . "okay sure!" . hits three of their troops, after you hit thirty), not hold bonuses but not let you hold them either, waste all their troops on a useless endeavour, feeding the game to a third player, and so many more blunders. Sometimes, you really want to work with them, because they've tried to be nice to you, much more so than the rest of the players. Often, they fail miserably and drag you down with them. I'll take a smart enemy any day. Usually smart players don't want to be your enemy, unless you've done something to provoke them (oops... it's more fun). Even then, they'll ally with you in a heartbeat if you can take a mutually beneficial action.

Something sobering to keep in mind is that the vast majority of people have the logical and mathematical capabilities of a good ten-year-old. There are ten-year-old chess grandmasters, USAJMO qualifiers, or to be less extreme, ten-year-olds that have a solid understanding of algebra and an intuition for proofs. Most people do not, and rely on heuristics or intuitions for everything. They do not even realize you can prove something, except with "it feels or seems right". It isn't because they're mentally incapable of learning the skill, it's because they never bothered to, or didn't think it was important.
by djtango | 2025-05-28 03:31:09+00:00
Ha I've been learning the piano for over 30 years and I still feel the same as that quote and am not convinced I can hear so many voices at once so well, though admittedly I have improved a little recently because a lot of the music I have been playing has three or more voices and to play them you must hear them.

So playing an instrument (usually keyboard) helps - JSBach's inventions and sinfonias were written to teach counterpoint IIRC. If playing is out of scope then I found listening to orchestral music can be helpful because you can latch onto different instruments and learn to interpret what they're doing individually (first) then how they are interacting with other voices after. Strong quartets will similarly allow you to listen to multi-voice music that may sound more distinct than just keyboard.

The other piece of advice is to get very familiar with a particular musical work and listen to it repeatedly. Once the familiarity is there you'll start to pick up different things on repeated listens. If you then start changing the recording/performer you'll also notice how they choose to interpret passages differently and certain voices may sound more prominent which can be a hook for your ear to latch onto...

Just some initial thoughts, hope that helps!

EDIT - Pachelbel's Canon in D is probably one of the most accessible songs to practise listening to. Poor cellists always grumble about playing this one, see if you can hear why
by timschmidt | 2025-05-28 03:32:02+00:00
Elon's spoken at length about the choice between design philosophies since the early days of Falcon. I'd submit that trashing Falcon 1 after the first successful flight to build Falcon 9 is an example of exactly that. Part of Falcon's success so early on was due to the choice of intentionally simple systems - a single pintle injector in the Merlin engine, RP1 propellant which is well understood, lots of relatively safe choices. And lots of work with the grasshopper test vehicles. But on flight 1 of Falcon 9 they flew Dragon. Flight 6 used hardware revision 1.1 and was the first to attempt a propulsive return. Flight 9 added landing legs. They made changes to basically every flight until Block 5 with flight 54.
by VladVladikoff | 2025-05-28 03:32:05+00:00
If the activation field is so weak, how would they avoid accidental activation from magnetic fields of other devices? Does it use a certain pattern of magnetic fields oscillation that is unlikely to randomly occur from standing near a large speaker or motor for example?

Also, what is the method for removal of these nano particles from the bio system, when they are depleted of their chitosan coating?
by thomastjeffery | 2025-05-28 03:32:12+00:00
The bluff I'm referring to here is the measurement. The notion that an educational experience can be meaningfully measured, and that such a measurement can be guaranteed well enough to prevent uneducated people from obtaining fraudulent certification.

I don't see learning as a compromise with economics. I see each as entirely irrelevant to the other. Certification is not a tool for learning; it is a tool for capitalism. A certification is nothing more than evidence of victory over the educational institution. Sure, the intended path to victory involves a lot of learning, but we humans can never be truly constrained to intended paths. That's a good thing: we shouldn't be.
by dang | 2025-05-28 03:33:27+00:00
Ok, since you don't seem to be interested in using HN as intended, I've banned the account.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
by al_borland | 2025-05-28 03:33:45+00:00
Assuming this is your blog, the design fails to meet your first rule. From this PDF I have no idea where to go to see all the past writings. It’s also hard to read on mobile, as I have to zoom and pan.

A minimum viable blog is a single HTML file. Each entry can look something like this:

<h2>Date - Title</h2>

<p>the words</p>

Repeat forever.

If you want to let people subscribe, copy/paste that stuff over into an rss file. Someone to take a title and text, and prepend it to the html and add it to the rss file could probably be vibe coded in an afternoon. Maybe throw anchors on each post so they can be linked to.
by uejfiweun | 2025-05-28 03:34:30+00:00
People rooting against SpaceX are just rooting against Musk TBH. That's why all these launches have so much negativity these days. And these people are very online. But viewed through a neutral lens, it's a clear positive for humanity that these rockets are being developed. I wouldn't let the online discourse put a bad taste in your mouth.
by fuzzfactor | 2025-05-28 03:34:49+00:00
Appearances can be deceiving :\

That in itself is something that AI can leverage, maybe not better-than-average, but way more often, so people have to be on their toes a lot more too. Whether it's images or not.

Interestingly, with images like this they are highly curated for cuteness, clarity, and composition. If nothing else because there are so many photos taken of each owl during the rescue process, across a large number of photo opportunities. So there is often quite a huge variety of material from which to choose one outstanding example for each owl.

This would then make an optimized training set if you wanted to generate realistic facsimiles digitally later on.

When you do the math though, "who" needs a digital facsimile when the vast majority of actual real-world material is far in excess and not being used at all?
by bernardohcr | 2025-05-28 03:34:56+00:00
Hey!

These are proprietary mailboxes. Yes, we’ve built an email server from scratch, so we could control and optimize every single layer of it, 100% focused on the inherent challenges of (legit) cold email at scale.

By being truly full-stack, we are able to automate a lot of stuff behind the scenes. I’m referring to things that are important, but very boring, technical, and time-consuming, so nobody actually do.

Example: instead of YOU manually monitoring blacklists and inbox placements in each mailbox, the system does that. If any issue is detected, it temporarily pauses sending from that mailbox and automatically increases warmup until it heals. Another example is rewriting each email to remove spam-trigger keywords and optimize other details (optional). That is done 100% automatically, so you can have way better results with zero maintenance work.

The system also has a dynamic sending queue for each ISP and takes into account the mailbox, domain reputation, and the most updated always-changing ISP rules.

These are only a few of the dozens of tiny optimizations we do, that compound into more sales.

The deliverability has been excellent, literally 100% based on daily inbox placement tests made over a week. We’re still optimizing some details before publish launch. Are you currently doing any cold email campaigns? If you want, it will be a pleasure to have a call and help with anything you need.